Vertical Foregrips on Carbines

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I've been experimenting with one of the new Grippods on a carbine. I'm familiar with the basic fighting stance and have been using that with a magwell hold for a long time. One thing I've discovered in my own training is that I get better stability and times when I run the grip out toward the front sight base. The downside is I find it more difficult to maintain that position for an extended period of time, even though the gun is lighter now than what it used to be.

I see a good mix of grips further back towards the magwell and up forward almost 7" ahead of the magwell. I just wanted to see what others are using and what is working for them to get some ideas.

[TexasRifleman]

Well, I was using one for a while on my shorty AR, but removed it.
"It" was a traditional rail mounted VFG, not the bipod/vfg thing.
I like the idea of that, I've considered trying it again.

I spent a day at a carbine class and found it got in the way a lot, especially in Sul and some other positions. I dropped it about an hour into the thing.

When I was using it, I had it pretty far forward.

[Jeff White]

There are two schools of thought on VFG placement. If you look at FM 3.22-9 the Army recommends that it go out as far towards the front sight as you're comfortable with. I know some people who do CQB for a living who prefer this as it allows them to drive the carbine when moving and they feel it gives them better control.

The Navy/USMC teaches putting it back close to the magwell. This allows you to be a bit steadier and hold the position for a longer period of time.

Personally I don't use a VFG preferring to just use the magwell. I think it's all a matter of personal preference. I doubt you'd get anyone to say that one way was right and the other wrong. I think each is "A" way to accomplish the task.

TexasSIGman,
What is position SUL for a carbine? Is it the same position I know as indoor ready?

Jeff

[TexasRifleman]

Well, a number of us took a class from an warrant service entry team leader here in the DFW area and he taught a "low ready" position and he termed it SUL.

The inventor of SUL, Max Joseph, has this to say about using it with long guns.

It was developed for personnel armed mostly with handguns. It's a handgun position primarily -- minor modifications are necessary with long guns -- but they still use the term SUL.

Now I didn't argue because it was a class, but SUL really isn't a long gun position. I think it's just caught on as the cool name of the week.

In our case he advocated a position where the carbine was pulled in extremely close to the body, rotated to be as flat against your chest as could be, this to keep your profile low as well as have good safe muzzle control.
So yes, I would say it's the same as indoor ready. As he taught it, it was also something you could really only accomplish with a single point sling.

The VFG kept poking me in the ribs so I took it off.

I prefer to just use the mag well myself.

I had my VFG installed far out, as you mention is the Army standard.

In that case it just seems to get in the way and hang up on things, especially in a close quarters environment and, as Bartholomew says, your arm gets tired in a hurry.

Since he's using the VFG as a bipod as well, I don't see how you could pull it in very far and still have an effective bipod.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, my first carbine class was with Chris Grollnek (former USMC Recon) so I was used to the close-in hold and used a magwell hold primarily. However, I was attempting to clean a box drill from 15yds in under 5 seconds and I just wasn't getting the stability and control I needed with a magwell hold. At the time I wasn't running a VFG so I grabbed on to the flashlight out on the front and used it as a grip and got the time under 5 finally.

When I saw the Grippod it seemed like a neat concept; but the first thing that came to mind was the problem TexasSIG mentioned. If I ran it the way I was taught, it was going to make a crummy bipod. After thinking about the flashlight grip during the box drill, I decided to go ahead and try it with the idea I would mount it far forward.

Right now I am running it about 6.5" forward on a 9" rail. This is actually working pretty well so far as I feel like I have better control during movement and the bipod is up forward. At the same time, I have enough space behind the VFG to use a traditional highpower standing position and if I get tired I can always revert to the magwell hold (though if you are already tired you can start to resent the extra 7oz of the grippod hanging out that far forward on the lever).

Overall though, I feel like 7oz for a bipod and a grip isn't a bad tradeoff. I'm still playing with it now so I may change opinions several times yet; but so far I'm liking it. Elevation and depression can be problematic in some scenarios; but there is actually enough give in the bipod that you have a few degrees of left to right movement with no issues. Its a decent grip and a so-so bipod; but for the weight it seems tough to beat the combo.

[Blackhawk 6]

I have used the magazine well, a VPG and I am currenlty running a Surefire 900-series light.(BTW, I had a chance to check out the Gripod at Bill Rogers' school. It is a great piece of gear.)

In my opinion, the key to the placement of the VPG is the angle of the supporting arm. I believe ~90 dgrees to be the optimum angle. The greater the angle, the greater the level of control but the faster the onset of muscle fatigue. Likewise, the shorter the angle, the less control but the greater the muscular endurance. The 90-degree angle balances the two.

