Sight Radius comparison

[corbin 621]

Hey guys.

 

I've been trying to figure out how best to configure my 223 Saiga and I'm currently trying different sight ideas. Thought you might want to chime in with an opinion. For the sake of this thread, I'm not worried about the stock, grip or handguard setup... mainly the sight configuration and how it would affect accuracy, speed, clear sight picture and what not.

 

 

Here is a comparison I put together showing the different sight setups I was considering. The red line shows the sight radius. I know that the 74 front sight base is drawn too short. I'll fix it later. The primary components being considered are a Krebs style peep rear, a Tech Sight rear, a FSB/GB combo front and a regular 74 style FSB. I also edited the picture and poll to include the new Texas Dog Leg sighting system.

 

 

The pros and cons of each (as I see it) is:

 

SHORT:

Probably very fast to use, but might not be as precise. The receiver cover can be quickly removed with this setup, whereas the Tech Sight requires a you to press in detents to remove cover, which requires a tool and takes longer. The barrel can take a different thread (if need be) to put whatever brake or FH you want.

 

REGULAR:

Likely just as fast as the short setup, though possibly a tad more accurate. We're talking an AK here though, so accuracy is what it is. Fast takedown with stock cover setup. Overall length will be a bit longer, given the use of the 24mm threaded FSB and a FH or brake.

 

EXTENDED:

This one uses the Texas Dog Leg setup. It replaces the rear sight and the receiver cover with a single hinged unit. There's a rail up top on the cover that accepts scopes and iron sights. The rear peep that they offer for it is not adjustable, but looks very rugged. I believe this setup would field strip much faster than the Tech Sight, yet still gives you a slightly longer sight radius.

 

LONG:

Using a combo FSB/GB on front allows you to mount whatever brake or FH you want and helps keep barrel length down. If brake/FH is permanently attached, barrel can be even shorter, if you want. Using the Tech Sight for the rear requires a special cover and replaces the recoil spring guide with the rear sight base. This gives you a long sight radius and should help improve accuracy a bit (especially if combined with a thin front post). As stated previously, takedown requires a tool to press in the detents on the sides of the sight base. Not fast and easy like the standard AK cover.

 

LONGER:

This is the same as the extended setup, the only difference being the combo FSB/GB. You get a relatively long sight radius in a configuration that's easier to field strip. As noted below, the rear peep sight is non adjustable.

 

LONGEST:

This is how it's currently set up. Having the rear peep right by your eye is fast enough, though the sight ring ghosts out like crazy and is difficult to see through in low light. A tritium front post would probably fix that though. As I mention above, takedown is really slow, but the sight is extremely solid feeling.

 

 

One option I didn't show was the La Rue AK red dot, which I think is discontinued. It wouldn't change the sight radius at all from a standard AK rear, but it would do away with the Ultimak mounted Aimpoint micro.

 

 

 

 

 

THOUGHTS?

 

 

*EDIT* Included the Texas Dog Leg setup in the poll and picture.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Nailbomb

[L5K 162]

It's an AK. Get what works best for you and don't worry about which one is mathematically superior. Shoot for minute of man, not minute of angle.

 

That said, I'd stick with either setup and the stock sights.

[DrThunder88 912]

Cool drawings!

 

I have the Tech Sights on my 22" .308, and the radius is 1.5" longer than that of an M1 Garand! I'd always go with a receiver-mounted aperture because I'm rubbish with open, barrel-mounted sights. While it does make field stripping more difficult, if there's a gun design I'd trust to not need emergency field stripping, it's an AK. Still, it is something to consider.

[jimdigriz 580]

I tried your Longest version with the Tech Sights a while back and loved the sight picture, but got rid of it once I discovered that:

1) I didn't feel comfortable with the slow field stripping.

2) I was not able to co-witness the Aimpoint on the Ultimak. Others have reported that this was not an issue for them.

3) I could be quite accurate with the stock sights with practice.

