View Full Version : Reciprocating charging handles (RCH) vs non-reciprocating charging handles (NRCH)
Subject came up elsewhere in the context of why the AR has a NRCH vs the other choices Stoner could have made. (I'm specifically not talking about kludges that add a RCH to the AR, those are just silly.)
My take is that from a design standpoint there are several compromises to both:
RCH advantages:
1)Simpler to implement. Can be made unitary with the bolt carrier (AK) or a simple removable piece (Sig 550, FNC).
2)Typically stronger because they are bigger and more robustly engage the bolt carrier, if it's a separate piece of steel at all.
3)Eliminates need for separate forward assist.
4)Useful for diagnosing what's going on inside the gun. If you have stoppage where that RCH has stopped will tell you a lot about what caused it.
RCH disadvantages:
1)Snag prone. If it's big enough for the trooper to get his hands on then it's likely to catch on things.
2)Possibility of causing stoppages. Get that RCH too near cover (or your thumb) and you will make the rifle quit working.
3)Requires a slot in the action. The slot either has to extend all the way to the rear take down point (AK, FNC), be in a open action (M1 Garand and carbine, Mini-14) or the CH has to be removable (Sig 550, SCAR). The slot is a way for dirt to get into the gun. The slot can be closed by a spring loaded plate (FNC), rubber lips (Sig 550), or by the bolt carrier (SCAR).
NRCH advantages:
1)Can be made folding easily, reducing snag potential.
2)Nothing is moving outside the gun, so hitting the CH during firing isn't a problem. Operator can't get caught up in the moving CH.
3)CH can cover the required slot (Uzi, FAL).
4)CH is always in the same place for user to grab.
NRCH disadvantages:
1)More complex than RCH. Even more parts if CH incorporates FA function. (AR CH part count should really include the FA part count if you're comparing, since the AR splits those two functions).
2)Typically not as strong as a RCH. NRCHs just aren't as robustly made as the parts are smaller. You might be able to kick a FAL open a few times but don't try that on a AR.
3)Not useful for diagnostics. CH is always in the same place so you don't have a additional clue as to what type of stoppage you have.
4)Requires additional manipulation to engage FA function. Push, turn, pull, there is almost always additional activity required to get a NRCH to engage as a FA.
Personally, I own rifles with both RCH and NRCH. Both designs are a compromise. I see the advantages of both, but both have drawbacks too.
H
Never ever kick or pound on a charging handle to clear a case stuck in the chamber. Use the pogo maneuver (or what AR guys call "mortaring") instead. Kicking or pounding will damage the charging handle and will make a stuck case worse
Never ever kick or pound on a charging handle to clear a case stuck in the chamber. Use the pogo maneuver (or what AR guys call "mortaring") instead. Kicking or pounding will damage the charging handle and will make a stuck case worse
I agree that most NRCH won't stand such treatment.
Not really a problem on a AK, Sig 550, FNC, SCAR, SKS, or Galil.
H
Kicking or pounding on the charging handle, regardless of charging handle type, will only make the problem worse. It's more likely to cause damage to the rifle and more likely to cause the extractor to jump the rim or tear the rim off. "Kicking open the action" is clearly on the "Don't Ever Do This To Your Rifle" list no matter how solid you think your charging handle is
Kicking or pounding on the charging handle, regardless of charging handle type, will only make the problem worse. It's more likely to cause damage to the rifle and more likely to cause the extractor to jump the rim or tear the rim off. "Kicking open the action" is clearly on the "Don't Ever Do This To Your Rifle" list no matter how solid you think your charging handle is
Yep, it is. But IMHO it is stupid because you would typically be looking into the muzzle of your weapon whilst doing so.
With AK I have seen malfunction clearances been done against anything from tables and door frames to concrete walls and I do think you really can't damage the gun by banging the CH. (AK can be hanged from a tree by smashing the CH in it, seen that too.)
BTW. BM ACR sports a NRCH which can be used as a forward assist.
Whoa. Hold on there buddy.
AKs don't malfunction. Just ask anyone that has one. Most reliable firearm in the world.
