AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/12/2005 4:24:55 AM EDT
|
Can someone explain the rational behind the vertical forward grips that seem so popular in the movies. Most of us have done very well with the horizontal handguards in aimed fire and assault advancing actions. Is there some new combat technic that make a valid argument for their use or is this just another "toy" to hang on our M4geries? Thanks |
|
I can't speak for everyone here, but I've always thought that VFGs were much more comfortable to use and my arm doesn't get tired as quickly. It just feels more natural. I'm strictly a couch commando, and all my ARs see is range time, but even just spending an afternoon at the range, I can really feel a difference when I'm done shooting. It actually feels a little weird to me to shoot an AR without a VFG now. |
|
A couple of arguments for the VFG are that they aid in controllability during FA fire and it is easier to keep your elbows in and down during CQB. VFG are also great when trying to use pressure switches and off-hand thumbs to activate weapon's lights. I prefer a magwell hold and saving some weight. FWIW |
|
But the USMC teaches that the supporting hand only support the rifle - not grip it as it leads to motion of the rifle with each shot which detracts from accuracy. Jim Crews states a similar stance in his AR-15 book. Pushing or pulling the rifle's handguards hard allows the muscles to move the weapon with each shot - gently holding the forearm allows each shot to come as a surprise leading to better accuracy. Up close I can see the advantages of the second handle on the weapon and for comfortably holding the weapon on targets for greater lenghts of time the forward grip makes for a more natural hold. I've never mounted one on my own weapons but have tried them out on others and it's a taste thing - it's possible that my muscle memory built up over the years doesn't like the feeling of the grip. |
|
Biomechanically, it's a LOT stronger, which for me means better comfort, better stillness, and better pointability. It's not gimmicky or new, either. The Thompson, Sten, and various Soviet subguns all to some extent take advantage of the more aggressive and strong hold/stance permitted by a VFG. |
|
I have one, but it spends most of its time in my gear bag. It DOES however promote more secure weapon retention. I ditched the grip, because only one of my rifles has a rail to accept it...i dont want to train, and gain muscle memory on a platform that is not consistent with my other rifles. |
|
I saw a VFG which mounted directly to the stock forearm. Forget who makes it though. FWIW, I also learned to rest the forearm on my supporting hand, but I was most comfortable with gripping the magwell. Someone talked me into installing a rail system with a VFG, at no cost to me, stating that gripping the magwell inadvertantly leads to magazine malfunctions when you wind up gripping the magazine as well. Well, never had it happen, but as I said, tried the conversion at no cost and wound up liking it. It also lets me get the stock tight into my shoulder in CQB. Someone here mentioned biomechanicals. Well, it seems like a more natural position for my hand than supporting the handguard. |
|
I simply would like to try for myself VFG/ no VFG. I get a RRA 16 Middy. I´ve heard, the handguards might not be the strongest. Should I get CavArms ( green for me ) handguards? And I would like a grip that attaches to the handguards direct - no extra plastic rail and so! ( looks, feel and weight ) Any hints on make and where to buy? Thanks, H |
|
I've had VFGs on my ARs since I started using but as of late I've taken them off and I actually find I shoot better. To me, holding the handguards in a traditional manner is more natural. I should also mention that I'm shooting at 50+ yds. To some degree, VFGs are overused IMHO. |
AR Sponsor