Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/21/2003 10:35:50 AM EDT
I finally got a change to handle a FIRST yesterday at a gun show and it seems way too fat, even without the pannels. (Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I'm used to wrapping my fingers around a rifle's forend.)

Are any of the FFRAS significanly thinner, or do I stick with my Bush Alum FF forend (~2") and add a screw-on weaver rail for my surefire?
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 12:57:43 PM EDT
Well, I looked at a few other FF handguards, and they are just as fat, even Free Float tubes. That's just the way they have to be to be fitted, unless someone made a tapered free float tube. Ghost
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 2:39:57 PM EDT
Try Precision Reflex tube. It is about the same dia of the standard handguard.
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 6:50:24 PM EDT
ARMS slim line SIR's are the narrowest of the systems I have tried.
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 4:16:14 AM EDT
Thanks for the pointers guys. I will check both suggestions out. Brownells lists a number of FFForends in the 2" to 2.25" range, which would be 6.3" to 7.1" circumference. I went through the back posts and noted various FFRas circumference measurements, but they seemed to conflict.
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 4:22:21 AM EDT
SMGLee: do you have a url for the precision reflex? thx
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 4:57:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By xyzzy45: SMGLee: do you have a url for the precision reflex? thx
View Quote
Precision Reflex is commonly referred to as PRI. Try [url]http://www.mstn.biz[/url].
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 8:56:07 AM EDT
Keeping the rails parallel/continuous with your receiver's rail necessitates the large size. Past that, you can get into one of the more asymmetric solutions on the market. IME, however, none are appreciably thinner than the others.
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 2:00:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Not_A_Llama: ... you can get into one of the more asymmetric solutions on the market. ... I am not sure what "asymmetric"s are. Can you give a url or two? thanks
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 4:24:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By xyzzy45: I am not sure what "asymmetric"s are.
View Quote
Asymetric == not round. Generally oval but they can be other shapes.
Link Posted: 9/23/2003 9:04:13 AM EDT
One related post. I noted on the DPMS site that they have a "new" 4-rail FFforend that they state is 2.37" diameter. They do not state whether this was measured from weaverRail to weaverRail. If so, this would be fairly thin and a possible choice.
Link Posted: 9/23/2003 5:12:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By xyzzy45: weaverRail
View Quote
Just for reference, those are not Weaver rails. They are Picatinny(sp?) rails, which are similar but not quite the same as Weaver. If you try mixing and matching Weaver and Picatinny you'll find that some items are not compatible.
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 3:42:52 AM EDT
good point. I typically use "weaver" as I cannot consistently spell "picatinny", but I should try to be more precise.
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 2:57:09 PM EDT
You can also call them 1917 rails since that's the ID number of the spec.
Link Posted: 9/24/2003 9:06:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By xyzzy45: I finally got a change to handle a FIRST yesterday at a gun show and it seems way too fat, even without the pannels. (Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I'm used to wrapping my fingers around a rifle's forend.) Are any of the FFRAS significanly thinner, or do I stick with my Bush Alum FF forend (~2") and add a screw-on weaver rail for my surefire?
View Quote
I thought my FIRSH was way to big around at first aslso, but now that I've gotten used to it, shooting a standard forend seems tiny. By the way, you can pick up low profile rail covers from Oly that don't increase the diameter of the rail at all, they only fill in the gaps. - Nw -
Top Top