On the side like many semi's? Its such a chinsey part too. Could it be heat? Always wondered.  

If its been covered show me where to go.

you dont use the charging handle very much, if youre in a fire fight and empty your magazine you eject the spent mag, insert a new one and slap the bolt release lever on the left hand side of the rifle.  The only time you use the charging handle is when you are loading an empty gun with the bolt closed after that the bolt locks back its very quick, if your'e in a hostile situation you probably already have a round chambered. so no need to fiddle with the charging handle.

Quoted: Its such a chinsey part too.

It seems that way, but I've read about guys here who had stuck cases in there ARs.  They've whacked em with mallets to get them to come free.

I've never heard of any problems with the part failing.

While there is excellent information about under the button marked "INFORMATION", believe you'll not find your question answered there............

I'll take a SWAG and say it's a "dirt" issue, or an attempt to eliminate/isolate the BCG from getting un-necessary foreign material in this critical area, ie. dust and dirt into the rifle by keeping the places crud can enter to a minimum.

Of course there's also the fact that they wanted the rifle to be used by both righties and lefties, perhaps that also comes into play. Even the AR180 has a centrally located lever, (up under the carry handle), easily reached and operated by right or left handed folks.

Whether either of these quesses are correct, suspect only Stoner can say for certain.

Mike

Quoted: Quoted: Its such a chinsey part too. It seems that way, but I've read about guys here who had stuck cases in there ARs.  They've whacked em with mallets to get them to come free. I've never heard of any problems with the part failing.

I have personally witnessed a Drill Instructor attempt to KICK OPEN a jammed M16A1 by STOMPING ON THE CHARGING HANDLE LATCH.  The weapon in question had a leaky BFA and a blank round got wedged between the carrier key and the gas tube.  The rim of the cartridge was still in the bolt face and SOMEHOW the extractor still had ahold of the rim.  the cartridge was bent beyond belief and the action would not budge.

Stomping on the charging handle had NO EFFECT on clearing the malfunction.    AND I DO MEAN STOMPING.

 The weapon was cleared by a lengthy session of working the cartridge brass loose with a section of issue cleaning rod and a borrowed Swiss Army Knife.  After the malfunction was finally cleared the weapon was checked, the seal of the BFA was improved by folding a GI matchbook cover in half and placing it in front of the bore and tightening the muzzle block over it.  The weapon functioned without a hitch for the rest of the Field Problem and once a new BFA was procured it functioned without a field expedient seal.  At no time did a single part on that rifle break nor was it damaged in any way.

 The rifle never malfunctioned again and shot fine with both blank and live ammunition.

 It was MY M16A1....wish I coulda taken it with me........

Quoted: I'll take a SWAG and say it's a "dirt" issue, or an attempt to eliminate/isolate the BCG from getting un-necessary foreign material in this critical area, ie. dust and dirt into the rifle by keeping the places crud can enter to a minimum.

*snicker*

this on a rifle that already blows all the unburnt powder and gasses back into the action.

they had a good idea trying to keep the action clean. Then they totally blew it with that gas system.

Quoted: Quoted: I'll take a SWAG and say it's a "dirt" issue, or an attempt to eliminate/isolate the BCG from getting un-necessary foreign material in this critical area, ie. dust and dirt into the rifle by keeping the places crud can enter to a minimum. *snicker* this on a rifle that already blows all the unburnt powder and gasses back into the action. they had a good idea trying to keep the action clean. Then they totally blew it with that gas system.

My thoughts exactly, as it was already gonna be plenty dirty in there.......

Mike

Possibly to reduce the mass of the bolt down to a minium level resulting in less recoil??

Quoted: Possibly to reduce the mass of the bolt down to a minium level resulting in less recoil

That would be my guess.

Quoted: Possibly to reduce the mass of the bolt down to a minium level resulting in less recoil a higher cyclic rate of fire.

That would be my guess.

Adding a handle directly to the bolt carrier would either prevent the use of an ejection port cover, or and adds an open track in the receiver that would allow the entrance of foreign matter.

