A long time ago, I shot a friend’s Mosin Nagant that had Mojo sights on it, basically a peep rear and a peep front. You could see the target quite clearly, and instead of worrying about a post being in the right spot, you just looked at the target and the bullet hit it.
Couldn’t something like this be easily accomplished with ARs, using two rear sights? One mounted in its normal position, the other at the end of a rail extending to where a normal front sight post would be… of course, you’d have to have one (or both) peep sights be adjustable for elevation, but it seems like it would work.
The only two drawbacks I can think of are:
Fast target acquisition would be traded off for precision
It might look rather silly
So, back to the thread title - am I nuts, or am I on to something?
Some people have said that the HK style front sights like the ones offered by Troy basically accomplish this at close range. I grew up shooting peep sights with the post so the circle/circle concept would just confuse me. I think normal peep sights take advantage of your eye’s ability to center something like a post in the middle of the rear sight because that’s where the most light. Or something. I don’t think a circle/circle sight would work the same way.
There are target type peep front sights that encircle the black when aiming. They cover a lot of the rest of the target though, and need to have the hole in the front sight slightly larger than the particular target at the particular range.
I have found that I’m noticeably faster with my carbine that has a Troy HK-style front and a RRA A2-style rear BUIS than with any of my “traditional” AR sighted carbines - the circle-in-circle really works for me. I was careful to adjust the front sight post to be in the center of the front aperture and I do all my elevation adjustment with the rear.
I personally wish someone would do a FSB with an HK-style hooded sight.
The type of sights you’re talking about are commonly used in Black powder cartridge rifle competition but I don’t know if they are available for the AR or how they would do in combat.
I see what your getting at but i think if you used two rear sights the part around the hole would be too thick and be too distracting. I have a little .22 with match irons and found if i use the round front reticle i am more accurate but when i put in the post front sight i have much more “view” as was said. I think its a tradeoff for the intended use. Also on non round targets i can see the post being more beneficial accuracy wise. I may have to test that next time im at the range.
Another issue i just thought of is mud or other substances getting in or around that circle. Then your front sight is gone until its cleaned. With a post it wouldnt be as much of an issue unless something got wrapped around it. I could also see th hole size being an issue for different light settings.
On the upside it does seem to give me a clearer sight picture in what i can see using the circle front sight.
I use a similar set-up on my M1 Garand for competition. I use the circle sight insert for the front and then the M1 Garand has the NM peep sight on the rear.
The Troy hk-style front sight is not the same thing. In order for this system to work the whole hood needs to move not just the post. In fact if only the post moves it can cause your shots to be off when you center the hood and the post is not centered.
This is why the original Troy sights were hooded and the newer, improved, sights mimic the FSB with straight wings.
It depends on the level of precision I need.
If I am looking for center of chest hits at 15 meters, the hood inside the peep alone is just fine.
If I am looking for greater precision I focus on the post.
The bullets will go to wherever you zero them to go, as indicated by the front sight.
I have used this method for many years, from the SAW to the MP5, including the SCAR and my personal guns. I have shot open sights back to 800 meters, and have had no issues.
This is why the original Troy sights were hooded and the newer, improved, sights mimic the FSB with straight wings.
I don’t know about the SAW, but the MP5 doesn’t work the same way as the Troy sights. Note that in the MP5, both windage AND elevation adjustments are made in the rear sight, meaning that the front post always remains centered in the middle of the hood/shroud. It would appear that the M249 operates the same way. This is how they can use the “center the hood” method of aiming.
While not a direct quote from Troy, it is my recollection that the sight redesign was in response to market pressure from those that used the original sights and found the non-centered post in the semi-round hood to be a distraction. I would imagine that it would be close enough at short distance not to matter, but IMHO it requires more thinking about things than it should at distance to try to sort out what it is that your eye is trying to center, post or hood, and the fact that they do not both share the same center point.
If you want the system to work the way the true HK sights do, then you need to get something like this setup where the front sight is fixed and all adjustment is made at the rear sight.
It’s a good system, don’t get me wrong, but you want to find equipment that is designed to work with this system or you may get less than optimal results.
Nothing new here, that’s how International small bore is shot. The only draw back on the AR platform would be that the apertures would be the same size and the sight radius is much short than a small bore rifle.
Rob, I had a long and utterly unsatisfying argument about this very topic a while ago, and I have absolutely no desire in reliving it here, so this will be my final post on the matter:
It matters not a whit if the front sight post is centered in the hood or not. As long as the aperture is centered in the rear peep, you will have consistent alignment. From there, the front sight post indicates where the bullet is to land. It’s just like zeroing a 6:00 hold instead of a POA/POI hold, but actually using the tip of the front sight to indicate POA/POI. I know that sounds like I am saying the same thing twice, but keep in mind that you don’t have to have a front sight post to have sight alignment and sight picture, you simply have to have two things that line up with a high degree of precision.
I have a strong suspicion that Troy changed their front sight wings due to a vocal user base that is more familiar with traditional AR FSB wings, and had difficulty in attempting to center the front sight post in the rear aperture if it is surrounded by a hood.
If this explaination does not adequately explain the topic, feel free to PM me, but I am not going to rehash old arguments in public.
