View Full Version : Difference in Detachable Carry Handles?
No Bananas
07-28-08, 12:16
I was thinking of a detachable carry handle. PK's is $85 (I think it's RRA). BCM's in $109. Is there any real difference in quality and performance, or just in price?
Mil-Spec CHs (like Colt & FN) are 0.040'' taller than commercial one in order to work with taller F-FSBs
so, as far as they're both commercial or mispec there should be no differences
BCM or COLT is all I'd use. I couldn't find anyone selling a Colt when I needed one so I tried BCM.
My BCM zeroed perfectly with my F marked front sight base. The carry handle machining is nicer than my Colts. It's a good unit.
No Bananas
07-28-08, 13:16
So a commercial carry handle won't work w/ a F maked FSB.
Jim M.
So a commercial carry handle won't work w/ a F maked FSB.
Jim M.
It will if you purchase and install a new front sight post (one that is .040" taller).
You may have elevation issues with an off brand. I wouldn't risk it.
Demi,
If one had a commercial handle, removed the rear sight assembly and put a Milspec one in its place woul that not solve the problem? Of course, I just meant that if you already had one and needed to correct it.
I love my BCM carry handle.
Keep in mind though, carrying handles are surpisingly heavy!
Demi,
If one had a commercial handle, removed the rear sight assembly and put a Milspec one in its place woul that not solve the problem? Of course, I just meant that if you already had one and needed to correct it.
Hello,
No, that won't cure it... Because the rear sight assembly isn't the problem. The problem is the commerical handles. Commerical handles have a .040" shorter shelf heigth, ie. the shelf that the sight assembly sit's on is .040" shorter than what it is on a ColtŪ or a TRUE Mil-Spec Handle.
This is what I was trying to convey to you the other day, when you said you had installed A2 barrels in A3/A4 Uppers.
The bottom line is, if you have an F Heigth FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need a Mil-Spec Handle. Or, your gonna wind-up with a front sight post that's too short, that you have backed damn near all the way out in order to achive Zero! Or, you gonna wind-up buying the .040" taller front sight post from Bushmaster, and at least that way, the detent "should" still be engaging the flange on the front sight post when you finally get her Zeroed.
Obviously thow, if you have a flat-top with a Standard FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need the commerical handle.
"F" FSB's are .040" Taller than Standard FSB's, and Mil-Spec Carry Handle's have a .040" Taller Sight Shelf than Commerical Handle's.
Why the hell these sub-quality makers insist on using Std. FSB's on their "just as good as" flat-top rifles & carbines is totally beyond me...
Oh yea... I forgot... it's because they flat don't care and their gonna stick a NON-Mil-Spec handle on it... But don't you worry Mr. Buyer, because it's "just as good as" a __________.
No Bananas
07-28-08, 21:29
Well, I've got my heart set on a LMT upper. I think it's safe to assume that it has an F marked FSB.
LMT are not marked with an "F" as COLT and some others but are the correct "F" milspec height.
Bob,
Thanks for clarifying. I can only assume that the barrels we had must have been correct or no one would have been able to properly zero their rifles. Or maybe it was a fluke...?
Hello,
No, that won't cure it... Because the rear sight assembly isn't the problem. The problem is the commerical handles. Commerical handles have a .040" shorter shelf heigth, ie. the shelf that the sight assembly sit's on is .040" shorter than what it is on a ColtŪ or a TRUE Mil-Spec Handle.
This is what I was trying to convey to you the other day, when you said you had installed A2 barrels in A3/A4 Uppers.
The bottom line is, if you have an F Heigth FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need a Mil-Spec Handle. Or, your gonna wind-up with a front sight post that's too short, that you have backed damn near all the way out in order to achive Zero! Or, you gonna wind-up buying the .040" taller front sight post from Bushmaster, and at least that way, the detent "should" still be engaging the flange on the front sight post when you finally get her Zeroed.
Obviously thow, if you have a flat-top with a Standard FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need the commerical handle.
"F" FSB's are .040" Taller than Standard FSB's, and Mil-Spec Carry Handle's have a .040" Taller Sight Shelf than Commerical Handle's.
Why the hell these sub-quality makers insist on using Std. FSB's on their "just as good as" flat-top rifles & carbines is totally beyond me...
Oh yea... I forgot... it's because they flat don't care and their gonna stick a NON-Mil-Spec handle on it... But don't you worry Mr. Buyer, because it's "just as good as" a __________.
anyone have any experience with the cheaper, but decent looking carry handle made by CAA ..Command Arms???
anyone have any experience with the cheaper, but decent looking carry handle made by CAA ..Command Arms???
Stay away. Apparently they don't use standard numbering on the dials.
Hello,
No, that won't cure it... Because the rear sight assembly isn't the problem. The problem is the commerical handles. Commerical handles have a .040" shorter shelf heigth, ie. the shelf that the sight assembly sit's on is .040" shorter than what it is on a ColtŪ or a TRUE Mil-Spec Handle.
The bottom line is, if you have an F Heigth FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need a Mil-Spec Handle. Or, your gonna wind-up with a front sight post that's too short, that you have backed damn near all the way out in order to achive Zero! Or, you gonna wind-up buying the .040" taller front sight post from Bushmaster, and at least that way, the detent "should" still be engaging the flange on the front sight post when you finally get her Zeroed.
Obviously though, if you have a flat-top with a Standard FSB and want to use a carry handle, then you need the commerical handle.
"F" FSB's are .040" Taller than Standard FSB's, and Mil-Spec Carry Handle's have a .040" Taller Sight Shelf than Commerical Handle's.
This is exactly my experience, but I've got to wonder when Colt designed the CH, why they didn't create it with a shelf height that was compatible with the existing FSB? Seems to me the commercial spec is the more logical way to go. As the milspec stands, two new parts had to be introuduced into the supply system -- a tailored "F" marked FSB and the CH. With the commercial standard, just one part -- the CH. Seems simpler and more logical to me anyway.
Seems simpler and more logical to me anyway.
I'm sure they didn't make it more complex without good reason.
In any case, the price difference between a mil spec CH and the aftermarket crap is so small, it's not even worthy of debate.
Buy a good one.
I'm sure they didn't make it more complex without good reason.
In any case, the price difference between a mil spec CH and the aftermarket crap is so small, it's not even worthy of debate.
Buy a good one.
I'm just wondering what the engineering rationale was.
Do you know in the history of the M16/M4, when the removable carry handle was introduced? Did the introduction of the M4 drive introduction of the RCH, or was the RCH designed prior for some M16 variant? I thought M16A4s came pretty late to the game.
Do you know in the history of the M16/M4, when the removable carry handle was introduced?
No. Scottryan or Ekie might. They're the Colt experts. ;)
I'm just thinking that there has to be a reason. They probably couldn't fit the A2 sight assembly into the carry handle. You do lose a lot of room when you go from a one piece upper to a flat top. :confused:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.