Large Tactical Latch

[neal007]

I have a Rock River Varmint 20" with a A-2 Stock.I put a 4-14x44 on it and now between
the eye relief and low rings to achieve cheekweld the latch access is limited.
Who's using oversized latches and what brand?
How large is to large?
Where did you get it?
Thanks men

 

[chainring]

I hate large latches, but in your case the Badger Tac Latch might be useful.

 

[Laseredge]

I didn't like either of the Badger latches.

I like the PRI the best of any oversized add on latches I've used.
PRI Combat Latch Enhanced Charging Handle Latch AR-15 LR-308 Steel

However, the BCM is the best charging handle on the market as far as I've seen, pick your latch size. The medium may be large enough for you.
BCMGUNFIGHTER™ Charging Handle for AR-15, M16, M4

 

[CMH]

I have had and liked Badger Tac-Latches, but in my opinion there is no equal to the BCM Gunfighters, unless you are trying to cut some of the blowback (like with a suppressor) in which case PRI is good. I have had both the medium and large BCM's and I don't find the large too large, but your mileage may vary.

 

[bullseye13]

I recently purchased the Rainier arms Raptor charging handle, and really like it. Its worth a look.

 

[-Nick-]

I've had the Badger and the BCM. For the cost you might as well upgrade to a BCM ambi or look at the Rainier Raptor as already mentioned so you have the advantage of ambi charging also.

 

[Regalkismet]

I use to use the bcm gunfighters but after I used a Raptor I changed all my AR's to it...... It's that good.

 

[leadbullet]

don't remember what brnds but i love large taclatches, especially on scoped heavy barreled AR's, so it is a breeze to work the bolt from prone without loosing the cheek weld.

 

[ORD]

For the best that I have used (including aftermarket latch-replacements to dedicated CHs), the Rainier Arms/AXTS Raptor CH is by far the best of the best for its overall strength of design, functionality, size of the latches, and ambidextrous function. I have run all manner of different latches and CH combos over the years, including recently having used on the of BCM ambi CHs and the Raptor is just the best. Now...it ain't cheap by any means, but as time and funds permit, I'll eventually upgrade most of my ARs with the Raptor until somebody comes up with a better mousetrap. It is truly an excellent product! As to your particular uses...the latches are large and have a nice, wide footprint to grab onto, but they do not stick out as far as others I have used. To me, its a great balance as they also don't get snagged/caught on everything coming and going either but give you solid grip of the CH on both sides of the rifle.

See here (but available from various retailers): Rainier Arms™ | Browse | Charging Handles | Rainier Arms Raptor Ambidextrous Charging Handle - 5.56MM

Just one other thought since nobody has mentioned it yet...are you REALLY SURE that low rings are really giving you optimum positioning on the rifle?? I only ask because even though using low rings where able can get the optic down closer to the bore, it also generally has an adverse effect on the AR platform which doesn't lend itself to low rings. This is due to the Receiver Extension (i.e. - buffer tube), which has no drop at the comb like a more conventional, bolt action rifle or other stock. Because of that, mounts that put the center of the optic around 1.25-1.45" off the top rail (due to a variety of factors, etc.), generally give the most optimum height for achieving a proper/comfortable position on the rifle and solid cheek weld. Lower mounts and rings can certainly be used as warranted by the individual shooter/circumstances, but I personally would think that you would be all sorts of out of position and perhaps even having to contort the rifle somewhat to get a good sight picture by going that low. Again...just a casual observation...no offense intended.

Good luck with your CH/latch search!

 

[gunfreak101]

Check the bcm charging handles they have several dfiffernt models to choose from.

 

[KillShot]

I also had the BCM gunfighter mod3 but after trying out the Rainier Raptor, I sold the BCM.

 

[Capt Academy]

I use the BCM Gunfighter, med & LG on all my AR's and they work well, but will now look at the Raptor, based on the comments made here. I just look it up, nice!


http://www.rainierarms.com/?page=shop/detail&product_id=3172

 

[Skg_Mre_Lght]

I use BCM Gunfighters on mu ARs, I doubt I will be changing soon.

 

[mbpike]

I've got a BCM large latch on my SPR and the medium latches on all my other ARs. I've really been wanting to get my hands on the raptor to try. But from my personal experience I can recommend a BCM large latch.

 

[Regalkismet]

I use BCM Gunfighters on mu ARs, I doubt I will be changing soon.

Then don't try the Raptors it will make you want to change them..... Atleast that's what happens to most.... Lol... BCM'S are definitely good stuff though.

 

[-Nick-]

Just one other thought since nobody has mentioned it yet...are you REALLY SURE that low rings are really giving you optimum positioning on the rifle?? I only ask because even though using low rings where able can get the optic down closer to the bore, it also generally has an adverse effect on the AR platform which doesn't lend itself to low rings. This is due to the Receiver Extension (i.e. - buffer tube), which has no drop at the comb like a more conventional, bolt action rifle or other stock. Because of that, mounts that put the center of the optic around 1.25-1.45" off the top rail (due to a variety of factors, etc.), generally give the most optimum height for achieving a proper/comfortable position on the rifle and solid cheek weld. Lower mounts and rings can certainly be used as warranted by the individual shooter/circumstances, but I personally would think that you would be all sorts of out of position and perhaps even having to contort the rifle somewhat to get a good sight picture by going that low. Again...just a casual observation...no offense intended.