 

Also, I think L5K is right about shooting for minute of man with an AK. It's not a sniper rifle, but if it can hit a man size target at up to 300 yards, I'm satisfied.

 

All that said, one option that you didn't mention in your post was an aperture sight on the new 2nd gen Texas Dog Leg rail. At least the field stripping issues with the Tech Sights would be less of an issue there.

[corbin 621]

one option that you didn't mention in your post was an aperture sight on the new 2nd gen Texas Dog Leg rail. At least the field stripping issues with the Tech Sights would be less of an issue there.

 

 

I went back and included that option in the poll and drawing. On a side note, I also have a Millet red dot inside a ring that's 1x4 power. I was thinking of having it on a Saiga 308, when I get one, but here's what it would look like on the 223:

 

[jimdigriz 580]

The rear peep that they offer for it is not adjustable, but looks very rugged.

 

They're working on an adjustable version. I admit to being tempted, even though I've pretty much settled on the stock sights.

[TX-Zen 287]

If I could vote multiple times I'd go with:

 

1: Regular (because I already have a fullsize 74 with an Ultimak - IMO this is the best all around setup I've used so far)

 

2: Extended/Longer (because I think the TWS gen 2 has a lot of promise)

 

3: Short (because I simply want the AK105 FSB and Ultimak combo)

 

 

 

Overall I'm not a fan of AK irons because I was trained on an M16A1 with peep sights, but in the past 5-6 years I've learned to use them out to 300m without any issues. As far as changing the AK irons I actually prefer the standard AK sight radius they come with...so far a peep on an AK has felt awkward and I don't care for that sight picture vs the standard rear sight leaf, but thats probably nothing more than just a training issue to overcome. For me there's just something odd about peeps on an AK and I still prefer the AR platform for iron sights, I'm happy enough with AK irons that I don't want to change them out. This is why I voted Regular as choice #1

 

On a technical level I think a longer sight radius is attractive for the potentially greater accuracy that the longer radius gives but its not worth losing the ability to remove the dust cover quickly IMO. Based on that I think Extended/Longer is the better alternative because it will do the same thing as the tech sights but shouldn't interfere with the operating the dust cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z

[jimdigriz 580]

On a technical level I think a longer sight radius is attractive for the potentially greater accuracy that the longer radius gives but its not worth losing the ability to remove the dust cover quickly IMO. Based on that I think Extended/Longer is the better alternative because it will do the same thing as the tech sights but shouldn't interfere with the operating the dust cover.

 

With the dog leg rail, I would be worried about the locking and centering mechanisms wearing out from too frequent opening and closing of the dust cover. After all, I've got to get in there all the time, with all the corrosive ammo I shoot.

[TX-Zen 287]

Rafaga seems to be putting out a high quality product, I'd be ok with it FWIW

 

 

 

Z

Edited December 30, 2010 by TX-Zen

[danklab 57]

I like the longer option you've got there, with the Texas dogleg system. But, that is of course if you prefer the aperture sight... Some people just don't like them. Either setup seems fine to me. I personally don't prefer one over the other (AK stock irons / AR style irons), but more sight radius could help you get the most out of your .223 rounds.

 

I'd prob add a smaller diameter front sight post to the mix. Those have helped me out with standard AK sights.

 

It should give you a good platform for mounting an optic, plus an appropriate sight radius to use your peep sight. Not sure if that setup is going to provide a co-witness though.

[jimdigriz 580]

I'd prob add a smaller diameter front sight post to the mix.

 

Depends on what the purpose of the rifle is, and what the optics setup is. I went for a thinner post for a while, but the first really bright day at the range, I found that I was having a hard time picking it up quickly for follow-up shots (on account of a bit of glare on the Aimpoint lens). That never happened with the fat post. The fat post is very good for quick shots at reasonably close range, and sufficient to make 300 yard shots on human size targets. The longer I use AKs, the more I see the wisdom of the standard setup.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jim Digriz

[corbin 621]

The longer I use AKs, the more I see the wisdom of the standard setup.

