I want to see how iron sights on rifles look from the point of view of the shooter.
Yes, this is a datamining thread.
I've never been in the army, never shot a firearm and probably never will. The closest thing to shooting was playing FPS games, and still is. In most of them I despise iron sights because they always clutter the view and I can't acquire the target. Back when America's Army 3 was still a thing, I hated iron sights on my precious M16A4 and would always go for the red dot. Those of you who have a happier life than me, show me some iron sights. I want to see how they look in real life not just games. Because God knows I can't fathom how you can aim with those medieval things.
Video games don't teach you this, but collimation sights have a lot of drawbacks. Most notably the parallax error, despite marketing BS they all have it, it's an inherent property of all single point sights. The reticle needs to be dead centered in the aperture, otherwise bullets will not go where it's pointed. Also the aperture is way smaller than you'd think, and it's easy enough to lose track of the reticle - and then you have no reference points to find it again, and all you see is a blank aperture. This is particularly bad for pistols because the sight aperture is smaller and it's positioned much further than normal away from your eyes, making it even smaller in your view. If you have eagle eyes and a very accurate gun, then you can benefit from a 1 MOA red dot reticle; because it's finer than the ironsight tip you get some sort of equivalent of magnifying scope precision, but without actually using magnification and having to deal with all associated problems. Otherwise there's little reason to use these. To leverage the "quick target aquisition" meme you basically need to have your gun aligned with your line of sight at all times, because otherwise you lose the reticle, and if you do this then it's not at all different from just doing it with irons. Then there's illumination settings, which can fuck you up badly in particular scenarios, such as if you go from sunny day to gas lamp illuminated interior. Basically you either suck it up and have the reticle laser-beam into your eyes so you can't see shit out of it, or having to dick around with brightness settings. The worst part about them is that they require batteries and having it die on you mid-shooting because you forgot to replace it is not fun. You'll have to either unmount it and use ironsights, or replace the battery, neither of which are particularly fast or convenient operations though there are quick release bolts so removing it altogether may be perferable. Well unless you have a backup sight but chances are you don't. Or you can break the aperture glass, or it can just straight up fail - that doesn't normally happen but if it does, the only way you can fix this is by getting a new one.
With all in mind I don't even know why do I keep this piece of shit on my gun. It clearly does nothing to improve my groups and it only makes it harder to actually aim.
OP here. "Can't". Disregard my flag, I'm not from Canada eh. In my country's army I would have been issued with an AKM or AK-74, and if your Yankee propaganda is truthful, AK's have the absolute worst iron sights of any assault rifle ever.
Thanks for clearing up a few things. Games really do make it look as if red dots and holographic sights are flawless and perfect. I didn't know about the parallax error you spoke of, but I did know that red dots darken the view due to their reflective film. Commenting on your photo, the sight does raise the profile of your revolver a lot. I imagine you adjusted the elevation for this, right?
No bully but the rotated crosshairs are triggering my OCD brother.
IIRC, the standard US Army issued CCO has no paralax. Speaking from experience I could shoot targets while I adjusted for my check weld, or firing position only if the dot was still visible on the center of mass. With iron sights every subtle error in fundamentals shows dramatically on target and if you have poor vision you want to invest in an optic of some tactical relevance. Keep in mind the iron sights will appear much less in the way if you are just near sighted and you would be able to see much more of your rifle than in pic related. If you take it a step further in video games then your nose and partially your cheek should be visible unless you're a skeleton. The US Army has much slimmer flip up rear sights that I would consider if you're thinking of getting an optic down the line.