The size of the shooter and the stock are the key. For example, on my weapon, with the stock fully-extended, the magazine well provides the 90-degree angle and the maximum degree of control. However, with the stock open to the first position, the magazine well results in an angle less than 90 degrees. My surefire provides the 90-degree angle and greater control. I think you will find that placing the VPG between the center and rear of the bottom rail will provide the 90-degree angle. (Or you can run the VPG further out and hit the gym.:D )

Jeff,

I checked FM 3.22-9 and was unable to locate the information you mentioned. I would appreciate it if you would pass the page number. Interestingly, ST 32-31-1 states that "The Forward Handgrip is intended to mount near the center or just rear of center on the bottom rail." This coincides with my experience. It does provide mounting information for the full length of the bottom rail though.

[Double Naught Spy]

While most carbines like AR15s don't have all that much muzzle jump, I find that a vertical grip further from the receiver does provide a more stable platform, especially when shooting on the move. The muzzle is more controlled during both firing and non-firing. IN other words, I can do a better job with a forward vertical grip of keep the barrel from bouncing around as much while moving.

When using the mag/mag well, all the gripping is from the midpoint and rearward and this allows the muzzle end to have more leverage to bounce around.

Depending on context, I find that the vertical grip on the hand guard or using the mag/mag well as a vertical grip is extremely fast for moving around in tight quarters, but part of what makes it so fast, the control/attachment points being closer to the shooter, means there is a reduced ability to control shot placement. In a tight quarters situation, a little slop isn't going to be terribly significant. So you shoot the bad guy across the room in the eye instead of in the nose. Is that so bad? Probably not. At 50 yards, that same slop means completely missing the bad guy. So that is where the more forward grip position is more helpful.

Actually, I find the traditional rifle grip (hand on guards) to be a better shooting position for marksmanship purposes at distances of 50 yards and more and vertical grip use for distances inside 50.

So Bartholomew, the grip pods cost something like $150 for the polymer version and $225 for the aluminum version. Is that right? Do you really think the product is worth that sort of expense? I am not questioning your purchase decision, just being curious if you thought it was worthwhile for the money.

I have tried reasoning through the expense and for the life of me, I figure I can use a vertical grip as a mono pod if needed and that I don't actually have much need for a bipod on a carbine, but that opinion is not fixed.

I have this mental image of an AR15 with a grip pod coming off a rail under the gas block. I then see two more folding grips mounted on a rail under the handguards. Now I have an image of some guy (since I don't know what Bartholomew Roberts looks like) in a carbine class that is continually switching between vertical grips, unfolding and folding as needed in order to adjust for the required task and arm fatigue and to figure out what is the most optimal grip placement. Heck, why not add a couple of more out laterally on the weak hand side to see how that affects fatigue? Of course, you don't want grip pods extending out to the side unless maybe there is a certain ninja skill for which it is required. :D

Sorry, I digressed.

[NMshooter]

I like the Tango Down VFG.

I keep it close to the magwell, that seems to work best for me.

I like the additional leverage it gives me when handling the carbine, and since it is most of the way back I still have enough space in front of it for a conventional hold on the foreend if I want it.

Does anyone find it easier to use a rail mounted light with a VFG, or more difficult?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So Bartholomew, the grip pods cost something like $150 for the polymer version and $225 for the aluminum version. Is that right? Do you really think the product is worth that sort of expense? I am not questioning your purchase decision, just being curious if you thought it was worthwhile for the money.

I couldn't say yet. I generally like to play with new toys before I comment since often it takes me awhile to discover some aspects of their use. The grippod was purchased as part of experiment to build a rifle that can do fast shooting up close and still do consistent first round hits at 500yds with the same equipment and sights. Once you consider the price of a decent bipod and VFG, and then consider what the additional weight will be, the Grippod doesn't sound like such a bad deal. A little more expensive; but significantly lighter and more compact.

I have tried reasoning through the expense and for the life of me, I figure I can use a vertical grip as a mono pod if needed and that I don't actually have much need for a bipod on a carbine, but that opinion is not fixed.

You'd probably be better off using the magazine as a monopod since it is usually longer than the vertical grip ;) The Grippod is so-so as a bipod but does appear a bit more stable than the magazine-as-monopod. I've got a few months yet before I'll know how I feel about it.

[Jeff White]

Blackhawk 6,
I must be getting old. The reference I thought was for the VFG was on pages 7-37 thru 7-40 discussing short range marksmanship and reflexive fire. It recommends positioning the non firing hand toward front sling swivel. My old brain cells extrapolated that into mounting the VFG there.

TM 9-1005-319-10 shows the VFG mounted all the way to the front on the M4 RAS on page 0020 00-8 and just behind the front sight on the M5 RAS on page 0020 00-9. The text doesn't specify that that's the recommended mounting position though and it does allude to other postions for the VFG.

Jeff