Comments on: Tech-Sight AK Aperture sight system

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:53:54 +0000

Aperture sights have been used on every US MBR for over a century and while it is possible to clog them with mud it is more than made up in accuracy. However the US rifles had much higher accuracy standards than Russian by far so it makes more sense on a Garand than a AK to have good aperture sights.

The AKs problem more than anything else is that short sight radius. Moving the sight to the rear of the receiver is going to increase accuracy. The blade can work well if you spend a little time widening the notch just a bit and taking those sharp corners off with a jewelers file set. Cost $0, results easier and faster target acquisition.

110.00 is pretty much the cost of a decent POSP that will make much more difference than an aperture sight. Leave the Tech-Sights on the 22 rifles where they really shine.

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:10:03 +0000

I’m not at all enthusiastic about the idea of mounting anything used for aiming on the gas tube. The gas tube is designed to be loose – having your front sight, red dot or whatever rattling around on top of it can’t be good for accuracy.

By: vtb

vtb — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:13:53 +0000

Don’t understand why not make such thing (Tech-sight system) but not with sight but just with tiny rail on it.

My own flip-up 1913 rail mounted rear sight will do the rest (and the front flip-up sight, mounted for example on ultimak gas tube rail – will make the complete solution)

I mean i need to shoot not only 100-200 yards, but 50-100-150-200-250-300 etc… so i will just put HK-type sight on the rear and the flip-up rail mounted sight at the front.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:10:55 +0000

Overload, good point.

By: Overload

Overload — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:21:02 +0000

What matters is the size of the hole vs the distance away. I have a tiny match AR15 hooded rear sight, but I shoot with my nose on the charging handle. The hole on the Kreb’s is much bigger.
Parallax? No.
“I’m squishing your head”? Closer.
Focal length? Sounds right. Think of a camera, where the aperture (and size) is the shutter, and the distance between it and your eye is the lens length.
http://www.photoaxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/focal_length2.jpg

sorta.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:03:32 +0000

Overload, thanks for the info. Williams (I think) make an SKS sight like that. Having the aperture so far from my eye does not appeal to me. Has anyone used this forward style peep sight before?

http://www.krebscustom.com/PartsPages/KalashnikovParts.shtml

By: Overload in CO

Overload in CO — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:52:11 +0000

Kreb’s Custom also offers a peep sight for the AK. It installs in place of the rear notch sight. I had it installed on my AK and like the results so far. Compared to the Tech-Sight, the Kreb’s have no windage adjustment, only range.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:09:32 +0000

SB_Pete, I agree with your comment about the sight adjustment. They now have a multi-tool that can adjust the elevation and windage.

By: SB_Pete

SB_Pete — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:56:35 +0000

I have a techsight aperture for my SKS. It is a great sight and I’m sure this will be too. Combined with a something like an Aimpoint Micro T1 and an AK Lightning bolt system, these could be great!

One note about the elevation adjustable system though. The sights Techsights make for the SKS and 10/22, while click adjustable, are NOT AT ALL easily so. I have never understood why they don’t make this a better system or duplicate the m16A2 sights. As is, they are not finger adjustable in the SKS or 10/22 and the clicks work out to something funky like 3/5’s of an MOA. Maybe those with Lee Press-On nails can manipulate the thing, but I need to use a tool. Given a knife or bullet tip does the trick, but I would advise anyone considering this to NOT buy the elevation adjustable one. Just get the std A1 style flip aperture sight. They are much more satisfying and usable. The “elevation adjustable” one basically means you can adjust the elevation by the rear sight instead of turning the front sight blade with a tool. It is not suitable for target style click adjustments though. With the flip sight at least you get the std 100yd/300yd BSZ setup.

By: Brian Parker

Brian Parker — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:46:06 +0000

This looks worthwhile to me. What would be even more worthwhile would be mounting this sight system on the Lightning Bolt reverse charging handle you wrote of back in November.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/17/ak-lightning-bolt-left-hand-side-charging-handle/

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:14:43 +0000

Tony, good point about dirt. I forgot about the finish AKs.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:31:30 +0000

“I have never been able to understand why they did not catch on in the East.”

Finnish AK’s have aperture sights. One thing I noticed in Army training is that sand, dirt or snow could easily block the sight after diving for cover, ruining your next shot. (By the time you get the sight cleared and your weapon lined up again, the pop-up target – or in real life, enemy soldier – would be long gone.) They were very, very neat for shooting round targets from prone at fixed range, but after several repeats of the rear sight becoming clogged during combat exercises I’ve developed a suspicious attitude towards their real-world useability.

Perhaps something similar might have played a part in why AK’s usually retained the more basic open sights?

By: Mockum

Mockum — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:16:59 +0000

I have no doubt that these sights are a big improvement to the crummy AK sights. Spending that much though on “fixing” an AK doesn’t seem worthwhile to me. That same $110 is 10% of the way to buying an accurate AR-15 that comes with good sights out of the box.

By: Matt Groom

Matt Groom — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:26:29 +0000

I think the reason that aperture sights took so long to catch on in the East is because full auto fire was the standard operating mode of fire in Soviet Military Doctrine. This was a radical departure from the Czarist doctrine which was “Bayonets before bullets”. Keep in mind that the Soviets built something like 5 Million PPHS 41s, PPS 42s, and PPS 43s during the war. One barrel for a single 1891/30 could produce two barrels for a Pa-Pa Shaw. The Soviets were big time believers in economies of scale. It’s easier to teach spray and pray to conscripts than it is to teach slow, steady squeeze, front sight alignment, and range estimation.