AR 15 Carry Handle or not?
- Thread starter .45colt
- Start date
Holy hell, at first glance I thought there was a "d" in Dillo.
and thought," That would hurt."What kind of AR is that KevinB?
Dr van Nostran
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, B.C.
Yes on carry handle.
The AR15/M16 platform reached it's apex with the M16A2 Marine Corps rifle, all due respect to the operators on CGN.
Geeeeez, you guys would put Aimpoints on Garands, and cut 'em down to 14 ".
The AR15/M16 platform reached it's apex with the M16A2 Marine Corps rifle, all due respect to the operators on CGN.
Geeeeez, you guys would put Aimpoints on Garands, and cut 'em down to 14 ".
Its called evolution and advancement. Iron sights are old school and inferior to optics. Some prefer to maximize the potential of their system.
TDC
The M16A2, despite me being friend with Dave Lutz (the USMC LtCol responsible for the program), had a number of bad ideas - the A2 sight (should have stuck to the A1) AND the burst system.
The carbine I posted is a KAC SR16 (handbuild by Dave Lutz - the VP of Mililtary Operations at KAC).
The carbine I posted is a KAC SR16 (handbuild by Dave Lutz - the VP of Mililtary Operations at KAC).
You do realize that an A2 barrel is only thicker from the FSB forwards. Under the handguards it's every bit as thin as the A1 so that an M203 could be used without modification. In other words it may weigh more, but can be measured in ounces.
Not what the infantry needs? Speak for yourself, I'd personally like to be issued a 16" midlength with a medium profile barrel. Do you know how many people prefer the C8FTHB compared to the C7A2 despite the fact that it's heavier than the C7A2?
Back to the original topic. I do like the look and simplicity of iron sights, as a matter of fact I have an 11.5" barrel with A2 upper that didn't look simple enough so I've since acquired a C7 style upper for it.
Personal taste I guess. The thicker barrel profile after the sight puts the wpn off balance. If you're into hanging every "tactical" piece of eqpt you can find on the rifle then I guess the older rifle is not for you.
Some armed forces of other nations use the M-16A1 rifle and actually went back to it after testing the A2. The extra weight was not worth it. Then again their use of it was coin ops.
I don't like the new C-8. Heavy. I cannot foresee using it as a light machine gun. So the older C-8 would do me fine if all the problems with stoppages have been fixed.
Some armed forces of other nations use the M-16A1 rifle and actually went back to it after testing the A2. The extra weight was not worth it. Then again their use of it was coin ops.
I don't like the new C-8. Heavy. I cannot foresee using it as a light machine gun. So the older C-8 would do me fine if all the problems with stoppages have been fixed.
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
If you're using the iron sights, the carry handle provides for windage and elevation adjustments where most BUIS do not, windage only. It's also stronger/more robust than a BUIS which is why we sell a lot of these to police forces and ERTs.
Looks, well, that's a whateverfloatsyourboat kinda thing.
Looks, well, that's a whateverfloatsyourboat kinda thing.
Personal taste? I have an older M16A1 clone, I like it just fine. It is not a better infantry weapon though.
Do you even know what "coin ops" means?
Who said the new C8 is light machine gun? I'm personally not a big fan of it, think it could have been done better, but it's one of the better options in our inventory.
I prefer the looks of the carry handle AR, but outside of beauty points, I don't see any other advantage.
-from a mil or competitive outlook, you're not getting the full potential of the weapon. You can be quicker with an Aimpoint or EO Tech than irons. You can be more accurate, better distinguish/assess targets, and get a bit more shooting time at dawn and dusk with magnified optics.
-from a mil perpective you have to accept that the world fights at night. If you don't "own the night" and stay ahead of your enemies with better, clearer, and faster mountable night sights, or NVDs with weapon mounted LADs you are behind the 8 ball.
-from a mil or competitive outlook, you're not getting the full potential of the weapon. You can be quicker with an Aimpoint or EO Tech than irons. You can be more accurate, better distinguish/assess targets, and get a bit more shooting time at dawn and dusk with magnified optics.
-from a mil perpective you have to accept that the world fights at night. If you don't "own the night" and stay ahead of your enemies with better, clearer, and faster mountable night sights, or NVDs with weapon mounted LADs you are behind the 8 ball.
It sounds like you are angry. What I wrote is only my opinion. You can disagree with it if you like. I am not an expert by any means. And it seems you have put me in my place
( sarcasm of course). You are correct and I am wrong. Feel better?If you read what I had written I wrote that I cannot foresee using it as a LMG. In other words I was questioning the need for an ordinary infantryman to have a heavy barreled carbine when it will never see hundreds of rounds down the spout in a few minutes. If it did then the soldier is forgetting fire-discipline. Every carbine need not have the ability to mount a 203.
Last edited:
