It would seem like the ability to stay on the sights or scope and rack a round in the weapon would be a time saver. Is the technology just not as reliable? It seems like there would be of these setups in use.
- Thread starter Bamf911
- Start date
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
SC are becoming more and more popular. Unfortunately we have become accustomed to non reciprocating charging handles as a society. The SC is catching on and several companies now make SC. I have converted all mine to SC. Just like you said, no need to come off gun to fix malfunctions.
SC are becoming more and more popular. Unfortunately we have become accustomed to non reciprocating charging handles as a society. The SC is catching on and several companies now make SC. I have converted all mine to SC. Just like you said, no need to come off gun to fix malfunctions.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Has anyone seen a .243wssm AR with a side charging handle before?
Just curious as the bolt and carrier are custom made for these guns and wasent sure if anyone had a Side handle carrier that would work with the wssm bolt.
Has anyone seen a .243wssm AR with a side charging handle before?
Just curious as the bolt and carrier are custom made for these guns and wasent sure if anyone had a Side handle carrier that would work with the wssm bolt.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
As for a side charging handle; I cannot say I have tried one, but then again, I've never found myself in a situation where I thought a side charging handle would be ideal. I think I see more potential of inducing a malfunction with a reciprocating charging handle. Then again I may be old fasioned too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
As for a side charging handle; I cannot say I have tried one, but then again, I've never found myself in a situation where I thought a side charging handle would be ideal. I think I see more potential of inducing a malfunction with a reciprocating charging handle. Then again I may be old fasioned too.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of my go-to rifles are side charging and piston driven. </div></div>
...says the man with the Mk14EBR in his sig line!!!
Gotta love it!!
Side chargers on the AR-platform rifles are nothing new, but I just don't think that the vast majority of AR owners really use their rifles in any capacity where they'll notice a difference between side-charging and rear-charging rifles. I agree with you that there are benefits to the side-charging operation and I certainly like them, but manufacturers (with a few exceptions) create for the masses and I don't think the masses give a damn for the most part. Just my $0.02 FWIW!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of my go-to rifles are side charging and piston driven. </div></div>
...says the man with the Mk14EBR in his sig line!!!
Side chargers on the AR-platform rifles are nothing new, but I just don't think that the vast majority of AR owners really use their rifles in any capacity where they'll notice a difference between side-charging and rear-charging rifles. I agree with you that there are benefits to the side-charging operation and I certainly like them, but manufacturers (with a few exceptions) create for the masses and I don't think the masses give a damn for the most part. Just my $0.02 FWIW!
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
Technically it offers no real advantage IF, and I mean IF, you regularly clean your gun. Most piston systems suffer with a small amount of accuracy loss at longer ranges. Other than that, I would put a piston in my AR-10 if it was available.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
Technically it offers no real advantage IF, and I mean IF, you regularly clean your gun. Most piston systems suffer with a small amount of accuracy loss at longer ranges. Other than that, I would put a piston in my AR-10 if it was available.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
I have been looking for plans on the internet and websites for years to machine my own left side charging handle for and AR-10 upper receiver. I have the plans for the AR-15 version, but it is not for everybody. Precise machining is required and drilling, tapping the BC takes some work. The charge hadle itself must be grade 5 or 8 at least but low enough in mass to not crack. Also the tapped hole through the BC is shallow so as not to interfere with the bolts locking / unlocking movements.
I have been shooting 190 SMK's out of my AR-10 (TU) Ultramag and I have to fire them single shot due to them exceeding mag length. Having the side charging handle being in the prone position sure would help.
Anyone have plans for the AR-10 sidecharge handle (LEFT side) or know of any manufacturers that sell the Upper already done that fits the Armalite system?
I have been looking for plans on the internet and websites for years to machine my own left side charging handle for and AR-10 upper receiver. I have the plans for the AR-15 version, but it is not for everybody. Precise machining is required and drilling, tapping the BC takes some work. The charge hadle itself must be grade 5 or 8 at least but low enough in mass to not crack. Also the tapped hole through the BC is shallow so as not to interfere with the bolts locking / unlocking movements.
I have been shooting 190 SMK's out of my AR-10 (TU) Ultramag and I have to fire them single shot due to them exceeding mag length. Having the side charging handle being in the prone position sure would help.
Anyone have plans for the AR-10 sidecharge handle (LEFT side) or know of any manufacturers that sell the Upper already done that fits the Armalite system?
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ORD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of my go-to rifles are side charging and piston driven. </div></div>
...says the man with the Mk14EBR in his sig line!!!
Gotta love it!!
Side chargers on the AR-platform rifles are nothing new, but I just don't think that the vast majority of AR owners really use their rifles in any capacity where they'll notice a difference between side-charging and rear-charging rifles. I agree with you that there are benefits to the side-charging operation and I certainly like them, but manufacturers (with a few exceptions) create for the masses and I don't think the masses give a damn for the most part. Just my $0.02 FWIW!
</div></div>
It seems for most that have an AR, there is no advantage of a SC because they're not using big glass on top. They have an Aimpoint or EOTech or ACOG or (insert generic brand for all of those here). When you put a full length scope, it becomes apparent very quickly what the advantages of a SC are (name not tearing up your knuckles).
I don't have any SC ARs, but plan to make all of my future ARs with SC handles.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ORD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All of my go-to rifles are side charging and piston driven. </div></div>
...says the man with the Mk14EBR in his sig line!!!
Side chargers on the AR-platform rifles are nothing new, but I just don't think that the vast majority of AR owners really use their rifles in any capacity where they'll notice a difference between side-charging and rear-charging rifles. I agree with you that there are benefits to the side-charging operation and I certainly like them, but manufacturers (with a few exceptions) create for the masses and I don't think the masses give a damn for the most part. Just my $0.02 FWIW!
It seems for most that have an AR, there is no advantage of a SC because they're not using big glass on top. They have an Aimpoint or EOTech or ACOG or (insert generic brand for all of those here). When you put a full length scope, it becomes apparent very quickly what the advantages of a SC are (name not tearing up your knuckles).
I don't have any SC ARs, but plan to make all of my future ARs with SC handles.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.</div></div>
What are these 'downsides' you mention as they apply to my M14s, 7.62 AKM and 5.56 AR-100?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.</div></div>
What are these 'downsides' you mention as they apply to my M14s, 7.62 AKM and 5.56 AR-100?
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>Piston guns tend work better in adverse conditions and with less cleaning. If that is worth it to you is entirely subjective.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
It's not that I ignore the downsides, I simply think that the upsides outweigh the downsides. If you are building a range gun or a precision system, then piston is not for you. If you are concerned about reliability in really crappy conditions, then the piston deserves a look.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>It's the same thing with the side charging handle, and anything else for that mattter. Benefits and drawbacks. I'm sure we will see more of them coming out though, because I bet that, just like the piston, there are a bunch of people that will buy them. I just might if I found a good deal on one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>Piston guns tend work better in adverse conditions and with less cleaning. If that is worth it to you is entirely subjective.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
It's not that I ignore the downsides, I simply think that the upsides outweigh the downsides. If you are building a range gun or a precision system, then piston is not for you. If you are concerned about reliability in really crappy conditions, then the piston deserves a look.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>It's the same thing with the side charging handle, and anything else for that mattter. Benefits and drawbacks. I'm sure we will see more of them coming out though, because I bet that, just like the piston, there are a bunch of people that will buy them. I just might if I found a good deal on one.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot.</div></div>
I've seen all of those "torture" test videos where they bury the piston gun in the sand (with the ejection port door closed), pull the gun out and dump a mag; or where they dunk the piston gun in the water, drain all of the water out of the barrel, and dump a mag. These are not at all impressive; don't drink the kool-aid. Can anyone provide us with a comparison video with a piston gun performing when a DI gun has failed under the same conditions?
You can bury a DI M4 in the sand just the same and it will fire just the same.
It's natural to want to defend your purchase, and companies have to find OR create a selling point to get people to spend an extra $1,000 on their version of an already proven design.
Their are plenty of DI gas AR and M16 variants that are combat tested and proven. Again, a piston AR does not offer you any advantage over a DI gas system; that is except the bolt carrier group stays cool to the touch...ooooooooo
And if we want to continue this discussion on the merits of DI versus piston, may I suggest that we continue it on this previous discussion rather than drift off topic further.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...702#Post2318702
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot.</div></div>
I've seen all of those "torture" test videos where they bury the piston gun in the sand (with the ejection port door closed), pull the gun out and dump a mag; or where they dunk the piston gun in the water, drain all of the water out of the barrel, and dump a mag. These are not at all impressive; don't drink the kool-aid. Can anyone provide us with a comparison video with a piston gun performing when a DI gun has failed under the same conditions?
You can bury a DI M4 in the sand just the same and it will fire just the same.
It's natural to want to defend your purchase, and companies have to find OR create a selling point to get people to spend an extra $1,000 on their version of an already proven design.
