Gun Hub Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Just wondering

Jump to Latest
6.6K views 47 replies 17 participants last post by  Diamondback  
#1 ·
It's not exactly an earth shaking question but I'm wondering why so many rifles seem to have gone to placing the charging handles on the left side when I grew up with them on the right side. When I say grew up I'm referring to the common United States Battle Rifles of the World War II and Korean War eras such as the M1, M1 Carbine and M1A/M14.

I can understand (sort of) the AR types going to the center due to their design since to me it just falls naturally there.

But then you have the more "modern" rifles that I'm familiar with such as the FAL, PTR, ACR and SCAR that for no evident reason to me have moved the charging handle to the opposite side. I may be displaying my provincialism by saying moved since to be honest I have no idea if the other rifles of those eras actually had the charging handles or bolts on the right side or not.

Since I'm left handed and I do many things right handed including shooting I'm obviously messed up but the charging handle on the left side just feels wrong to me.

Like I said, not an earth shaking question but I'd welcome any insight you might have.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
T
#3 ·
afaik, that's exactly right- although charging handle placement is by no means universal- ie on the g3 and other h&k products- 90 series, the charging handle is up on the left side on the front end of the gas tube, the ar series has its charging handle in the middle b/c the ar10, which was the granddaddy of the ar had its handle there- we called it "funnylookin" at the time- but most rifles have their charging handles in that spot b/c the ancestor was designed that way- and don't forget you can get different bolts that change it "right hand drive"- or fabricate some in the field- you often see these on the g3 as the average troop doesn't like to have to travel his left hand all the way forward to recharge- I've also seen some m16s modified in a similar pattern
 
#6 ·
Thanks .. though I realize being able to use both hands though neither of them well means I'm not the target audience it just doesn't feel right to me.

I had forgotten about the BAR and had to go look at a picture and sure enough you're right. So much for the conspiracy theories that I had running through my head. :(
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#7 ·
Aside from the WW2 BAR, there was the Thompson SMG. The early models were the 1928 Thompson and like every other it had the cocking knob, or actuator, on top. When the design was simplified due to cost, it became the M1, and later, the M1A1 Thompson and the actuator was moved to the right side, following the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine model.
It would never be produced (IIRC) but had the Thompson development continued, the M2 variant would have had the cocking knob on both sides of the receiver, therefore emulating (sort of) the BAR style....and also it would have been made in .30 Carbine caliber. This model was however, never actually made, due to (probably) the introduction of the TRULY cheap-to-manufacture M3 Grease Gun.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#8 ·
That would be an interesting conversion for a Kahr--rework a semi faux-M1 for .30Car and both-sides bolt. Better yet would be combining the redesigned ambi bolt with the other ergonomics of the original 1921... how much would it need the magwell stretched in the chamber change, and what kind of redesign would it mean on drums and sticks?

A hundred rounds of .30 Carbine ready to play a Home Invader some serious Chicago Piano? YES PLEASE! :D
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
D
#11 ·
The first "assault rifle" the German MP44/StG-44 had the op handle on the left side.
I don't recall seeing many auto or semi auto weapons with that left side arrangement.

These days it does seem to make more sense because you can do most operations without taking the rifle off your shoulder, your right hand off the grip, or your eyes off the target.
 
#12 ·
All well and good if you're one of the steadily-declining right-hand majority. SUCKS when you're a southpaw in a survival situation though... because you either have to have your hardware tweaked, or come up with cumbersome, time-consuming improvised methods. :(
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
D
#15 · (Edited)
The Brits answer to left-handed people who are issued with the British bullpup rifle is that since few Brits have ever fired a rifle, it's just easier to teach them to shoot right-handed from the start.

I don't know whether to agree or cry. That so few formerly Free Englishmen have no experience with arms and are no longer Free is a crying shame.

This is what happens when you're a subject, not a citizen, and have a Parliament not a Constitution.
A Parliament can take away a subjects "Rights" by passing a law.
In America we have a Constitution that can't be easily changed.

That's stood us in good stead for 230 some odd years, and stood until the Progressive Left under Obama decided that enough time had passed and enough people forgot what we were all about that they could finally just start ignoring it.
 
#18 ·
In My Mind...

dfariswheel said:
The Brits answer to left-handed people who are issued with the British bullpup rifle is that since few Brits have ever fired a rifle, it's just easier to teach them to shoot right-handed from the start.
Click to expand...
...the bigger issue with most bullpup rifles is that the ejection paths inhibit being able to switch them from shoulder to shoulder. This is a crucial option for better coverage of potential threats at intersections - whether of streets or of hallways.

Some of the newer bullpup designs offer the operator the option to switch the side to which empty brass ejects, to suit primary handedness, but that's no an operation that can be done in seconds.

And if memory serves, Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to have complained to his mother that the USMC and the M1 Rifle forced him to fire from his right shoulder while his left was his dominant eye.

Back to the previously scheduled topic in this thread...
 
#16 ·
All well and good, IF you have the right-arm strength. Wouldn't have worked in my case, I'm so left-dominant I'm bordering on "human fiddler crab" and it took several years worth of concentrated effort and muscle-building to get my right arm and hand up to a point where I could BARELY lift and control a 1911. (Now I'm an OK shot with my off-hand, though, but still nowhere near where I or anyone else would want it to be.)
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#19 ·
As a followup on my original post I was cleaning my Bushmaster ACR this evening and noticed that there was a matching slot on the right side exactly like the slot on the left side that the charging handle was mounted through. I then did something extremely radical and actually read the instructions and found that the charging handle can be swapped from one side to the other using either a punch or just a bullet tip. It took me all of three minutes to move the charging handle from the left side to the right side. I'm not sure if it's ergonomically best on the right side but there's no doubt it's best for me. After discovering how easy it is to reconfigure the rifle and paraphrasing Skeptic49 I guess the new standard for modern rifles is that there is no standard.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#20 ·
D.J. Saive or one of FN's other representatives reportedly did a demonstration for US Army Ordnance when the FAL was being tested as the T48. As mentioned above, it came down to the firing hand not leaving the pistol grip while charging the rifle. Thus, the FAL user could get his first shot off before the individual wielding one of the US prototypes.
 
K
#22 ·
I think I recall that the Enfield SA80 (AKA - Bullpup AR18) was supposed to have a case deflector, but someone at the FACTORY decided it complicated manufacture and some factory manager dispensed with the feature. I read there was a lot of that going on and was the primary reason for the initial failure of the weapon. It started out as the L85 and the manufacturer butchered the weapon until it became completely unreliable. They closed Enfield, setup a new modern facility, redesigned several features and created a reliable weapon.

The FAL's op-rod is a direct copy of the BAR's. Many of the newer weapons have been designed to be more left hand friendly. The FAMAS was one of the first weapons that could be converted for left hand users. The AUG followed, and the new TAVOR can be made into a left hand weapon. Seems to be a trend in Bullpup rifles, it's too bad traditional pattern rifles aren't following this more closely.
 
#28 ·
TG, I get where you're comin' from--I tend to be an oddball, one of those bass-ackward sorts who prefers an A1-style arched mainspring housing on his 1911s. :)

One of the first lessons I used to teach my own shooting students: "Try different things and be open to new ideas, but if a weapon doesn't *feel* right in your hand don't try to force it to fit, keep sampling until you find one that does."
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
S
#29 ·
Diamondback,

I too like the arched mainspring housing on a Colt's GM, as that's what Il earned to shoot as a MP upon. For the self-same reason, I like the old Colt's Official Police & S&W K-frame revolvers, as that's what I carried as a rookie/young LEO almost a HALF-CENTURY ago.
(Some of the EOF here know that my first LE revolver was a pre-WWII version of the Model 10 for which my Mother paid 40.oo for, including a River holster, Sam Browne, cuffs & a flashlight, so that I could "go to work".)

ImVho, there would have been NO NEED to ever build the M-16 or M-4 had the .30 Carbine been a .401 Winchester, as David M "Carbine" Williams designed it to be.- Carbine Williams was a convict, imprisoned in NC, when he designed the first of 5 forerunners to the .30 caliber Carbine & he LIKED the 15-shot Model 1910-P Winchester semi-auto .401 carbines that the guards at the prison camp had for "tower guards" & "road gang" use.

