I’ve never tried a latchless charging handle (CH) but the more I think about it the more it makes sense, especially on these ambi handles that if the role pins on them were to break you’d likely catch a hard time charging the gun. It looks like the latchless design just uses some type of bar spring at add pressure to keep the CH in place and from flailing around when the guns cycling rounds, but there’s no mechanical levers to have to pivot to let go of the receiver. Just grab the lever and pull it, kind of like on most side charging weapons.
What say y’all? Have you’ll tried using a latchless CH on your AR’s? I’ve seen about 3-4 companies that offer them. Unless I find out that they’re really just junk, I think I might try one out on my next build.
I dont understand the need for it? Reading the ads it touts “eliminating the need to squeeze a small latch to charge the rifle.” on the Blackhawk website.
Do we really consciously squeeze anything? It just happens when you grab the charge handle. I never feel like I squeeze anything. Its like saying you need to squeeze the trigger safety on a Glock to be able to pull the trigger back. It just happens naturally.
I do like the fact that it makes ambidextrous use easier. Although someone could just as easily point out that ambidextrous charge handles already exist.
I’m curious to try one but they seem pricey just to see. The Strike industries is about half the price of others though.
To be fair, anything you eliminate is always one less thing that can fail thou.
I would like to try a larger handle no matter what brand or design it is. Never being an AR guy the charge handle is still one of the dumbest most inconvenient and unnatural things in my own opinion. From location, to size, to design, I just hate it.
I have a Strike latchless. I wanted an ambi because I’m a southpaw and I was too cheap to get a Radian. I have had no problems so far.
I do follow the instructions and don’t use it on <16".
In retrospect, as a southpaw, I wouldn’t get it again. But not because I don’t like it, but because the forward assist always gets in the way of racking. Again, as a southpaw, I would get the largest latch possible, like the Warhammer or Timber Creek Enforcer.
Yeah, I don’t feel a latched CH is a terrible thing, and all my AR’s are latched. Some have just a regular GI style handle, one has an old Raptor charging handle which is the same as the newer Radian handle which I have some of them as well. The cool thing about an AR is once it’s charged you shouldn’t have to pull the CH again unless something goes wrong. The exception being the AK based AR’s like the KS47 and Mutant. (I believe) My least favorite thing about the KS47 is there’s no bolt catch, and it charges like a traditional AR. IMO a KS47 would likely benefit more from a latchless charging handle. I’ve always thought that on the Radian style of CH that if you where snatching on it too hard that a roll pin could potential break. (Likely not an issue on a traditional AR CH with the way it’s designed) I think that MASP could be a nice addition to the KS47 as it looks beefy, with good looking nurls, on a handle that looks easy to manipulate and charge the gun quickly. Maybe on my next build I’ll take the Raptor out my KS47 and put it on my AR and put a MASP in my KS47.
They have tension springs that either push against the receiver, or slides in and hooks into the latch cutout on the upper receiver to keep them from moving around until you grab and pull on the handle.
I have AR’s spanning the lines history but with Two exceptions for Clone Accuracy , all are MilSpec Issue Grade.
I like to Lock my BCG’s back when Im not shooting and ride tge Charging Handle forward and then locking it. I learned this prior to the Military and it was certainly practiced while in the Military.
Something about Not having a spring loaded locking latch just seems wrong after nearly 50 years of doing this. I have PSA MilSpec CH’s on hand for the next build and I cant see any reason to change horses now, especially if any added cost is involved for a product that actually does less.
