Carry Handle Questions

[beehlebf]

Does anyone know why the M16/AR15 family of rifles (please correct me on the name) originated with carry handle sights? Its not like the rifle was obnoxiously heavy like a belt fed gun and needs a carry handle.

 

[Jenrick]

The stock is inline with the bore, so the sights had to sit well above the line of bore to be comfortable. The original AR design was cocked using a lever that ran along the top of the receiver. The carrying handle served to strengthen the rear sight base, and cover the cocking handle. When the cocking handle was moved to it's present location, everything else was left in place.

-Jenrick

 

[Vaarok]

Basically it's a sight protector, as Jenrick said. Same as the FAMAS, it's easier to have a long U-shaped bar with two points of rigidity than a single spikey tower sight that can be whacked out of alignment.

 

[Billy Shears]

Let's not overlook that it may also have been intended to perform the very function the name suggests -- carrying handle -- as well. After all, the FAL had a fold down carry handle. So did the Galil. Old bolt action rifles and semi-autos like the Garand, when not slung or being carried at the ready, were usually carried right beneath the magazine since that's where the point of balance was. It's usually still where the magazine is on assault rifles as well, but the protruding 20 or 30 round detachable box magazine makes it impossible to carry the rifle there, so some rifles got folding carrying handles. The AR-15 didn't need one of those, since the elevated sight base could serve that function, and the rifle does balance at that point, so the handle does make a convenient carrying handle, even if army and marine NCOs have heart attacks if they ever see anyone carry an M16 that way.

 

[kwelz]

The carry handle was never really a carry handle. The very early designs had the Charging handle on top of the rifle. It looked almost like a second trigger and the carry handle provided protection for this placement. It also served to elevate the sights to a more natural point given the bore/stock alignment. When the position of the CH was moved they just kept other things the way they were.

 

[Windy Wilson]

So, if it wasn't really a carry handle, and the NCO's get conniptions if you use it as one, shouldn't we call it something like a "charging handle guard"?
Should I ever use it as a carry handle or will it distort the sight alignment?
Not that I shoot particularly well, but still. . .
Which smilie should I use for impertinence?

 

[Billy Shears]

The carry handle was never really a carry handle. The very early designs had the Charging handle on top of the rifle. It looked almost like a second trigger and the carry handle provided protection for this placement. It also served to elevate the sights to a more natural point given the bore/stock alignment. When the position of the CH was moved they just kept other things the way they were.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I'm quite aware of the early configuration of the AR-10. I've been hoping to acquire one of the semi-auto ones with the Portuguese furniture for years. But why does the position of the charging handle preclude any intent to use the carrying handle as a carrying handle in addition to its other purposes?

1) It's called a "carrying handle." Why call it that if it was never intended to perform that function?
2) Other asssault rifles -- examples of which I have mentioned -- have an unmistakable carrying handle, in practically that same location, that looks like the folding handle on a suitcase, and is clearly meant to serve no other purpose than giving the user a convenient handle by which to carry the rifle when it is not slung or at the ready. Why is it such an anathema to imagine the carrying handle on an AR-15 might have been intended to perform this function in addition to its other purposes?
2) Why does the charging handle need a guard over it? Most other long arms have the charging handle sticking out to an equal degree on the top or on either side of the receiver, and there is no guard over it. Why does the charging handle of an AR-15 need more protection than that of an FAL, M14, Thompson submachine gun, AKM, etc.?
4) Plenty of other rifles use a straight line stock layout, necessitating elevated sights as well, and yet either do not feature a carrying handle of this type (e.g. FG42, SIG-510,), or do feature a carrying handle that does not function as a charging handle guard (e.g. EM-2, British L86A2 [the version which is issued with iron instead of optical sights])

I think the carrying handle of the AR15 was meant to serve all three purposes. It was meant to elevate the sights, provide a not particularly necessary, but slightly useful guard to help keep the charging handle from catching on a user's web gear (though most assault rifles get along just fine without such a guard), and finally, to give the user a convenient means of carrying the rifle when it was not slung or being carried at the ready.