 

 

I can understand that. When I first got a tactical rifle way back when, I wanted to try out various gadgets on it and see how they worked. Over time, I've come back to a much more streamlined and basic setup in regards to lights, lasers, etc. I still like the practical aspect of the folding stock when it comes to storage, but the standard solid stock feels more and more comfortable to me the older I get.

 

*EDIT* I forgot to mention the overall plan (or Philosophy Of Use) I want for this rifle....

 

I'm not wanting to try and make it a spotter/sniper setup, as it's not really meant for that. Nor am I looking for a Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), as a 308 would be a better choice by far. It doesn't have to be a super compact CQB weapon either (I have something else for that). The folding stock is handy though.

 

What I'd like is a solid rifle that's utterly dependable, is relatively lightweight and takes the common 223/5.56 round. It should be fast onto the target, have little flash signature and if it can be made a tad more accurate, that's great, but again, we're not talking sniper or anything.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Corbin

[jimdigriz 580]

What I'd like is a solid rifle that's utterly dependable, is relatively lightweight and takes the common 223/5.56 round. It should be fast onto the target, have little flash signature and if it can be made a tad more accurate, that's great, but again, we're not talking sniper or anything.

 

With those goals in mind, a quick recommendation:

The Bulgarian-style flash hider weights 4.6 ounces hanging from the end of your barrel, and the AK 74 sight block itself is more weighty than a standard one. Also, that flash hider is overly long and is not a great flash hider. I shot some rounds on Christmas Eve in the field near my Mom's house, testing that flash hider and the new Nightshroud 24mm flash hider. Both were somewhat disappointing (although still decent) compared to some other flash hiders I've seen, but the Nightshroud was noticeably better, as well as being an inch shorter and 2 ounces less in weight. I'd get that, or possibly thread the muzzle differently to accept a more effective, light-weight, short flash hider. (If you don't already have the AK 74 FSB on your rifle). The AK 74 FSB makes sense for the muzzle brake, but not for flash hiders, IMO.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jim Digriz

[danklab 57]

I'd prob add a smaller diameter front sight post to the mix.

 

Depends on what the purpose of the rifle is, and what the optics setup is. I went for a thinner post for a while, but the first really bright day at the range, I found that I was having a hard time picking it up quickly for follow-up shots (on account of a bit of glare on the Aimpoint lens). That never happened with the fat post. The fat post is very good for quick shots at reasonably close range, and sufficient to make 300 yard shots on human size targets. The longer I use AKs, the more I see the wisdom of the standard setup.

 

 

I switched to a .52 and it's helped a lot without giving me any problems. The thinnest post, I had the same issue.. I couldn't see it well at all, even without an optic in between sights. Out to 100 or more yds, the standard post just seems to block out what I'm shooting at if it's not fairly large. I do use the 11x17" silhouette targets most of the time though, and they are a little small.

My eyes don't help much though.. I've got astigmatism and out around 100+ I get a pretty good blur on my target. I either get a sharp post and some blur on my target or a sharp target and a blurry post. I think that was making my post seem even larger than it was.

I probably could've helped myself a little by sighting in so that POA would be on top of my post slightly, then the diameter of the post wouldn't have mattered as much.

Edited December 30, 2010 by danklab

[Nailbomb 10,221]

I voted for the long.

 

Frankly, its damn near the setup I want to use for a .223 build. Very clean on looks and quite functional. The added difficulty of the tech sights in removing the dust cover would bother me more if I needed to take my saigas apart more often.

[sonofliberty 6]

Hey Corbin, +1 on the Long radius setup. If you find a good source for ready-made fsb/gb combos send me a pm or something because I can't find anything except those made for krinkovs. As for the Tech-Sight being harder to take off, it is but you don't need a special tool. A 7.62x39 round will work by all accounts. The standard fsb gets on my nerves because of the scythe-like shape. It gives you the ability to get hooked on every random thing you come across with no significant benefit that I see unless its supposed to be some crude bludgeoning weapon. There is a good reason why the Galil's had the "Long" sight setup. I plan to go with this but the Ace Bolt-on looks like the best option so far since I have no way to weld. Good post.

