View Full Version : Carry handle question
Hi guys, I recently picked up a Colt AR-15A4. It's my first carry handle.
Using a bubble level the front sight seems level as is the handguard and rail on the upper. When carefully mounted, the top of the carry handle isn't level -- and that doesn't seem like a big deal.
However, the rear sight has some play and is oriented toward 11 o'clock. Is there a way to straighten it? It took 9 clicks to the right to correct the windage at 25 meters and one more at 100 yards. That seems excessive. Snap sight picture is awkward with this setting too.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/rouW4v4dzJLV1f5T8
I would contact Colt about fixing this under warranty. This is not your job to make their stuff work correctly. And it's not an AK where canted sights and wonky rear sight blocks are considered "in spec."
the AR-15 Junkie
07-18-22, 05:38
Hi guys, I recently picked up a Colt AR-15A4. It's my first carry handle.
Using a bubble level the front sight seems level as is the handguard and rail on the upper. When carefully mounted, the top of the carry handle isn't level -- and that doesn't seem like a big deal.
However, the rear sight has some play and is oriented toward 11 o'clock. Is there a way to straighten it? It took 9 clicks to the right to correct the windage at 25 meters and one more at 100 yards. That seems excessive. Snap sight picture is awkward with this setting too.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/rouW4v4dzJLV1f5T8
The rear sight oriented towards 11 o clock is normal and believe it or not, is how they are designed. As to the rest of your questions, I couldnt say without seeing it. Get Colt involved would be your best option.
https://i.imgur.com/KEuBy1L.jpg
bamashooter
07-18-22, 08:01
There is nothing wrong though I have always found that spec to be garbage and unacceptable for me. I've had 2 civilian guns do that. One had 1 clicks remaining and the other only 2. Should be better from any manufacturer, however, the windage is "in-spec" if you achieve successful target engagements. More times than not, to either correct a windage adjustment problem or, to satisfy OCDness, a simple facing / lapping / truing of the upper rcvr face will bring you to center or very near center. The other part of the rear sight that drives those unfamiliar with the carry handle (fixed / detachable) design is the intentionally-engineered, wiggleness, looseness, etc of the rear sight assembly. Some actually shim them but totally unnecessary.
Not seeing the issue here, everything appears normal.
You could always try a different carry handle and that's what I'd do first to see if I could get the windage more centered. The way Colt installs FSBs leaves very little room for alignment error.
Eurodriver
07-18-22, 08:44
That is 100% normal.
Colt will not care.
Get your nose up on that charging handle when zeroing A2 sights.
While it looks off, it should function correctly. It looks more or less like hundreds of other rifles I've seen, and should not affect the function. Just get the rifle zeroed and note how many clicks from the left you are.
Also, congrats on picking up a nice rifle. A 20" A4 style Colt is on my bucket list.
Guys how is Colt on legit warranty work? I thought for a while they were MIA?
PB
Eurodriver
07-18-22, 12:07
Guys how is Colt on legit warranty work? I thought for a while they were MIA?
PB
I sent them a 6920 that Id ran over
. It took a long time if I recall. Like 3-4 months. But they fixed it.
Sometimes you have to run things over.
Thank you for all the replies. Kinda sad to learn to learn this about the carry handle sight.
It's not super important, but I was looking for a nice change of pace from the 16" Colt that I made into a nine pounder. Something pure.
If your picture shows the rear sight as it's sighted in then I say you are doing pretty good. I have had many A2 sights that didn't sight in anywhere close to that centered but worked just fine. In the old days people would whack the front sight with a hammer or just keep trying A2 sights/A4 carry handles until something lined up.
It's an AR invented for guys to carry into battle made by the lowest bidder, not a Swiss watch [emoji39]
Dennis.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
In the old days people would whack the front sight with a hammer.
Still amazes me that people thought that was a good idea, and I remember it was recommended a lot. :blink:
One of the many reasons I will never buy used ARs.