Just go to a shooting club, say that you want to try out a new hobby, shoot a few rounds and then claim blatantly lie that you didn't enjoy it. Gud taste, but this is not the /kv/ thread, so I will not drone on about that. I wish I still had the pics from my time in the army around. I took a couple of the sights on the G36 and the G3-ZF. Interestingly the red dot of the G36 is coated with some kind of polarizing layer that makes every pic you take through it look green. What you really see when using iron sights isn't really what a picture can convey, at least for the rifles I have shot. With the G3's irons you have a tiny hole as the rear sights, and there is pretty much no way for you to actually look "around" through it. No matter what you do, you either look through the hole at the center of the front post, or you can't look through the hole at all. Actually, the MP5 (from your picture) uses the same sights as the old school G3, so I can use that as comparison. On the rear sight settings for anything higher than 200 meters you have a hole similar to that as in your picture, but a lot smaller. You can't even see the ring around the front sight. This is really useful, because as long as you can see your target through the hole you are aiming right at it. All it takes is for you to memorize (or get used to) how you need to rest your cheek on the stock in order to get a perfect picture. Then there is the "close" setting for stuff that is closer than 50 meters. It's essentially a V cut into the rotary, and you have to align the top of the front post with the top and center of the V. And aiming with that is a lot harder, but you only use it for short distances, so unless you fuck up completely you are good. The front and rear sights also blur a lot, so you either see your target or the front post. It is difficult to impossible to focus your eyes on the rear sights, because they are so fucking close. I got to hold and AK once, and this was one of the major differences I noticed immediately. You can actually focus your eyes on the rear sights, which is not something I liked. I preferred the up-close tiny hole to peek through. There was no room for aiming the wrong way or anything like that.
Pistols are a completely different category, but I would like to mention them too, because they SUCK for aiming. Holy shit, it's like 20 times more difficult. You hold the gun out in front of you, so you can focus on the rear and front sight individually, but not at the same time. So you focus on the target and try to line up the blurry image of the sights, and try not to mess up aiming too badly. I can imagine that this gets better with a lot of practice, but we never got much, because pistols.
Evan Harris
...
Hunter Moore
It's not an issue on all red-dots, most of the quality offerings for rifles have very little noticeable parallax to speak of.
Benjamin Martinez
I never understood the cut out V shape. I mean somebody isn't gonna float into a room.
Samuel Roberts
Easier said than done. The rules at the range in my city (the only range I know of within reasonable distance) are that all guests must be accompanied by and vouched for by a member of the range. If you don't know someone already, you're out of luck. Other than that there's only one hour a month during which non-members are allowed to visit, and that's an orientation session for prospective members; you apparently aren't allowed to shoot unless you actually join, so that event is useless for someone without a license. And ~$150 for the license training course, plus $400 to join the range, plus however much to procure a gun and ammunition, is an awfully large up-front investment if you've never handled a gun before and have no idea how much you'll actually enjoy shooting.
Of course, OP's flag is incorrect and apparently he has even less access to guns than us, so it's a moot point.
Joseph Jackson
I'll post some sexy irons when I get home FAL, Arisaka and Beretta 92
Easton White
OP, don't listen to this dumb nigger . He bought a shitty red dot and probably doesn't practice with it. Shooting a pistol with iron sights is not easy at all, like says. You've gotta focus on the front sight while keeping it centered on the rear sight and target at the same time BUT without focusing on them as well, or you'll have a shit grouping. A QUALITY red dot makes this much easier because instead of having to align rear-sight-front-sight-target while only focusing on the front, you can now just place the dot on target. There are two main reasons why people dislike red dots on pistols: 1) They buy something shitty like 2) They are unwilling to build the new muscle memory through practice of finding the dot and placing it back on target. Most shooters have at least hundreds if not thousands of repetitions of practice with picking up the iron sights after each firing cycle, and it's silly to imagine that you can go from one to the other and be as good without any practice.
I've got an RMR on my carry gun, and I love it. I was pretty precise with irons, but I'm way better now with the dot and it's especially noticeable at distance. Speed is something I'm still working on because I alternate between shooting my dotted carry gun for practice and a gun with iron sights for competition.
Charles Walker
Another benefit to RDS over iron sights is that unlike iron sights, RDS is easier to use under low light or dark conditions, without having to slap a flashlight on your gun that basically turns it into a giant "SHOOT RIGHT HERE" beacon if you plan to use it in SHTF or HD, or having to spend a 1000 dollars on NV.
Ayden Scott
It's not that much more difficult. Once you've gotten a feel for it, the sights just sort of line up automatically, and all you've got to do is put them over the target.
t. shoots nothing but handguns because there's no rifle range near me and because it's the closest I'm going to get to semi-auto in this damn country
Do any of you niggers only shoot with both eyes open? I've done it with irons and scopes for years since closing one eye is sort of uncomfortable for me and I've gotten good at ignoring what my left eye says.
Carter Adams
Yes, even though I'm cross eye dominant.
Jose Russell
I've always been told to shoot both eyes open but closing one always makes it easier.