Their are plenty of DI gas AR and M16 variants that are combat tested and proven. Again, a piston AR does not offer you any advantage over a DI gas system; that is except the bolt carrier group stays cool to the touch...ooooooooo
And if we want to continue this discussion on the merits of DI versus piston, may I suggest that we continue it on this previous discussion rather than drift off topic further.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...702#Post2318702
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I've seen all of those "torture" test videos where they bury the piston gun in the sand (with the ejection port door closed), pull the gun out and dump a mag; or where they dunk the piston gun in the water, drain all of the water out of the barrel, and dump a mag. These are not at all impressive; don't drink the kool-aid. Can anyone provide us with a comparison video with a piston gun performing when a DI gun has failed under the same conditions?
You can bury a DI M4 in the sand just the same and it will fire just the same.
It's natural to want to defend your purchase, and companies have to find OR create a selling point to get people to spend an extra $1,000 on their version of an already proven design.
Their are plenty of DI gas AR and M16 variants that are combat tested and proven. Again, a piston AR does not offer you any advantage over a DI gas system; that is except the bolt carrier group stays cool to the touch...ooooooooo
And if we want to continue this discussion on the merits of DI versus piston, may I suggest that we continue it on this previous discussion rather than drift off topic further.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...702#Post2318702 </div></div>
Like I alluded to above, different strokes for different folks. I'm glad we are all opinionated fuckers, because it ultimately creates diversity in the market and innovation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I've seen all of those "torture" test videos where they bury the piston gun in the sand (with the ejection port door closed), pull the gun out and dump a mag; or where they dunk the piston gun in the water, drain all of the water out of the barrel, and dump a mag. These are not at all impressive; don't drink the kool-aid. Can anyone provide us with a comparison video with a piston gun performing when a DI gun has failed under the same conditions?
You can bury a DI M4 in the sand just the same and it will fire just the same.
It's natural to want to defend your purchase, and companies have to find OR create a selling point to get people to spend an extra $1,000 on their version of an already proven design.
Their are plenty of DI gas AR and M16 variants that are combat tested and proven. Again, a piston AR does not offer you any advantage over a DI gas system; that is except the bolt carrier group stays cool to the touch...ooooooooo
And if we want to continue this discussion on the merits of DI versus piston, may I suggest that we continue it on this previous discussion rather than drift off topic further.
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...702#Post2318702 </div></div>
Like I alluded to above, different strokes for different folks. I'm glad we are all opinionated fuckers, because it ultimately creates diversity in the market and innovation.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
...that and people who are willing to buy into the latest and greatest fads based off of what the manufacurers are saying instead of fair unbiased testing
...that and people who are willing to buy into the latest and greatest fads based off of what the manufacurers are saying instead of fair unbiased testing
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
There a few looking at (TacSol?) 10/22 receiver with an AR style CH. They don't get it. SC is MUCH better with longer overhung optics.
There a few looking at (TacSol?) 10/22 receiver with an AR style CH. They don't get it. SC is MUCH better with longer overhung optics.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Check out the Robinson Arms XCR, piston driven, adjustable gas, and non-reciprocating left side charging. Trust me, once you try a left side charging handle you can’t go back. You can clear a malfunction or charge the weapon without breaking your shooting position. Makes a guy wonder why Eugene ever decided to put the charging handle where it is.
Check out the Robinson Arms XCR, piston driven, adjustable gas, and non-reciprocating left side charging. Trust me, once you try a left side charging handle you can’t go back. You can clear a malfunction or charge the weapon without breaking your shooting position. Makes a guy wonder why Eugene ever decided to put the charging handle where it is.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Me personally I'll stick with a standard charging style for a few reasons.
First I don't see the justifiable gain from the additional cost. I see no advantage in "not having to break your position" to charge it. Are you not still using one hand? You're still going to have to regain your natural point of aim. If it's a run-and-gun situation, I don't feel disadvantaged by having to raise my head to charge the rifle.
I also prefer as few moving parts as possible including running a DI system.
I feel the standard charging handle is the strongest method to operate the bolt carrier, capturing it on top at the same part that is thrust upon during operation and pulling straight to the rear rather than applying pressure to a single side and risk causing it to bind up.
Finally, I own 5 different ARs and carry one at work too, so I can't have the same platform across the board if I were to go to a side charger. I don't want to train up on multiple methods of operation and have to switch back and forth. K.I.S.S. method.
Me personally I'll stick with a standard charging style for a few reasons.
First I don't see the justifiable gain from the additional cost. I see no advantage in "not having to break your position" to charge it. Are you not still using one hand? You're still going to have to regain your natural point of aim. If it's a run-and-gun situation, I don't feel disadvantaged by having to raise my head to charge the rifle.
I also prefer as few moving parts as possible including running a DI system.
I feel the standard charging handle is the strongest method to operate the bolt carrier, capturing it on top at the same part that is thrust upon during operation and pulling straight to the rear rather than applying pressure to a single side and risk causing it to bind up.
