FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Charging handles, another way to compare. (Updated)

I have been following the various charging handle threads with great interest, as it was one of the first mods I thought about when I got my SCAR 17S. The choice has been tough since I haven't seen any in person other than the stock handle. I've been thinking about the various reasons for changing the handle and the most important one seems to be clearing optics/mount on the 12 0'clock rail. While we are at it, the new handle may as well be easier to grip and operate.
The improvements in functionality need to significantly outweigh any negatives, or there isn't much point in the swap.

Since the charging handle will be moving frequently, I was thinking it would be interesting to see what the volume of space it would occupy as it cycles. Using one of Kalmar's pics as a starting point I outlined the frontal view of the IWC, Tango Down and stock handles. I had to find a separate pic of the EACH, and did that as well. I then scaled them using a dimension they all have in common based on my measurement of my stock handle. I then extruded each profile to match the length of the charging handle's full cycle.

Here is what I ended up with.







These objects basically represent the no-fly-zone for your various extremities, gear, etc.

It is a little bit more difficult to tell which is which, but lining all of them up gives a really effective idea of the actual clearance differences all around the various operating handles.







These images have definitely helped me make what I feel is an educated choice.

Oh and before the "way too much time on your hands" comments start rolling in, it really only took a few minutes to do. Figuring out what to write in this post took way longer. 

Update:

I found a 3D model of a SCAR (credit to K "H2 Hitman" M) on the 3D warehouse. Not super accurate, I had to tweak a few things, but it gives a better visual representation of what is going on.

All from slightly above.


Stock from slightly above.


TD from slightly above.


EACH from slightly above.


IWC from slightly above.


All from slightly below.


Stock from slightly below.


TD from slightly below.


EACH from slightly below.


IWC from slightly below.


The below view makes it easier to see the barrel screw support clearance that CS Pen mentioned.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
Very accurate! I noticed the IWC angle you depicted is, from its center axis (starting point), exactly what you have shown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Interesting. So from what I am seeing, the Tango Down version actually gives the most clearance between the handle and the optic. It's also the shortest, even shorter than the factory handle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I used to have to grab the stock handle with the inside corner of the first joint on my left index finger. Even writing that out sounds complicated, and I feel that operating one of the gun's most essential controls should be a "no thought required" action.

The Stryker EACH completely alleviates that problem. The only other charging handle I have very much experience with of the ones you've compared is the Tangodown, which I've found to be far too thin and short. Those are just my own observations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
One intangible about the EACH that I don't think is discussed enough is that it is not so large as to be at all distracting as the weapon cycles, but you also kind of are aware of its presence. I've kind of appreciated this when I let novices (i.e. the relatives and friends who cannot remember what "reciprocating charging handle" means) and have this tendency to not be mindful with their fingers of cycle track of the SCAR shoot mine. They all like the EACH the best b/c it makes them very "back of the mind" aware to keep their fingers the hell out of that track as they shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
WOW you have a lot of spare time on your hands or you are a ninja on the computer.

+1 for sarges EACH

I got the GG&G because it was cheap on ebay and I wanted to see if it was any better and let me tell you the GGG came off faster then I put it on. It came down too aggressive for me so I went back to the EACH HANDLE.

FROM MY EXPERIENCE THE EACH HANDLE IS TOUGH TO BEAT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Interesting. So from what I am seeing, the Tango Down version actually gives the most clearance between the handle and the optic. It's also the shortest, even shorter than the factory handle.
Looking at just the data I presented, the Tango Down handle definitely looks like the best bet if you want the smallest handle with the most clearance. Being the smallest handle also strikes me as having some major drawbacks. It will be the smallest target by far if you are going for the handle quickly or under duress.
Even though it has the most clearance above the handle, because it is so short, your hand will potentially be closer to the top rail anyway.
The EACH looks like it will have the most potential to keep your hand as far away as possible from the rail since, even though it gives up a bit of clearance above (vs. TD and IWC), it looks to be operable from further out on the handle (there is still what looks to be a fair bit of grip-able, push/pull-able surface past the small tips of the TDor IWC).

Because there is so little frontal area on the Tango Down, it seems like it would be fairly uncomfortable after repeated use (esp. if your hands were extremely cold). Of course I don't have firsthand experience of this so anyone with the handle feel free to share your thoughts.

Kneedeep,

Based on your data, which will you choose, and why?

-SS
Funny that you should ask that.
I didn't intend this thread to be an EACH-fest, which is why I didn't put my choice in my original post. I figured it would be nice to see some other opinions after they saw the models.
I did in fact decide on the EACH.
Reasons for not choosing the Tango Down were above.

I have to say I was immediately drawn to the IWC handle, it really does look cool. Looking at that cool, form fitting shape it occurred to me that the shape was matching the profile of the receiver frame meaning it would actually make for very little clearance below the handle. This is what made me want to do the 3D models. If you look at the composite rear view, the lower right area below the handles would actually be occupied by the receiver frame. The lower part of the IWC handle actually creates a fairly large volume no-fly-zone below.
The skeletonized form causes me two other concerns. Sooner or later, anything with a hole in it is going to have something else go through it. It seems like something will eventually snag on that loop.
I'm sure the IWC is very strong, but it doesn't seem likely that it could be as strong as the other three handles. Do you think it would survive the Peruvian drop test? ;)

The size and shape of the EACH look to me to make the least objectionable trade offs. There is almost as much clearance underneath as the Tango Down. It has significantly better clearance above than the stock handle, and what it gives up above to the Tango Down it makes up for by being able to operate it further out at the end.
The EACH looks to be pretty stout, so the Peruvian drop test looks like it would be a pass. The overall shape and size look like it would be pretty comfortable to operate with almost any grip or hold.

awesome write up, what program did you use for that?
I did the models in Sketchup Pro. There is a free version called Sketchup Make that is pretty fully functional. It is incredibly easy to use.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,418 Posts
I'll look forward to hearing from you when you're ready to purchase, but please understand that I'm currently 4-5 weeks away from the completion of the latest production run.

Color choice?

-SS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I have to say I was immediately drawn to the IWC handle, it really does look cool. Looking at that cool, form fitting shape it occurred to me that the shape was matching the profile of the receiver frame meaning it would actually make for very little clearance below the handle. This is what made me want to do the 3D models. If you look at the composite rear view, the lower right area below the handles would actually be occupied by the receiver frame. The lower part of the IWC handle actually creates a fairly large volume no-fly-zone below.
The skeletonized form causes me two other concerns. Sooner or later, anything with a hole in it is going to have something else go through it. It seems like something will eventually snag on that loop.
I'm sure the IWC is very strong, but it doesn't seem likely that it could be as strong as the other three handles. Do you think it would survive the Peruvian drop test? ;)
Very cool analysis. I just got my 17S last week; it hasn't even been to the range yet. I already bought the IWC charging handle, which I put on today. I agree with you on the IWC "no fly zone below". I charge with the middle bone of my index finger. The IWC fits it perfectly. If I had fatter fingers it would probably catch on the barrel screw support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,010 Posts
+1 on the EACH, if you have big hands, or wear gloves its awesome. Is it the most compact solution-no, but the weight difference is not noticable . It works and doesn't bust your knuckles on your optics mount, which is why there are so many choices to begin with. I chose it because I liked the size and grip surface, btw I always went with oversize BCG charging handles on my ARs. Sometimes smaller and lighter is not better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I'll look forward to hearing from you when you're ready to purchase, but please understand that I'm currently 4-5 weeks away from the completion of the latest production run.

Color choice?

-SS
That's too bad, but I think I can handle the wait. I have so much crap to do, the weeks have been flying by.

Since my SCAR is black I'd better go with that. I think I'd get to distracted by an FDE one bouncing back and forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,109 Posts
Interesting post showing comparision of cross sections.

Only one piece of the puzzle though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
I like both the EACH and IWC than the rest. The EACH feels solid and very easy to manipulate. The IWC for its compactness yet able to manipulate. The only two (maybe minor to you) differences I have observed between the two is storage because of the EACH mass, it tends to be difficult to manuever in the safe w/o hitting the other goods.....:smile: and cost. The IWC is half the cost. I observed members stating about the ring and how it may catch something but isnt the sling mount have holes? In addition, wouldnt the larger mass of the EACH would have a higher probability of hitting something...again all speculation to agree to disagree..:?: At the end, it boils down to preference and perception. I must admit, by my choice alone, of all the charging handles available, the two leading CHs' are the EACH and IWC - both standing on its own merits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I like both the EACH and IWC than the rest. The EACH feels solid and very easy to manipulate. The IWC for its compactness yet able to manipulate. The only two (maybe minor to you) differences I have observed between the two is storage because of the EACH mass, it tends to be difficult to manuever in the safe w/o hitting the other goods.....:smile: and cost. The IWC is half the cost. I observed members stating about the ring and how it may catch something but isnt the sling mount have holes? In addition, wouldnt the larger mass of the EACH would have a higher probability of hitting something...again all speculation to agree to disagree..:?: At the end, it boils down to preference and perception. I must admit, by my choice alone, of all the charging handles available, the two leading CHs' are the EACH and IWC - both standing on its own merits.
Good points, the extra length of the EACH does seem like it could go either way. Thanks for posting your experiences. Sling mount holes, QD sling loops, and sling hooks do all have holes that could snag something. On the other hand, snagging one of those is very unlikely to take the rifle out of battery. I suppose the odds of that happening aren't significantly higher than snagging any charging handle. That possibility was why I thought parapyropig's Sugru mod to the IWC handle might be a good idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,418 Posts
I like both the EACH and IWC than the rest. The EACH feels solid and very easy to manipulate. The IWC for its compactness yet able to manipulate. The only two (maybe minor to you) differences I have observed between the two is storage because of the EACH mass, it tends to be difficult to manuever in the safe w/o hitting the other goods.....:smile: and cost. The IWC is half the cost. I observed members stating about the ring and how it may catch something but isnt the sling mount have holes? In addition, wouldnt the larger mass of the EACH would have a higher probability of hitting something...again all speculation to agree to disagree..:?: At the end, it boils down to preference and perception. I must admit, by my choice alone, of all the charging handles available, the two leading CHs' are the EACH and IWC - both standing on its own merits.
You purchased a SCAR E.A.C.H.? I know I have you down for 2 FDE on backorder still.

-SS
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top