Jose White
We have IDs, faggot. You don't have to say "OP here".
Bentley Campbell
I have no eye dominance, near as I can tell, so I kind of have to close one. But, I was taught when learning to shoot, you're supposed to, for some reason.
A lot of the higher end red dots are parallax free. Doesn't apply to shitty ass cheapo red dots, like the one you have stuck on your whatever that is.
There is a problem with parallax free optics, the higher end shit like Aimpoints, Eotechs, Trijicons, etc. Though that's a problem for people who have eye defects. Larry Vickers goes through it in one of his red dot training videos.
You ever heard of parallax free sniper scopes? No? For the same physical reason there are no parallax free collimation sights.
Matthew Peterson
All sights are obstructive, some more and some less, but at very least the gun itself will block a lot of your vision. So you need your other eye open. It will not do anything to distract you from aiming, however the brain will be able to use it to fill in the blocked parts of your vision. You will simultaneously see the gun and what's behind it.
Ethan Thomas
Nigger give me some credit, I use it on a pistol and that means I do short range shooting. And all collimation sights, no matter the focusing distance and no matter how shitty the mirror shape is, they all have worse parallax error at shorter distances. As an extreme example, at a point blank range the parallax error of any collimation sight will be up to a full fucking inch on the target. That's because the reticle is projected 50-100-infinite yards ahead, and the target is only a feet away. If you move side to side, your reticle doesn't change its position against your view, but the target does. This discrepancy is the parallax error. All red dot sights have it, simply because it's impossible to have it focused at all distances simultaneously, there can only be one focus distance. And there are only two ways you're getting no parallax error - if your target is exactly at the focus distance, or if you keep the reticle dead centered in the aperture.
The whole "parallax free" is a marketing wank that you can disprove in only few seconds by placing your gun against a target and weaving around while looking through the aperture. That's a fudd-level tech ignorance.
Lincoln Lee
It would put strain on my eye because I am wearing the glass to see far away. I don't know which gun sight is suitable for me because I have not tried to get a gun license yet.
Luis Lewis
Glasses shouldn't be a problem with scopes. Apparently normal off the shelf reading glasses are alright for irons.
Ryder Harris
I wanted it to be bigger.
Owen Harris
for you
Christian Gomez
Revolver rifles are cool and all, but I can't magdump if there's no magazine.
Oliver Wilson
Do airplane HUDs/sights have similar issues in that regard?
Apples to oranges. I misread and made a generalization on all red dots, reflex > collimation.
Ryder Taylor
It should be noted that aperture sights suppress parallax like red dots. This effect appears if aperture hole is smaller than eyes pupil (2-4mm in daylight). Visually it looks like front post sticks to target if shooter moves head side to side moving position of front post off center of the aperture hole. I think it one of the most significant reason making "M-16 more accurate than AK".
Kayden Harris
It might have played a factor but it's far from the most significant. Between loose-tolerance parts, inferior construction quality, shit triggers, and barrel harmonics fuckery from the gas system there were a lot of factors impeding the AKM's accuracy before parallax came in.
Asher Powell
pic 1 i believe uses a system which projects the reticle onto refracting glass so that it's always correct relative to the pilots vision. and looking at the wiki article for the Gyro gunsight (atleast i think thats what pic 2 is) it uses a reflector system, which i don't think should have any kind of parallax, but im pretty close to brainlet tier too, so maybe wait for a planefag to give you a better answer.
Logan Sanders
And reflex-type collimation is different from just "collimation" how exactly? Jesus you really are exactly like a god damn fudd.
Why wouldn't it? Same principle, same problems. Although several inches to a couple feet worth of parallax error is probably insignificant for an airplane gun.
Angel Moore
My point still stands, the parallax error is minimal in higher end optics, no guns faggot.
Jeremiah Howard
>>>/cuckchan/
Matthew Adams
No but a bonglander is more likely than not no guns. And admittedly parallax free is a market buzzword which means at 100 yards there's no parallax error, when the target is closer, depending on the optic, there is parallax error. I think for the Aimpoint red dots it's 50 yards and under where you start seeing the error. But again, the point still stands, you no guns faggot.