 

[HDCamel]

Official military training videos from the 60s refer to it as a carry handle. So, yeah.

I wouldn't use a detachable one as a carry handle, because that'd basically be the same thing as carrying a rifle by the scope.

 

[rcmodel]

One of the design goals of the AR family was to have the barrel & reciprocating bolt mass in line with the stock to better control recoil in full-auto fire.
IE: No muzzle climb throwing your aim off each burst.

So, in order to do that, the sights had to be elevated well above the bore line.

Once they were up there, it isn't a very long stretch to imagine Gene Stoner making a carry handle/scope base/sight guard out of it.
After all, it would look pretty goofy without it.

rc

 

[tx_pistolero]

Maybe it was primarily done as a design feature, to give a distinct and futuristic look? With the secondary benefits of a charging handle protector, and a carrying handle?

This was a gun submitted for the competition to be the next primary battle rifle for U.S. forces. Could have been all or any of the above.

 

[WNTFW]

You see, when Mattel got the call to make these . . . .

Not really!

 

[moxie]

It might have started out being called a carry handle and still is but it really doesn't work well as one. When you carry an AR/M16/M4 by the handle it's simply unnatural. The rifle swings a bit side to side. You can't carry it muzzle down one handed as was the preferred mode way back when. It just doesn't work. The natural way to carry the weapon is just forward of the mag on the hand guard collar. You've got positive control and much better balance that way.

 

[Billy Shears]

It might have started out being called a carry handle and still is but it really doesn't work well as one. When you carry an AR/M16/M4 by the handle it's simply unnatural. The rifle swings a bit side to side. You can't carry it muzzle down one handed as was the preferred mode way back when. It just doesn't work. The natural way to carry the weapon is just forward of the mag on the hand guard collar. You've got positive control and much better balance that way.

A. That's mainly because todays M4geries have a lightweight telescoping stock on one end, and a heavier barrel, all kinds of heavy tactical lights, vertical foregrips, and quad-rail systems on the other. That changes the balance of the rifle.

B. You're overthinking things. We're talking about a non-tactical method of carry. If action is believed to be imminent, you'll be carrying at the ready anyway. Big deal if balance is less than perfect in a non-tactical carry.

C. Who says muzzle down carry was the idea when the rifle was designed? I refer you again to the carrying handles on the more-or-less contemporary FAL, Galil, CETME, et al. When you carry those weapons by their (folding) carrying handles, they balance perfectly for a completely horizontal carry -- just like the M16 or M16A1 did if you carried it by the carrying handle. On the other hand, if you could carry a modern M4 by the carrying handle (since the handle is now detachable, the opening is no longer big enough to admit an adult's fingers), the heavy barrel combined with the light telescoping stock would shift the balance so as to pull the muzzle downward in precisely the way you say is intended.

 

[moxie]

Well, when I carried one in Vietnam and in Germany, full size, if it was one handed it was forward of the mag on the hand guard collar. The "handle" just didn't work. I never knew anyone who used the handle as a handle, it just doesn't work well. The balance and control were not there.

You are right about the new removeable handles on the M4/AR15s, the issue is moot because you can't get your fingers in there.

Never tried the FN or those other rifles. They might have the niftiest handles around, but it doesn't alter my view on that of the full size M-16.

 

[Billy Shears]

Well, when I carried one in Vietnam and in Germany, full size, if it was one handed it was forward of the mag on the hand guard collar. The "handle" just didn't work. I never knew anyone who used the handle as a handle, it just doesn't work well. The balance and control were not there.

