AR15 cary handle? Yes? No? Maybe So?


PDA






Paris
February 4, 2012, 02:26 PM
I have two ARs, one with the handle and one without. Most ARs seem to be sold without them these days. Passing fad?

I'm curious if people who carried the rifle in the military ever found it useful.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR15 cary handle? Yes? No? Maybe So?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ragnar Danneskjold
February 4, 2012, 02:42 PM
It's pretty much worthless these days (and probably always has been). I can't think of a time when you would actually carry your rifle using that handle. Optics can be mounted much more easily on a rifle that doesn't have one, and rail mounted iron sights can take over for that job.

Robert
February 4, 2012, 02:44 PM
It's pretty much worthless these days (and probably always has been).
Once they moved the charging handle to it's present location there was no reason to have that silly thing on top of the rifle, other than the sight tower. There is nothing it does that rail mounted sights can not do. Well except be totally useless.

Surf
February 4, 2012, 03:24 PM
I like them as they are an economical back up sight when chopped down. Robust iron sight set up with keeping elevation adjustments.

MutinousDoug
February 4, 2012, 03:44 PM
If you are going to shoot NRA service Rifle, the integral rear sight has a little more elevation travel than on the removable carry handle.
I'm sure I occasionally used the carry handle on the M16A1 I was issued but if I was going anywhere more than a few steps away, the rifle would be slung over my shoulder.

Oh, you mean this carry handle?
http://i44.tinypic.com/29vdohl.jpg

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 03:51 PM
I can't think of a time when you would actually carry your rifle using that handle

I use it all the time.

Why do I like A2s? It puts optics at the perfect height, and you can use your irons with the optic in place.

Both of my AR's are A2:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n117/Hunter2506/ARs.jpg

I'm going to get a flat top upper for mounting my ATN NVRS, because it sits too high on the carry handle, just as it sits too high on any bolt gun. But for normal optics, I find the height perfect.

Carl N. Brown
February 4, 2012, 03:52 PM
The flat top with integral picatinny rail is much more verstile.

purpplehaze
February 4, 2012, 03:53 PM
Useless if you have a sling.

Optics with back up iron sights.

Welding Rod
February 4, 2012, 04:12 PM
I shoot ARs for recreation and sport. I prefer iron sights. Given that, I would much rather have an A2 reciever than an add-on carry handle.

When I was in the M16s we used had A1 or A2 recievers. I have a couple of BCMs now with flattop receivers and add-on carry handles, but I would rather just have an A2 reciever to start with. I bought those flattops only because that was the only way to get a Gov profile 20" barrel.

On the bright side, at 45 I can shoot the irons fine, but I suppose the flattops may come in handy in a decade or two when I may not be able to do so as I can then add optics.

Welding Rod
February 4, 2012, 04:13 PM
Useless if you have a sling.


???

How is there any relation?

heavyhands
February 4, 2012, 04:25 PM
In my time in the Army, we were instructed never to carry it by the handle- only between the rear hanguard and receiver. I was told it's not really a handle but is elevated for eye relief to help with a natural point of aim. Also it was to protect the charging handle before it was moved.

jon_in_wv
February 4, 2012, 04:29 PM
I was in the Marine Corps. I've have never carried an M16 or and AR by its carry handle in my life.

Justin
February 4, 2012, 04:37 PM
There's nothing wrong with the old school design, so long as you only intend to shoot with the iron sights already on the gun, or if you're doing one of the retro builds.

However, the old-school carry handle becomes a massive hindrance when you start looking at using optics on the gun. Flat top guns have the widest array of available options, and it's much, much easier to install a scope on them. All you have to do is slap a Picatinny-compatible scope mount on and you're ready to go.

The number of mounts available for putting a scope on the carry handle are quite limited, and in my opinion, generally look and feel much less solid than a decent Picatinny mount from an outfit like LaRue. They also make it much harder to get a decent cheek weld for the average shooter, since the scope ends up being so much higher than the bore axis of the gun.

