AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/2/2007 1:01:20 PM EDT
|
I've been wondering why the triangular forend profile was adopted for the AR15/M16. The earlier AR10 had round, trim handguards. It could not have escaped anyone's notice that triangles would require different right and left parts. I'm not aware of any other similar military forend design. I know that some '60s shotguns and rifles had flat-bottom forends. This profile has generally fallen out of favor nowadays. Does anyone know if there was a particular reason for triangular handguards on the black rifle. It seems a curiosity. Sam |
| The first versions of the AR10 handguards were a single piece cone shaped fiberglass sleeve with a bakelite end caps and integrated aluminum sheet heat shield. It was the most common type spanning mosgt all versions of the rifle. The Portuguese version of the rifle actually had a right and left side handguard in addition to a top and bottom heat shield. The first 17 AR15s used the prolific fiberclass cone handguard which evolved into the triangle version and then finially the universial A2 single side handguard. |
|
I was told years ago, that the triangle shape was due to ergonomics. Extend your left arm out like you would be supporting a rifle. Most people's hand will naturally conform to a shape that would support the flat bottomed A1 handguard well. I was instructed when the A2 came about, the round guards were introduced for two reasons. One being getting away from the right and left side onlt handguards. Secondly, a match shooter wa having an extreme ammount of success supporting the A2 in burst be positioning his fingers over the top and his thumb under the forend. How much of this is fact, i have no idea. Seems somewhat logical. |
|
The A1 was still around when I was in and the A2 was just entering service. The A1's I saw were well used, often rebuilt and generally past their prime, but they handled extremely well compared to the A2 and the lighter barrel and triangular handguards were a big part of that. My understanding is that the heavier profile forward fo the ags block made the A2 a bit more private proof as the lighter A1 barrel was known to get bent if used for things like prying open packing crates. In line with this I was also told the round A2 handguards added strenght and stiffness compared to the older triangular handguards. I still prefer to carry and shoot an A1 compared to an A2 - the A1 just feels better and is a better balanced and much more naturally pointing rifle. Having slightly smaller than average hands, I think the A1 handguards are more controllable in full auto. They allow you to hook thumb and fingers on the tapered upper surface and they will not get away from you. On an A2, due to the circular nature of the handguards, much of any additional force used in sqeezing the handguard is vectored upwards. At the time the M-16 and it's triangular handguards were introduced, the average male soldier was 5'9" tall and the ergonomics of the rifle reflected that. By the time the A2 was adpoted many more male troops were much taller and the A2 I think reflects that. Then ironically many more women entered roles in the military where they may find themselves in combat and a rifle or carbine closer to A1 dimensions made more sense. |
|
I can't really vouch for the history of why that shape was chosen but it seems logical to me to look at other weapons that were available at the time. If you will look at some of the high end rifles like Weatherby they had stocks with a triangular profile forward of the magazine well. I think the biggest reason for this is stability. The flat bottom not only lends itself to resting comfortably in the palm but to resting on sandbags as well. Try this simple exercise. Take your right hand and lay your four fingers flat. Place them across the palm of your left hand. Now close the fingers and thumb of your left hand and look at the shape. It's a triangle! Maybe it just looked cool! |
AR Sponsor