Look through the sights not at them, you'll notice your target better.
I thought there was a spec for how close actual zero should be to mechanical zero, but I can't remember it off the top my head and a quick google didn't reveal it. I pulled out my parts built A4 and my carry handle sight is run about 3/4 of the way to the left to be zeroed. My rear sight assembly has the same slight cant, but it's not an issue for me. I actually enjoy shooting carry handle irons a lot--I'm halfway searching for an A2 to be a dedicated iron sight gun, because I kind of want to build my A4 in to GWOT style set-up with an ACOG and an M5 quad rail, but I haven't done it yet because I like shooting the carry handle so much.
If you're not happy with the rifle I'd contact Colt. If you are new to shooting a carry handle, it might be worth letting someone with more experience on an M16 style gun check yours out and see what they think.
100% normal. Every Colt carry handle I've owned was cockeyed like that. Or oriented towards 11 o'clock, there's spring pressure pushing it that way, and the play is normal. It's one of those things where you go "huh, that's weird..." then you go shoot the gun and never think about it again. At least I never thought about it again until this thread popped up.
I sent them a 6920 that Id ran over
. It took a long time if I recall. Like 3-4 months. But they fixed it.
Waaaaita minute, a couple years ago you were posting about running over a 6920 with a SUV and saying it worked fine.
I remember because I got sick of reading about it and put together a PSA 6920 clone to do the same thing. Problem is that it shot so good that I decided to keep it and not risk effing it up.
@Dennis I put windage at the center notch for the photo. I'm glad it's not a big deal. Thanks again, guys.
It sounds and looks normal to me.
100% normal / within spec. Welcome to the A2 / A3 sighting system.
When the M16 Product Improvement Program of the early 1980's was cranking up The Army pretty much gave the Marine Corps a free hand in most of the details. The Marine Corps pretty much handed it to the competition gurus at Quantico. There are a few things which ended up in the final M-16 A2 configuration that can lead to some "head scratching" when viewed through a gun-fighters eye. When viewed through the eye of a service rifle competition shooter things make slightly more sense. But like the man said ".... We ain't going to Wyoming to shoot canteens boy...."
Bottom line the A2 sights work VERY well for the service rifle precision critera of that era. Canted rear base and all. If they hadn't The boys at MTU Quantico would have had changes made quicker then a jack rabbit gets a date.
Back in the day Armalite was offering a "National Match" base which had a spring and detent on both the right and left sides. It was a decent product that worked well - got rid of the cant for us OCD types - which as previously pointed out is from spring tension on just one side. If memory serves they only offered this for the A2, and not the detachable handle
Some actually shim them but totally unnecessary.
But wouldn't that at least marginally improve accuracy?
(New guy here who just got a mil-spec PSA carry handle sight for a PSA M4 build, and I thought something was wrong with the sight. Joined the Forum to bring up that very question and then spotted this thread.)
But wouldn't that at least marginally improve accuracy?
(New guy here who just got a mil-spec PSA carry handle sight for a PSA M4 build, and I thought something was wrong with the sight. Joined the Forum to bring up that very question and then spotted this thread.)
Yes.
Pinning is how places like CLE do it currently (and for a good many years now). They are not shimming or using 2 detents as the other guy mentioned.
Yes.
Pinning is how places like CLE do it currently (and for a good many years now). They are not shimming or using 2 detents as the other guy mentioned.
The thought of shimming was intuitive to me as I would see a gap open on the right when I would mash the platform back that way; I have a gap gauge and found a range of thickness that would keep the gap from closing completely and hold everything in line.
What exactly is pinning? Putting a little "door stop" in there somewhere to inhibit the leftward movement of the right side of the platform?
And finally, does CLE refer to Compass Lake Engineering?
Why anyone would shim or whatever is curious. The sight pivots on the center of the apperture, so shimming doesn't accomplish anything.
I know the Camp Perry type shooters have more precise sight rigs, but for non-competition shooting, there's no need to modify an "in-spec" sight system.
I did have a piece of shit bushmaster where the rear sight would track off to the right as it dialed up. I refused to accept it for a long time until I set up paper at 50 or 100 and watched the bullet holes drift up and right as I dialed the sight up.
100% normal. Every Colt carry handle I've owned was cockeyed like that. Or oriented towards 11 o'clock, there's spring pressure pushing it that way, and the play is normal. It's one of those things where you go "huh, that's weird..." then you go shoot the gun and never think about it again. At least I never thought about it again until this thread popped up.
We're in an ARFCOM wormhole back to like 2005. I think most people new to the A2/A4 sight look it over with some curiosity.
But now, most shooters have an RDS or some sight, and never shoot iron field sights... let alone dial for distance. It's fun marksmanship shooting and stretches your rifle reach.
The sight pivots on the center of the apperture, so shimming doesn't accomplish anything.
Wouldn't it allow you to sight through a circle instead of an ellipse?
Wouldn't it allow you to sight through a circle instead of an ellipse?
The center of an oval (if you can even tell while firing) is the same as the center of a circle. I've fired out to 500yds on known distance ranges and approx 500yds on unknown distance and it didn't make a practical difference. The rack grade rifle still made hits to the capability of the ammo. To reliably produce a basketball size group on target at those ranges is obtained by properly dialing windage and elevation combined with basic fundamentals.
Wouldn't it allow you to sight through a circle instead of an ellipse?
The app simply does not can't that much.
The center of an oval . . . is the same as the center of a circle.
But you get more light through the circle, and the light is more equidistantly distributed around the tip of the sight post. And my poor old eyes need all the light they can get.
But you get more light through the circle, and the light is more equidistantly distributed around the tip of the sight post. And my poor old eyes need all the light they can get.
My eyes too. But the can't is negligible. At least on my guns.
I really don't think that if I were on the gun and I reached up and turned the sight that I could tell the difference.
The app simply does not can't that much.
Are you okay?
That's a standard A2 / A4 rear sight.
There were two ways to fix it for those with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or National Match shooters.
1. Weld a small "Tit" on the right side of the housing and file it down to ensure the housing is exactly parallel with the handle's U-notch, or
2. Have a machinist drill straight down the observation hole in the top of the sight and insert a pin to ensure the sight has no left-right movement. This one is double-pinned:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/pinned_rear_sight_jpg-2462316.JPG
These practices have pretty much "Gone away" now that National Match shooters use 4.5-power telescopes.
Eurodriver
07-22-22, 20:03
That's a standard A2 / A4 rear sight.
There were two ways to fix it for those with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or National Match shooters.
1. Weld a small "Tit" on the right side of the housing and file it down to ensure the housing is exactly parallel with the handle's U-notch, or
2. Have a machinist drill straight down the observation hole in the top of the sight and insert a pin to ensure the sight has no left-right movement. This one is double-pinned:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/pinned_rear_sight_jpg-2462316.JPG
These practices have pretty much "Gone away" now that National Match shooters use 4.5-power telescopes.
Why does that drum have a 0 on it
Why does that drum have a 0 on itIsn't the National match drum marked in number of clicks, starting at zero?
So my guess is it's a NM drum
The center of an oval . . . is the same as the center of a circle.
Since we're talking here about the line of sight passing through the center of the circle/oval, I'd like to ask a peripheral question about the line of sight in relation to a mil-spec carry handle: What exactly is the vertical distance between the center of the long-distance aperture and the bore axis at mechanical zero? I've come across "about 2.5 inches" and "about 2.6 inches." Shouldn't there be a little more precision here?
Isn't the National match drum marked in number of clicks, starting at zero?
So my guess is it's a NM drum
Yes. Some sort of competition sight. You can tell by the app in the base... Now with that App, you might not want any sight base cant due to it's length.
