The most frequently heard comment about the TD pistol grip that I hear is that it's too narrow, and too angled. I was wondering how that grip compares with a standard FN grip (like you'd find on an FAL or an FNC), since it too is somewhat narrow and very angled. I ask because I really like the way the TD grip looks on the gun and I really really like the FN grip.
Our BG-16 rifle grip has the exact same angle of rake (30 degrees) as the issue M16A2 grip. Perhaps the curved backstrap gives the illusion of additional rake to some eyes.
Here's some grip thickness measurements for comparison.
M16A2- .985 BG-16- .975 = .010 difference
1.00" down from the top:
M16A2- .990 BG-16- .975 = .015 difference
2.00" down from the top:
M16A2- 1.215 BG-16- 1.130 = .085 difference
3.00" down from the top:
M16A2- 1.250 BG-16- 1.215 = .025 difference
M16A2- 1.165 BG-16- 1.175 = .010 difference
You can see we are very close to the baseline grip top and bottom (the difference the thickness of a business card) until the mid-section of the grip, where we are a little thinner.
However, the curved backstrap of the BG-16 adds .165 depth over the standard grip (1.945 vs 1.780).
The FN FAL/FNC grips have 22 degrees of rake, with a straight backstrap that has 31+ degrees of rake. Again, the difference of rake between front/ backstraps cause an illusion
of steep rake, when in fact the M16A2 grip is the more angled grip.
Hope this information helps.
Woah. Thanks a lot! Matter of fact, this info is better than what I expected to get, and exactly what I needed.
Its not the rake I dont like on the TD grip its that is really skinny at the top and too fat at the bottom. People with larger hands prefer a beavertail at the top to fill the hand and improve the reach to the trigger so they dont have to choke down low on the grip.