Jackal
Member
The problem is the fact that carry handle sight offers zero tangible benefit over any quality fixed sight set, such as Daniel Defense. Its just heavier.
Extinction of the AR-15 A2 variant?
- Thread starter coloradokevin
- Start date
- Status
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,430
Another reason for the handle was to raise the sights. The straight stock doesn't allow a cheek weld without the height of the handle. The handle,serves as reinforcement and protection for the sights. They are good sights and in those days no one planned on using optics on combat weapons. Except snipers and night vision set ups. Like clang, I used the handle to hang my rifle in convoys.
Theohazard
Member
But the weakest part on a clamp-on A2-style sight isn't where it mounts to the flat-top, it's the adjustable part of the sight, and that's the same on the carry handle sight. So any impact hard enough to loosen the sight from the flat-top would break or bend the adjustable part of the sight first, and that would happen on a fixed carry handle too.DPris said:
With sights like the LMT, the only real worry is the screws coming loose, and loctite will fix that problem.
shep854
Member
Waaay back when the AR concept was first being developed, the very early rifles had a reciprocating charging handle centered in the top of the receiver, where it could be operated with either hand. The 'carry handle' was actually to protect the charging handle as well as to place the sights in a usable position above the straight-line action.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_121/...Present__showing_Variation_in_the_Market.html
When the charging handle was changed to what we know today, the 'carry handle' was retained both to keep the rear sight in position, but to serve as a base for an optic. The problem then, though, was that the optic was placed even higher above the receiver, requiring either a 'chin weld' or some sort of raised cheek piece to allow proper head positioning (see ifit's rifle in Post #5).
Somebody got the bright idea to simply cut the handle off and attach Picatinny rail directly to the upper receiver, and the rest is history!
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_121/...Present__showing_Variation_in_the_Market.html
When the charging handle was changed to what we know today, the 'carry handle' was retained both to keep the rear sight in position, but to serve as a base for an optic. The problem then, though, was that the optic was placed even higher above the receiver, requiring either a 'chin weld' or some sort of raised cheek piece to allow proper head positioning (see ifit's rifle in Post #5).
Somebody got the bright idea to simply cut the handle off and attach Picatinny rail directly to the upper receiver, and the rest is history!
Last edited:
carbine85
Member
I just recently sold my Bushmaster HB A2 upper. A recent gunshow that I went to had a vendor with 2 tables of new retro A2's and CAR's. A lot of the old guys had their eyes on the CARs.
OP
OP
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I totally get what you guys are saying about the uselessness of the carry handle when using the rifle in combat, or as a defensive weapon. When I carried an A2 variant at work I never got much use out of the carry handle, as I needed to have the rifle in a "ready to use" condition.
But, I think I'm just attached to the design from an aesthetic standpoint. After all, this is what AR-15's and M-16's looked like when I was growing up and learning to shoot them. I love the modern designs, but still have a place in my heart for the old carry handle edition.
Besides, when I'm out plinking in the woods or playing on a farm, I have actually used the carry handle for "suitcase style" carrying of the gun… in an environment where I'm not expecting to be shot at, this is totally acceptable. Plus, I've also used the carry handle to help secure the gun in a vehicle before (not a perfect method, but relatively easy).
I never knew this… thanks for sharing!
But, I think I'm just attached to the design from an aesthetic standpoint. After all, this is what AR-15's and M-16's looked like when I was growing up and learning to shoot them. I love the modern designs, but still have a place in my heart for the old carry handle edition.
Besides, when I'm out plinking in the woods or playing on a farm, I have actually used the carry handle for "suitcase style" carrying of the gun… in an environment where I'm not expecting to be shot at, this is totally acceptable. Plus, I've also used the carry handle to help secure the gun in a vehicle before (not a perfect method, but relatively easy).
shep854 said:
I never knew this… thanks for sharing!
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,870
Now that is one cool AR!Old School "retro" ...
