Sneak Peek: Advantage Arms AR-15 Forward Charging Handle

Advantage Arms has shown on their website a new AR-15 forward charging handle. It is ambidextrous with actual handles folding forward for a slimmer profile. The large handles allow easy access and must be good in a firefight when fine motor skills vanish under stress.

Advantage Arms (2)Advantage Arms (3)

Advantage Arms points out the ease of clearing various malfunctions with this forward charging handle. Here is how they explain it:

Optimized for speed shooting, Advantage Arms’ Forward Charging Handle allows the shooter to clear spent or misfired ammunition without dismounting from the firearm.

Imagine clearing type 1-3 malfunctions without taking your rifle off your shoulder, losing your firing grip, or breaking your stance to reach back with your support hand, and without losing sight of the target. Just a simple rotation of your wrist to point the ejection port downward, then a quick rack back to clear the round. Flip your wrist to observe your chamber, then you’re back on target, ready to engage.

Never again will you have to reach around your optic to charge your weapon.

Without having to fumble for the Bolt Catch, your Forward Charging Handle is in clear peripheral vision. A quick slam rearward, you’re back into the fight.

For the more technical malfunctions like a “Stuck Cartridge Malfunction,” you can hold the bolt open with the Forward Charging Handle and maintain better and more efficient control over the weapon during a “mortar drill.”

This handle system is not available for purchase yet with a “Coming Soon” status on Advantage Arms website. There is also very little information available. However, we can make some assumptions based on what we can see on the released pictures.

Advantage Arms (1)

The handle looks to be a drop-in accessory clamping on rifle’s top rail. It provides a rail section for the scope on top of itself. So the scope is mounted directly on the handle assembly without a riser because the handle frame itself works as a riser. There is also a small rail section where front iron sight is normally located. However, conventional backup iron sights won’t work well if mounted on top of it, because they’ll be positioned too high.

I assume this system either replaces the AR-15 charging handle or simply links it forward. If you look closely you can notice that it extends rearward (atop of the buffer tube) quite a bit. One of the main advantages of forward charging handle over the conventional AR-15 one is the ability to work the handle without a need of breaking your cheek weld. So this handle probably gives that advantage with a tradeoff of having that rear extended portion.



Address: 3926 N Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815

Hrachya H

Being a lifelong firearms enthusiast, Hrachya always enjoys studying design, technology and history of guns and ammunition. His knowledge of Russian allows him to translate and make Russian/Soviet/Combloc small arms related information available for the English speaking audience.
Should you need to contact him, feel free to shoot him a message at


  • Johnsmyname

    Solution to a non-existent problem, thanks but no thanks.

    • Oxopoha

      Unless you’re the alien the Nintendo 64 controller was designed for, the AR 15 charging handle is quite possibly the most awkward ergonomic and any modern rifle. The charging handle and buffer tube have always been downfalls of Stoner’s baby and seeing people whine whenever someone tries to fix them is getting old. I’m just glad someone came up with a version that doesn’t look like it will bend into uselessness if you yank it too hard.

      • PK

        Hear, hear!

        My preference would remain with the charging handle inside the carry handle, but with how useful picatinny rails and optics are, it’s no longer a realistic option. This seems to be the same sort of idea and offer good access while leaving the railed uppers untouched.

        • Anonymoose

          You would say that until you burned yourself on it.

          • PK

            I’m certain you’re correct, as that’s why the original Stoner charging handle was changed to the current type. Since I only use my firearms at the range, I’m not too concerned. I’m more about enjoyment than combat effectiveness for this sort of thing.

      • Johnsmyname

        I agree the designs of the AR buffer system and charging handle are the less desirable features of an otherwise great platform, but they’re really not that big of a problem either. Using a stronger than stock charging handle with a larger latch (e.g. BCM) improves the situation considerably IMO. Needing to buy an expensive, heavy and proprietary part like the offering above just doesn’t make sense to me.

        • Minuteman

          Nyet, rifle is fine! The AR CH is right there where it should be: out of the way and free from ingress points where debris could get in and jack up the system. Stoner put the CH there for a reason.