Again, while there's nothing out-and-out wrong with a traditional non-removable carry handle, choosing a rifle in that configuration does end up limiting your options for modification down the road.

Based on that, I generally recommend going with a flat-top design.

Wes Mantooth
February 4, 2012, 04:51 PM
I was in before they started issuing optics for the M-16. I never carried it by the carry handle. Seemed like a poor design for it. Iron sights on a flat top seemed like it would have been a better idea. But I grew up shooting hunting rifles and shotguns with and without optics. So I never got into the habit of carrying a firearm that way.

LKB3rd
February 4, 2012, 05:42 PM
I like the iron sights, but I still like a flat top with a detachable carry handle for flexibility.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 07:06 PM
and it's much, much easier to install a scope on them. All you have to do is slap a Picatinny-compatible scope mount on and you're ready to go.

All I have to do with the A2 is drop in a carry handle picatinny mount. I use see-through mounts; ARMS, Leupold, CAA Z-rails. They're held firmly in place by the handle itself, with a single knurled nut sucking them down tight. Swapping optics is a snap, too.

Dr.Rob
February 4, 2012, 07:15 PM
I like mine and use the iron sights for close in targets or when shooting through a limited sight barricade.

If you aren't going to use the carry handle style sights I wouldn't recommend buying a rifle with the standard front sight/gas block in place.

TexasPatriot.308
February 4, 2012, 10:41 PM
I served 40 years ago, we trained and served with the M16, qualified with the iron sights. I still got a few AR10s with the A2 configuration, as for the carry handle, sometimes we used it, usually used both hands for that job. back then, different war, close jungle warfare compared to the current combat conditions.

Tomcat47
February 4, 2012, 10:50 PM
I think it is Quintessential AR!

Can not help it, to me without it, is like a 1911 with no beavertail or grip safety!

Just part of the platform! I like new flat tops for various optic reasons, but the Old School Handle is ........ :cool:

My 2 Cents....

Captains1911
February 4, 2012, 11:08 PM
Quote:
Why do I like A2s? It puts optics at the perfect height, and you can use your irons with the optic in place.


Many would disagree with your opinion that an optic mounted that high is perfect. Not to mention how that affects your zeros. And there are many many optics that mount directly to the receiver rail and co-witness with the iron sights.

MachIVshooter
February 4, 2012, 11:41 PM
Many would disagree with your opinion that an optic mounted that high is perfect

It's all personal preference, but most rifles will have scope centerline 2 to 2-1/2" above the top of the cheek rest with low or medium mounts. Carry handle mounts on the AR put scope centerline at ~ 2-3/4". I find it very comfortable. I don't like having to smash my sheek into the stock to see through the scope. Any flat top AR requires very tall mounts or risers to avoid that.

As for the optic being a little higher above bore centerline? It's just simple math. Being 1/2 to 3/4" higher than it would be on a flat top doesn't make any difference in the real world.

I use my AR-10 for hunting, have never missed a shot on account of the sight height above bore.

moxie
February 4, 2012, 11:46 PM
This again? Carried the M-16 for a long time in several different countries, starting with Vietnam. The carry handle...ain't. It's OK as a sight platform, but I've learned to love the flat top configuration.

bejay
February 4, 2012, 11:46 PM
dont see much point in the detachable carry handles plenty of sights that will work without adding the useless handle, if its an a2 where its built into the upper then maybe I could see it being used.

FlyinBryan
February 4, 2012, 11:47 PM
Many would disagree with your opinion that an optic mounted that high is perfect.
the old-school carry handle becomes a massive hindrance when you start looking at using optics on the gun
the 1st ar i ever owned was a colt match target rifle. it came with the removable carry handle and after at least a half dozen different setups i ended up with the carry handle back on it and a mount on that.

as a result the ar15's ive bought since have all been a2's with handle mounted optics.

i prefer them that way.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR15 cary handle? Yes? No? Maybe So?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!