these seem crazy big compared to AR sights
>>62511131>AR sightsFucking what ones? The AR is a platform that’s spanned decades and literally hundreds of models across countless manufacturers, not the mention the countless manufacturers that make iron sights that fit on picatinny railsAre you some kinda noguns faggit?
>>62511131They certainly have more elevation travel than AR irons do, which makes them useful to longer ranges.
wait until OP learns about these
>>62511175I love the Lee, but even I know that expecting a 800yd shot out of one to hit the broad side of a barn door is like expecting the windowless van in your neighbourhood to actually have candy in it.WW1 / 2 era machining tolerances on the barrels were pretty loose you know, especially since they were more concerned about quantity rather than quality.
>>62511168A1/A2 sights retardo>>62511175I was talking about the peep size
>>62511218oh yeah, the idea that could could actually hit a small target at that distance was nuts, but the sights did go that far.
>>62511218The point of it was volley fire, same as anti-aircraft sights. One guy using it has no chance of hitting anything but a whole squad of guys using them has at least some chance of hitting something.
>>62511218800m isn’t even that far for volley fire. If the use case scenario had actually happened, an 800m volley from a platoon would make some decent harassing fire.
>>62511131Did you just discover volley sights OP? You might even learn about the concept that massed groups of infantry were treated as area targets and not point targets back in the day.
I think a lot of people here are confused about what volley sights are. >>62511210This is a volley sightOPs image is just a simple raised-leaf ladder style sight,
>>62511131I dunno the A2 has a pretty huge one
>>62511218Good thing their targets were bigger than the broad side of a barn then. They were meant to be for shooting entire formations of men.
>>62514104...Formations that were proven obsolete in the Franco-Prussian war, 10 years before the Lee-Metford was issued and 40 before the SMLE Mk III entered production.More the fault of the guys setting the standards than anything, but it's telling that the Mk III* and No. 4 Mk II* only had a 200yd sight.And all of that is besides the point since I was under the assumption that we were comparing like-for-like between the AR and LE anyway. "Having longer ranged sights" doesn't make it practically speaking more useful if it's incapable of hitting a man-sized target at that range except by sheer luck.
>>62517221>No. 4 Mk II*don't you mean MKk I*? I don't think there is a Mk II* unless this is the retarded thing with the no4s where the sights had a different designation from the rifle
>>62517711I meant the Mk I*, must have hit the key twice by accident.Post-Normandy evacuation rifles, if somehow my memory has failed me on this as well.
>>62512536>>62511492800m isnt far enough for volley sighting
>>62517221>Mk III* and No. 4 Mk II* only had a 200yd sight.Not true though.The two setting flip sight was only made by Savage and was only on the No4MkI*. It was commonly switched out by the Brits when the rifles went through FRT. The standard sight was the most common by far.