Finally, I own 5 different ARs and carry one at work too, so I can't have the same platform across the board if I were to go to a side charger. I don't want to train up on multiple methods of operation and have to switch back and forth. K.I.S.S. method.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badshot308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WARDOG, have you contacted these people www.americanspiritarms.com... Their 308 rifle appears to be an Armalite pattern. While they don't list the 308 upper separately, they may sell them. </div></div>
I have contacted them. They are DPMS pattern, and they don't sell S.C. uppers by themselves.
Thanx tho'
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badshot308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WARDOG, have you contacted these people www.americanspiritarms.com... Their 308 rifle appears to be an Armalite pattern. While they don't list the 308 upper separately, they may sell them. </div></div>
I have contacted them. They are DPMS pattern, and they don't sell S.C. uppers by themselves.
Thanx tho'
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: )
I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: )
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
I think side-chargers are for long-barreled precision DI uppers
with large scopes. just my $.02
I think side-chargers are for long-barreled precision DI uppers
with large scopes. just my $.02
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
I bought a right side, reciprocating, side charger for my 308 AR.
It will soon become my Palma rifle with a no-gasport barrel.
For me, I can operate it as a "single feed" while slung up (I'm right handed) without removing my gloved support hand.
In that scenario, I want to be able to easily use my firing hand to load, operating it like a straight pull bolt-gun, without contorting, or removing the stock from my shoulder.
I'll still need to add a right side bolt release.
How you plan to use the rifle will reveal if there are any benefits to these set-ups.
I bought a right side, reciprocating, side charger for my 308 AR.
It will soon become my Palma rifle with a no-gasport barrel.
For me, I can operate it as a "single feed" while slung up (I'm right handed) without removing my gloved support hand.
In that scenario, I want to be able to easily use my firing hand to load, operating it like a straight pull bolt-gun, without contorting, or removing the stock from my shoulder.
I'll still need to add a right side bolt release.
How you plan to use the rifle will reveal if there are any benefits to these set-ups.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Opinions are like a$$holes, so here is mine:
The AR platform is designed to be run in a linear fashion. That is why the original system had a charging handle on the top and cycled the action off of the key. If you start adding any weight off of center (charging handles), you start wearing out other bearing surfaces inside the rifle, causing premature wear and failure.
Just a reminder: It WILL fail on the extraction stroke. Where is YOUR face located?
I am not discounting the side charging handle. All rifles/pistols/shotguns have their pro's and con's. ALL OF THEM. If you have to have a side charging handle, go buy a rifle that was designed in that fashion. AK, SKS, yada yada yada.
Don't get me started on the piston system either. That is nothing but an answer to a problem that does not exist IF YOU CLEAN AND LUBE YOUR RIFLE AT ALL.
I seem to have left my soapbox around here somewhere...OH, I am standing on it.
Opinions are like a$$holes, so here is mine:
The AR platform is designed to be run in a linear fashion. That is why the original system had a charging handle on the top and cycled the action off of the key. If you start adding any weight off of center (charging handles), you start wearing out other bearing surfaces inside the rifle, causing premature wear and failure.
Just a reminder: It WILL fail on the extraction stroke. Where is YOUR face located?
I am not discounting the side charging handle. All rifles/pistols/shotguns have their pro's and con's. ALL OF THEM. If you have to have a side charging handle, go buy a rifle that was designed in that fashion. AK, SKS, yada yada yada.
Don't get me started on the piston system either. That is nothing but an answer to a problem that does not exist IF YOU CLEAN AND LUBE YOUR RIFLE AT ALL.
I seem to have left my soapbox around here somewhere...OH, I am standing on it.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
BadShot-
I can't figure how I got bad info from ASA on the pattern.
It wasn't all that long ago that I called them, maybe 6 months ago.
Thanks for finding that SC upper option, that was never there before. BUT... those are some <span style="font-style: italic">spendy</span> SC uppers, $549 without the modified carrier, and <span style="font-weight: bold">$625</span> with the modified SC carrier.
The site says, <span style="font-style: italic">"For those that choose to modify their own carrier", </span>I have the equipment to modify just about anything, but I wonder if they supply the info to <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> the mods?
The AR-10 (TU) carrier is the same as the AR-10, so the ASA may work for my ultra-mag, <span style="font-style: italic">except for that price</span>!
I contacted ARMALITE via ARFCOM's website, they said the TU was dropped from the line a long time ago. I was trying to get more .300 RSAUM mags (The feed lips are different) or even just the followers (They are different than AR-10) but no luck. I checked with many on ARFCOM and no one is making the (TU) mags, but several (TU) owners would be interested in purchasing them if they could find them.