Yep, it is. But IMHO it is stupid because you would typically be looking into the muzzle of your weapon whilst doing so.
With AK I have seen malfunction clearances been done against anything from tables and door frames to concrete walls and I do think you really can't damage the gun by banging the CH. (AK can be hanged from a tree by smashing the CH in it, seen that too.)
BTW. BM ACR sports a NRCH which can be used as a forward assist.
:nono:
Did you see that being done by firearms trainers/ experienced and educated operators or by Somali pirates/Afghani rednecks or similar riff-raff?
Doing that to ANY weapon is full-on retard, similar to kicking a dog or slapping a baby seal.
Edit: just to piss you off. AK does not mind if you clear a malfunction by kicking the CH, it simply does not care. I do not advocate banging of the CH, but I see no problem using eg. door frame and pushing against it. That'd be perfectly fine way to remove a stuck casing. I've also seen an ex-AK user try the same on an AR, which resulted in bent upper. There is a slight difference in durability of the two.
sinlessorrow
08-19-13, 15:07
Edit: just to piss you off. AK does not mind if you clear a malfunction by kicking the CH, it simply does not care. I do not advocate banging of the CH, but I see no problem using eg. door frame and pushing against it. That'd be perfectly fine way to remove a stuck casing. I've also seen an ex-AK user try the same on an AR, which resulted in bent upper. There is a slight difference in durability of the two.
A bent upper from kickin the CH? That makes no sense.
AK does not mind if you clear a malfunction by kicking the CH, it simply does not care.
AKs and Honey Badgers.
They just don't care.
I always thought the least amount of mass moving the better. Also, with the NRCH there is less parts to wear out.
The AR charging handle was made to be pulled, not kicked or pushed. It is not built for the abuse that a forward assist or bolt carrier is made to handle. That is the nature of the beast.
In my opinion, a reciprocating charging handle on top of the receiver forward of the rear sight assembly would be the way to go. It would not snag on a barricade and you would not have to break your shooting position to manipulate the charging handle. The rifle could be rotated 90 degrees and the charging handle bumped against a barricade to clear a tough malfunction.
I have seen AK's and PKM's that were damaged by people kickstarting them when there was a stuck casing.
I'll bet that most AR's issues (such as a stuck casing) are due to out of spec chambers more so than anything else. JM2CW.
Very good analysis.
I've added a few comment in RED
NRCH advantages:
1)Can be made folding easily, reducing snag potential.
2)Nothing is moving outside the gun, so hitting the CH during firing isn't a problem. Operator can't get caught up in the moving CH.
3)CH can cover the required slot (Uzi, FAL).
Slot in the AR is just a hole at the rear of the receiver and IS covered by the handle. (AR)
4)CH is always in the same place for user to grab.
5) CH can be easily upgraded ( Gunfighter, Raptor )
6) CH is typically easier to use with either hand / ambi
NRCH disadvantages:
1)More complex than RCH. Even more parts if CH incorporates FA function. (AR CH part count should really include the FA part count if you're comparing, since the AR splits those two functions).
2)Typically not as strong as a RCH. NRCHs just aren't as robustly made as the parts are smaller. You might be able to kick a FAL open a few times but don't try that on a AR.
3)Not useful for diagnostics. CH is always in the same place so you don't have a additional clue as to what type of stoppage you have.
4)Requires additional manipulation to engage FA function. Push, turn, pull, there is almost always additional activity required to get a NRCH to engage as a FA.
H
Yes, the AR's rear set CH is an example of the CH covering its slot into the rifle.
But I'm not sure that a left handed person would agree that a stock AR CH is lefty friendly.
H
sinlessorrow
08-20-13, 00:43
Yes, the AR's rear set CH is an example of the CH covering its slot into the rifle.
But I'm not sure that a left handed person would agree that a stock AR CH is lefty friendly.
H
maybe not the stock, but there is a plethora of ambi ones that are $40 and under.
maybe not the stock, but there is a plethora of ambi ones that are $40 and under.
But is it lefty friendly to make a left handed guy buy another part?
If I have a rack of ten rifles, it's likely that one of those is going to a left handed guy. Do I put ambi CH on all the rifles or is the southpaw screwed?
Another consideration is that a ambi CH is going to have more parts and possibly be more fragile than the stock part.
H
vicious_cb
08-20-13, 02:16
But is it lefty friendly to make a left handed guy buy another part?
If I have a rack of ten rifles, it's likely that one of those is going to a left handed guy. Do I put ambi CH on all the rifles or is the southpaw screwed?
Another consideration is that a ambi CH is going to have more parts and possibly be more fragile than the stock part.
H
Using that logic the AK would be unfriendly to right handed users. :rolleyes:
Using that logic the AK would be unfriendly to right handed users. :rolleyes:
Only if you're going to try to run a AK like an AR. The AK's trigger, safety, CH, and mag release are all located within inches of each other and are very accessible to the right hand.
Which works for both left handed and right handed people.
H
sinlessorrow
08-20-13, 11:14
But is it lefty friendly to make a left handed guy buy another part?
If I have a rack of ten rifles, it's likely that one of those is going to a left handed guy. Do I put ambi CH on all the rifles or is the southpaw screwed?
Another consideration is that a ambi CH is going to have more parts and possibly be more fragile than the stock part.
H
Except things like the Ranier arms and BCM CH are actually vastly superior to the stock one.
vicious_cb
08-21-13, 05:35
The AR charging handle was made to be pulled, not kicked or pushed. It is not built for the abuse that a forward assist or bolt carrier is made to handle. That is the nature of the beast.
In my opinion, a reciprocating charging handle on top of the receiver forward of the rear sight assembly would be the way to go. It would not snag on a barricade and you would not have to break your shooting position to manipulate the charging handle. The rifle could be rotated 90 degrees and the charging handle bumped against a barricade to clear a tough malfunction.
Look how well that turned out on the G36. :rolleyes:
Now you have to have a bridge rail over the top of the entire receiver to mount optics which now puts them at a stupidly tall height over bore, not to mention good luck getting a proper cheek weld.
Not quite sure what this thread is about. RCH are stupid and there is a reason why most every newly designed combat rifle doesn't have one. Of course the exception being the SCAR which is flip flop design in the first place where even the end users aren't sure what features they want or don't want as evidenced by the changes back and forth on selector lever.
RCH on the aforementioned SCAR, Beretta ARX 160, CZ-805, INSAS, and the FX-05.
But besides those stupid rifles with stupid RCHs nobody designs new rifles with RCH.
H
A bent upper from kickin the CH? That makes no sense.
No, he didn't kick it, he slammed the CH against a barricade in a 3-gun match to clear a malfunction. He used the Force, young Padawan, and it was strong with him.
We were too busy laughing our arses off to bother what he actually bent. In any case his BCG started to to bind and he had to DNF due the gun being inoperable.
vicious_cb
08-21-13, 14:06
RCH on the aforementioned SCAR, Beretta ARX 160, CZ-805, INSAS, and the FX-05.
But besides those stupid rifles with stupid RCHs nobody designs new rifles with RCH.
H
I already mentioned the identity crisis SCAR. As for the beretta and CZ I have no idea they have no idea about their function nor do I have any interest in them. I guess you would have to wait a few years down the line to see how successful these design will actually be.
Are you really going to include the indian potmetal gun as modern? Or the new cartel/mexcian army gun as a serious contender?
Again RCHs are stupid, this not just my opinion but go look up the review of the SCAR from someone who as actually issued the weapon on deployment in afghanistan. Most every assessment from SMEs who actually have experience with the SCAR mirror this sentiment.
I don't care for the RCH. Too many problems that are well documented. Ambi charging handles for the AR designs, like the Raptor, I have not had enough time with to form an opinion. But no problems from the few hundred rounds I have shot.
Looking at the track record of the AK, I would not have a problem with a hard mortar or even a piece of wood and a hammer. But kicking any CH is bordering on insanity.
sinlessorrow
08-21-13, 16:49
No, he didn't kick it, he slammed the CH against a barricade in a 3-gun match to clear a malfunction. He used the Force, young Padawan, and it was strong with him.