Christopher Bell
I postead my gun and then you say I'm noguns? Really m9, really? No perceptible parallax error. FTFY. In infinity-focused collimation sights, parallax error is the same at all distances, but an inch at 100 yards is much much visually smaller and less significant than an inch at 10 yards. As for my shit sight, when I mount it on a hard substrate I can't see any parallax effect on it on distant objects, the mirror warps the reticle shape a little bit on the very edge but the dot doesn't shift around visibly on the target. Maybe it has much worse parallax than EOTech but my eyesight is not the greatest anymore (part of the reason I do short range shooting) so I don't particularly care anyway.
The first shot accuracy hardly depends on any of these bar the triggers, only the follow up shots. It just has substandard accuracy, it's a design fault. Could have something to do with shit rear sight not designed for any accuracy, rather it's for quick elevation adjustment. Then again for its intended purpose it's OK accuracy. It's pretty hard to mount a sight on classic AK so it just has irons, and these don't exactly have any parallax - the process of aligning the two sights also eliminates any would-be parallax error.
Joseph Lopez
Yeah because I don't see any of your posts with your guns. If your eye sight is bad it's error on your eyes not on the optic.
Asher Rogers
My ID shifted. It should've been easy enough to catch if you paid any attention to the post contents.
Halfway through the video he says you need to keep your red dot centered, otherwise there's an aim error. He doesn't says "parallax error" but I think it is, because I don't believe Aimpoint to have such a shitty optics that it warps the red dot position, making it appear further away from the center than it really is. But it's pretty hard to tell without a reticle - when a crosshair warps it's very easy to tell, but a dot is a dot, you don't see it warping.
Brandon Lopez
Mechanically AR-15 is much more accurate but average bubba shoots cheapest milsurp and its lousy accuracy consumes all the difference. M855 has 5 MOA reject threshold, oh the horrors (and rejected ammo ends on the bubba market). But sights are great difference, AK aiming is 3 points juggling. Aperture sight is actually 2 points, front post and target, like red dot (there are guidances asking for lining up front post in the middle but success of this placement doesn't actually matter). AR is foolproof, AK needs professional for use its full potential, sounds funny but this is how it is. This is good for bubba making his backyard tests of AR vs AK.
Colton Nguyen
Neither of those IDs posted a pic, let alone one of a gun. And those are the only bong flags here. Unless you are (my first thought when I saw your earlier post, ), which means you're either lying or using a VPN. Given that fce352 has only made one post ITT, we have no surefire way of verifying that unless he makes another post confirming or (rather) denying that he's you, since even if that were the case and you were, in fact, him, you probably won't be able to prove it (since you won't get the same ID); i.e., unless you posted another picture of the same gun with your new ID and flag, such a statement is only deniable, and not verifiable.
Jacob Brooks
Why would I lie on an imageboard? I'm past the age where one needs peer approval above all else. I do use a VPN though.
Note, however, that I, by no means deny the possiblilty of you being him, since you became defensive about a certain reply to the post in question in a tone suggestive of you, indeed, being the owner of the handgun in question. I'm just saying, unless you post another pic, we have no means of verifying you being the owner of sqid gun. And if you do use a VPN, why the flip-flopping between an an American/ Bong one?
Robert Nelson
I have no control over VPN exit address. It can be in one of many countries. Also I just did posted another pic. Not particularly legible but you can make out exactly the same gun and sight shape. Anyway it doesn't matter, I wouldn't be saying all that shit if I didn't own a sight and didn't use it for target practice, video games don't teach you this and gun magazines don't highlight all these shortcomings and caveats in detail.
Aiden Howard
Yeah, I was basically finished with my 2nd reply, and I was about to type "sage for doubleposting" when you posted that. Didn't take the time to actually open that image and verify the details of the outline of the gun to my own satisfaction, I'm afraid. I wasn't debating the veracity of your claim, but basically the difficulty in verifying it from a logical standpoint (i.e., I was just sperging).
Sebastian Parker
Where did I say anything about parallax in my post? My point was that quality red dots are simple and work great, and all the issues people have with them can be resolved with sufficient time training.
Ryder Garcia
I thought you impied that the parallax error I spoke of was entirely due to shit sight.
Yes you can train to be good with it but with that time investment you can be just as good with irons.
Colton Reed
Yes aim error because of your eyeball is warped, not the optic. And he said center 50% of the optic, not dead center, and that's because it's parallax free. Yeah aimpoint doesn't have shitty optics, doesn't mean your eye isn't imperfect. You said it yourself, your eyesight is bad.