I think I'll post over at ARFCOM if anyone owns the ASA SC upper, so maybe we can get a pic of what mods ASA made to the carrier, and if I can duplicate them.
I also think I will contact ARMALITE tomorrow to see if they even offer the 'mag-face' Bolt for the (TU) so maybe I could get an extra in my pocket for the future.
I am a fan of ARMALITE but I am disappointed in their lack of support so far with the (TU). It is quite a rifle, a hoot to shoot, and mine is exceptionally accurate.
BadShot-
I can't figure how I got bad info from ASA on the pattern.
It wasn't all that long ago that I called them, maybe 6 months ago.
Thanks for finding that SC upper option, that was never there before. BUT... those are some <span style="font-style: italic">spendy</span> SC uppers, $549 without the modified carrier, and <span style="font-weight: bold">$625</span> with the modified SC carrier.
The site says, <span style="font-style: italic">"For those that choose to modify their own carrier", </span>I have the equipment to modify just about anything, but I wonder if they supply the info to <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> the mods?
The AR-10 (TU) carrier is the same as the AR-10, so the ASA may work for my ultra-mag, <span style="font-style: italic">except for that price</span>!
I contacted ARMALITE via ARFCOM's website, they said the TU was dropped from the line a long time ago. I was trying to get more .300 RSAUM mags (The feed lips are different) or even just the followers (They are different than AR-10) but no luck. I checked with many on ARFCOM and no one is making the (TU) mags, but several (TU) owners would be interested in purchasing them if they could find them.
I think I'll post over at ARFCOM if anyone owns the ASA SC upper, so maybe we can get a pic of what mods ASA made to the carrier, and if I can duplicate them.
I also think I will contact ARMALITE tomorrow to see if they even offer the 'mag-face' Bolt for the (TU) so maybe I could get an extra in my pocket for the future.
I am a fan of ARMALITE but I am disappointed in their lack of support so far with the (TU). It is quite a rifle, a hoot to shoot, and mine is exceptionally accurate.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Side charging handle designs need to have a much thicker receiver as the meat cut of of them can lead to nasty receiver flex, which is why a lot of them out there are not as reliable as conventional systems.
If you look at a 7.62mm receiver under highspeed video you can see them flex (I've looked at pretty much everything built today as part of our R&D efforts), whichout a lot more meat on them, its a bad bad idea.
Secondly its an opening in the receiver for foreign matter to enter the weapon.
Pistons -- well if you want a piston, buy a SCAR-17S or a M1A, the AR system was never designed for a piston...
Side charging handle designs need to have a much thicker receiver as the meat cut of of them can lead to nasty receiver flex, which is why a lot of them out there are not as reliable as conventional systems.
If you look at a 7.62mm receiver under highspeed video you can see them flex (I've looked at pretty much everything built today as part of our R&D efforts), whichout a lot more meat on them, its a bad bad idea.
Secondly its an opening in the receiver for foreign matter to enter the weapon.
Pistons -- well if you want a piston, buy a SCAR-17S or a M1A, the AR system was never designed for a piston...
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
For what it's worth, I bought one of the ASA non-reciprocating uppers awhile back (5.56). I had no experience with them & was in the market for a new upper so I gave it a shot. It was my first side charger, and also my last. IMHO, it gives no real advantage over the standard set up, opens up the receiver to more foreign debris, and costs more. Sure, it's kind of a novelty at first, but that soon wears off and I found myself wishing I'd just purchased a standard receiver instead.
YMMV, opinions are like assholes, etc...
Good luck.
For what it's worth, I bought one of the ASA non-reciprocating uppers awhile back (5.56). I had no experience with them & was in the market for a new upper so I gave it a shot. It was my first side charger, and also my last. IMHO, it gives no real advantage over the standard set up, opens up the receiver to more foreign debris, and costs more. Sure, it's kind of a novelty at first, but that soon wears off and I found myself wishing I'd just purchased a standard receiver instead.
YMMV, opinions are like assholes, etc...
Good luck.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS pattern? Pretty please!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS pattern? Pretty please!
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oreamnos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS? Pretty please!
</div></div>
Look at the poster of your quote, and go to his website. You will see very quickly that it is NOT DPMS.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oreamnos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS? Pretty please!
</div></div>
Look at the poster of your quote, and go to his website. You will see very quickly that it is NOT DPMS.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oreamnos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS? Pretty please!
</div></div>
Look at the poster of your quote, and go to his website. You will see very quickly that it is NOT DPMS. </div></div>
I know who the man is; I have a couple of his lowers!
I edited my post, just to make you happy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oreamnos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know You will have at least one more SC upper to choose from shortly. The non reciprocating type
: ) </div></div>
That’s just not fair!
DPMS? Pretty please!
