Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/5/2003 2:33:25 PM EDT
I was jsut browsing and checking out the pictures in some threads and it seems that nobody has an upper with carry handle..

I can't be the only one who likes them can I? Any particular reasons against?

Comes up because I'm planning on picking up some new grips and a different barrel for mine and if there's really something good againstthe carry handle maybe just a new reciever too.
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:00:20 PM EDT
Well, I have two of each.[:D] Two A1/C7's, and two A3M4's. All carbines,
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:11:36 PM EDT
I used to think flat tops were for game guns. Man have I learned a lot. Im a week or two away from having all flat tops. Optic versatility [:D]
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:14:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2003 3:23:15 PM EDT by Snaps]
The whole optic thing is one of the things I wonder about. I went with the Aimpoint, and the ARMS mount over my carry handle that I'm happy with. Then I watched SWAT (yeah I know it's a movie) but they had scopes mounted ontop of the carryhandle. Can't remember what kind but it was there I'm not sure what I'm gonna do yet.
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:24:51 PM EDT
Mounting 1x red dot sights above the handguards on a carry handle mount works nicely. Even a 4x ACOG or other scope that mounts [i]directly[/i] to the CH is not too bad. You're alreadly losing a good cheek weld, but inside 100 yds, you can do ok. If you're using a higher powered scope that can't mount directly in the CH (one that needs a rail + rings), you're [b]much[/b] better putting it on a flattop. It can't go over the handguards, of course, because 1) there's no room and 2) the eye relief is too short. Putting it on a rail on top of the CH really starts to screw up your cheek weld (think [i]chin[/i] weld), and the scope is going to be pretty worthless.
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:25:31 PM EDT
If its working for you and you have no pressing need to change, keep the setup you have. I prefer to have the backup irons out of the way of my Aimpoint, at least the rear. Thats why Im running a flat top with an ARMS 40.
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:26:20 PM EDT
None of my AR's are flat tops. I prefer to have the carry handle on it. Otherwise, it doesn't look right to me. But if I get another, it will be a flat top because variety is the spice if life. CJ
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:38:43 PM EDT
That said, one of these days I will build one of these: [img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/jenin-.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 3:54:28 PM EDT
before I got the Aimpoint I had a little 3-9 scope on a cheap mount that would come lose if you'd rapid fire. But I did fine with it. Of course I grew up shooting deer rifles with see through scope mounts. If I ever end up going with something with mag. any suggestions on that? I've heard good things about the ACOG ones but that's it. Well another cheap one I found in cheaperthandirt.com that was supposed to just be an AR mount....
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 6:14:15 PM EDT
"Cheap" and "Optics" should never be used together...
Link Posted: 9/5/2003 6:34:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2003 6:39:01 PM EDT by Corey]
I love the original configuration of my preban. It's a Colt R6530, meaning it's basically a gov't carbine without the bayonet lug (A2 fixed carry handle and 16" LW bbl). It's lightweight (approximately 5.5 pounds) and durable. But the irresistable urge to improve the setup caused me to upgrade to a Bushmaster Superlight flattop upper. (The R6530 upper went into storage after a good cleaning and soaking with CLP.) And this was a perfect place to put my Aimpoint M2 on ARMS #22M68 w/ full spacer. There is a chopped carry handle right behind it. A set of CavArms M4 handguards soon followed. Then I started playing around with possible vertical forward grip and light setups. Wanted to KISS and seeking lightweight, I tried the GTS bolt on rail (angled to compensate for the handguard) and Fobus M33. Of those, I thought the GTS rail on the CavArms handguards the better option. Yet it rattled around a bit due to the flex in the handguards. And a light would add even more weight for the LW bbl to support. So, [i]out of sheer necessity[/i] I threw an RASII on the setup (thanks Wes!). The M2 went on the hump minus the spacer. The vertical forward grip is extremely solid. The barrel is free-floated. A KAC sling mount puts the sling on the rail. And I have a SureFire G2 in Fobus FAS-2 light mount at 3 o'clock that will be shortly replaced by an M952. Now my "lightweight" rifle weighs in at somewhere in the 8 pound range (I'm guessing -- figure another 1 pound when I upgrade to the M952). But you know what, the heavier package is much more capable. The M2 allows faster sighting, the vertical forward grips helps in maneuvering and rapid fire control, and a weapon mounted light is superior to using a handheld with a rifle. I'd rather carry, clean and shoot an A2 handled LW bbl carbine. But given the choice between that rifle and my current rifle when something goes bump in the middle of the night, and the choice is easy. The pimped out rifle is quite frankly more capable. Incidentally, adding a high quality dot optic to my rifle has not lead to increased dependency on it. In fact, I have become even more determined to increase my proficiency with irons. Which is a good thing. I can't wait until the ban dies and I can throw a no-ban Bushmaster upper under the go-gadget upper. That means my original R6530 lower gets it's A2 LW upper back. Then I get my favorite rifle back. [beer] EDITED for typos -- I'm not even patient enough for the spellcheck to run it's course....