          • Ext

            Agreed. Stoner put the CH there for a reason. That is to allow your eyes rest for couple seconds before going back on target… or maybe never.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            What do you need the charging handle for when the bolt locks open and the bolt catch doesn’t require taking eyes off target? If your rifle is having the kind of mechanical issues that necessitate using the CH, you’re already out of the fight regardless of what weapon you’re using, and not looking at any targets. Nonissue.

            This is right up there with, “The Garand pings and tells the enemy where you are!” if he can isolate a single ping in the midst of all that .30 cal fire. And I speak as someone who hates the Garand.

          • Koolhed

            “Merica” hates you right back.

          • The Brigadier

            Then get a M1A. No ping to give you away, and insert a fresh twenty round mag and you are back in action with twelve more rounds than the Garand stripper clip’s could hold.

          • Tierlieb

            You are, of course, referring to the original AR-10 charging handle, I assume.^^

          • Minuteman

            No, to the current AR-15 platform. He had to relocate the CH because of problems with the action, as you know. The AR-15 is the best rifle there is, hands down. I love my PWS MK116 Mod 2 (highly customized though). LWRC IC Enhanced and HK G38 aka 416A5 are also good to go. Those 3 are hands down the cream of the crop man. The AR-15 is our rifle and I love it. I don’t need nor want anything else.

          • The Brigadier

            The only problem with it is carrying it with your sling. The points of the handle hit you in the small of your back. That’s why the M16 had a carry handle.

          • Minuteman

            It’s a non-issue to me. Try an FAL for that matter, or an UZI, man those guns suck to carry around. Same thing with the M240. There simply is no way to carry it comfortably, all you can do is sling it and lug it around. The MG3 is a better design for that matter, it can rest comfortably on your shoulder. They never should have done away with the -34 style barrel shroud though, that design was perfect. But I digress. As for the AR, it suits me fine and is perfect. It’s the best rifle in the world and the rifle of the professional soldier. There is a reason why many militaries use it, and special forces prefer it. Folks will always complain about something. Carry-wise, the AK is a marvel as well due to the charging handle being located on the right side, mainly for two good reasons; 1) strong hand operation -assuming you’re not a south paw and regardless of the trade-off of breaking grip, and 2) out of the way for carry.

          • The Brigadier

            It was cheap to produce and the mouse ammo was also cheap. It was an economic decision back in ’67 by the weapons procurement office and not a fighting man’s decision. No one liked it when it replaced the M14 and it is still under powered as a battle rifle. As an assault rifle its fine, but as an all purpose rifle it’s sadly lacking. I know all you youngsters will howl, because this is the only rifle most of you have any experience with. Its accurate and very light to carry. Its also under powered for any shots 400 yards or more, yet its marketed as an all purpose rifle. I own one. Until the SCAR Heavy is manufactured in America and the price is halved, we will have a one solution rifle to choose from and the manufactures are getting very greedy – $1500-2000 for an M4 is pure BS and nothing more. That is pricing for a .308 and not a .223 regardless of the ease of carrying the blasted thing.

          • Minuteman

            Another old fart here. The decision to replace the M14 with the M16 had a lot to do with the M14 being too heavy and cumbersome for jungle combat. I strongly disagree with 5.56 being underpowered, especially when taking nowadays ammo tech into consideration. While it is light, with the propper round you can definitely reach out and touch someone. 5.56/223 has come a very long way (SOST, OTM etc). So with the correct optic (ACOG) and ammo, it is definitely a distance capable rifle. 600m can easily be done with 77gr, 75gr, 70gr etc. There is a reason why Marines are trained to hit a man-sized target out to 550m. The high end AR is pricey because American labor isn’t cheap, it is a precision instrument and the raw materials that go into it aren’t exactly cheap. Overall, you get what you pay for. There’s nothing wrong with quality AR-15’s these days and I will gladly take one from any reputable builder to war with me. PWS, HK, LWRC, LaRue, Noveske, BCM, ADM, LMT, KAC etc. Piston or DI, they are all good to go. The high end quality AR-15 is an outstanding, reliable rifle and the same goes for good 5.56/223 ammo. Again: you get what you pay for. As for 308 as a military GP round: Aint gonna happen. There’s a reason we moved away from it long since. 5.56 is here to say hands down. In the military realm we ought to standardize on SOST, while retaining 77gr OTM for those situations in which it might be more useful, and dump everything else.