</div></div>
Look at the poster of your quote, and go to his website. You will see very quickly that it is NOT DPMS. </div></div>
I know who the man is; I have a couple of his lowers!
I edited my post, just to make you happy.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J-Ham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I bought one of the ASA non-reciprocating uppers awhile back (5.56). I had no experience with them & was in the market for a new upper so I gave it a shot. It was my first side charger, and also my last..</div></div>
J Ham - How was the bolt carrier modified to accept the Side charger?
I appreciate your input, especially since you owned one.
Do you think a semi-stationary weapon, in my case stationary long range shooting for accuracy, .300 RSAUM heavy barrel, over-all heavy, shooting from bi-pod / bag could benefit from the SC?
Thanks-
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #663300">WARDOG</span></span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J-Ham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I bought one of the ASA non-reciprocating uppers awhile back (5.56). I had no experience with them & was in the market for a new upper so I gave it a shot. It was my first side charger, and also my last..</div></div>
J Ham - How was the bolt carrier modified to accept the Side charger?
I appreciate your input, especially since you owned one.
Do you think a semi-stationary weapon, in my case stationary long range shooting for accuracy, .300 RSAUM heavy barrel, over-all heavy, shooting from bi-pod / bag could benefit from the SC?
Thanks-
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #663300">WARDOG</span></span>
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
PERSONALLY, I don't think any AR would benefit from it. I think the only reason they get sold is because people are curious (me) or think since it's different & not the norm, it must be better (partially me
).
The lever simply pushes back on a piece on the side of the bolt carrier, it is non-reciprocating. Let me try to get some pictures for you, I think that will help you understand better than me rambling on.
This system has more moving parts than a standard charging handle, which I don't particularly care for. I also had to modify my bolt release because I ran into some clearance issues. That wasn't really a big deal to me, but it might bother some people.
Like I said, I'll work on some pics.
PERSONALLY, I don't think any AR would benefit from it. I think the only reason they get sold is because people are curious (me) or think since it's different & not the norm, it must be better (partially me
The lever simply pushes back on a piece on the side of the bolt carrier, it is non-reciprocating. Let me try to get some pictures for you, I think that will help you understand better than me rambling on.
This system has more moving parts than a standard charging handle, which I don't particularly care for. I also had to modify my bolt release because I ran into some clearance issues. That wasn't really a big deal to me, but it might bother some people.
Like I said, I'll work on some pics.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BadShot-
I can't figure how I got bad info from ASA on the pattern.
It wasn't all that long ago that I called them, maybe 6 months ago.
Thanks for finding that SC upper option, that was never there before. BUT... those are some <span style="font-style: italic">spendy</span> SC uppers, $549 without the modified carrier, and <span style="font-weight: bold">$625</span> with the modified SC carrier. ... </div></div>
If you could wait, I think you should.
According to Glen, his upper/lower pair would be around $650. If the upper, as he mentioned on this tread, has a side-charger it would be a great buy.
More info. here!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BadShot-
I can't figure how I got bad info from ASA on the pattern.
It wasn't all that long ago that I called them, maybe 6 months ago.
Thanks for finding that SC upper option, that was never there before. BUT... those are some <span style="font-style: italic">spendy</span> SC uppers, $549 without the modified carrier, and <span style="font-weight: bold">$625</span> with the modified SC carrier. ... </div></div>
If you could wait, I think you should.
According to Glen, his upper/lower pair would be around $650. If the upper, as he mentioned on this tread, has a side-charger it would be a great buy.
More info. here!
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
If we do a side charger in 308 it wouldn't be the same price as a standard one. The one i have in mind has no more moving pieces than a standard charging handle and i wont leave a gaping hole on the side of the upper.
Like Kevin pointed out above, flex is a big issue. On a 223 platform i know i can make a upper stiff enough where it needs to be. On the 308, we will see. I have a few calculations to do before i commit. I would rather have accuracy and reliability over anything else.
If we do a side charger in 308 it wouldn't be the same price as a standard one. The one i have in mind has no more moving pieces than a standard charging handle and i wont leave a gaping hole on the side of the upper.
Like Kevin pointed out above, flex is a big issue. On a 223 platform i know i can make a upper stiff enough where it needs to be. On the 308, we will see. I have a few calculations to do before i commit. I would rather have accuracy and reliability over anything else.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
If anyone can do it correctly, it's Glen.
If anyone can do it correctly, it's Glen.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we do a side charger in 308 it wouldn't be the same price as a standard one. The one i have in mind has no more moving pieces than a standard charging handle and i wont leave a gaping hole on the side of the upper.
Like Kevin pointed out above, flex is a big issue. On a 223 platform i know i can make a upper stiff enough where it needs to be. On the 308, we will see. I have a few calculations to do before i commit. I would rather have accuracy and reliability over anything else. </div></div>
What is your ETA on the 223/556 side-charger?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If we do a side charger in 308 it wouldn't be the same price as a standard one. The one i have in mind has no more moving pieces than a standard charging handle and i wont leave a gaping hole on the side of the upper.
Like Kevin pointed out above, flex is a big issue. On a 223 platform i know i can make a upper stiff enough where it needs to be. On the 308, we will see. I have a few calculations to do before i commit. I would rather have accuracy and reliability over anything else. </div></div>
What is your ETA on the 223/556 side-charger?
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
I dont have a ETA, Not giving those out anymore due to past experiences over and over again
I dont have a ETA, Not giving those out anymore due to past experiences over and over again
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Two things,
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying you have to break your grip with a traditional charging handle to work a malfunction. Only during a double feed would you need to and a $30.00 Magpul BAD lever fixes that.
Secondly, there are a few designs for AR style weapons that have side charging handles that are none reciprocating. The LWRC REPR has. Non recip handle.....as was previously mentioned, so does the Rob Arms XCR.
Two things,
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying you have to break your grip with a traditional charging handle to work a malfunction. Only during a double feed would you need to and a $30.00 Magpul BAD lever fixes that.
Secondly, there are a few designs for AR style weapons that have side charging handles that are none reciprocating. The LWRC REPR has. Non recip handle.....as was previously mentioned, so does the Rob Arms XCR.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lofty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two things,
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying you have to break your grip with a traditional charging handle to work a malfunction. Only during a double feed would you need to and a $30.00 Magpul BAD lever fixes that.
Secondly, there are a few designs for AR style weapons that have side charging handles that are none reciprocating. The LWRC REPR has. Non recip handle.....as was previously mentioned, so does the Rob Arms XCR. </div></div>
also JP and as mentioned earlier ASA...and hopefully Seekins...
Its losing sight picture that happens, not necessarily grip.
Wardog:
ASA notches the front driver side corner of the carrier so that their charge handle catches it when you pull it back but will not catch it when the carrier cycles normally. Very simple operation to complete with a mill.
their uppers are thicker than standard to make up for the amount of material removed that Kevin mentioned could be a problem.
I also have some of the SAUM mags I can take some measurements and send pictures if you would like.
in my experience with them they are nice for dinking around with but your screwed if you break something like the folding chunk of plastic handle on the ASA. I don't have a lot of friends with replacement charging handles is what I'm saying. Sort of like piston ARs or (insert joke about condoms here) ...super cool to look at and touch but your screwed when it breaks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lofty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two things,
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying you have to break your grip with a traditional charging handle to work a malfunction. Only during a double feed would you need to and a $30.00 Magpul BAD lever fixes that.
Secondly, there are a few designs for AR style weapons that have side charging handles that are none reciprocating. The LWRC REPR has. Non recip handle.....as was previously mentioned, so does the Rob Arms XCR. </div></div>
also JP and as mentioned earlier ASA...and hopefully Seekins...
Its losing sight picture that happens, not necessarily grip.
Wardog:
ASA notches the front driver side corner of the carrier so that their charge handle catches it when you pull it back but will not catch it when the carrier cycles normally. Very simple operation to complete with a mill.
their uppers are thicker than standard to make up for the amount of material removed that Kevin mentioned could be a problem.
I also have some of the SAUM mags I can take some measurements and send pictures if you would like.
in my experience with them they are nice for dinking around with but your screwed if you break something like the folding chunk of plastic handle on the ASA. I don't have a lot of friends with replacement charging handles is what I'm saying. Sort of like piston ARs or (insert joke about condoms here) ...super cool to look at and touch but your screwed when it breaks.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
When I start having problems with my AR's (10's and 15) I'll start looking for answers (which hasn't been needed for 15 years). Until then, I'm gonna shoot and enjoy them. BTW, you're gonna loose sight picture with a side charge also.
okie
When I start having problems with my AR's (10's and 15) I'll start looking for answers (which hasn't been needed for 15 years). Until then, I'm gonna shoot and enjoy them. BTW, you're gonna loose sight picture with a side charge also.
okie
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I start having problems with my AR's (10's and 15) I'll start looking for answers (which hasn't been needed for 15 years). Until then, I'm gonna shoot and enjoy them. BTW, you're gonna loose sight picture with a side charge also.
okie </div></div>
I'm in the same boat. Call me boring, but I like DI and regular charging handles. Part of a malfunction drill should include watching the ejection port while you operate the handle so either way you are "coming off the gun".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okiefired</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When I start having problems with my AR's (10's and 15) I'll start looking for answers (which hasn't been needed for 15 years). Until then, I'm gonna shoot and enjoy them. BTW, you're gonna loose sight picture with a side charge also.
okie </div></div>
I'm in the same boat. Call me boring, but I like DI and regular charging handles. Part of a malfunction drill should include watching the ejection port while you operate the handle so either way you are "coming off the gun".