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 5:52:58 AM EDT
I have one (1) flattop, used to mount the ELCAN sight on a lightweight Dissipator upper receiver. The others are all fixed handle (XM16E1, M16A2, early M4). KISS. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 6:26:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: "Cheap" and "Optics" should never be used together...
View Quote
How about "the cost of the rifle is CHEAP compared to the OPTICS you should be buying for it"? [:)]
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 10:18:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: "Cheap" and "Optics" should never be used together...
View Quote
The French have this saying like: "I am not so wealthy that I can afford cheap things."
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 10:54:07 AM EDT
I am an Iron sight guy, with CH's on all my AR;s Some detachable and some A2
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 12:37:17 PM EDT
I just purchased my first AR, a Bushmaster with A2 sights and stock and a 16" M4 profile barrel. I researched and questioned as to barrel length and sights, and decided on the carry handle. Why? 1) simplicity -- no flip-ups to research or worry about. 2) durability -- it's built-in, and will survive the dings. 3) cost -- why pay more for a rear (and maybe a front) sight. 4) 16" barrel -- I'm more likely to scope a 24" barrel, and therein lies the usefulness of the flattop, to me. 5) history -- that's the design. 6) convenience -- for when I don't have the sling on (which isn't often) or don't want to carry it by the handguards. 7) optic options -- gee, after all this, you mean I can STILL mount an optic on the carry handle or atop the handguards? Sign me up!
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 2:03:44 PM EDT
The first mount I bought for it I got at a gunhsow, dropped through the carry handle, was the first one I ever saw... I bought that and wasn't happy I did. Then I went with an AMRS GOOSNECK that I'm really happy with.
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 4:41:11 PM EDT
I love A3 removable carry handles.......that is untill I replace 'em with Aimpoints, EOtechs and Arms #40A2 bUIS[:D] Woo hoo! than I have spare carry handle all ready to be zeroed in for the next AR project......than the vicious cycle continues!
Link Posted: 9/6/2003 4:50:21 PM EDT
I love Aimpoint. I love TA31 ACOG. That said, I also love an M4 config with carry handle on. I think flat-top M4 with carry handle somehow looks better than A2 upper. I'm trying to justify buying another AR15 carbine for this, but then I won't be able to spend $$$ on my other rifles [:(]
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 2:24:39 PM EDT
I have a BM M4 A2. There are many good points, and some bad on an A2. However, an A2 upper will not fail unless it is crushed. I use mine for general self defense so having a scope wouldn't really do anything for me. Although, I have recently been reading up on the military/LE use of EOTech sights with ITT's PVS-14, and I must say having a flattop upper with a set up like that would take the cake. Of course I would have to sell my soul about ten times in order to afford that, but what the heck, I am permitted to dream, right.
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 2:51:25 PM EDT
Even though I have a few flattops, the AR I love the most is my pre-ban Bushmaster XM177E2 with A1 sights!
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 3:43:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: That said, one of these days I will build one of these: [url]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/jenin-.jpg[/url]
View Quote
I *kinda* have one; C7, 16" M4,M4 HG's, but with an A2 stock.
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 3:54:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL-AR15. Although, I have recently been reading up on the military/LE use of EOTech sights with ITT's PVS-14, and I must say having a flattop upper with a set up like that would take the cake. Of course I would have to sell my soul about ten times in order to afford that, but what the heck, I am permitted to dream, right.
View Quote
I'm running exactly that set up and other related items...Trust me, your soul's worth it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 6:56:15 PM EDT
I happen to like the A2 configuration, although I see the reason for the A3 flat-top version. With this in mind, it raises a question...has anyone heard anything lately about if and when ARMS may be producing a SIR #51 for a 20" A2 rifle?
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 5:57:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1001001:
Originally Posted By FL-AR15. Although, I have recently been reading up on the military/LE use of EOTech sights with ITT's PVS-14, and I must say having a flattop upper with a set up like that would take the cake. Of course I would have to sell my soul about ten times in order to afford that, but what the heck, I am permitted to dream, right.
View Quote
I'm running exactly that set up and other related items...Trust me, your soul's worth it.
View Quote
So then, do we have a deal? [devil] If so, what BATF form will have to be filed? [banghead]
Link Posted: 9/8/2003 8:44:01 PM EDT
Well you may have to sell your soul to buy it but it won't be sold to the ATF........They have nothing to do with it[:D]
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 2:52:01 PM EDT
My little Colt M4 has a fixed carry handle and I love it. I had a Reflex mounted on top which was dead on but traded it out. Planning on getting a Valdada M2 for it soon. The flat-tops are cool but then you have to raise your optics high enough so the front sight doesn't block your view, so then the difference is only an inch between the raised optics mounting surface and the carry handle mounting surface. To each his own I guess- however I would love to have a true M4 set-up if I can ever afford it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 3:28:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2003 3:28:54 PM EDT by Snaps]
Well now that i know I'm not the only one Do any of y'all have some kind of magnified scope 4X at least that mounts well? Not too much higher than the handle, holds tight and won't shake loose.. Anybody?
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 12:50:11 PM EDT
I tried to find the details (no success), but doesn't Colt have a 4x scope that mounts to a carry handle? A guy at my club has one, it sits low on the carry handle with no need for rail + mount combo.
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 1:02:44 PM EDT
Here is my A2 soon to have a colapsable stock and all green furniture. It was one of those projects, it was a Colt 20", the barrel went to a flattop, then having an unused upper lying around gave me the idea of a CQB gun. For me this makes for a rugged gun, going to the telestock makes it a bit less rugged, but looks better and offers more function. But like Corey, this gun will continue to evolve, it's an endless circle... [img]http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/3f22d1b8_d8ce/bc/MyPics/SBR.jpg?bcRR5X_A48udrmyu[/img]
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 1:26:06 PM EDT
Carry handles are for suitcases! [:D] jk
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 7:57:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ridge: Carry handles are for suitcases! [:D] jk
View Quote
Only true if your AR is a Safe Queen. My AR's are for self protection. This means that I carry them much more often than I get to shoot them. That Carry Handle comes in handy (pun) when lugging that AR around on a daily basis. I reach for the Carry Handle often even when the rifle is slinged, to straight it up on my shoulder. I was never in the armed forces, and I did not have a drill surgent brainwash me into thinking the Carry Handle was useless. Real life teached me that the carry handle is a "must have" for my AR's. So much so, I recently swapped out a factory A3 upper recevier for a A1.
Link Posted: 9/10/2003 9:38:32 PM EDT
I was really only kidding but since you semi-attacked me....[rolleyes] I have NO safe queens. Range and praire queens maybe (but they definately don't sit on a bench). I get down and dirty with 'em. I carried the M16 plently too and never noticed an overwelming need to have a carry handle. I was never brainwashed by any Drill Seargent although they tried. I started out with all A2s, but when I discover how versitile the Flattop can be, they all shortly evolved into flattops. What else can you do with a handle than carry it. The pistol grip, the handguard, the sling, and the stock all do this just fine [b]for me[/b], and the flattop offers so much more [b]IMO[/b]. Of course how can I (or anyone) dictate personal preference, if others live by the carry handle and it works better for them, thats great. But as for me and my house the carry handles are on the luggage. [beer]
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 12:08:16 PM EDT
I like carry handles and flat tops. I guess it depends on which mood I'm in and what movie with guns I recently watched.
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 6:50:38 PM EDT
Ridge, I am sorry for my tone. I have been realizing that I need to concentrate on my interpersonal skills when I post. Thanks for being understanding. I agree with your comments. I will even take your comment as a suggestion, and see if I can train myself to depend less on that "suitcase handle". As a joke ---> "I am going to add an A3 detachable handle to my suitcase !!!!" [beer] Cheers !!!
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 7:27:46 PM EDT
IMHO the A3 "carry handle" is nothing more than a large BUIS. Meaning there really isn't room in the carry handle to do much carrying. Frankly, I have seen little use for the A1/A2 carry handle for as a handle. I think one of the biggest advantages is that it lets you grip the weapon with the heel of you hand along the magwell, the palm under the handguard, and the thumb through the A1/A2 carry handle. Yes, I have carried M16's with the carry handle. It is convenient at "non-tactical" times (i.e., lunch). But the real carry advantage to the fixed carry handles is the thumb access IMHO. Durability is also an advantage, though I haven't had my ARMS ##22M68 and fixed BUIS fail me. Just to add a new perspective on "carry handle" friendliness, the A3 isn't. I'd rather ditch it and go with a BUIS of some type and/or optic.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 12:45:38 PM EDT
Here you go! I like the carry handle. It's not much for carrying but it's the sights that matter. DG [IMG]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/p39e34117aef6f9b03c51cfa47cf36417/fb271759.jpg[/IMG]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 12:52:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By G35: Ridge, I am sorry for my tone. I have been realizing that I need to concentrate on my interpersonal skills when I post. Thanks for being understanding. I agree with your comments. I will even take your comment as a suggestion, and see if I can train myself to depend less on that "suitcase handle". As a joke ---> "I am going to add an A3 detachable handle to my suitcase !!!!" [beer] Cheers !!!
View Quote
[LOL] Now that would be a stylin' suitcase. Be careful. I hear once you've tried FLAT you might never go back. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:06:42 PM EDT
My ARs have fixed carry handles and I also have a spare 16" flattop upper which I have a removable carry handle for. If I were to use an AR strictly for a hunting/varmint rifle, then I would prefer just using a scope mounted on a flattop, but since my rifles are configured for defense/combat use, I like the idea of having the open sights of the carry handle as a backup sight system in case the scope, ACOG, reflex sight I have mounted with the carry handle fails or breaks.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 8:58:38 PM EDT
I was reading in Gun Tests that if you are going to put a scope on a lightweight carbine, then you might as well have a longer, heavier barrel. If you are going to have an 8+ pound rifle, then you might as well have it chambered in .308. I thought that made a lot of sense.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 9:01:46 PM EDT
I like the carry handle. It will be on all my ARs!
Link Posted: 9/19/2003 7:48:01 AM EDT
i always liked the EOTechs, so i swapped out my Bushy's A2 upper for the A3... threw on a new EOTech, an ARMS #40 flip up rear, good to go. i guess it was a lot of extra money just to get the EOTech and keep the backup irons, but i have the flexability of the flattop now and i never really mind spending too much loot on my rifle anyhow... which is exactly why i'm looking into more new optics. no sense not exercising that new-found flexability, right?
Link Posted: 9/19/2003 8:15:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Suburban: I was reading in Gun Tests that if you are going to put a scope on a lightweight carbine, then you might as well have a longer, heavier barrel. If you are going to have an 8+ pound rifle, then you might as well have it chambered in .308. I thought that made a lot of sense.
View Quote
I have to respectfully disagree with this logic. If you want to be more accurate at longer distances, any rifle will benefit from a scope. A lightwieght 16" flattop scoped AR is an excellent varmint gun that is portable and accurate. Varmint hunters do not need a .308. That is too much bullet, heavier, higher ricochet probablility, and more expensive. Heavy varmint guns have smaller calibers for a reason. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
Link Posted: 9/19/2003 9:31:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ridge: I have to respectfully disagree with this logic. If you want to be more accurate at longer distances, any rifle will benefit from a scope. A lightwieght 16" flattop scoped AR is an excellent varmint gun that is portable and accurate. Varmint hunters do not need a .308. That is too much bullet, heavier, higher ricochet probablility, and more expensive. Heavy varmint guns have smaller calibers for a reason. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
View Quote
Uh, well, you are, but it's not your fault. The test was on light AR-15s for home defense or defense in the case of some kind of disaster (like a riot or something I guess). They didn't actually spell that out, but it was between the lines. The word varmint was nowhere to be found in the article.
Top Top