New AR15 front sight
- Thread starter Onagoth
- Start date
Do tell, how much of a performance gain you might expect when moving your front sight a whopping 2 inches further forward? No doubt having your front and rear sights butted up against one another is going to cause problems. However, the issue isn't the radius, its the relation of the front post to the rear aperture and the size of that sight picture in relation to your target.
Moving your front sight closer to the rear increases the perceived size of the front post when viewed through the rear aperture. This is no different than reducing the size of the rear aperture and leaving the front post in its traditional location. Which is done all the time with dual aperture rear sights.
The distance between the sights has nothing to do with performance. Both sights are secured to the same plane, which means when they are aligned, they are aligned. Again, the only issue with a shorter radius is the perceived size of the front sight in relation to the rear and the target. Irons as mentioned aren't designed for precise work anyway so its a moot point.
If sight radius is so critical, then why does no one complain about it when using a reddot or magnified optic? Furthermore, why is it that a rifle with both irons and an optic, tends to print better when using the optic over the irons? Is that a result of sight radius or simply a better aiming system?
TDC
Bolivar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
If sight radius is a myth the having the front and rear abutting would not cause a problem.
I think that you perhaps meant to say that increasing your sight radius by two inches on an AR is not going to result in a noticeable change in accuracy.
Sight radius has not bearing on optical sights. It is the distance between the front and rear which don't exist on optical sights. You don't line up the front and rear of an optical sight.
Yes, optical sights, especially magnified optics to give an even more precise aiming point than irons. That is why they tend to be preferred on modern rifles and why military rifles are being sighted that way. Nobody said irons were better than optics.
Irons are capable of fantastic accuracy, especially when matched to the target. Look at what TR rifles are capable of at 1000 yards with iron sights. Not the same as AR sights by any means but iron sights none the less. That being said, optical sights are not allowed in the TR game as they would be an un-fair advantage over irons (at least I think that is one of the reasons)
To the OP - nice upgrade. I don't care if it is frontward or backward. Hope it works well for you.
Cheers
I think that you perhaps meant to say that increasing your sight radius by two inches on an AR is not going to result in a noticeable change in accuracy.
Sight radius has not bearing on optical sights. It is the distance between the front and rear which don't exist on optical sights. You don't line up the front and rear of an optical sight.
Yes, optical sights, especially magnified optics to give an even more precise aiming point than irons. That is why they tend to be preferred on modern rifles and why military rifles are being sighted that way. Nobody said irons were better than optics.
Irons are capable of fantastic accuracy, especially when matched to the target. Look at what TR rifles are capable of at 1000 yards with iron sights. Not the same as AR sights by any means but iron sights none the less. That being said, optical sights are not allowed in the TR game as they would be an un-fair advantage over irons (at least I think that is one of the reasons)
To the OP - nice upgrade. I don't care if it is frontward or backward. Hope it works well for you.
Cheers
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
See post #7
You're right, butting front and rear together isn't a problem as far as making hits is concerned. The issue is the perceived size of the front post. With the sights butted the front post would practically fill the rear aperture and cover a ridiculous amount of the target at relatively short range. you are also correct in that the increased sight radius so often deemed an advantage is no noticeable advantage at all. Sight radius is far from an important factor when discussing the gains or losses in radius on most carbines.
TDC
I think trigonometry proves sight radius is important.
You'll have less error in longer sight radius then short, as any misalignment will be easier to notice and correct.
Of course, if everyone is perfect, sight radius isn't important.
You'll have less error in longer sight radius then short, as any misalignment will be easier to notice and correct.
Of course, if everyone is perfect, sight radius isn't important.
Runningfool
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
thanks....
but "a bit of a ball" can mean two things:
1) a piece of a bright orange ball cut down
OR
2) the paint has "balled" up on the end of the sight.
I guess
...post number #6 asks about the "paint" and then in the next post Onagoth answers with, "the orange tip is actually a bit of a ball".Edited to add, thanks Onagoth for explaining!
The error involved with sight alignment has nothing to do with sight radius. The error is 100% user induced. The marginal gains in radius with longer slide pistols, or extra inches in handguard length will never be noticed.
TDC
Bolivar
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Agreed in those examples. The percent difference in site radius is negligible between short and long.
If you increase the radius by 25 to 50 percent say, I THINK you wiLl notice a difference in potential accuracy.
If you increase the radius by 25 to 50 percent say, I THINK you wiLl notice a difference in potential accuracy.