[Blazer76 3]

I like the longest set up

 

about the cons you haave listed,

 

slow to remove top cover: its a AK it doesnt need to be kept super clean, and if your primary goes down while in a fight you can transition to your secondary if its part of your load.

 

for the sights I recomend the ACE ar front post adapter with trijicon front night sight, do the Tech sights accept Ar rear sights? if they do then i would also add a trijicon rear Ar night sight.

 

Something I would like to see is a dog leg rail with the dog leg cut off to work with the Tech sight and milled downt to be on the same plain as the Ultimak

[corbin 621]

 

slow to remove top cover: its a AK it doesnt need to be kept super clean, and if your primary goes down while in a fight you can transition to your secondary if its part of your load.

 

Agreed. It's not that big of a deal.

 

for the sights I recomend the ACE ar front post adapter with trijicon front night sight, do the Tech sights accept Ar rear sights? if they do then i would also add a trijicon rear Ar night sight.

 

I'm considering a night sight front post. The rear of the Tech is an A2 style setup. It could accomidate a night sight too.

 

Something I would like to see is a dog leg rail with the dog leg cut off to work with the Tech sight and milled down to be on the same plain as the Ultimak

 

That would be nice. If I could have the cover hinged and have it somehow lock down without having to depress the two detents, that would be great.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Corbin

[bohound 281]

I like the long, and I agree with Nailbomb- I've been pondering this idea too. Tell me though, what GB/FSB you thinking you'll use? I think Rifle Dynamics sells the Bolton block, and I've not seen any bad scuttlebutt on it. It's an option I'm considering.

 

I agree with the optics choice as well. This is a winning setup in my eyes.

 

As far as flash hiders, I'm biased- One can't do better than an SEI Vortex.

Edited January 21, 2011 by bohound

[Dudethebagman 222]

I voted extended. Less crap on the barrel, less weight out front. Nothing against the Ulitmak (I know it works great for a bunch of people), but there are other cowitness options now that I'd prefer.

 

I really don't see a realistic need for the integrated cleaning rod. Just extra weight and crud on the barrel. If an AR can get by without one, why not an AK?

[zero2epiphany 4]

Im practically running with your longer with millet 1-4 sight. Just finally swapped out the factory handguard. As Im sure you know those 1-4 scopes are heavy. Was never my intention of going with that set up with the saiga, BUT, It just sort of happened and it does work pretty well. Just a bit heavy. But long with a mirco would be pretty darn sweet. If I can get the other half to agree then thats what she'll get.

Edited January 21, 2011 by flashburn

[corbin 621]

Yeah, the Millet IS heavy. I might put it on a Saiga 308 or even a PSL. Who knows. Woundn't be bad on a 308 AR either.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Corbin

[Mephis 82]

To me, long is the most interesting set up. I wish I could get an AK100 series style gas block for my saiga 308 and make it work, that seems like a really sweet set up. Downside is I suppose the tech sight doesn't work with a PO sight, and optics will always dominate everything else in my shooting experiences.

 

If you do throw a DMS-1 on there, remember, it's an 18ounce scope. I have ran one on an AR for awhile and it is an exceptionally good scope for the money, glass leaves a little to be desired but you will never guess where your shots are going to land. I threw it on a bullpup since that gun manages being heavy without exhausting your arms. I'd shy away from a DMS1 on an AK.

[SergeK 15]

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Closing Poll.

 

Final results...

Which Sight Radius?

1. Short (3 votes [9.68%] - View)
   
2. Regular (7 votes [22.58%] - View)
   
3. Extended (4 votes [12.90%] - View)
   
4. Long (5 votes [16.13%] - View)
   
5. Longer (3 votes [9.68%] - View)
   
6. Longest (9 votes [29.03%] - View)