But you get more light through the circle, and the light is more equidistantly distributed around the tip of the sight post. And my poor old eyes need all the light they can get.
Yes, I was talking about Compass Lake earlier.
All of my hooded rear sight bases from them have interchangeable apertures. You can fine tune exactly how much light you want coming through. And no, they don't have to be 'pinned' to be hooded like that and still work well.
https://i.imgur.com/vkyPyhx.jpg
With the exception of Sinister - You got lots of guys posting here that have no hands on experience with these. It is fairly obvious from the comments.
I don't know what CLE does these days but back in the early 2000s White Oak Armament was the place to go if you wanted rear sights pinned. I recall it being common knowledge back then that this was purely an OCD type thing. Many high master class shooters had uppers with and without pinned sights and they were definitely not considered a mandatory addition.
However if having such things perfect and square improves your outlook on your equipment and your performance and you have the scratch to spend doing it ....and youre sure the money wouldnt be better spent on ammunition/practice, then I'd get it done. They can definitely inspire confidence.
Your rear sight it fine. Shoot it and you will see it only affects the OCD.
I spoke to Frank at CLE at his shop in late 2001 about pinning the rear sight. He said it was not necessary. He showed me on my upper the amount of deviation in the spring holding the rear sight in position. He put a gauge on it and it returned to zero every time.
He did say if I wanted my sights to send the to White Oak (John Hollenger). He did not provide the service.
There was a shooter at Perry whose rear sight was pinned which took a tumble in the pits. It fell on the rear sight bending the pins.
I hope this helps.
Dan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since we're talking here about the line of sight passing through the center of the circle/oval, I'd like to ask a peripheral question about the line of sight in relation to a mil-spec carry handle: What exactly is the vertical distance between the center of the long-distance aperture and the bore axis at mechanical zero? I've come across "about 2.5 inches" and "about 2.6 inches." Shouldn't there be a little more precision here?
With the M16A2 and its style of sight the height of the aperture is quite variable.
M16/M16A1
Rear Sight (short) = 2.567"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.576"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.553"
M16A2 (rear sight base fully down)
Rear Sight (short) = 2.565"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.580"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.598"
M4 Detachable Carry Handle (rear sight base fully down)
Rear Sight (short) = 2.608"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.623"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.630"
(All +/- 0.015" to 0.020" for tolerances)
Rifleman_04
07-25-22, 10:47
When the M16 Product Improvement Program of the early 1980's was cranking up The Army pretty much gave the Marine Corps a free hand in most of the details. The Marine Corps pretty much handed it to the competition gurus at Quantico. There are a few things which ended up in the final M-16 A2 configuration that can lead to some "head scratching" when viewed through a gun-fighters eye. When viewed through the eye of a service rifle competition shooter things make slightly more sense. But like the man said ".... We ain't going to Wyoming to shoot canteens boy....
False. The project was handed over to a Marine infantry officer with combat experience in Vietnam. The rear sight was taken from a Colt LMG prototype with zero input from competition shooters.
False. The project was handed over to a Marine infantry officer with combat experience in Vietnam. The rear sight was taken from a Colt LMG prototype with zero input from competition shooters.
The basics go way, way back . . .
https://i.imgur.com/FgXZtIB.png
I would say the rear sights of the Colt LMG and the M16A2 are concurrent designs. The M16A1E1 was being designed and built around 1979-80, the patent for the LMG, showing the new rear sight was filed in 1981.
Rifleman_04
07-25-22, 14:57
Always appreciate your contributions, Lysander.
I was referring to David Lutz saying in an interview he copied the rear sight almost directly from the LMG prototype at the Colt factory sometime between that 80-83 time frame.
Edit to add: According to ColdBlue(Col. Lutz) on arfcom the A2 rear sight was added to the prototype E1 receivers at Colt in 1982.
With the M16A2 and its style of sight the height of the aperture is quite variable.
M16/M16A1
Rear Sight (short) = 2.567"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.576"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.553"
M16A2 (rear sight base fully down)
Rear Sight (short) = 2.565"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.580"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.598"
M4 Detachable Carry Handle (rear sight base fully down)
Rear Sight (short) = 2.608"
Rear Sight (long) = 2.623"
Front Sight (base flush) = 2.630"
(All +/- 0.015" to 0.020" for tolerances)
Thank you so much. That is exactly what I was looking for.
Always appreciate your contributions, Lysander.
I was referring to David Lutz saying in an interview he copied the rear sight almost directly from the LMG prototype at the Colt factory sometime between that 80-83 time frame.
Edit to add: According to ColdBlue(Col. Lutz) on arfcom the A2 rear sight was added to the prototype E1 receivers at Colt in 1982.
"Final Report Technical Feasibility Test of M16A1E1 Rifle, period covered- December 1981 through November 1982" by M.K. Humphreville and G.B. Niewenhouse, APG, MD, Published Feb 1983.
"With the expected US approval of STANAG 4172, a strong consideration was given to changing the barrel twist on the M16A1 to a 1 in 7 configuration to accommodate the heavier SS109 type round. In the process of producing a barrel with different rifling, the opportunity to strengthen this new barrel to correct δ bending problem was also implemented. These two improvements, plus improved plastic handguards and buttstock, constitute the primary emphasis of this modification. The US Marine Corps fully supported the use of the heavy bullet. Accordingly, the Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) office at ARRADCOM procured modified M16A1 rifles (designated M16A1E1) that incorporated those potential improvements for evaluation.
"Prior to the start of testing three other components were added. These included a muzzle brake compensator (MBC), a burst control device (BCD) that limits automatic fire to 3-round bursts, and an adjustable rear sight (ARS) that allows adjustment out to 800 meters.
"These modified rifles (M16A1E1) and the standard rifle (M16A1) were tested at APG, MD starting in December 1981. Testing was completed in November 1982."
"1.2 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIEL
. . . "The standard rear sight, adjustable for windage only, is replaced on the improved rifles with a sight capable of windage and range adjustments, out to 800 meters. The windage is adjusted by a finger manipulatable knob as opposed to the detent locked, adjustable disk of the standard rifle that required a tool for detent release. With the short range requirements of the standard rifle, this arrangement was rugged and dependable but the proposed longer range requirement of the improved rifle calls for a faster sight adjustment.
"The front sight of the standard and improved rifles are similar in function but the improved post is square in cross section as opposed to round for the standard. It is proposed that this will give better post edge definition to the shooter's eye under a variety of lighting conditions."
The ten M16A1E1s delivered to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in November 1981 had an adjustable rear sight, shown below. The reasoning behind the adjustable rear sight was that the effective range of the new STANAG 4172 bullet was longer than the M193 and and adjustable rear sight was required to take full advantage of that extra 300 yards, as windage would be more important and the drop at 500-600 yards was more that just a flip-type "L" sight could handle.
https://i.imgur.com/KCDqIBT.png
There are a few differences between the M16A1E1 rear sight and the M16A2 rear sight. The windage knob and elevation index were made from plastic, but the biggest difference was the M16A1E1 rear sight had arear viewing hole in the handle so the elevation setting could be seen from the shooting position. There was a problem in that there was an index line on the side of the handle same as the M16A2 and a second set of elevation marking on top of the elevation index. So from the side you could see two elevation numbers that did not agree (see bottom picture).
https://i.imgur.com/WLldHuw.png
https://i.imgur.com/JF6Q4Mx.png
Oh, and another thing -
Most of the M16A2 drawings are dated mid-1982, so the design was pretty much finalized by then.
Wow, can't believe how much information this thread produced. And it's free.
Completely normal, the rear sight has a spring and detent/ball that pushes it towards 11o'clock. As for having to adjust 9 clicks of windage, that's not too bad, as there are about 40 clicks of adjustment from center if you go right or left, so 80+ clicks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.