Peep Sights on AR vs AK

**Mtbkski** · November 9th, 2011, 10:17 PM

I was just wondering why Peep Sights on an AR are a good thing (since they come that way). But when people talk about putting them on an AK. They suddenly aren't the best combat sights. What's up with this?

**vicious** · November 9th, 2011, 10:20 PM

The aperture on ghost ring sights needs to be close to your eye in order for such sights to work properly. The sights on the AK are positioned too far away for this to work.

**Willie D** · November 9th, 2011, 10:38 PM

Some people actually prefer the irons on a AK for close quarters fast acquisition stuff. Some people don't like to see an AK modded in any way.

I think much of what you are hearing is just the opinion that the dust cover is a bad place to mount a peep sight (it is, unless modified correctly).

The Valmet, Galil, and Vektor R4 all have stable peep sights which might be one reason those "AKs" aren't associated with sloppy accuracy.

**vicious** · November 9th, 2011, 10:45 PM

Even a modified top cover is a bad place to put a rear sight. Usually these are modified by securing the cover in a way where it can not be quickly removed to clear a bullet-over-bolt or debris induced malfunction. Even if it can be removed, you then loose your rear sight.

Sloppy accuracy is a problem with the shooter. Personally, I replace the sights on all of my AK's with XS Big Dots or at least open up the rear sight with a file. I've seen a Rifle Dynamics built Romanian G do sub-MOA at 200 yards with big dots and a good shooter on the trigger. My milled Arsenal is also capable of very impressive accuracy. If your gun was assembled by the monkeys at century YMMV.