+1... I was thinking the same thing.

 

[jrob300]

Just one other thought since nobody has mentioned it yet...are you REALLY SURE that low rings are really giving you optimum positioning on the rifle?? I only ask because even though using low rings where able can get the optic down closer to the bore, it also generally has an adverse effect on the AR platform which doesn't lend itself to low rings. This is due to the Receiver Extension (i.e. - buffer tube), which has no drop at the comb like a more conventional, bolt action rifle or other stock. Because of that, mounts that put the center of the optic around 1.25-1.45" off the top rail (due to a variety of factors, etc.), generally give the most optimum height for achieving a proper/comfortable position on the rifle and solid cheek weld. Lower mounts and rings can certainly be used as warranted by the individual shooter/circumstances, but I personally would think that you would be all sorts of out of position and perhaps even having to contort the rifle somewhat to get a good sight picture by going that low. Again...just a casual observation...no offense intended.

+1... I was thinking the same thing.

Unless you have really high cheek bones... like me. When I have the cheekrest adjusted on my bolt gun so that I get a good sight picture and a solid weld, no one I shoot with can get on my rifle and see anything other than black. The first time I shot an AR with an optic I thought somebody really screwed up with that setup... I had to have a chinweld! I currently run a ADM 20 MOA mount with a Larue RISR and it's not *quite* high enough, so I've been looking at dense foam sheet stock with adhesive backs in varying thickness to get it just right.

If there is one variable that will give you poor accuracy results, that is also the most neglected, it is consistent, solid cheekweld.

John

 

[smschulz]

I use mainly the latch from Black Rain Ordinance
I have tried them all and this one and the original Badger Tac Latch is all I use, mostly the Black Rain.

 

[neal007]

No offence at all ORD! Thanks for the input from you and everyone else! Jrob you are spot on! Whether its cheekbones
or whatever... Same here with my bolt guns, I made Kydex cheek pieces for all and none of my friends can shoot mine
either. Which I'm ok with, they fit me! ORD, as for the "contorted" I just always set my guns up like Todd Hodnett suggested
with "pillow pressure" when I get on the gun....Its just always worked,been comfortable and no neck soreness later.
This particular gun has a Primary Arms 4-14 x 44 and I think its more of an eye relief\lack of rail space, and not a lot of room to slide the tube back and forth in the rings thing than anything else. I only have receiver rail to work with and it just puts the scope back over the charging handle further than I'd like.
My friend loaned me a BCM charging handle with a medium latch yesterday just for size comparison, I tried it last night and it will be
PLENTY big enough. Now just to figure out what I want!!
Thanks again for all the help!

 

[ORD]

No offence at all ORD! Thanks for the input from you and everyone else! Jrob you are spot on! Whether its cheekbones
or whatever... Same here with my bolt guns, I made Kydex cheek pieces for all and none of my friends can shoot mine
either. Which I'm ok with, they fit me! ORD, as for the "contorted" I just always set my guns up like Todd Hodnett suggested
with "pillow pressure" when I get on the gun....Its just always worked,been comfortable and no neck soreness later.
This particular gun has a Primary Arms 4-14 x 44 and I think its more of an eye relief\lack of rail space, and not a lot of room to slide the tube back and forth in the rings thing than anything else. I only have receiver rail to work with and it just puts the scope back over the charging handle further than I'd like.
My friend loaned me a BCM charging handle with a medium latch yesterday just for size comparison, I tried it last night and it will be
PLENTY big enough. Now just to figure out what I want!!
Thanks again for all the help!

Good deal. Glad you are finding a working solution.

If you need the optic moved forward some to achieve more (or better) eye relief for you, there are other options that can help without having to go to a high, 1pc style mount. There are companies that make cantilever rings/mounts, as well as risers that extend beyond the receiver rail by 2" or so that will allow you to move the scope out further with your standard rings. Now...the problem with the risers is that while they'll give you extended length on which to get your optic mounted out further and give you more eye relief (get your optic's eyepiece up to about even with the CH instead of hanging over top of it)...BUT, they'll also add roughly 3/8" to 1/2" in height so your current rings would also likely have to get sold and replaced with an even lower set or some with the appropriate height to get everything back down to where you need it to be. Something else to consider.

 

[judgedelta]

I just got a Yankee Hill offset mount for my Predator Pursuit. Had the same problem with no eye relief. Seems to be a nice piece of gear and made in the USA...

 

[Nutro]

I recently purchased the Rainier arms Raptor charging handle, and really like it. Its worth a look.

I love my Raptor handles