For those who aren't familiar with the .401WSL, it is VERY effective out to 200+M on big game, up to elk in size/toughness, while having little muzzle report and recoil.
(I've never shot a WT or other game animal with my 1910 that "I had to go look for".)

a personal note: I briefly met & "had coffee" with Mr. Williams in 1969, when he came to our Army post, while promoting his book's re-release.
In the aftermath of the official presentation, Mr. Williams had coffee/donuts with a group from our MPOB class & in response to another 2LT's question said, "Some Generals didn't want anything bigger than a .30 caliber for the Carbine, because of the caliber of the Garand rifle."
He also commented that Remington "came near to" selling a pump-rifle like the Model 141 in.401WSL caliber, after WWII but "killed the release" because the .401 was "too identified with Winchester".

yours, sw
 
#30 ·
Interesting... about how difficult would it be to redesign the beast for an up-bore? Obviously the magazine, barrel, bolt and entire chamber area would need rework just as a start...

Then the problem would be that the .401 is probably a bit obscure and hard-to-find today--SW, your post is the first time I'd ever heard of it.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
S
#36 · (Edited)
Diamondback, et. al.,

The .401WSL prototype was slightly larger in every dimension BUT weighed almost exactly the same as the standard M-1 .30 US Carbine.

Fwiw, at the time of the carbine's invention by David Williams the Winchester Model 1910 and the .401WSL cartridge was fairly common in LE armories. - Today the cartridge is a collector's item & "factory-loaded" rounds are nearly 4.oo each. = 78.90 per 20.
Nonetheless the .401 has more than 3X the ME than the .30 carbine round has & it has at least another 50-75M effective range against human targets.
(Btw, the 180 grain JSP factory loads for my .300 Savage Model 760 Remington are now 2.10 each! = !@#$!)

Being a cheapskate, I've started reloading again, btw.

Note: IF I was going to chamber the little .30 carbine for any other caliber (I'm NOT planning to.), it would be to .221 Johnson Spitfire, which is a REALLY efficient cartridge & equal to the .223 Remington in power, IF one thinks of the .223 Remington as a "big game cartridge".

yours, sw
 
K
#37 ·
Stand,

The development of the .30 Carbine cartridge had to do with two things.

1 - The proliferation of .30 caliber barrel making equipment
2 - The barrier penetration requirements. The .30 Carbine in FMJ is an excellent barrier penetrator out to about 200 yards, even better than the 5.56 (in most cases). And the .30 carbine round had better barrier penetration than the .401.

I personally think the got it right. The M1 Carbine was a resounding success. It's only "fault" was being so good at it's job, people forgot it wasn't a full scale battle rifle. Problems with stopping power usually had more to do with the employment of the weapon rather than the cartridge itself. It never once bounced off heavy winter clothing. It was either fired at a range that severely limited the effectiveness of the cartridge, or the user didn't score a solid hit; simple as that. And secondary to that, the closest direct comparison was the M1 Garand, and most cartridges come up wanting against the grand ole .30-06, including the well established and accepted 5.56 and 7.62x39.
 
#38 · (Edited)
Kevin Gibson said:
Stand,

The development of the .30 Carbine cartridge had to do with two things.

1 - The proliferation of .30 caliber barrel making equipment
2 - The barrier penetration requirements. The .30 Carbine in FMJ is an excellent barrier penetrator out to about 200 yards, even better than the 5.56 (in most cases). And the .30 carbine round had better barrier penetration than the .401.

I personally think the got it right. The M1 Carbine was a resounding success. It's only "fault" was being so good at it's job, people forgot it wasn't a full scale battle rifle. Problems with stopping power usually had more to do with the employment of the weapon rather than the cartridge itself. It never once bounced off heavy winter clothing. It was either fired at a range that severely limited the effectiveness of the cartridge, or the user didn't score a solid hit; simple as that. And secondary to that, the closest direct comparison was the M1 Garand, and most cartridges come up wanting against the grand ole .30-06, including the well established and accepted 5.56 and 7.62x39.
Click to expand...
Amen, I'm tired of hearing that old myth about the 30 carbine round not being able to penetrate the Chinese winter clothing in Korea. Here is a test, you ghave to scroll down to get the carbine results.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-8-the-rags-o-truth/
 
Gun Hub Forums
posts
464K
members
24K
Since
2002
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Ammunition Vendor Spotlight! Great Deals for Members