Which issue No.4 sight do you prefer for shooting?
Ok, ok... I know most people are going to say something along the lines of preferring a small aperture LB or Singer Mk1 singer sight, but realistically they are in short supply and are not very quick to adjust.
The larger aperture Mk1 sight is also a decent alternative, but it too can be slow to adjust.
Next up we have the Mk2 sight which it probably GREAT in the heat of a pitched battle, but unless you shoot only at 200 and 600 yards, it's probably not the best option out there.
After that we come to the MkIII sights. For our purposes these work as well as the mkIII sight and better than the MkII sight. They are similarly adjustable to the MkI sight, though with not as fine graduations - but they are rapidly adjusted. Not all are create equal though, the brit sights are cheap stampings with a spacer washer while the LB versions have a nice milled base and are etched much better, blued, and the lettering filled with nice white paint in many cases.
Finally the MkIV sight. To me, unless for historically correctness reasons, there is no reason to use a MkIII sight if you can get a MkIV sight. It's the same sight with a better latch. I should also point out that some of these sheet metal sights have a detent for the 100 yard range (though not marked as such) while others have detents starting only at 200 yards.
So starting with the premise that most range shooting involves at least some time at the 100 yard line, what sight do we generally prefer?
I'm going to go ahead and predict that most guys will choose the MkI since it is more precise than the other options, ruggedly built, and in most cases can be adjusted 2 or 3 clicks below 200 yards to approximate the 100 yard range.
I think the second choice will be a Canadian MkIV sight with the notch for 100 yards.
I'd love to hear people's rationale for the sight they use. My "shooter" is a 1943 Maltby that despite crying out for a MkII sight, usually wears a faz made MkI sight.
