Shooters Forum banner

Rifle Carry

3096 Views 46 Replies 13 Participants Last post by  Combat Diver

I was considering a carry handle for my Bushmaster AR 15 after watching this video any thoughts?
1 - 13 of 47 Posts
Single point sling leaves your rifle open for optics
My only problem with a sling is that I use mine mainly for home defense and when things go bump in the night I don't want to get tangled up in a sling.
Then you don't need a carry handle at all.
And who uses a ar15 inside a house?
I do I use PDX1 hollow points inside the house they don't go far when they hit besides it's an excellent home defense gun...probably the best.

But ya maybe I don't need the handle, I thought it would be nice to grab there when it's in the corner or carry when I throw it in my Jeep.
AR15 self defense ammo such as varmint bullets penetrate the same as a 9mm, .40, or .45 but lose effectiveness when they lose velocity going through walls. Short barrel AR15's are replacing 9mm SMG's in a lot of LE and military groups due to it not doing as much damage after losing its velocity. they will be significantly louder than a pistol though. I keep one handy myself.
You know it bud, I watched how the police prefer the semi auto 223 over everything because the shotgun 00 buck shot doesn't all hit the target and is ineffective at distance and they like the way the rifle points fast and accurate at close range over a handgun.
You don't use a handle for self defense. You should have the rifle at the ready.
I don't know about that grabbing for the gun in the dark.. it might not be such a bad thing.
With a small house and kids, I'll stick to a handgun. Not to spin up the old argument of what's best for self defense in a house.
In my neighborhood at night heroin addicts will occasionally wonder through my yard like some kind of zombie apocalypse. I want the best possible weapon I can get, there's a good reason why the M4 is heavily used by the United States Armed Forces and the police.
The reason the 5.56mm NATO round is so widely used is because the Congress never put forth the money to design and field a new weapon when the M-16 was found to be not what combat soldiers wanted or needed to kill the enemy. The M-16 entered the battlefield about 1964 or 1965. That is the very same period during which LBJ began spending umpteen billions on welfare. To LBJ, the votes of those on welfare in the States were more important than the lives of our young men in Vietnam. Now fifty-some years on, it's far too expensive to bring forth a new weapon that would have essentially zero parts interface with the M-16.

A better M-16 would have a bigger bullet, like a .243" or a .257" bullet; maybe even a .270" bullet. That would require a different lower receiver, a different bolt-carrier group and a different barrel. The government has multiple companies that manufacture these items. To retool would cost bazillions. We're $20 trillion in debt-- we don't have the money. I forgot: We'd have to come-up with a new case having a larger head so as to provide more powder space for the bigger bullet. More money...
I think they have bigger with the SCAR 17 H and it's not all that heavy. I think the deal with the M4 is that it's light, dependable, and you can carry a lot of 5.56 rounds on you and still run. That makes it the best battle rifle and why you see the Navy Seals using them I think they even killed Osama with one.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Osama was supposedly killed with an H&K M416 which is actually a different type of proprietary system. It's based on the 5.56 cartridge but utilizes a short stroke piston system and a few other modifications. It shares almost no parts with an AR15, M4, or M16.

Here is the civilian legal version of the H&K 416 but it does actually share more parts with the M4/M16 platform than the real HK M416.

MR556A1 - Heckler & Koch
That's cool Trent that does look a lot like the M4.
I am not that keen on a carry handle that gets in the way of optics or good sight picture .
On an AR 15 it's just eye candy I used to carry an M16 as a back up and an SLR 7.62 Nato at the same time . For home defence keep the gun as clean and uncomplicated as possible as you may have to use it in tight places a Colt Commando would be good.
On a heavy gun I like a side handle that does not get in the way of optics etc. This is my side handle design on an alloy chassis I built it carries in the upside down or side position and slides back and forth to balance the rig with different scopes and barrel weights . The photo looks like it's taken on Mars because it was 41 degrees Celsius that day . The rifle weighs 17 lb so you don't carry it too far but it's meant to be heavy to absorb recoil and movement .
With all due respect your "heavy gun" that you have in the picture would not be the gun I'd reach for during a break in. Uncomplicated is good and I do fancy the idea of open sights for a quick target acquisition and reliability I've never heard anyone complain about their open sights getting fogged up or the batteries dying.
You are right there mate but if you did run out of ammo you could beat them to death with that sucker :D . I was mainly just showing the side mounted handle .
The handle is cool I don't know why in this modern day the big manufacturer names can't put all the great features together in one gun. I think the Bushmaster ACR from what I read was an example of a gallant but failed attempt.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Most of the info Ive seen indicates the 5.56 overpenetrates less in buildings than most handgun ammo and shotgun buck or slug loads.

Didn't watch the video. I like the carry handle uppers as an iron sighted gun, the detachable carry handles don't give as much room for the thumb the way most used to carry one handed (and which I like for field carry). They also are hard to get much of your fingers through for handle only carry compared to the carry handle uppers.

I have to urge you to watch this video it might change your mind it did mine and I was a big shotgun fan.
Seals, Delta Force and other SOF dropped the M4 like a steaming hot potato when HK came out with the 416.

A lot of the parts inside and out sure look like the M4.
Wrong, the HK416 was never adopted by SOCOM (can't speak for CAG). Tested in small numbers yes but never adopted. AWG used them but they are not part of SOCOM and big Army had them turn them all in later. I tested one along side a standard M4A1 (my issued gun), FN Mk16 and a HK416. All ran the same and the M4 was the lightest. This was in Balad Iraq in Dec 05' when I was in 5th SFGA.

Just finished two years as a SOF small arms repair down range in Afghanistan/Kuwait/Iraq Aug 14-Sep 16. We weren't taught maitanence on the HK416 nor did we have parts. Had parts for the M4, Mk11, Mk12, Mk18 (all gas impinged), Mk17 SCAR. Worked on SEALs, Rangers, SF, MARSOC and USAFSOC guns, never saw a single 416. Standard rifle is still the M4A1.

Thanks so much for your input and your service sir.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 13 of 47 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.