Fat FIRSH! > Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

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?

Posted: 9/21/2003 12:57:43 PM EDT

[#1]

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

Posted: 9/21/2003 2:39:57 PM EDT

[#2]

Try Precision Reflex tube. It is about the same dia of the standard handguard.

Posted: 9/21/2003 6:50:24 PM EDT

[#3]

ARMS slim line SIR's are the narrowest of the systems I have tried.

Posted: 9/22/2003 4:16:14 AM EDT

[#4]

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.

Posted: 9/22/2003 4:22:21 AM EDT

[#5]

SMGLee: do you have a url for the precision reflex? thx

Posted: 9/22/2003 4:57:49 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
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].

Posted: 9/22/2003 8:56:07 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

Posted: 9/22/2003 2:00:25 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
... 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

Posted: 9/22/2003 4:24:40 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I am not sure what "asymmetric"s are.

View Quote

Asymetric == not round.

Generally oval but they can be other shapes.

Posted: 9/23/2003 9:04:13 AM EDT

[#10]

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.

Posted: 9/23/2003 5:12:02 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 9/24/2003 3:42:52 AM EDT

[#12]

good point. I typically use "weaver" as I cannot consistently spell "picatinny", but I should try to be more precise.

Posted: 9/24/2003 2:57:09 PM EDT

[#13]

You can also call them 1917 rails since that's the ID number of the spec.

Posted: 9/24/2003 9:06:17 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
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 -

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fat FIRSH!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fat FIRSH!