The AR charging handle...why?

H

halfmoonclip

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
3,503
Saw some other posts on this, nothing recent.
Just what in hell was Gene Stoner thinking? Realize the charging handle was originally inside the carry handle, and ended up behind it, but ergonomically it's a disaster. It can't be charged while on the shoulder, and it doesn't give great purchase for extracting a fubared round. Realize Stoner had a thing about dust, as seen with the dust cover over the E-port.
Perhaps Stoner was just continuing his 'outside the box' thinking on the rest of the design?
A forward mounted charging handle seems more the norm, whether on an MP5, or an AUG, or a Storm, or an FAL, or...
Anyway, you see my point.
Thoughts, wild ass guesses, spits in the wind, on the AR location of the AR charging handle?
Moon
 
halfmoonclip said:
Saw some other posts on this, nothing recent.
Just what in hell was Gene Stoner thinking? Realize the charging handle was originally inside the carry handle, and ended up behind it, but ergonomically it's a disaster. It can't be charged while on the shoulder, and it doesn't give great purchase for extracting a fubared round. Realize Stoner had a thing about dust, as seen with the dust cover over the E-port.
Perhaps Stoner was just continuing his 'outside the box' thinking on the rest of the design?
A forward mounted charging handle seems more the norm, whether on an MP5, or an AUG, or a Storm, or an FAL, or...
Anyway, you see my point.
Thoughts, wild ass guesses, spits in the wind, on the AR location of the AR charging handle?
Moon
Click to expand...

Testing revealed that it was getting to hot, had problems functioning when filled with mudd and the like, and Colt changed the design after ArmaLite sold the rights. IMHO, the current design has proven to be ergonomically just fine.

If I had to guess other reasons for not using a side mounted charging handle, it would be because they weren't ambitious and would allow more debris into the rifle when the bolt is locked to the rear. Why would you ever need to charge a rifle while it's on your shoulder?
 
Last edited:
It's not that difficult to charge.
Have been doing it since the mid 1970's.
I do prefer the plain cheaper mil-spec style over the tacticool ones.
That being said, most of my recent purchases of upper receivers have been side charging. That eliminate a charging handle.
 
Ingress of foreign material, a standard AR is about or is the best in the business.

Look how minimal exposure to the elements a charging handle and dust cover keeps the action.

Even with an open dust cover the BCG seals pretty well the action and the gas ports in the BCG does a great job of clearing mud/dirt from the opening.

Stoners design is nothing less than genius.
 
The commercial users/world forgets when questions come up such as this, that the AR is designed for military use, where when exposed to dirt, mud, sand, snow, etc it has to run.

Do we need all of that protection from the elements as consumers, no. For me, I’ll continue to use it and develop skills around it as its benefits are easy to see.
 
He designed and redesigned a lot of things, trying different methods out. The one you know is the one that "won" as well as the why.

en.wikipedia.org

Eugene Stoner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

He later designed the AR 18 that did have a handle you could reach up and grab onto and flew back and forth with every shot but it didn't beat out his previous design.

ArmaLite AR-18 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
BreechFace said:
Stoners design is nothing less than genius.
Click to expand...
Not a doubt in my mind about that, and I like the platform, ever since the gummint was kind enough to give me one in 1970.
Never handled the finger-charger carry handle version; excess heat, and the eventual coming of the flatop version, made it untenable. But, ergonomically, it made more sense...though it's not clear to me how dust resistant the finger charger version was.
Again, thinking of the AUG, which has a good rep for durability in lousy conditions (an Aussie training film shows cleaning the poly FCG by rinsing it in a stream), perhaps dust resistance is overrated.
But, after handling some other self-feeding rifles, a front mounted works better, ergonomically for me, and apparently for many international gun designers.
Anyway, happy for continuing insight.
Moon
 
I think the L1A1 and the 50.63 FAL folding charging handles are just about right.

The G-3 and G-33 folding charging handles are pretty good also.

A folding charging handle located 1/2 way between the FAL and G-3 position would be best, especially if it incorporated the Israeli pattern forward assist.

The M-1, M-1 Carbine, M-14, SIG 551, and AK are on the wrong side.

The Galil and R-4 are improvements over the standard AK

The M-16 charging handle is way behind almost everything else in ergonomics as far as I’m concerned (not counting the very worst, the M-3A1 Grease Gun charging set up)
 
Last edited:
The military rifle is designed so that the only time the charging handle is used is to load the first round when the rifle is first loaded. In rapid fire conditions the empty magazine is released, a new magazine is slammed home and the bolt released all without needed to recharge. When in action you don't have anything reciprocating outside of the rifle that could get caught on something. It was not designed for civilian use or to be conventional. The Aug and many other designs are interesting, and competition between different weapons is great. But time has shown the M-16 superior in real combat for reasons not everyone understands. But not perfect. Hopefully the new rifles will be superior as they have passed trials.
 
Funny how the 2 of the most successful, popular, used, owned, and battle tested military rifles on the planet (AR and AK) are the most ridiculed in lue of other rifles that are either considered obsolete and not nearly as common. Either militaries, special forces, law enforcement, terrorist groups, private contractors, and civilians around the world are idiots who have a thing for rifles that aren't very ergonomic or good, or the two aforementioned platforms got something right compared to their competitors.
 
Last edited:
Bwana John said:
The M-16 is way behind almost everything else in ergonomics as far as I’m concerned (not counting the very worst, the M-3A1 Grease Gun charging set up)
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that is definitely a minority one.

Have you ever compared executing an AR mag change and bolt drop versus all the rest?

It's no coincidence that most designs subsequent to it are extremely similar on the bottom half.
 
Styx said:
Testing revealed that it was getting to hot, had problems functioning when filled with mudd and the like, and Colt changed the design after ArmaLite sold the rights. IMHO, the current design has proven to be ergonomically just fine.

If I had to guess other reasons for not using a side mounted charging handle, it would be because they weren't ambitious and would allow more debris into the rifle when the bolt is locked to the rear. Why would you ever need to charge a rifle while it's on your shoulder?
Click to expand...
No, Armalite was responsible for the move from the carry handle to the rear of the upper.

After the March 1958 Infantry Board Trials, Armalite made the following changes to the design:

1. altered sear geometry
2. altered trigger spring geometry
3. changed the hand guard so it could be removed without removal of the front sight
4. rear sight enlarged
5. changed selector positions (AUTO-SAFE-SEMI to SAFE-SEMI-AUTO)
6. changed the charging handle to a triangle at the rear of the upper, as opposed to the "trigger" inside the carry handle
7. enlarged magazine well clearances
8. rubber butt-plate added
9. increase buffer clearance
10. improved dust cover action
11. reduced bolt contact area
12. altered feed geometry
13. reduced magazine capacity from 25 to 20 rounds
14. increased barrel diameter and added flash suppressor

Serial number 000002 shows modifications #3, #5, #6, #8, some changes are not obvious from external examination and may be incorporated.

EDIT
As to the OP's original question - EXPEDIENCY- it was the only place to put it. Where else are you going to put a non-reciprocating charging handle on an AR-15 without redesigning the entire upper, and bolt carrier, as well possibly the lower receiver and butt stock. The location was always known as sub-optimal, in testing it was always always noted as an "I don't like it, but it's not a deal breaker" complaint. A major complaint of the "trigger" charging handle would sometimes unlatch and slide back during firing, a positive latch was desired.

IrjmJpG.jpg


Note the early type is only held by a spring detent, whereas the new design has a positive latch.
 
Last edited:
Just because something is widely used doesn't mean it's a great design. The Ak safety is not good and they made millions of them. The ar charging handle is a bad design, and they made millions of them. The 223 is not a great killing round, and it's widely used. The a2 grip is not a good design.

Most arguments in favor of these designs are "I can make it work for me" or "when I was issued one it worked out ok" which is not a compelling argument for a good design. The only modern designs that use a charging handle incorporate it as a "if you're used to it, we included it as a way to drive up costs and add weight to our military clients" but it's not the primary way we have designed the gun to be run.

It's the same nonsense you hear when a left handed bolt gun comes up. "Well I figured out to awkwardly run a gun not designed to work for me" " I've been making do, so should you" or from the righties: "you can learn to deal with it" oh yeah? How many right handed shooters (who are not shooting benchrest) seek out a left handed bolt gun? Zero? Why, because it's a bad design for them.

Hey look! I wrote an unhinged rant! I became that guy. I'm sorry everybody.
 
Last edited:
The (Stoner) AR-15 was designed in the mid 1950s initially. Prior to this (as mentioned) the charging hand was built into the bolt or operating rod.