          • The Brigadier

            You and I will never agree. As soon as the SCAR Heavy comes down to around $1800 if they decide to build it here, it will rapidly replace the AR. The military brass wants a rifle with a heavier cartridge and the word is the smallest they will consider is a .308. I hope they can convince FN to build the SCAR here, but if not there are other designs that might just pass muster with our weapon buyers.

          • Minuteman

            I didn’t call you names at all. You must have misunderstood me. I said another old fart here as in: greetings [to you], from one old fart to another.
            There’s nothing to agree or disagree about. Military logic tells us that 308 went away for good reason. We simply don’t need it as a GP round. Most realistic combat engagements take place <300m. 5.56 is capable enough to cover that distance. And so is 7.62×39 by the way. Everything further out is machine guns, DMR's, mortars, grenade/rocket launchers and means organic to higher echelons (battalion heavy weapons, brigade, joint effects etc). There's no need to, nor is it feasible to cluster everything at the infantry squad level. War is a team effort. I rather carry 800 or so 5.56 rounds (which is already an ambitious amount of ammo to hump around) and be able to properly sustain a fight for a while than having 300 rounds of 308 at best, burn through ammo prematurely and be overrun aka killed while waiting for resupply. And that goes without even mentioning the major increase in weight.

        • BraveNewWhirled

          Don’t worry, John. It shouldn’t be long until someone fashions yet another lightweight, moderately obtrusive, really cool gadget to attach to the AA solution.

          • Johnsmyname

            Passive aggression is quite annoying and the downfall of any constructive discussion. I am not worried, but rather look forward to any advancement in firearms and accessories. I personally will be passing on the one discussed here however, because for me the cost/effort gives little in additional functionality, for you maybe it’s different.

      • lol

        The stoner design allows for a fully sealed receiver. If you watch “torture tests” of the AK or even faxons ARAK upper, the failure point for both is the slot cut in the receiver.

        Stoner thought of everything, there is very little room for improvement and practically 0 for ergonomics.

        • Minuteman


        • Max Glazer

          Last time I checked, the receiver on the AK doesn’t have a charging handle slot. The gap for that handle is made in the receiver COVER which doesn’t affect the strength of the 1-1.5mm thick steel stamped part.

          • Anon. E Maus

            He wasn’t talking about durability, he was talking about ingress of dirt.

      • Rob

        You can even anchor your boat with it.

        • Nashvone

          Finally! Someone found a use for AR’s!

      • n0truscotsman

        The charging handle and buffer tube are quite fine. What may be the weakness of the charging handle may be also its biggest strength: its out of the way.

        And the disadvantage of the buffer layout is the lack of a ability to use a folding stock, which is a *good* thing IMO.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          Lack of folding stock is a good thing? What about folding stocks do you dislike? Not trolling, actually interested in your reasoning.

          • Anon. E Maus

            Different guy, but I feel they just aren’t very necessary on a rifle.
            Given that the AR gives me a recoil buffer and adjustable length of pull, I think that’s a very worthwhile trade-off.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            What is the purpose of a folding stock? You use the stock to shoot. If you’re not using the stock to shoot, you need a pistol, not a rifle.

            Are you a paratrooper who needs his weapon compact for drop? Then a folding stock might make sense. Or not, as plenty of paras use standard weapons.

            And when was the last time paratroopers actually jumped into battle? The staged ones in Iraq into Coalition held bases don’t count.

