View Full Version : Pros and Cons: Mounting optics on the carry handle
I would like some feedback from the BTDT QP's about mounting optics on the carry handle of the M4/AR15. Pro's and Con's, experience with this, etc...
Where I work, we carry Bushmaster AR15's with EOTechs mounted on the carry handle. Personally, I dislike it. It's too high up and hard to get a target acquisition. We also mount PVS 14 night optics behind the EOTech for the weapons that are used for night hours. Again, personally, I dislike this for the fact that anything you want to look at, at night, you have to point your weapon at--Something in my line of work, can get you in trouble.
Thanks in advance.
The Reaper
02-09-2007, 10:19
Bad idea, but a little better than no optics at all.
Your armorer should be able to convert you over to flattops for less than $150 per weapon and a little time.
i have seen them machined flat and a rail installed, but I am not a fan of this solution.
TR
I wish it was that easy...
The problem I face is that I am trying to convince a 60yr old former Sheriff (he epitimizes the term"inside the box") of a hick town, now the training dep. head, that he needs to make some changes. Bad juju in his eyes...
I have pitched mountig the EOTechs on the flat rail and buying back up flip-up iron sights, but to no evail. Hence, why I came to you guys for your experience and getting pros and cons.
Team Sergeant
02-09-2007, 11:33
The first thing I'd tell my boss is that your current system is antiquated.
Before I did that I would find out answers, cost to upgrade from a few different venders, different upgrade levels etc.
Don't go and tell him we've got a problem without having a solution or courses of action. If you guys can afford EOTechs and night vision you might be able to talk him into some flat-tops. Call around and someone might give you guys a good deal.
TS
The Reaper
02-09-2007, 11:51
I wish it was that easy...
The problem I face is that I am trying to convince a 60yr old former Sheriff (he epitimizes the term"inside the box") of a hick town, now the training dep. head, that he needs to make some changes. Bad juju in his eyes...
I have pitched mountig the EOTechs on the flat rail and buying back up flip-up iron sights, but to no evail. Hence, why I came to you guys for your experience and getting pros and cons.
This is easy.
Get the training officer, several patrol officers and a PACT timer and go to the range with your issue weapons and a few configured the way you want. Some companies may be willing to loan you T&E systems.
Allow the number of rounds required for qual for each officer to fam fire both weapons, including the TO, if he will consent (I suspect that he won't).
After fam fire, place targets downrange from 10 to 100 yards. This will simulate almost all realistic LE rifle engagement distances. Have a couple with no shoot targets slightly offset from the scored targets. This will simulate LE scenarios. Movers would be even better, if you have them.
Have each officer fire the number of rounds to qualify for time and score with each weapon.
Keep an eye out for hits on the no shoots, this is a serious issue, along with misses. Remember, every round fired has a lawyer assigned to it.
Present the TO, then the chief, if the TO does not get it, with the stats impartially for each weapon system, especially comparing times, hits vs. misses, and hits on no shoots for each officer with each configuration.
If you need it, a quick review (in pictures, if neccessary) of what military Spec Ops is currently procuring and what the troops in the Box are using may be helpful, especially if you show alternating pics of what troops in VN used.
I tend to think that your data will support the configuration you want.
The NV question is the justification for head mounted NVDs, and IR Laser aimers.
Good luck.
TR
Roger that TS.
Any BTDT's here mount their optics on the carry handle?
With the EOTech, you don't get a cheek on the stock, you've got a chin on it...:rolleyes:
This is easy.
Get the training officer, several patrol officers and a PACT timer and go to the range with your issue weapons and a few configured the way you want. Some companies may be willing to loan you T&E systems.
Allow the number of rounds required for qual for each officer to fam fire both weapons, including the TO, if he will consent (I suspect that he won't).
After fam fire, place targets downrange from 10 to 100 yards. This will simulate almost all realistic LE rifle engagement distances. Have a couple with no shoot targets slightly offset from the scored targets. This will simulate LE scenarios. Movers would be even better, if you have them.
Have each officer fire the number of rounds to qualify for time and score with each weapon.
Keep an eye out for hits on the no shoots, this is a serious issue, along with misses. Remember, every round fired has a lawyer assigned to it.
Present the TO, then the chief, if the TO does not get it, with the stats impartially for each weapon system, especially comparing times, hits vs. misses, and hits on no shoots for each officer with each configuration.
If you need it, a quick review (in pictures, if neccessary) of what military Spec Ops is currently procuring and what the troops in the Box are using may be helpful, especially if you show alternating pics of what troops in VN used.
I tend to think that your data will support the configuration you want.
The NV question is the justification for head mounted NVDs, and IR Laser aimers.
Good luck.
TR
Thanks Reaper. This is EXACTLY why I came here.
runhard,
At one point we were using ACOGs on our M4 that were mounted on the carring handle. It worked for me and seemed fast as well as accurate. I did have to adjust my cheekweld though not to the extent you have to for your setup.
Currently use an EOTECH and with back up peep sights mounted directly to the rail on the upper. Likely a warehouse of carrying handles somewhere.
Both systems worked for the missions that we did (PSD in an urban area/training local nationals in same).
Reaper's solution is best...
Worse come to worse, you *could* also mount the eotech on a front handguard rail system, or drop rail off the carry handle. those options may not work, though, depending on the system of securing that you have if these are patrol weapons kept in a cruiser... most locks go around the handguard which can negate any fancy toys on the front handguard. Depends on your application.
Obviously the best solution is upper reciever rail mounted.
btw, if you DO get to do Reaper's test he outlined.. just for grins, post the results up here. I think it's be interesting to see.
Warrior-Mentor
02-12-2007, 19:50
Roger that TS.
Any BTDT's here mount their optics on the carry handle?
With the EOTech, you don't get a cheek on the stock, you've got a chin on it...:rolleyes:
Nope. Upgraded my Colt to a flat top to fix exactly this problem. Was several years ago...so I can't remember what it cost. Skydiver386 (QP) is a verifiable gun fanatic. You can usually find him at www.gunbroker.com
Good luck.
Peregrino
02-12-2007, 20:55
Runhard - Swap receivers. Almost every solution involving either a handguard rail or an extended/drop mount will cost as much as swapping to a flattop, yet it won't add the same versatility to the weapon. Any of the free float handguards will require just as much effort from the armorer as swapping receivers. And - not that I expect your department to spend the money on it (especially since it looks like they're not willing to get the right tool for the job in the first place) but Eotechs/Aimpoints mounted forward of the carrying handle usually won't allow an NVD (or the new magnifiers) to be mounted behind them. To stick another nail in the coffin: although eye relief for the Eotech/Aimpoints is not (not supposed to be anyway) an issue, some shooters are uncomfortable with their optics mounted so far from their eye. The only (IMNSHO) drawback to flattops is the requirement to purchase BUIS's. Hope these additional points help weight your argument. My .02 - Peregrino