To: xmission
Nicely done. I’d GUESS (I don’t really know) that having that bipod attached out on the barrel like that could affect accuracy, I’d rather support the thing just in front of the magazine.
To: wendy1946
The bipod folds into the front stock, and pretty much disappears.
68 posted on
09/21/2008 5:34:55 AM PDT by
xmission
(Democrats have killed our Soldiers by rewarding the enemy for brutality)
To: wendy1946
I've got a rifle "almost" identical to the FAL with the integral bipod you were commenting on. It doesn't have the barrel cuts for a bipod, and I really like having a bipod, so I ditched the FAL front handguard and replaced it with a Tapco T-48 handguard which is a SUBSTANTIAL chunk of plastic.... drilled it...countersunk it on the inside....and installed a sling swivel stud for a bipod!
I'll scratch up a photo of it later. :-)
To: wendy1946
As it turns out, I had a "decent" photo where you can plainly see the bipod placement. I've got one of those universal barrel adapters around here somewhere for attaching the bipod on the barrel, out past the gas system, but that really did make the rifle front end heavy. I "think" the FAL with the integral bipod is balanced a little better, but this positioning of the bipod in the photo below shifts the weight slightly to the rear and makes the hulking peice-o-steel
seem a little lighter. :-)

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson