The carry handle

[jmh21586]

Hi.

Got a possible stupid question.

What is/was the point of the carry handle?? Were they originaly meant to be carry handles or is that just they name they recieved because of the way they look??

I'm just asking becuase any pictures you look at from back in the day no soldier is ever seen carrying his M-16 by the handle. So was there some other point to them or was it a design feature that nobody really used??

[citizensoldier16]

From what I understand, it was designed to raise the iron sights to eye level. Since the Stoner design places the barrel, breech, and stock in a straight line, it was needed to raise the sight plane to where the shooter's eye would be.

I could be wrong, but this is what I have been told.

[parishioner]

Since the Stoner design places the barrel, breech, and stock in a straight line

Aren't all rifles like this?

Do you mean they are all on the same plane?

[apb2772]

From my understanding citizensoldier16 is correct. It is also my understanding that the powers that be found that the average soldiers vision was reduced when using "Standard" type sights (think 1903, and M1 here) because of the overall lowered head position. With the sights raised higher the soldier was "Forced" to adopt a more "Heads up" posture and position, therefore giving him/her a wider field of view..

Also Stoner's original design incorporated a significantly different charging handle type. The "vertical trigger" as shown below in the pic borrowed from Armalite's online catalog. This is a "Retro" styled AR-10 hence the vertical trigger type charging handle..

http://www.armalite.com/images/large...0B%20large.jpg

It looks as though the "Carry handle" was actually a type of charging handle guard/trigger type guard..

After the design was changed to the now common "T" handle employed for decades now they probably just left the "guard" in place..

My .02

--->APB

[RyanB]

The buffer tube placement required the sights be mounted high above the bore.

[citizensoldier16]

Aren't all rifles like this?

Do you mean they are all on the same plane?

No, not all rifles are like this. What I mean is that the muzzle, barrel, receiver, and stock are in a straight line in the AR-15 and variants.



This is not the case in most rifles. Think of the AK47. It's muzzle, barrel, and receiver are in line, but it has a stock that angles downward.



This angle, which places the line of the barrel above the line of the stock (to raise the barrel to the shooter's eye), creates more muzzle rise when firing than does the AR-15. Stoner's design significantly reduced the muzzle rise, especially when firing on automatic, by putting it all in line. The recoil comes straight back, instead of back and downward.

Hope that clears it up.

[jmh21586]

But why not just a flat top reciever with a sight on it like they have now??

I realize now that at one time the charge handle was up in there so the handle was more of a shroud for that but once they moved that down and back like they are now there was really no need to keep the handle.


I know it's not worth worrying about, but it's just curious.

[Heavy Metal]

No, not all rifles are like this. What I mean is that the muzzle, barrel, receiver, and stock are in a straight line in the AR-15 and variants.



This is not the case in most rifles. Think of the AK47. It's muzzle, barrel, and receiver are in line, but it has a stock that angles downward.



This angle, which places the line of the barrel above the line of the stock (to raise the barrel to the shooter's eye), creates more muzzle rise when firing than does the AR-15. Stoner's design significantly reduced the muzzle rise, especially when firing on automatic, by putting it all in line. The recoil comes straight back, instead of back and downward.

Hope that clears it up.

The AKM and AK -74 have a straight buttstock.

[bkb0000]

But why not just a flat top reciever with a sight on it like they have now??

I realize now that at one time the charge handle was up in there so the handle was more of a shroud for that but once they moved that down and back like they are now there was really no need to keep the handle.


I know it's not worth worrying about, but it's just curious.

because nobody thought of it

the ability to mount shit to your gun is a new concept. it started with zipties and 550 cord and 100mph tape, until somebody finally had a bright idea.

the original idea, as everyone has already explained, was to ge the sights up so they could actually be used. the "carry handle" was just a biproduct of that. "What are we gonna do with all this extra space?" "i dunno, make it a handle."

carrying your weapon by the carry handle was a smokeable offense when i was in the army. big no no.

[Iraqgunz]

Hey Private is that a weapon or a suitcase? A weapon Drill Sgt! Then why the **** are carrying like a suitcase?

Yeah, lots of soldiers got smoked for that SNAFU.

because nobody thought of it

the ability to mount shit to your gun is a new concept. it started with zipties and 550 cord and 100mph tape, until somebody finally had a bright idea.

the original idea, as everyone has already explained, was to ge the sights up so they could actually be used. the "carry handle" was just a biproduct of that. "What are we gonna do with all this extra space?" "i dunno, make it a handle."

carrying your weapon by the carry handle was a smokeable offense when i was in the army. big no no.