We were too busy laughing our arses off to bother what he actually bent. In any case his BCG started to to bind and he had to DNF due the gun being inoperable.
I still have my doubts no offense. The upper is much thicker and the thin aluminum CH would bend well before the upper. Also what kind of stoppage was this? Never seen one mortaring wouldnt clear.
I still have my doubts no offense. The upper is much thicker and the thin aluminum CH would bend well before the upper. Also what kind of stoppage was this? Never seen one mortaring wouldnt clear.
I had a steel case stuck in my chamber that wouldn't pogo. The extractor tore the rim off. I took a 8" length of drill rod that just fit inside the bore and tossed it down a few times until it knocked the case out.
If you read what Jippo wrote, you'll see he wasn't sure it was the upper that bent, but something did and knocked the rifle out of commission. Banging away with the rifle on a barricade like a caveman will bend or break something!:)
Look how well that turned out on the G36. :rolleyes:
Now you have to have a bridge rail over the top of the entire receiver to mount optics which now puts them at a stupidly tall height over bore, not to mention good luck getting a proper cheek weld.
Not quite sure what this thread is about. RCH are stupid and there is a reason why most every newly designed combat rifle doesn't have one. Of course the exception being the SCAR which is flip flop design in the first place where even the end users aren't sure what features they want or don't want as evidenced by the changes back and forth on selector lever.
A carbine with a well designed topside charging handle would look nothing like the G36.
Suwannee Tim
08-24-13, 20:23
I don't care for the RCH. Too many problems that are well documented.......
Elaborate please.
That needs more, sorry. RCH on CERTAIN platforms tend to be Rube Goldberg machines. I should have said there is too much that can go wrong that was documented. I prefer a simple set up. That's pretty much it.
OP you posted-
"RCH disadvantages:
2)Possibility of causing stoppages. Get that RCH too near cover (or your thumb) and you will make the rifle quit working."
With no experiences with AR RCH's I thought the same at first, but later changed my mind- if the charging handle is on the same side as the ejection port (as it would be for a left handed shooter) wouldn't you run similar risks with ejecting brass and dust cover not opening? One advantage I think you should add to your list is a faster reload. I wished I had got one of the LAR Grizzly OPS-4 left handed side chargers when they were making them. I kind of like the idea of a side charger and have wanted to make a 14.5 l/w mid-length w/ a RCH just to experiment. I am seriously interested in the well-documented problems with side chargers or RCH's, please point me in the right direction, I have not even been able to find any un-documented problems with them on the internet.
OP you posted-
"RCH disadvantages:
2)Possibility of causing stoppages. Get that RCH too near cover (or your thumb) and you will make the rifle quit working."
With no experiences with AR RCH's I thought the same at first, but later changed my mind- if the charging handle is on the same side as the ejection port (as it would be for a left handed shooter) wouldn't you run similar risks with ejecting brass and dust cover not opening? One advantage I think you should add to your list is a faster reload. I wished I had got one of the LAR Grizzly OPS-4 left handed side chargers when they were making them. I kind of like the idea of a side charger and have wanted to make a 14.5 l/w mid-length w/ a RCH just to experiment. I am seriously interested in the well-documented problems with side chargers or RCH's, please point me in the right direction, I have not even been able to find any un-documented problems with them on the internet.
RCHs on ARs seem like as much of a kludge as a AK with a NRCH. I was generally speaking about rifles as they were designed. I have no experience with RCHs on ARs.
H
Suwannee Tim
08-25-13, 04:25
..........I am seriously interested in the well-documented problems with side chargers or RCH's, please point me in the right direction, I have not even been able to find any un-documented problems with them on the internet.
As am I. I have read over and over again the assertion that there is something wrong with a reciprocating charging handle and over and over references to some vague authority to back up the assertions, seems like never any substance.
Failure2Stop
08-25-13, 08:51
As am I. I have read over and over again the assertion that there is something wrong with a reciprocating charging handle and over and over references to some vague authority to back up the assertions, seems like never any substance.
I've seen quite a few stoppages induced by shooters on the SCAR and AK family by placing the support hand in a bad position, or by placing the CH in a position to be interrupted by the environment. None of these were observed with an experienced shooter with more than a few hours of training on the platform.
It is something that can go wrong; training reduces that potential problem.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
It only takes a shot or two of the M14 to teach shooters to keep their fingers clear of the op-rod
vicious_cb
08-25-13, 14:49
As am I. I have read over and over again the assertion that there is something wrong with a reciprocating charging handle and over and over references to some vague authority to back up the assertions, seems like never any substance.
The issue isnt so much as the fact that it has a reciprocating CH, its that the end users arent very enamored with the performance as a whole with the SCAR. Look up Monty's posts here, he was heavily involved in the SCAR testing phase or the observations of the guys on SOCnet. If anything the CH issue is probably a small footnote in a list of the many problems of the SCAR program.
Suwannee Tim
08-26-13, 12:44
I've seen quite a few stoppages induced by shooters on the SCAR and AK family by placing the support hand in a bad position.......
You raise a question I have always wondered about. What does it do to the thumb of the poor fool who grips, say a SCAR with his thumb behind the operating handle? I shoot my SCAR pretty regular and let others shoot it often too. I always caution them to keep clear of the handle. I have no idea what the charging handle would or would not do to a thumb.
Failure2Stop
08-26-13, 12:51
You raise a question I have always wondered about. What does it do to the thumb of the poor fool who grips, say a SCAR with his thumb behind the operating handle? I shoot my SCAR pretty regular and let others shoot it often too. I always caution them to keep clear of the handle. I have no idea what the charging handle would or would not do to a thumb.
Less than taking an SA80 CH to the face, but more than hitting the sharp edge of a magazine during TRB.
Think "stubbing a toe".
It's survivable.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Suwannee Tim
08-26-13, 12:54
Subject came up elsewhere in the context of why the AR has a NRCH vs the other choices Stoner could have made..........
I don't think the OP's question has been answered so I'll try. Lots of folks more knowledgeable on the history of the AR than me and if I'm wrong please weigh in. The origonal AR10 had a charging handle under the carry handle near the front. The charging handle got too hot to use so the design was changed to the familiar T shaped charging handle. Here is a Wikipedia photo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/AR-10_in_the_National_Firearms_Museum.jpg
Stoner's design objective was to have a mechanism almost perfectly balanced around the axis of the bore, every other feature was subject to this objective. A reciprocating charging handle would have violated this objective.
I admit I don't know if this original charging handle reciprocates. Anyone know the answer to that?
Suwannee Tim
08-26-13, 12:59
.......Think "stubbing a toe".
It's survivable......
That's good to know. I have worried about someone hurting themselves shooting my SCAR. I let a 15 year old shoot my 458 Lott a couple of weeks ago and he got a little scope cut. :sad: I've been waiting for his Mommy's lawyer to send me a subpoena.
I've seen quite a few stoppages induced by shooters on the SCAR and AK family by placing the support hand in a bad position, or by placing the CH in a position to be interrupted by the environment. None of these were observed with an experienced shooter with more than a few hours of training on the platform.
It is something that can go wrong; training reduces that potential problem.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I have seen this with the M1A as well.
While trying the once popular mag well hold (left handed) I had a tendency, at first, for my thumb to cover the ejection port. I recall thinking "this ain't good" and moving my thumb before firing but wouldn't the thumb induce a similar stoppage or is brass ejecting with enough force to prevent this?
sinlessorrow
08-26-13, 14:56
I don't think the OP's question has been answered so I'll try. Lots of folks more knowledgeable on the history of the AR than me and if I'm wrong please weigh in. The origonal AR10 had a charging handle under the carry handle near the front. The charging handle got too hot to use so the design was changed to the familiar T shaped charging handle. Here is a Wikipedia photo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/AR-10_in_the_National_Firearms_Museum.jpg
Stoner's design objective was to have a mechanism almost perfectly balanced around the axis of the bore, every other feature was subject to this objective. A reciprocating charging handle would have violated this objective.
I admit I don't know if this original charging handle reciprocates. Anyone know the answer to that?
The original did not reciprocate and honeslty was the same as it is now. The only diff was where the latch was located.
On the original when you charged it the rod would come out and over the stock, this also left a gap in the upper where elements could enter.
The current design is superior to the original.
http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dugds.jpg
Whoops looks like thats a revised version. Here is the original CH.
These were not attached and instead seperate halves. None of the pics are mine.
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/10long_zpsc2b076f0.jpg
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/10under_zpseafd7698.jpg
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/10plunger_zps40036f62.jpg
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/10closed_zpsa5101c4f.jpg
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/10open_zps478cd623.jpg
Suwannee Tim
08-26-13, 16:52
The original did not reciprocate and honeslty was the same as it is now. The only diff was where the latch was located......
And where the operator grabbed it with his finger, near the area heated by hot gas. My understanding is the latch got hot which is why it was moved.
Interesting photos. Thanx.
Mall_Ninja
08-26-13, 22:07
RCH is just one more thing that "can" go wrong in a hasty gun fight. The current setup with F/A is much "safer" in that regards.
The only time charging handles break is when the Recon-Delta-SEAL mall ninja commandos are doing their super koolaide open palm tactical slam charges in the living room for their friends and female spectators.
Use the charging handle like it was designed and not how YouTube teaches it and there is no issue...
RCH is just one more thing that "can" go wrong in a hasty gun fight. The current setup with F/A is much "safer" in that regards.
The only time charging handles break is when the Recon-Delta-SEAL mall ninja commandos are doing their super koolaide open palm tactical slam charges in the living room for their friends and female spectators.
Use the charging handle like it was designed and not how YouTube teaches it and there is no issue...
It should be pretty clear that the AR CH was designed to be used with the two finger method, using the right hand if you're right handed, left if you're a lefty. The currently popular method of righties using the left hand wasn't original, it's a technique that was developed later.
Also, separating the CH and FA functionality isn't great design. It requires training to learn that you use one control to move the BCG one way and a different control, located in a different area, to make it go forward.
H
sinlessorrow
08-26-13, 23:24
It should be pretty clear that the AR CH was designed to be used with the two finger method, using the right hand if you're right handed, left if you're a lefty. The currently popular method of righties using the left hand wasn't original, it's a technique that was developed later.
Also, separating the CH and FA functionality isn't great design. It requires training to learn that you use one control to move the BCG one way and a different control, located in a different area, to make it go forward.
H
Honestly the standard CH on the AR is pretty durable and newer ones are near indestructible.
As for the FA......There is no reason to ever use it. Stoner did not even want it on the rifle that was the Army. If you are using the FA to jam rounds into the chamber youve got bigger problems. If your gun is having issues chambering a round due to lack of lubricant recharging the rifle works just fine. There is honestly no reason for the FA on the AR.
There are reasons that might force one to try a FA:
1) rifle is has enough dirt, dust or mud in it that the BCG won't close.
2) post chamber check
3) to allow water to drain after rifle is submerged
4) the rifle might just be that dry, especially combined with 1) and a lack of time to relubricate and/or clean.
Not all shooting happens on sunny days at the range, at bulls-eyes at a known distance.
Personally, I think the FA hardly needs to be used. But, if you really need to force the BCG shut, it's your only choice.
For example, w/o using the RCH as a FA I would only have got one round out of this Mini-14 after it got dirty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfqZFWpk9s
H
Mall_Ninja
08-27-13, 13:45
As for the FA......There is no reason to ever use it.
Jessica Lynch would argue otherwise... :p
sinlessorrow
08-27-13, 14:15
Jessica Lynch would argue otherwise... :p
http://hypixel.net/attachments/double_facepalm-jpg.3617/
Mall_Ninja
08-27-13, 15:14
http://hypixel.net/attachments/double_facepalm-jpg.3617/
HAHAHA exactly! :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.