          • LilWolfy

            Paratroopers don’t need folding stocks. It’s much faster to remove a weapon from a weapon’s case than it is from jumping the weapon exposed, and jumping exposed increases likelihood of damage to the weapon upon landing. Paratrooper here who used to think that jumping exposed was better until I learned differently from experience. Unzipping the M-1950 weapons case is very fast, and the rifle is protected. You also have less snag hazards inside the bird and upon exit, as well as in the air.

            AR15 PDW stocks are available for those that need to shoot and work in and out of civilian vehicles. The AR15 buffer with cascading mass is one of the best things going for the system since it doesn’t beat accessories like a single weight bolt carrier design, such as the AR18, G36, and SCAR, where there is one violent impact of the carrier against the barrel extension.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Thanks for the info.

          • The Brigadier

            The reason paratroopers in WW II changed their arms from Garands to M1 Carbines was the length of the Garand broke quite a few necks when the rifle hit the ground first and snapped the troopers necks. The carbine being much shorter posed no threat of this happening. Folding stocks are a way of temporarily shortening the length of the rifle. My father and uncle were both Rangers and they always carried short carbines or weapons with folding stocks for this reason.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats a fair question

            I think they are unnecessary, IMO.

            They dont do anything that a collapsable buttstock cant already do and most of the designs I have seen have hinges that are weaker than collapsable stocks.

      • Anon. E Maus

        The buffer fills it’s function well and folding stocks on rifles are kind of overrated.

        I’m not opposed to the idea of the forward charging handle, but I think it could probably be nicer and less bulky.

    • Evandisqusblows

      Stoner originally designed the charging handle inside the carry handle slot like the ar-10, but a change in the gas impingement system made the handle too hot for comfort. So the current configuration was a work around from the beginning

      • lol

        He must have been a prophet then and saw the flat top receivers of the future. ALL HAIL!

      • CommonSense23

        Except the charging handle on the AR15 is actually one of its strongest points. It keeps the charging handle out of the way. Doesn’t interfere with shooting. Allows a very sealed system.

        • iksnilol

          Could a gotten just as much sealing if the charging handle was in front (of the receiver and to the sides) instead of the back where it currently isn’t sealed.

          • Joshua

            However that then limits your rail options, where you can mount ancillary items, and what types of barriers you can use to improve shooting positions.

            Also the CH is very sealed, the tolerances are around the same of the gap allowable between the upper and lower receiver.

          • iksnilol

            Meh, you could make a slot between the 12 and 9/3 o clock rails where the CH could go.

          • Joshua

            Which would interfere with ancillary items like lights and lasers.

            Especially if you use modern shooting techniques where a lot of people are putting the light on the left side and the laser on top.

          • iksnilol

            Why would it interfere if it goes between them? You make the charging handle angled, so that it is at a 45 degree angle.

          • Joshua

            Because a AN/PEQ-15 sits really low on the top rails and below the rail, and then you add a light and it leaves little space to actually grab the lever.

            It was an issue with the ACR charging handle in testing as well as the ADCOR entrant.

            Of which the general issue light is the M952V.

          • LilWolfy

            Creates a larger opening up front, unless you work around the receiver like this one, adding more complexity and weight, increasing costs.

          • iksnilol

            Not really, might make a larger opening on the handguard, but not on the receiver itself.

          • HollowTs

            Playing devil’s advocate. You could do a Galil ACE set up with a side charger with a floating dust cover. Now I know this doesn’t address the buffer non issue some people have. Then again I don’t have a problem the way it is. I would much rather all this innovation went into the development of a new rifle all together than the continuous tinkering of the AR. All the things that have been done in the last 20 years have been GREAT. But I think the AR has apexed and now all this crap is just a money grab! The rifle is fine!

          • The Brigadier

            I agree! As an assault rifle it has been perfected in the M4. Leave it alone, keep the price under $1000 except for the optics, and let’s design a new heavy hitting battle rifle.

      • LilWolfy

        Original prototypes of the AR10 had conventional cocking handles attached to the bolt carrier.

        As the AR10 design matured, he went to an ambidextrous trigger style handle inside the rear sight protective housing bridge.

