Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Difference in Detachable Carry Handles?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0
    LMT are not marked with an "F" as COLT and some others but are the correct "F" milspec height.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    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...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Reed View Post
    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 Colt® 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 __________.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    23
    Feedback Score
    0
    anyone have any experience with the cheaper, but decent looking carry handle made by CAA ..Command Arms???

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    MN, USA
    Posts
    382
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mndfusion View Post
    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.
    Best Regards,
    28_days

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Reed View Post
    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 Colt® 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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,214
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmart View Post
    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.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by demigod View Post
    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,214
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jmart View Post
    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.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •