On the topic of GI-type irons, some folks (probably us “comfortably middle aged” set) prefer the old A1-style sights over the newer A2 type. The A2 would seem to be better for longer-range work, and the larger aperture better for quick acquisition. Is there any real or perceived advantage to the old A1 sights?
perceived ?
well. i guess i’m one of ‘‘those guy’s’’
yes. i like the A1 sights better. but not only that , i like the ‘‘no wiggle too’’
peabody
Most folks like the fact that the A1 sights are nowhere near as easy to accidentally change the zero on.
I shoot them both. I like being able to dial elevation into my A2s for long range. But I like the slickness of the A1 too.
Good for what they were intended for, there are better options now. I have used the Centurion HK’s on an AR platform sacrilege to some), I like them, they’re my favorite fixed irons. Now, in the days of decent, fast optics having a sight that folds out of the way is a major plus. Once I went free-float that front tower had to go, never looked back afterwards. Oh, and I cut my teeth on the A1, transitioned to the A2 on my way out of the Corps. Times change, you have to change with them.
Like running a VW bug engine in a Corvette. 
No, like running a BMW motor in a Chevy.
+1 Since I never had an M16A2, I never got in the habit of adjusting my sights (after the initial sighting in) on my AR-15’s, so (for me, anyway) it’s just more to go wrong with my weapon.
I found the ability to move POI on the A2 irons a very useful tool in the days before every rifle had an optic. Most of those I found that had trouble with “shift” on the A2 rear windage drum and range knob never indexed them at zero, many never had a clue what the range wheel was even for.
I like the A2 sights. You can use them for precision or use a 300 yd BZO(Battle Site Zero) and use the large aperture for close range work from 0-200 yd. Marine Corps A2 sights bottom out at 8/3-3 clicks. This allows for shooting at 200 yd’s with the small aperture for annual KD rifle range qualification. Army A2 sights bottom out at 8/3. I adjust my elevation knob scale to 8/3-4 for shooting at 100 yd’s. Many people don’t know that the rear sight needs to be set on the 8/3 for the large 0-2 aperture to be set.
I like the A2 front sight post better than the A1. It seems easier for me to focus on. I liked the A1 rear sight for the old ammo. It worked fine for the ranges you covered with the 55gr stuff.
The modern optics are the way to go. I don’t really see a reason for a BUIS to need all the A2-type adjustability that some have. It’s a back-up sight. IMO it should be as simple as possible, and that says A1 to me.
I’m one of a tiny handful around these parts that actually like the A2 sight, both front and rear. I
guess it’s all about personal preference, but I like the way the A2 looks as well as works. BTW,
there are a few A1 types in the collection as well.
I prefer A2 as well, but thats what i grew up with (USMC). My dad on the other hands thinks they are stupid and will on only run the A1’s:D As long as you know how to use whatever you have to gets your hits its all preference.
I like the A2 sights. I like the adjustability and being able to flip between small & large apertures. I grew up shooting apertures and on rifles like them better than any other non-optical sights
A2 for primary sights, A1 if they’re just backup to an RDS. that’s my policy, and it’s what most people do inadvertently, with 90% of the BUISs available on the market.
Given that the question is: “Is there any real or perceived advantage to the old A1 sights?”
My answer is: Yes, there are a few advantages.
The two position aperture is easier to use when switching range. According to TM-9-1005-249-10, the unmarked aperture is for ranges from 0-300M, while the “L” marked aperture is for 300-400M. Those elevations adjustments are much easier than spinning the elevation wheel on the A2, assuming that the A2 was even properly sighted-in.
Simpler to use means less brain-farts.
Although the smaller apertures are a negative in low light, in bright light, the smaller aperture acts like a pinhole camera and provide a large depth of view, and in effect, it helps the eye to focus. No, not by much, but by a little bit.
With the A2, it’s possible to have the incorrect elevation and/or windage. This could be due to forgetting to reset after previous use and not resetting to BZO, or other possiblities. The easier it is to adjust, the easier it is to adjust incorrectly. There’s something to be said for a sight that’s hard to adjust.
The entire “A1” assembly is simpler (actually, the design pre-dates the M16A1, but that’s what everybody calls it). Less parts to break or lose.
Personally, I prefer the large aperture of the A2, but that isn’t what the OP asked…
I like A1s, and as all of my shooting is inside of 300m, it isn’t an issue. In fact I fire more rounds every year at 10 yards with a rifle than at 100 or more, bolt rifles excepted.