Non reciprocating / reciprocating. What's better?
- Thread starter Brianma65
- Start date
Infanteer90
CGN Regular
- Location
- Where you all want to be... Alberta
Only benefit that I can see for a reciprocating handle would be that there is at least one less part. I prefer non reciprocating simply because there is no risk of a body part getting slammed by the handle accidentally. That being said, I've never been hit by a reciprocating handle before so it's really not an issue.
If a rifle is to be useable by people of the left hand persuasion, it makes sense to have a NR handle - ask the Brits what they think of the reciprocator on the SA80, if they're right handed - oh wait, they're all right handed (now)
That's what I thought. There are a couple of .223 on the market , one new design and one old design. Both have a reciprocating charge handle and the only reason why, I could think of was, cost.
Last edited:
My tavor and acr have non reciprocating that also serve as forward assist. Both are very well designed, personally a modern firearm should have a non reciprocating charging handle, that also serves as forward assist, there is no reason for lazy design and third world engineering.
what are you talking about?
The 2 that I've used are the SU16 and the J48 , both have reciprocating charging handles. My XCR had a non reciprocating handle and I thought that to be a better design. How much extra of a cost could it be to do a non reciprocating charge handle.
Thats a keltec and a Jard compared to a Robinson.
It all engineering and design costs, its a lot. Youre asking the equivalent of asking how much does it cost to have fuel injection instead of a carburator. I dont see any cars running carburators anymore...
Well it hard to compare the J48 to anything , as it's new on the market. Just trying to understand why they didn't use the non reciprocating handle. After all they are the designer and manufacturer of the rifle. And I don't know if this would be a big improvement , but it couldn't hurt.
On most reciprocating handle firearms ... you can instantly see by the position of the handle if the gun is in full battery, chambered a round properly or is out of ammo if it has last round hold open. On the non reciprocating guns ive handled.... you end up getting caught off guard and then have to tilt the gun on its side to see whats up. not that any of this is really a BIG deal.
Another small advantage of reciprocating charging handles is that if your bolt gets stuck forward, you have a much stronger attachment to the bolt in general than NR charging handles, so you can really hammer on the charging handle in order to clear the malfunction. I would be hesitant to do that with an AR15 platform, but with an M1 Garand/ M14/ AK platform, just go ahead and wale on it with a hammer (Children's plastic hammer all the way up to a 10lb sledgehammer) with a wood block between till she opens up if you are in a sticky situation and need your gun in operation fast.
Or the edge of your boot if you are away from the work shop and really, really need to send lead down range.
I wouldn't recommend doing that to a JR Carbine's non-reciprocating charging handle, on a positive note they did send me two new charging handles quickly and at no cost.
Personally I prefer a non-riciprocating charging handle on a rifle because of the rare, but possible concern of it catching on something when shooting in confined spaces or from awkward positions etc.
Cheers D
The Tavor charging handle doesn't work as a forward assist. It's literally just a bar that pushes the bolt back. But it has a stiff enough spring that you probably dont need one.
It's just a preference thing. It's my understanding that US SOFCOM Specifically requested a reciprocating charging handle for the SCAR to use as a sturdier and more reliable forward assist, for example.