The original AR10, not AR180 had a trigger shaped charging handle under the carry handle.  In both this configuration and in the current configuration, it's ambidextrous.  If you put the bolt on the right side, a right handed shooter has to cant the rifle or awkwardly reach under to get to it with his left hand.  In a type 1 or 2 malfunction, the clearance drill is to tap-tug the magazine, then rack the charging handle.  Much slower and much more awkward if the bolt handle is sticking out the right side.  Even the sometimes revered, often loathed HK XM-8 had an ambidextrous lever on top of the receiver, not a handle directly attached to the bolt carrier.

The FAL has the charging handle on the left side of the receiver with a long piece of metal to cover the track and prevent the entry of foreign matter.  I like it and it works well.  For a right handed person.  See the above problem if you happen to be a lefty.

With regards to crap in the receiver, there is a difference between the very small carbon particles and dirt, sand, etc. getting into the receiver.  Most of the fouling and gas go into the bolt carrier and blow out the holes in the side.  Some is still discharged into the receiver as the bolt unlocks and the carrier moves to the rear, but we're talking small, soft particles.  There is a difference.

My uneducated opinion, only, since I'm an "Armchair" type is that since the AR-15 is a derivitive of the AR-10, the charging handle evolved from that original ambidexterous design.

I believe the original design was intended to be both ambidexterous AND out of the way, so left handed shooters could safely fire the weapon without worrying about a reciprocating charging handle. I also believe, the change from the AR-10 original design allowed easier carry by the handle, and helped with the mounting of a scope.

Keep in mind, that the high sightline of the AR series was to ensure a straight line recoil of the rifles, reducing muzzle jump. The "carry handle" gives a solid platform for that raised rear sight, which was a primary function on the original design.



Lonny

Quoted: Quoted: Its such a chinsey part too. It seems that way, but I've read about guys here who had stuck cases in there ARs.  They've whacked em with mallets to get them to come free. I've never heard of any problems with the part failing.

New CMT handle in a new build. Doing function test I racked it no moer than 5 times and wondered why it sounded so rough. I opened it up, inspected everything and found this



It's the first I've seen fail so easily, the dealer said send it back and he will replace it.

I'm guessing that it has a charging handle instead of a bolt to keep the gun cleaner. If there was a bolt the ejection port door wouldn't close.

Quoted: I'm guessing that it has a charging handle instead of a bolt to keep the gun cleaner. If there was a bolt the ejection port door wouldn't close.

I doubt this is right... the AR180 has a perfectly viable bolt-mounted, ambindextrous cocking handle that works with an ejection port cover:



The current AR15 design was more likely an evolution of the AR10 handle (inside the carry handle) for the reasons outlined above (improved ability to mount optics, easier use as a carry handle).

You guys ready for the REAL answer?

It was designed that way so that guys wouldn't be tempted to force a bend/defective round into the chamber by banging on it.

Then the Army insisted on the Forward Assist, added against the advice of the designers.

Damn, WTF's up with that CMT CH? Mine looks great so far, but only 250 rds. and about 100 dry fires.

Still same chrging handles in my 12 year old Bushys..never seen that happen.Id say the aluminum that was used was crap.

Quoted: I have personally witnessed a Drill Instructor attempt to KICK OPEN a jammed M16A1 by STOMPING ON THE CHARGING HANDLE LATCH.  The weapon in question had a leaky BFA and a blank round got wedged between the carrier key and the gas tube.  The rim of the cartridge was still in the bolt face and SOMEHOW the extractor still had ahold of the rim.  the cartridge was bent beyond belief and the action would not budge. Stomping on the charging handle had NO EFFECT on clearing the malfunction.    AND I DO MEAN STOMPING. [/]...

I have seen that too. Beating the stock on the ground while applying force to the charging handle cleared it immediately.

b/c they wanted to try something DIFFERENT and more futuristic

Quoted: You guys ready for the REAL answer? It was designed that way so that guys wouldn't be tempted to force a bend/defective round into the chamber by banging on it. Then the Army insisted on the Forward Assist, added against the advice of the designers.