Why, it's smells like 1966 and California Dreamin' again.
And some of us are actually old enough to remember what that smells like ...
300+rds later on a 90-degree day ..
I don't have any A2 variants, but I have several A1 variants that I really like. My favorite is the Colt 604 upper, followed by the XM177E2 mock up I had built using a Colt A1 upper and a Daniel Defense 12.5" lightweight barrel and pinned fake XM177E2 moderator.
justin22885
member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,102
i dont think anythings become excint, but people by nature seem to have a need to follow a status quo, if a large group of people tell you a full length top rail is a MUST, then most people are going to assume theres truth to it and go that route.. nothings obsolete so long as it goes bang.. if you like the carry handle, go with the carry handle.. some people find it protects the rear sight better and is more solid than a lot of flip-ups and personally if i was going to go with an iron sight only AR-15, id go with the A2 upper as well
moxie
Member
I had several of the original plain slick-side M16s (no A1, no A2) over time and I loved them as perfectly reliable and very accurate. Light too. The forearm was awful cheesy. Never thought about the carry handle as that's the only way they existed, but for sure nobody carried the gun by the handle. Taboo! Slings were fine and used when it made sense. Those M16s didn't have bolt forward assist and I can't recall ever needing it. The brass deflector on the newer models is, however, a very good thing.
That old "waffle" style mag in post #31 was deemed totally unreliable by everyone I knew. When you came across one the fix was to stomp on them hard with your boots. They pretty much disappeared, from the USAF anyway, by the mid-70s. Neat to have one now as retro fun.
That old "waffle" style mag in post #31 was deemed totally unreliable by everyone I knew. When you came across one the fix was to stomp on them hard with your boots. They pretty much disappeared, from the USAF anyway, by the mid-70s. Neat to have one now as retro fun.
rskent
Member
Mr Borland
Having said that, I think if I had to carry a rifle for work or serous situations I would want an Aim-point on it.
For me, that just about covers it. The are fun to shoot, very accurate, and compared to just about every other match rifle inexpensive. So extinct, never.
Having said that, I think if I had to carry a rifle for work or serous situations I would want an Aim-point on it.
hamp sandwich
Member
To me, it's obsolete, but not unappreciated. Therefore, not extinct.
jad0110
Member
If it works for its intended purpose, I'd say it is not obsolete. On the other hand, unless I'm doing a retro build I prefer the flat top variant for the obvious flexibility it provides.
OTH, I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of the old M16s and M16A1s. So much so that I built my own retro. Specifically, I built mine to fairly closely replicate an early XM16E1 variant.
And yes, it shoots as good as it looks. One thing I like about the pre-A2s is the lightweight barrel. The balance and weight remind me of another favorite long arm of mine, the M-1 carbine.
OTH, I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of the old M16s and M16A1s. So much so that I built my own retro. Specifically, I built mine to fairly closely replicate an early XM16E1 variant.
And yes, it shoots as good as it looks. One thing I like about the pre-A2s is the lightweight barrel. The balance and weight remind me of another favorite long arm of mine, the M-1 carbine.
DougW
Member
I love my A2 I built about 8 years ago. Wife's rifle is a carbine I describe as an XM177 clone, and is simple, robust, and easy for her to shoot well.
My active duty son and daughter in law are currently issues A2's as their primary weapon. They love shooting them, and both qualify expert. There are still a lot of A2's in the Army inventory.
My active duty son and daughter in law are currently issues A2's as their primary weapon. They love shooting them, and both qualify expert. There are still a lot of A2's in the Army inventory.
Last edited:
In 1973 the handle was for carrying the rifle when it was unloaded or in Garrison. Our sling was the nylon M-14 sling. It had a 20" .625 barrel with a 1/12 twist. It was perfect for it's intended mission in my opinion. Times and training have changed. I see the benefit of the 14.5" M-4 barrel for close range, having a grenade launcher slung underneath and building entry but I prefer a 16" mid length because it has a longer sight plain and a smoother recoil impulse. I see no logical reason for a 1/7 twist except in a 1000 yard rifle, I like a 1/9. To each their own.
kwg
kwg
masakari
Member
Mine still has A2 sights...
Acera
Member
I like mine, but don't seem to shoot it as much as I used to.
Fortunate enough that I got a full complement of Colt goodies to go with it.
Colt stamped magazines
Colt branded 4x scope
Colt stamped bayonet
etc.
Fortunate enough that I got a full complement of Colt goodies to go with it.
Colt stamped magazines
Colt branded 4x scope
Colt stamped bayonet
etc.
SpentCasing
Member
My "goto" is a KAC SR15 w/Eotech XPS.
That said, I came across a FNMI A2 (USGI surplus) complete upper a few years ago and love it. IIRC, I did a short review here a few years ago on it. While it'd be sold before my beloved KAC if ever need be... If it were my only AR Id surely be able to make-due with it n/p. I think the USMC has proved how viable it is for CQB in the past decade also.
That said, I came across a FNMI A2 (USGI surplus) complete upper a few years ago and love it. IIRC, I did a short review here a few years ago on it. While it'd be sold before my beloved KAC if ever need be... If it were my only AR Id surely be able to make-due with it n/p. I think the USMC has proved how viable it is for CQB in the past decade also.
ECVMatt
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,870
I am in no way a military or law enforcement person, but my desert/mountain ramblings I like the A2 version and use the carrying handle often. If I am predator hunting, I like to use the handle when I am walking to or in between my set ups.
Since AR's are such a complicated issue here in CA, I have used my standard A2 (CA legal with all magazines) for the past twenty years and have not really kept up with more current AR trends. My rifle has served me well and now feels like an appendage of my body. However lately I have bought a few newer versions and have come to love the M4 type rifles for most of my off roading/shooting trips. The size/weight is just about perfect, they attach to a backpack well, and the adjustable stock works prefect for my son. I have also been using them for predator hunting.
I will never sell my A2 so I guess for me they will never go extinct, but I see the advantages of the more modern machinations.
Since AR's are such a complicated issue here in CA, I have used my standard A2 (CA legal with all magazines) for the past twenty years and have not really kept up with more current AR trends. My rifle has served me well and now feels like an appendage of my body. However lately I have bought a few newer versions and have come to love the M4 type rifles for most of my off roading/shooting trips. The size/weight is just about perfect, they attach to a backpack well, and the adjustable stock works prefect for my son. I have also been using them for predator hunting.
I will never sell my A2 so I guess for me they will never go extinct, but I see the advantages of the more modern machinations.
lysanderxiii
Member
In my time in the Army, we were not prohibited from using the carry handle as a handle, but the point of balance of the rifle is just a little forward of the actual handle, so it is not really all that convenient of a carry point.
Grabbing the delta ring is closer to the balance point.
Grabbing the delta ring is closer to the balance point.
Well put. A lot of people miss grasping that distinction. "Obsolete" doesn't mean "extinct."
My Colt Match H-Bar A2 was always obsolete as a fighting rifle but it was never extinct, having well served it's intended purpose in local DCM-style club matches.
Between it and my Retro A1, pictured above - both with non-detachable carry handles - it's a no-brainier as to which goes into combat. The A1, as some have already noted, is light, fast-handling, accurate, and that 20" tube keeps the lethality of the 5.56mm ammo humming at distance.
Yeah, it doesn't have the current sex appeal of a mod-ed out 16" flattop that's got all manner of shiznitz hanging off it, and yeah, you won't see Chris or Travis humping one on YouTube, but it'll get the job done ... just like it did back in the 'Nam.
moxie
Member
Ditto what lysander said. The delta ring is the best place to hold the gun one-handed. Easier and more secure than the "handle." Much better for transitioning quickly to ready.
- Status
