How do they do it?

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Now, if the carrying handle mounts on a rail, couldn't you mount that on the bottom of the handguard?

I just wonder if you could hold it properly then...

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. The center of gravity of an AR is at the front end of the receivers, so it wouldn't be off-balance, it'd just be topheavy...

Urgh, it'd be horribly topheavy. xp

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Now, if the carrying handle mounts on a rail, couldn't you mount that on the bottom of the handguard?

I just wonder if you could hold it properly then...

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. The center of gravity of an AR is at the front end of the receivers, so it wouldn't be off-balance, it'd just be topheavy...

Urgh, it'd be horribly topheavy. xp

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.

The center of gravity of an AR is where the handguard meets the receiver. So the handle mounted there would be well balanced front to back, but the center of gravity is also lower (towards the pistol grip), meaning the weight would sit funny if the handle was under the handguard.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Now, if the carrying handle mounts on a rail, couldn't you mount that on the bottom of the handguard?

I just wonder if you could hold it properly then...

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. The center of gravity of an AR is at the front end of the receivers, so it wouldn't be off-balance, it'd just be topheavy...

Urgh, it'd be horribly topheavy. xp

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.

The center of gravity of an AR is where the handguard meets the receiver. So the handle mounted there would be well balanced front to back, but the center of gravity is also lower (towards the pistol grip), meaning the weight would sit funny if the handle was under the handguard.

Oh ok.
So, not so good of an idea?  

[Fresnel]

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Now, if the carrying handle mounts on a rail, couldn't you mount that on the bottom of the handguard?

I just wonder if you could hold it properly then...

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. The center of gravity of an AR is at the front end of the receivers, so it wouldn't be off-balance, it'd just be topheavy...

Urgh, it'd be horribly topheavy. xp

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.

The center of gravity of an AR is where the handguard meets the receiver. So the handle mounted there would be well balanced front to back, but the center of gravity is also lower (towards the pistol grip), meaning the weight would sit funny if the handle was under the handguard.

Oh ok.
So, not so good of an idea?

If no other solution was obvious it would work, but it wouldn't be the best idea.

Actually, I just had an idea of my own. Mount the scope on top of the A2 handle with a see-through mount, and use an adjustable cheek riser, like the one on a Magpul PRS.  

[Barru]

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Now, if the carrying handle mounts on a rail, couldn't you mount that on the bottom of the handguard?

I just wonder if you could hold it properly then...

Now THAT'S an interesting idea. The center of gravity of an AR is at the front end of the receivers, so it wouldn't be off-balance, it'd just be topheavy...

Urgh, it'd be horribly topheavy. xp

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.

The center of gravity of an AR is where the handguard meets the receiver. So the handle mounted there would be well balanced front to back, but the center of gravity is also lower (towards the pistol grip), meaning the weight would sit funny if the handle was under the handguard.

Oh ok.
So, not so good of an idea?

If no other solution was obvious it would work, but it wouldn't be the best idea.

Actually, I just had an idea of my own. Mount the scope on top of the A2 handle with a see-through mount, and use an adjustable cheek riser, like the one on a Magpul PRS.

Wouldn't that be high up for the iron sights?
How about a special scope that mounts straight on the rail with a handle and at the top of the handle normal peep sights on top of the handle?
Oh s**t.
Yeah the front sight will get in the way of the scope.

But what if you used a type of gutter sight that's on that compact M39/M59, and remove the front sight.

Sure you might not be able to flip and adjust for range but maybe with some more thought into it you could devise something.  

[Fresnel]

Barru

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

Fresnel

OberFeldwebel

You mean bottom heavy right?
That's the best kind of heavy right?
Or am I picturing this wrong.

Bottom front heavy to be precise... but it could be balanced with a lead, or more dense material, in the stock.
That is if you have a solid stock.
Or perhaps you could forgo the aluminum or plastic collapsing stock for a solid steel one.
Still collapsible, same design, but just made from steel.

But then the carrying handle mounted on the bottom of the hand guard would cease to be a good idea since the weight is more evenly distributed.

... this coming from someone that's handled only one of them one time.

The center of gravity of an AR is where the handguard meets the receiver. So the handle mounted there would be well balanced front to back, but the center of gravity is also lower (towards the pistol grip), meaning the weight would sit funny if the handle was under the handguard.

Oh ok.
So, not so good of an idea?

If no other solution was obvious it would work, but it wouldn't be the best idea.

Actually, I just had an idea of my own. Mount the scope on top of the A2 handle with a see-through mount, and use an adjustable cheek riser, like the one on a Magpul PRS.

Wouldn't that be high up for the iron sights?
How about a special scope that mounts straight on the rail with a handle and at the top of the handle normal peep sights on top of the handle?
Oh s**t.
Yeah the front sight will get in the way of the scope.

But what if you used a type of gutter sight that's on that compact M39/M59, and remove the front sight.

Sure you might not be able to flip and adjust for range but maybe with some more thought into it you could devise something.

That's the beautiful thing about the PRS, the cheek riser goes up or down. If you want to use the iron sights, you just click the cheek riser down to the bottom. To use the scope, you click it up again.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Awesome.