        The Dutch actually came up with the rear handle location on the CH shaft, a folder on the right side for paratroopers.

        The inverted trigger design made it into the early prototype AR15s, which soon adopted the Dutch design, but with a triangular shape, later replaced with a “T” shape that has not changed since.

    • Rob


      Others can spend their money how they see fit.

    • Minuteman

      I agree. This doesn’t belong on the AR.

  • Mr Mxyzptlk

    Looks pretty good, am curious how much it weighs though. Also, it seems a bit suspect to me that they aren’t showing the rear of it, looks like it might overhand towards your face by a fair amount.

    As for the sight issue, are there any manufacturers that makes short back up irons? The only ones I can think of are the HK416 iron sights, which would work a little better.

    • lol

      Magpul and kac amongst others offer skinny rear sights as to avoid obstruction of the charging handle. Most of the ergonomics this product goes to improve would be done better by any of the ambidextrous handles on the market already.

  • Devil_Doc

    I’m guessing $400…

  • ExMachina1

    Why is the back of the upper receiver not shown in these photos? Is there a gaping hole where the correct charging handle should be?

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      If its not shown, you can probably assume why…

    • Nashvone

      Corporate espionage is a very real thing. If this thing takes off, everyone will be coming out with a knock off.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        So, no one who buys it will be allowed to look at the rear?

        • Nashvone

          Just when I put my puppets and crayons away….Once this hits the market, anyone can examine it any way they want by way of open market purchases and reverse engineering. IF, after a few months, this idea is selling well, everyone will have their own slightly different version on the market. By concealing the rear until the introduction, AA is insuring a few months of market monopoly to further their profits.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Nah, anyone with a good machine shop or connections in China will have a copy out within a week. If it’s worthwhile.

  • Edeco

    I like priming it with the regular charging handle, feels cooler than side charging handles. Those of you who use ARs for martial purposes or action sports may benefit from this though.

  • Max Müller

    So you can basically make your AR-15 a Adcor A556 Elite/ Super 16. But more ugly and with more weight and probably less reliability. Now that is a feature i have been waiting for all my life. Or maybe not…

  • McThag

    OMG! It’s an ambidextrous SCAR charging handle for your AR!


  • Anonymoose

    Just buy a Century C93.

    • Joseph Smith


  • Joe Gamer

    For when your rifle just isn’t heavy enough…And I HATE the rear charging handle…

    • CommonSense23

      What situation do you see yourself needing to keep your cheekweld while running the charging handle on a AR?

      • some other joe

        It’s not so much maintaining a cheekweld, but I’d prefer to clear misfires and reloads when the bolt catch fails to engage with the gun on target.

      • Joe Gamer

        Never…In a perfect world where nothing goes wrong and no one makes mistakes, and preparation is flawless. To me it’s mostly about being in the prone. bullets are whizzing by and you want to stay as low as possible but clearing a malfunction, botching a mag change, loaded on a closed bolt, scrambling like crazy to stay low, and stay on target but having to lift your face up to manipulate the weapon. It’s just something that always bothered me about the AR platform.

        • Aaron

          Turn it sideways and do that, much easier. No lifting your face, and you should be able to manipulate your weapon without looking at it for the most part, anyways.

  • Joseph Smith

    For most shooters, a non-solution. But this could be great for shooters with disabilities!

    We also don’t see any good pictures of how far this thing hangs back over the buffer tube which could cause sight, stock interference.

  • Mmmtacos

    Boy howdy, I really thought my sights weren’t high enough over the bore, and the sight radius was way too long.

    Glad Advantage Arms is there to resolve those issues! Not to mention the weird way the device protrudes from the rear and the extra weight.

    Oh yeah, and forward, non-reciprocating ambidextrous charging handles is neat, I guess.

    Actually, I think I’ll just stick with my Raptor CH.

    • Chris laliberte

      Yes, this makes the height-over-bore even worse! Sure, the optic will still co-witness with your irons, but now everything is higher so your cheekweld isn’t right, you’ll have to raise up your head to see through the optic. And, it doesn’t even look like there’s enough rail room to have a rear BUIS with many optics like the aimpoint that extend rearward from their mount.

      And still not sure how this can possibly work unless there’s something that comes back out of the rear of the receiver (where the normal charging handle comes back)–there’s no other way for the bolt to be drawn backwards except to go in through the same opening that the regular charging handle goes in. So yeah, you’ll get poked in the face unless you break your cheekweld anyway.

      I predict this is a fail. Really don’t think you can jerry-rig a side charging system on a standard AR receiver. I do like the side-charging design, but seems like you need to make a receiver for it.

  • Vet for Trump

    So if it links to the normal charging handle and you don’t break cheek weld, guess what happens when you rack it.
    Bloody nose.

    • Marcus D.

      “You’ll put your eye out with that thing!”

  • Bill

    Neat, but, and this is a huge flabby but, I’m not going weird with my sighting systems, primary and backup, to get a better charging handle. Priorities…

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    I dont find the AR15 charging handle location to be a deal breaker since it has an excellent bolt release, but when I build a rifle Ill stick with the fixed right side charging handle mod. Its simple, functional, about the same overall cost as a regular setup, and it matches the manual of arms of every single other semi auto rifle that I own or ever intend to own.

  • Sledgecrowbar

    I said someone would eventually do this years ago. I figured it would be a proprietary monolithic upper more in the style of a G3, where the handle was sort of a standard handle, flipped around and running through the upper at the gas tube area, which would be both good and bad, but this seems to be at least less-expensive in theory and fits standard components, which isn’t bad. I’m interested as long as it’s not $100. Finding cantilever scope mounts that aren’t high-rise will be a challenge, too.

  • Porty1119

    That’s actually sorta cool.

  • Gary Kirk

    I could almost get behind this idea, except.. It’s kinda in the way of getting behind..

  • Cal S.

    When your AR isn’t FAL enough. Bro, do you even operate?

    Gotta say, though, generally the only thing I use my charging handle for is cycling snap-caps. We call the other thing that handles all of the ‘charging’ going by a different name: a bolt release. Game. Set. Match. Next firearms debate.

  • Joe

    When you demo you’re product on a trigger-less carbine with a Yankee Hill Machine handguard, and an NC-STAR Optic….yeah no one getting fooled there AA Arms.

  • n0truscotsman


  • jerry young

    I like my AR’s like they are, I carried an M16A1 while in the Army and prefer mine like that with as few mods as possible, collapsible stock, key mod or picatiny rail fore grip and I like the flat top with a red dot scope and 45 degree iron sights, I’m in the process of building a M16A1 tribute of course it won’t be full auto and it won’t be marked the same on the lower but it will look like one when I’m done, I want the original stock and triangular fore grip with the carry handle upper, I’m still looking but have found some resources where I can get original parts, what I’m saying is to each his own if you like and want all the bells and whistles then do it if not there’s nothing wrong with that either

    • Gary Kirk

      Have an actual A1 lower (without the reinforced pivot pin holes) that I plan on doing the same way.. All the way down to the three prong flash hider..

      • jerry young

        With the 3 prong flash suppressor it would be an M16, the M16A1 had the solid ring on the end, there were a couple of different stories going around at the time why they did that my favorite was soldiers were using it o open their beer but the real reason was when going through the bush sticks and debris would get stuck in it, I carried the A1, is your lower set up for full auto? mine is an 80% if I can find someone to do the marking so they look original I might have it done but I’ve thought more on just leaving it blank

        • Mr Mxyzptlk

          The upper is what defines soemthing as an M16A1 rather than an M16, which lacked the forward assist. The only guns that would be correct for a 3 pronged flash hider would be the M16 with a slickside upper and slabside lower, the USAF M16 (Model 604) with a slickside upper and partial fence lower (later models had full fence A1 lower but these would not have the 3-prong flash hider), the XM16E1 with an A1 upper and partial fence lower, or the early CAR-15 SMG model. All in all, if you want to be totally accurate it is not that easy to build a gun that legitimately would have the 3-prong.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            In the USAF we had every variation possible, from original M16s upgraded to A1 and then A2 and electropencilled BURST, or milled over AUTO and restamped BURST, or left as auto with A2 uppers, and M16s with bird cages, and original hard chrome or parked carrier groups, and original hard chrome barrel extensions, and carbines in 10″ and 11.5″ and 16″ and 14.5″ and M4s and GUU5Ps. I’m sure there was a standard somewhere, but it was whatever we could get, and varied by installation.

    • Jack Morris
      • jerry young

        Pretty much the same

  • ozzallos .

    I’m just going to say no to the candy apple red grappling hook on the end of my AR.

  • Joshua

    The whole keep your eye on the target assumes you have no cover.

    The first thing you do is a stoppage is not to stand in the open and attempt to clear it so you can “keep your eye on the target” that’s what the other guys in your platoon are for.

    Second the great thing about the AR handle is that it’s out of the way when not in use, it won’t snag on any barrier during any form of barrel shooting, it won’t snag when you sling the rifle for an number of reason, and its out of your view when firing.

    Sure it’s not the absolute best for a CH that needs to be used constantly….But luckily it only needs to be used when charging the rifle and during occasional stoppages.

    • Aaron

      Yeah, it depends, out in the open, no cover, close range, I instantly switch to a pistol if my rifle stops firing for any reason. In cover, correct the malfunction.

  • trjnsd

    The first modification I put on my new Springfield Armory AR was a DevilDog left side charging handle. It works great !! It completely changes and enhances the AR operation. I can charge it the old way, or keep my right hand and eyes where they belong while my left quickly charges from the left. Kool! And I never have to lift my cheek or take my eyes off the target and sights.

  • ??

    3 and 9 o clock rails, PERFECT TO CHEESE GRATE THAT INDEX FINGER!!!

  • LazyReader

    Someone coined the term on TFB Tactitarded…..
    this is one example of that.

  • L. Roger Rich

    Solution to a non-existent problem, thanks but no thanks. +

  • Ark

    “The large handles allow easy access and must be good in a firefight when fine motor skills vanish under stress.”

    They’re not selling this to anyone who is going to be in a “firefight”.

    Also if you’re doing it right and your rifle is in good mechanical order, there’s no reason for an AR user to ever touch the charging handle except when initially loading the rifle.

  • Tierlieb

    I kinda sorta like it. It is a bit bulky and therefore inelegant. But integrating it into a rail system would be way more work.

    What I wonder about:
    1. Why do the pictures showing the charging handles in the rear? You have to push the bolt carrier group backwards, so shouldn’t the resting position of the handles be in front?
    2. Phrasing: It sounds like you’re supposed to hold the BCG in the rear during mortaring the gun. That’d be impossible. But without that, yes, you will be able to get a better grasp on this handle during mortaring.

  • Scott B

    I have an Adcor upper and I love the additional forward charging handle. To each his own.

  • James Wegman

    Adcor has had a forward charging handle for years’ and has done it better than this monstrosity!

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    I’d love a complicated mechanism I have to handle as close to the muzzle as possible. Nothing could ever go wrong with that.

  • John

    So, a big clunky bolt-on snag-factory that adds weight and surface area while providing no real advantage over the standard charging system? No thanks.

  • Wow!

    I have had my eye on this product for a while. If it doesn’t come out fast enough I am going to be purchacing Serbu’s upper or machine one for myself. The AR charging handle is definitely servicable, but by no means desirable. This is a pretty elegant solution to help prevent those ocassional slips on the charging handle and reduce the awkwardness when shooting left handed (and if you use your rifle long enough to become proficient ambidexterously, we all hate the ARs left handed operations).

  • The Brigadier

    Very good design, and it is a major improvement. I would like to see how easy it will be to disassemble the handle for cleaning. The rear charging handle is easy to remove. If the front one is just as easy, its a winner.