I have to ask: balance and control for what? We're talking about carrying a rifle, one-handed, in a manner from which it cannot be fired; in other words, when you are simply carrying it from point A to point B, but for whatever reason, don't wish to sling it. All it needs to be is reasonably convenient and comfortable. I was in the army too, and carried an M16A2, before it got replaced with an M4. I saw soldiers carrying M16s by the handle often enough, until some NCO growled "it's not a Samsonite!" at them. I even carried it that way myself a time or two, and it didn't strike me as either particularly better or worse than carrying it with a hand around the slip ring. It was just that one method drew the ire of officious officers and NCOs, and one didn't. Otherwise, I didn't notice any practical difference. Granted, I suppose the slip ring grip would be a bit more secure if you were negotiating an obstacle or something, but in most tactical situations where you'd do something like that, you'll have the weapon at the ready anyway.

 

[Mk VII]

The FAL had a carrying handle, but we never used it for that, it was easier to hold it round the back end of the handguard.

 

[mortablunt]

Well, it was designed by an AIRCRAFT ENGINEER. That and the sights being mounted higher made it more user friendly considering that the stock goes straight out.

 

[Tirod]

In an atmosphere where you have to carry on all day, with no sling, which is what the Infantry School at Ft Benning taught, and it needs to be more ready than not, you carry the M16 by gripping it around the delta ring. The carry handle is too far back of center with a loaded mag.

The rest of the time it was held at low port, barrel down. Don't know what others did, but that's what Infantry did. You live with the rifle 24/7 in the field, and adopt methods that accomplish the best compromise. Plus - you DON'T look like REMF's running around "carrying" a tactical piece of luggage. After all, an ink pen is likely their primary weapon.

Most of the comments about Stoner's sight design completely miss the point of why it was retained after the charging handle was moved to the back of the upper. It's made by drop forging a chunk of aluminum in some very expensive dies. There is no further reason to change the "handle," even if the charging function is moved. Secondly, the expense to redesign the upper simply gained nothing. By that time COLT was in charge, THEY weren't going to jack with it, and the Air Force, the actual by name agency buying them, apparently didn't make a big deal about it.

For another example of retro engineering, look to the circular indents on the bottom of the grip. I wondered for years why those were molded in, and guessed a sling swivel could be put there. In the early days, IT WAS, no buttstock swivel was used. Again, once the final design was approved, the dimples stayed. There was no mandate or reason to make completely new molds to eliminate them.

It's really all about production costs - both features remained because it was simply cheaper to leave well enough alone. Sorry if that seems mundane, but it's what really happened.

 

[eazyrider]

When I was in the Marines if you were caught carrying your rifle by the carry handle then you were in trouble. If carried one handed, it was in the same way as Moxie described. I remember in boot camp thinking "what the hell is the handle for then". This was in 02 by the way, just to give a time reference.

 

[ATCDoktor]

Although loosely referred to as a "carrying handle" the nomenclature used in the Marine Corps (back in olden days) was "rear sight assembly".

More thought went into its design than making a "handle" with which to carry the rifle.

As has been been previously stated, the comb of the stock is nearly in line with the bore.

To establish a point blank zero on a 6 inch target out to 300 meters (commonly called BZO in the service) the sights needed to be raised to a height above the bore to support this requirement.

With the sights established at their present height, zeroed at 36 yards (I can't remember what the short range distance for zero for the old 55 grain service round was) the trajectory will not rise or fall off a 6 inch target out to 300 meters (with M855).

Once the "sight height" was determined, the decision to place the charging handle (on the very early models) inside the open area beneath it was made.

This was done to provide for a near "snag free" profile for the rifle.

That changed when it was determined that the vertical mounted charging handle provide very little leverage as it only allowed for a "one finger pull" on the handle.

 

[BrocLuno]

You see, when Mattel got the call to make these . . . .

Not really!

Hell yeah - we called them Mattel Rifles when I was in (1970's). And when we were operating "out & away" we did carry occasionally by the handle. I like the original design and am not necessarily a fan of the flat top which obviously got it's name because it comes w/o a "carry handle"