The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Zilberbak wrote:Not sure on how to reply to some of the comments suffice to say that l will not be posting anything in the future. Do not understand how people l have never met can be so offensive however they dress it up with William Morris quotes or boy racer analogies. Shame as l found most on Fullbore to be supportive and helpful.

Basically you came here to show off your cool tactical rifle, some mean boys laughed at it and so you're feeling hurt. I've had the p*** taken when I showed my 10/22, the configuration worked me so I don't care.

You're a big boy now, get over it, it's just a gun, we're not questioning your lifestyle options.

Demonic69 wrote:

breacher wrote: As to angled foregrips being useful - can you name one military issue rifle that comes with one as issued ? I mean a rifle with an angled forearm as opposed to an aftermarket add on ? Surely if they were of benefit, someone would have incorporated them into a rifle by now ?

Why would they have them as standard when it's easier to leave it to the user? Some prefer standard, others prefer AFG, some want full fore-grip, bipod, monopod etc.
Are you saying they're all wrong and you're right?

What I am saying is that once an idea becomes "proven" it often ends up as a standard feature.

For example - the multi position stock you see on AR type rifles. Once upon a time the default was the standard A2 stock - now the multi position stock has become a standard feature on many rifles.

Likewise the adjustable cheek piece. They used to be an optional extra - now many manufacturers offer them as standard.

Likewise the quick release detent sling swivel cups that are standard in many magpul stocks - they were once an aftermarket item and are now standard when you buy a magpul stock.

AFGs have been around for a long time. Yet you dont see them as standard on any rifle.

Your money so if it is to your taste proudly take it to the range! You will have admirers at the range, those who don't like it will keep their mouths shut on the day!

If some boring old duffers on a forum don't like it that is their problem :55:

I personally like tacti-cool so my vz.58 is covered with the stuff, don't give a toss if somebody else doesn't like it!

Personally I think something like this is utterly ghastly:



And I think this is the Daewoo Matiz of rifles and I would never willingly spend money on one:



But that is my opinion so I suppose we should all remember this when it comes to rifle choice and subjective taste!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ

breacher wrote:

Demonic69 wrote:

breacher wrote: As to angled foregrips being useful - can you name one military issue rifle that comes with one as issued ? I mean a rifle with an angled forearm as opposed to an aftermarket add on ? Surely if they were of benefit, someone would have incorporated them into a rifle by now ?

Why would they have them as standard when it's easier to leave it to the user? Some prefer standard, others prefer AFG, some want full fore-grip, bipod, monopod etc.
Are you saying they're all wrong and you're right?

What I am saying is that once an idea becomes "proven" it often ends up as a standard feature.

For example - the multi position stock you see on AR type rifles. Once upon a time the default was the standard A2 stock - now the multi position stock has become a standard feature on many rifles.

Likewise the adjustable cheek piece. They used to be an optional extra - now many manufacturers offer them as standard.

Likewise the quick release detent sling swivel cups that are standard in many magpul stocks - they were once an aftermarket item and are now standard when you buy a magpul stock.

AFGs have been around for a long time. Yet you dont see them as standard on any rifle.

The Beretta ARX 160 and FN 2000 both have angled foregrips and are more or less the newest assault rifles on the market. But as has been said, it comes down to the personal preference of the owner/operator and a gun can usually be easily added to, but its harder to take off standard parts without more work.

To the OP: I too prefer black guns (hence the name), and have often found that those with a penchant for walnut and blued barrels are quick and fond of leveling insults our way, most are meant as harmless banter, as i believe all were in this thread, however there are exceptions.

The key is not to bite either way and instead wait until they post a picture of their precious 'tree-guns' guns (as i call them) and ask them how badly their head would implode if they scratched the stock getting the 19th century looking thing out of the cabinet, or how badly the barrel would rust or stock would warp if they left a drop of water on it for more than an hour :55:

The key is not to bite either way and instead wait until they post a picture of their precious 'tree-guns' guns (as i call them) and ask them how badly their head would implode if they scratched the stock getting the 19th century looking thing out of the cabinet, or how badly the barrel would rust or stock would warp if they left a drop of water on it for more than an hour :55:

Ah see now my friend, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think you know that as well my "tree guns" :lol: I also have the odd AR or three. Alas as with my kids, I love all my firearms equally and lavish the same TLC on them all regardless

Blu

laminated wood

Laminated wood ??? Pfff ... that is for the common Russian muzhiks...
The fearless defender of the glorious Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was gripping only the best & most estheticaly ppleasing resine impregnated chipboard

Blu wrote:

The key is not to bite either way and instead wait until they post a picture of their precious 'tree-guts' guns (as i call them) and ask them how badly their head would implode if they scratched the stock getting the 19th century looking thing out of the cabinet, or how badly the barrel would rust or stock would warp if they left a drop of water on it for more than an hour :55:

Ah see now my friend, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think you know that as well my "tree guns" :lol: I also have the odd AR or three. Alas as with my kids, I love all my firearms equally and lavish the same TLC on them all regardless

Blu

That was supposed to be tree-guts guns, but i'm in full agreement, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder and life would be dull if we all liked the same thing

Zilberbak wrote:Have now received all the bits for my VZ from every corner of the earth and have fitted accordingly. Burris sight is still a little high even with the cheek riser and might have to re-think that. The red dot bracket had to be tapped on as it was a very tight fit. All the Fab Defense fitted really well.

If you post a picture you have got to expect it's not to everyone's taste, also I think a thicker skin is needed, if you enjoy it does it matter if I don't.

Ok - I was not au-fait with either - guess I am showing my age. So, I googled them. The google result came back with 100s of images and I could not see any of them having a built in angled forend. Unless you are referring to the way the magwell is slanted on the Beretta ?

As to the FN 2000 - well, its not really an angled foregrip as you see in the bolt on angled fore grips - more a gentle slope or curve of the forend - is it angled ? Well not much more than some sporting rifle stocks.

When I see an angled fore grip on a modern assault rifle which is an integral part of the moulding of the furniture rather than a bolt on extra, I will accept that a manufacturer has decided its a good idea.

I think the best example is the adjustable cheekpiece - once upon a time they were unheard of. First came field ersatz ones like field dressings wrapped around Russian sniper rifles. And leather lace on items used by the USA. And screw on ones by UK. Then came aftermarket add ons. And now many if not most of stock manufacturers offer stocks with adjustable cheek pieces as standard. Because they are useful and solve a problem.

I am not sure if AFGs do. And I think that's why no manufacturer has built one into its design yet.

What if it's a patented design? Which it is.
Why would a manufacturer fork out for a license to add a part that some people like and some don't, when they can just save the cash and let the buyer decide.
I reckon more rifles come without a cheek riser than do, by a very long way. Does that make it a useless add-on for the majority or just another way a manufacturer can sell another, more tricked up model?
As Magpul have sold millions of AFGs I'd say there must be some reason they're popular, even "tacticool" would wear out it's welcome if it was crap, after time... I'd hope!
Have you tried one? I like the additional grip for pulling the rifle tight, without needed a vertical fore-grip which, IMO, can pivot the muzzle down and stock up a bit much, sometimes.