XCR Forum banner

Why vertical grips?

9K views 51 replies 25 participants last post by  armed515 
I tried various grips but to be honest the magwell lets me turn the rifle faster. Plus if the target is out a bit, then I revetn to holding the forearm as far forward as possible.
 
With the L85 we were taight to use the mag as a support when prone. Our mags had floorplates without holes in them, and if we ever used other sourced mags, we simply taped them up.

Different strokes.
 
On a typical mag forward design I use the magwell as a forward grip for CQB and then the forearm for longer range shooting. Best of both worlds. The magwell as the forward grip is closer to the C of G and allows quicker manoverability. Using the forestock gives better long range stability. Back in the day that worked well with the C7/C8 rifles.

SDDuc996

The L85A1 was a nice rifle and it worked well if you jury rigged it a little. The A2 resolves those early issues out of the box. Average infantry squaddies could engage to 600 with ease. LSW carriers could make headshots at 600. Overall the rifle works well and terminal ballistics are not an issue given the 20" tube.

The HK improvements are very nice. I wasn't isused an L85A2, but on a trip back to the UK my old unit invited me to a range session. It's nice and definatley fixes some of the issues we used to jury rig. I'm not a fan of the cocking handle, but it is stronger than the old one.

The XCR is nice, the ergonomics are good and generally the only real flaws would be the trigger and the patchy build quality, which is improving. i'd like to see a dust cover and quality improvements but on the whole it is a nice package.

The SIG556. Sorry VB, I actually like it. Being able to use HK mags, or magazines with the HK style follower (MEGPUL etc...) resolve reliability of STANAG mags and the SIG is a nice way of getting a SIG design for a reasonable price. Sure it's got a few things that differ from the 551 but for civilian use they don't matter.

The AR. Used it, was issues the Canadian version and on the whole it works. It's like a Chevy V8, it aint great but it's an adaptable platform. shorter barrels in 5.56 suck at anything other than close range but give it a piston and a decent stock and you end up with an OK platform. The adjustable stock is nice but the recoil spring should be in the reciever so you can shorten the rifle length with a folding stock. Like a Chevy you can get parts anywhere so using it allows easy logistics. It is also capable of good accuracy and the split halves give flexibility too.

If I was to go into combat again and could choose my own weapon, ignoring logistics and just go on the weapon's merits? I'd take the L85 with HK's grenade launcher. With one weapon I can do a lot of harm from 0-600 yards. It's reliable, apparently now the most reliable and accurate rifle in NATO service. I can shoot the SS109/M855 penetrator rounds with good terminal balistics and not give up on penetration.
 
No worries,

The SUSAT was brilliant. We had the SUIT for the SLR (FAL) and that worked really well despite the mounting point being a little less than ideal.

The SUSAT gave us a real heads up for longer range engagements and is also pretty good for CQB when you get used to it. We only gave front line troops the optics though as the SUSAT actually cost more thean the rifle. Support troops got iron sights on a carrying handle. I suspect this will change over time or support troops will start to add their own optics. We used to modify our rifles a lot to compensate for issues in the field and I doubt that will ever change.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top