Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: ar15 charging handle is not itelligently designed.....

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm just the opposite. I prefer the stock charging handle.

    I haven't had one bend or break yet.

    For those that prefer more options, it's a good time to be alive.
    Last edited by variablebinary; 08-15-10 at 04:44.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    yeah.......$425 for a stripped upper. It also has that dumb folding handle which I don't agree with. I'd rather buy a $45 BCM and call it done...
    ...I wonder if car enthusiasts argue whether the gear shift should be on the center console or the steering column.
    If you've ever used a left side charging handle, even the folder, you'd see it's easier to manipulate than the charger on the AR. Except on the HK. The HK Slap may be ninja cool but the charge handle is awkward to use. No denying the price of admission on the Spirit Arms upper is quite steep and I'm not sure it's worth it just to get the left side charging handle.

    There is no argument among car enthusiasts about shifter location- Center console is best. The argument is about type- whether it's better to use a slushbox or step up to the man tranny!
    Last edited by MistWolf; 08-15-10 at 09:17.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,028
    Feedback Score
    13 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    Dude it reeeaaaalllly doesn't matter......but ok I'll change it.
    I would strongly suggest a little more respect for our moderators and a lot less smart-ass attitude.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,375
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    ar15 charging handle is not itelligently designed.....
    because the method of using it has changed in the last 40 or so years. It was intelligently designed for the "primary hand grab with two fingers" charging technique. It wasn't designed to be charged via the charging handle with the support hand when the gun was already shouldered, or to assist in malfunction clearance when shouldered.

    Inefficient for modern technique? Definitely! Unintelligently designed? Not quite. The method just changed, and the OEM latch never kept up.
    The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,306
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Chameleox View Post
    because the method of using it has changed in the last 40 or so years. It was intelligently designed for the "primary hand grab with two fingers" charging technique. It wasn't designed to be charged via the charging handle with the support hand when the gun was already shouldered, or to assist in malfunction clearance when shouldered.

    Inefficient for modern technique? Definitely! Unintelligently designed? Not quite. The method just changed, and the OEM latch never kept up.
    True, but considering how well laid out the other controls are, I don't believe the designer(s) of the rifle totally missed the idea of support hand CH manipulation.

    After all, the original charging handle looked something like this.



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,375
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Touche
    The advice above is worth exactly what you paid for it.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    True, but considering how well laid out the other controls are, I don't believe the designer(s) of the rifle totally missed the idea of support hand CH manipulation.
    You mean the way they seem to have forgotten to apply the same logic to the selector, bolt catch/release, and mag release?

    Anyway- we have evolved as gunfighters since the Garand was in service, in which timeframe the AR was designed. Not a condemnation, simply an admission of roots. Due to evolution of technique, as well as incorrect application of some techniques, flaws in design as related to application become more apparent.

    That being said- the bigger the latch, the more likely the latch will catch on something and take the bolt out of battery, and during manipulation the more lateral pressure will be applied to the length of the CH, resulting in broken/bent CHs, which will take your gun out of the fight. Manipulation of the CH needs to be in a straight path to the rear to avoid accelerated wear and breakage, and the LMT and BCM mod 5 seem to most fit this requirement.
    Last edited by Failure2Stop; 08-15-10 at 14:24.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

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
  •