So Free Man, is that a fact or you pulling my Handle? I would think someone would know the real reaon.

Quoted: I would think someone would know the real reaon.

duuuuhhhhhhh,

From my post above: "Whether either of these quesses are correct, suspect only Stoner can say for certain"

Mike

Quoted: Quoted: I would think someone would know the real reaon. duuuuhhhhhhh, From my post above: "Whether either of these quesses are correct, suspect only Stoner can say for certain"

What is your Problem, do you have a Stduuuuuuhhhhdering problem

Like I said, I would think someone would know the real reaon.

Quoted: Quoted: You guys ready for the REAL answer? It was designed that way so that guys wouldn't be tempted to force a bend/defective round into the chamber by banging on it. Then the Army insisted on the Forward Assist, added against the advice of the designers. So Free Man, is that a fact or you pulling my Handle? I would think someone would know the real reaon.

Have you read "The Black Rifle"? I recommend it. anytihng you ever wanted to know about AR's.

And yes, IIRC, A_Free_Man is correct. That's why the original M16's did not have a forward assist. Army insisted upon it. Some prototypes actually had the Forward Assist on the left side, so a right handed shooter coudl hit it with their thumb.

Ya, that is on the list of things to buy and od. I jsut got two DVD on the AR and am waiting for those.  SO they won't bang on them , huh, who woulda thought.

Where best place to get the Black Rifle?

Quoted: Ya, that is on the list of things to buy and od. I jsut got two DVD on the AR and am waiting for those.  SO they won't bang on them , huh, who woulda thought. Where best place to get the Black Rifle?

Amazon has it. You're gonna shit when you see the price tag though!

From what i've heard , it was in order to keep a clear sight picture while charging the gun. Plus , less externally moving parts - less chance to get hit by a bolt ,ect. My dad always told me in nam , that some of our guys got AKs and tried stopping the bolt during the ejection process........bad idea :D

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys ready for the REAL answer? It was designed that way so that guys wouldn't be tempted to force a bend/defective round into the chamber by banging on it. Then the Army insisted on the Forward Assist, added against the advice of the designers. So Free Man, is that a fact or you pulling my Handle? I would think someone would know the real reaon. Have you read "The Black Rifle"? I recommend it. anytihng you ever wanted to know about AR's. And yes, IIRC, A_Free_Man is correct. That's why the original M16's did not have a forward assist. Army insisted upon it. Some prototypes actually had the Forward Assist on the left side, so a right handed shooter coudl hit it with their thumb.

Thank you NAM.  Nice to see at least a few other members have actually studied up on the rifle instead of just repeating what everyone else says.  

VAR, that has been in just about every history of the AR-15/M16 I have read.

Stoner and Sullivan (both worked on this design) wanted the soldier, if he encounted difficulty chambering a bad round, to eject it.  They had seen soldiers beat on the operating handle of the M1 Garand and M14, trying to force in bad rounds.

I might add, in all of my years of shooting these rifles, I have never had to use the Fwd Asst but for one thing... to fully seat the bolt/round after riding the handle forward slowly (to be quiet), instead of pulling the charging handle fully to the rear, and releasing it as instructed in the manuals.

If you pull the charging handle to the rear, release, and the bolt/round don't fully chamber

(a) round is bent/defective

(b) the rifle is dirty and needs lubrication.  (if it is clean and dry, it will chamber)

(c) the upper receiver is bent, pinching the bolt carrier.

(d) a primer, or some other trash is preventing the mechanism from fully seating.

Quoted: some of our guys got AKs and tried stopping the bolt during the ejection process........

WHY???

Also in the AGI AR15 the smith says "they should have put a bolt handle on it"

Duh, it's there to make sure all of the crap left over blows right in your face.

Seriously, I agree that it stems from the over head carry handle charging method of the early AR10's. It keeps more dirt out, it's ambidextrious, and it allows for complete ejection port coverage when the rifle is not being fired. The AR180 leaves alot more open area into the bolt assembly when the ejection port cover is down, where as the AR leaves a space no bigger then it needs to be.