Who knows?
Adrian Johnson
Oh, gotcha. What I meant by shit sight was from some of the problems you mentioned having here , specifically: 1) Illumination settings, going from bright to dark and back 2) Battery life 3) Optic failure/Backup Sight
I've got a Trijicon RMR06 3.25 MOA gen 2 now, started off with a gen 1. 1) Neither one has had a problem with dot brightness in light or darkness, the sight does a pretty good job of adjusting itself to conditions. I can't remember a time that I ever had to manually adjust either sight for brightness while on my pistol. 2) Roughly 1 year battery life out of a ~$3 battery, just change it out every six months and forget about it. Never had an issue due to battery life, HOWEVER; on the gen 1 RMR I did have a number of instances of dot flicker because of the way the battery contact worked and the fact that it wasn't designed to be used on a reciprocating pistol slide. I swapped it out for a gen 2, put the gen 1 on a rifle and I haven't had a single problem since. 3) A number of solutions exist for if/when the optic fails. Some sights like the Shield RMS and the Leupold DeltaPoint Pro have integral backup sights. The common solution is just to put suppressor height sights on the gun, which cowitness with the dot and give you those reference points you mentioned.
There are solid solutions to each of the issues you've raised, just takes an investment of money/time to solve. Aaron Cowan wrote a pretty excellent paper on dotted guns, link follows: docs.wixst atic.com/ugd/7dc128_c8da57977a8c4b53903192fa603fce6f.pdf
Daniel Butler
They taught us to shoot with only one eye when using the scope on the G36, but I kept both eyes open anyways, since you can more easily reacquire your target if you lose it for some reason by comparing what you see with your left eye to what you see with your right.
Can this be a new thing? Like with ammo can stencils. I'll probably get called a fag at the range but if it helps me to learn to keep both eyes open and I get gudder at shooting then it'll be worth it.
Asher Sullivan
Kawai-iron sights?
Jordan Johnson
Most sights have very good battery life. Holographic sights have shorter battery life because they're powered by a lazer, and there are some other sights with crap battery life for some inexplicable reason. LED powered sights last very long, but as I said, it's not a problem of having short battery life, it's a problem of forgetting to replace it when it was necessary. Nobody's perfect and that can happen to anyone. Irons don't have this problem, and high vis irons can be used in low light. Newer sighs do have automatic brightness adjustment option but so far majority of them need manual adjustment, and even then the automatic adjustment may not do what you wanted it to do, so that's something to be aware of. Also there are passive reflex sights, wtih fiber optic light gathering piece and whatnot, and the dot brightness is always the same as ambient light as a bonus.
Having it dead centered would mean the parallax error is zero. It's OK to go off-center a little, if you don't care that the shot will be a few tenths off target. Again, parallax free doesn't mean there's no parallax (it's physically not possible to accomplish this), it's basically a code word for "infinite distance focus". If your reticle is off-center it's because your eye is also off rifle axis, so there will be parallax error in these sights no matter what you do, but because of the infinite focus distance, it will amount to the same aim shift at all ranges, it will not go from large to small to even larger depending on the distance, as it is with finite distance focus sights. Also it most definitely has nothing to do with your eyes. Geometrically it's equivalent to the reticle being a physical object and simply being positioned extremely far away. Such object wouldn't warp and shift in your vision just because you look at it from a different spot, so neither will a projected reticle. The problem mentioned is either parallax error or projection distortion due to shit optics.
Jack Thomas
I was under the impression that most if not all of the has guns on this board shot with both eyes open as it is apart of most country's military's doctrine. The other reason I assumed that both eyes open ADS is normal because it's repeated mostly by hunters. If you ask 'em in the sportsman's paradise they'll say because you want to have as large a peripheral view just in case a large predator sneaks up on you. It also gets brought up many times in conversations about vid related.
Leo Diaz
How do you shoot with peephole sights? I am right handed and VERY right eye dominant, but whether I'm focusing beyond the front sight or on the front sight the border of the peephole mostly disappears into a fuzzy thin ring and i can't be sure if I'm keeping the front sight in the middle of that ring or I'm askew because of influence from my left eye.
Chase Jenkins
That makes no fucking sense. Just read the thread and stop blaming your disability.
You focus on your front sight. The target and rear sight are blurry.
Jayden Butler
Step 1: broad front post Step 2: take file Step 3: file the shape of your waifu pointing upwards into the front post Step 4: have your waifu assist you in shooting Alternatively you could get holographic sights that project the image of your waifu onto the glass. Why isn't this a thing yet?
Actually, I found that wih a very small peephole the front sights don't really matter at all. You simply aim by looking through the hole and if you can see your target through them you are lined up. With a broader hole you may have to rely on proper aiming though.
Levi Lewis
I don't claim to be an expert on pinhole sights but that sounds like bullshit.
Xavier Flores
What aspect? If the hole is so small in diameter you can't look through it sideways. This means that you can't "look past" the front post, and will either aim straight or not. If the hole is a little larger than that you will have to aim properly. It really depends on the hole diameter compared to the thickness of the material you the hole is punched though. With the G3 you had a ~2mm diameter hole and a ~3mm thickness of the material. Looking though that hole sideways in a way that you are not on target anymore is impossible. Try it. Get a G3, look though the sights and tell me you can somehow manage to fuck up aiming with that thing. It's literally impossible.
Lincoln Edwards
This thread turned in to cancer, real fucking quick.
Gonna add though, the trench looks wider due to how your eye sees it. Not by much, but they aren't bad sights, Americans just like their peep holes rather than notches. Always have.
Luis Scott
I believe it has something to do with the way the brain likes concentricity. Something about it's easier to make something center in a circle than in trench.
Jace Ward
Yeah, maybe. I definitely think peeps are better, however AK sights are not as bad as people say. I feel like 70% of the rep is from people that have never held an AK regurgitating opinions of bubbas. The REAL issue with AK sights are the fact you need special tools to adjust them, and its front sight only. Fortunately, most AK sight tools are 2-n-1 these days and I've never really had issue with them losing zero for any reason. Like all other aspects of the rifle, It may not be the best, but it works, and it works well. In trained hands the AK works great, however people seem to misunderstand the role the soviets had in mind for it. Basically, the tactic was suppress with MGs, and have Ivan, Petrenko, Vasily, Checkoff, and Dagor to go butt fuck the enemy up close with their rifles. This changed with the 74, after vietnam the soviets decided they wanted performance similar to to the M16, and so the 5.45 entered the scene. However Russia still has a hard-on for massively overwhelming firepower.
I just like it cos its cute and ammo is cheap and ARs look dumb. When I have FAL money I'll get one, but 308 isn't cheap. So until then, the AK is, and probably will always be my go-to.
AK sights may just werk, but it's also true that they were one of the few things on the rifle where the design was a little rushed, and not quite deliberate. Jim Fuller was able to make the sight picture orders of magnitude easier to acquire by making the notch the slightest bit wider, and chamfering the corners just a bit.
Brayden King
Muted
Ian Ramirez
ub corbs id iz
I'll keep an eye on that. Though I may not put it on my Romy, since I like the look I have currently. I am waiting to find more of these though.
Sounds like a normal bong to me :^) Maybe this one is more your style.
Rear sights are like $20 each. I could get a few for practice before I hit the actual one. My rifle is a parts kit so all the pieces are nice and aged, having a brand new rear sight would stand out really bad.
Adrian Morales
I close one eye when I use iron sights, I just cant seem to line things up otherwise. I have very weak eye dominance, meaning dominant eye switches constantly for seemingly no reason, so that may be a factor. When I use optics, even with magnification, I have no problem keeping both open. Its much more comfortable and natural for me.
This is funny when people project their own tactics on the enemy and the same time speak about " misunderstand the role the soviets". Here is the shocking fact for NATO anons: small arms suppressive fire didn't exist in soviet doctrine. It is NATO thing. Soviets=/= NATO. All soviet small arms fire is fire with the purpose of target destruction. Soviet suppression starts on the artillery level.
Dylan Thompson
Please tell me you are the user that originally posted that though if I recall right that IRL superhero user was in LA unless if by "LA" he meant Lekanopedio Attikis.
Jim Fuller is the only one who sells this mod commercially, and all his products are for the AK. I'm not sure if the leaf sight in AKs is cross-compatible with the one in the SKS, if it isn't then you could always try doing it yourself, like the video above shows all you really need is a file and a steady hand.
John Ross
If I recall the front and rear sights were the same.