Part of the design was to avoid projections to catch on surroundings, being anything from other troopers to door jambs to plants. One must admit it works.

The rifle was designed as a military arm. With that thought, constant loading and unloading is not assumed. At the time of design, one loaded at the start of hostile activity and kept the arm loaded until hostilities ceased.

Since then - the early 1960s as I recall - the rifle design has been modified to facilitate other tasks and purposes. If it doesn't fit, perhaps the square peg doesn't fit the round hole. And all one has is square pegs.
 
Styx said:
Funny how the 2 of the most successful, popular, used, owned, and battle tested military rifles on the planet (AR and AK) are the most ridiculed in lue of other rifles that are either considered obsolete and not nearly as common. Either militaries, special forces, law enforcement, terrorist groups, private contractors, and civilians around the world are idiots who have a thing for rifles that aren't very ergonomic or good, or the two aforementioned platforms got something right compared to their competitors.
Click to expand...
All designs are compromises. Successful designs have fewer negatives than positives. Also, acceptance has a positive quality of its own. It is difficult to unseat an incumbent.
 
greyling22 said:
Just because something is widely used doesn't mean it's a great design.
Click to expand...

Just means its better than the other designs that failed to prove themselves reliable in the .gov shake down all of them go through.
 
Styx said:
Funny how the 2 of the most successful, popular, used, owned, and battle tested military rifles on the planet (AR and AK) are the most ridiculed in lue of other rifles that are either considered obsolete and not nearly as common. Either militaries, special forces, law enforcement, terrorist groups, private contractors, and civilians around the world are idiots who have a thing for rifles that aren't very ergonomic or good, or the two aforementioned platforms got something right compared to their competitors.
Click to expand...
Interesting thing about that. I read posts where folks criticize various design features of the AR pretty regularly. You know who I've never heard criticize the basic design? Guys who have used them (the modern version. Not talking Vietnam era here) extensively in combat. They'll criticize some of the quality of some brands and models, but the basic design? They're quite satisfied.
 
Styx said:
Either militaries, special forces, law enforcement, terrorist groups, private contractors, and civilians around the world are idiots who have a thing for rifles that aren't very ergonomic or good, or the two aforementioned platforms got something right compared to their competitors.
Click to expand...
This last largely sums it up.
lysanderxiii said:
EXPEDIENCY- it was the only place to put it. Where else are you going to put a non-reciprocating charging handle on an AR-15 without redesigning the entire upper, and bolt carrier, as well possibly the lower receiver and butt stock
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Also, another poster here mentions that there's really nothing out front to attach to a charging handle. I've heard it argued that the absence of anything rattling around on an AR's barrel assembly is beneficial for accuracy.

BTW, lysanderxiii, yours is the first good picture of the finger charger for me; presume the end exits the carry handle in the same place as the current charging handle. Really had wondered about exactly how that worked.
Moon
 
It's definitely different and has to be learned, like everything else but I'll be damned if it doesn't work beautifully. It has to be a brilliant design to be able to evolve over 70yrs of service with only minor adjustments. The addition of a $20 modern grip and something like the Radian Raptor or BCM Gunfighter charging handles are easy but make a significant difference.
 
I find it funny when people say the rear charging handle is fine and the forward-assist is fine too. Honestly even the designers understood that the first one was a band-aid, and the second one was a band-aid to the band-aid. Don't even get me started on AK-47's.

Popularity has nothing to do with design.

The military could have easily chosen the AR-18 or similar piston design instead, in which case if somebody introduced a bastard D.I. variant today, those same people would be lambasting the change to an established design of 50 years.
 
Recall, too, that Stoner was looking to reduce weight at all costs, and concentrate all weight used as near the center-of-gravity as possible.

The way some of old pharts were taught was to retain hold of the pistol grip, and grab the charging handle with the other and "split the difference" pulling back awith the one hand and pushing forward with the other. Once practiced this is pretty fast (and will occasionally cause goggle eyes for those who had never seen it done).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
What in hell were they thinking...
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
12Bravo20
12Bravo20
N
  • Locked
AR Methods of Charging Handle Manipulation
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
B
  • Locked
MSAR STG-556 Review (Long)
Replies
6
Views
3K
El Tejon
E
J
  • Locked
Range Report and Take Down report for AR-180B
Replies
17
Views
1K
corncob
C
E
  • Locked
.30 cal semi-auto with gas cutoff - No good options?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Vern Humphrey
V
Back
Top