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>
How the F is a piston AR going to fix your gun being covered in sand, and how is that same sand going to stop a DI gun over a piston???
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jakhamr81</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRS_Ranger</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
</div></div>
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>
How the F is a piston AR going to fix your gun being covered in sand, and how is that same sand going to stop a DI gun over a piston???
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Here are the drawings for the American Spirit Arms bolt carrier modification. Pretty simply.
ASA bolt mod
Take care,Stan
Here are the drawings for the American Spirit Arms bolt carrier modification. Pretty simply.
ASA bolt mod
Take care,Stan
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
cost. which then leads to continuity. same reason ak's havent had better sights or improved thumb safety features added. a smith can correct these issues on one gun at a time basis but then the operator must become proficient and muscle memory infinately more and more subtypes. easiest just to stick with ghetto. want a good side handle get a fal.
cost. which then leads to continuity. same reason ak's havent had better sights or improved thumb safety features added. a smith can correct these issues on one gun at a time basis but then the operator must become proficient and muscle memory infinately more and more subtypes. easiest just to stick with ghetto. want a good side handle get a fal.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SakoTRG FAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
</div></div>
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>
How the F is a piston AR going to fix your gun being covered in sand, and how is that same sand going to stop a DI gun over a piston??? [/quote]
Not only that, but my lowly DI M4 stayed pretty damn dusty in Iraq and it did just fine. In fact, I really don't know anyone who had problems with the M4 besides the NY times.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SakoTRG FAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: djkest</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People resist change... Same reason people still say piston operation offers no advantage..
I tried a piston AR, and I saw no advantage that was worth double the cost; even the bolt carrier group being cold to the touch...oooooo
Piston fans seem to ignore the downsides to piston systems.
As far as a side-charging AR, I'd love to have one. Not too common, at least for now. </div></div>
That is perhaps true.
But if I ever had to engage in some form of battle, I would want a piston driven system. Dunk it in water, sand, mud, or what have you, and she'll keep firing. Try that with a DI and you'll see quickly that any perceived downsides to a piston driven AR are moot. </div></div>
How the F is a piston AR going to fix your gun being covered in sand, and how is that same sand going to stop a DI gun over a piston??? [/quote]
Not only that, but my lowly DI M4 stayed pretty damn dusty in Iraq and it did just fine. In fact, I really don't know anyone who had problems with the M4 besides the NY times.
Re: Why don't you see more side charging handle setups
Where the hell did the OP mention that he wanted opinions about gas-piston uppers. Read the f'ing title and don't make everyone read through this entire thread picking out info about side charging handles from the damn never ending debate about gas piston blah blah blah blah...
As far as the side charger goes, I have one being built right now. It is a right side charger and is a billet square walled Alexander Arms upper. This rifle will only be a competition rifle so I thought I'd try it out. My problem with the left side charging handle in a duty rifle is much the same as the extended "tactical" latches people put on their traditional charging handles. I have seen more than once those extended latches catch on body gear or LBVs just enough to take the bolt out of battery and cause a malfunction. Anything on the left side of the rifle that is related to the movement or placement of the carrier can cause this if you sling your rifle across your body. It really depends on what you plan on doing with the rifle as to whether or not a charging handle should even be considered. This might be one of the reasons you don't see more of them, but who knows.
I have seen and handled a JP upper with the left side charging handle and I was very impressed, but for duty I like the KISS principle.
Where the hell did the OP mention that he wanted opinions about gas-piston uppers. Read the f'ing title and don't make everyone read through this entire thread picking out info about side charging handles from the damn never ending debate about gas piston blah blah blah blah...
As far as the side charger goes, I have one being built right now. It is a right side charger and is a billet square walled Alexander Arms upper. This rifle will only be a competition rifle so I thought I'd try it out. My problem with the left side charging handle in a duty rifle is much the same as the extended "tactical" latches people put on their traditional charging handles. I have seen more than once those extended latches catch on body gear or LBVs just enough to take the bolt out of battery and cause a malfunction. Anything on the left side of the rifle that is related to the movement or placement of the carrier can cause this if you sling your rifle across your body. It really depends on what you plan on doing with the rifle as to whether or not a charging handle should even be considered. This might be one of the reasons you don't see more of them, but who knows.
I have seen and handled a JP upper with the left side charging handle and I was very impressed, but for duty I like the KISS principle.
Similar threads
