View Poll Results: Dear LM/Galil user, which accessory would you purchase first for under R1500?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Free floating handguard (made from steel)

    8 72.73%
  • Magazine adapter to use STANAG magazines

    2 18.18%
  • Side-folding adjustable stock with standard AR buttstock

    1 9.09%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    153

    Default LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Good morning,

    If you have a Galil or an LM series of rifles and you were able to choose one of the following upgrades, which one would you pick first and why? Assume each option costs under R1500.

    1. Free floating lightweight handguard with M-Lok slots on all four sides. Made from heavy gauge steel, but no heavier than your current handguard.
    2. A removable adapter that would allow you to use AR15 magazines. No BHO or anything complicated like that.
    3. A side-folding adjustable stock, that uses AR15 stocks.

    These are concepts that we've gotten to advanced stages, but I would appreciate any constructive input from the users as I understand not everyone's requirements are the same.

    -Wouter

  2. #2
    Moderator SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Number one. So you can mount a dot. It would be great if the handguard could extend past the existing mounts so you can get your support hand a bit further forward.
    Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But I know one thing that never dies,
    the glory of the great dead.
    Havamal

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Noord van die biltong gordyn.
    Age
    56
    Posts
    9,116

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    My opinion, and just mine:

    1. "Heavy guage steel" and "light weight" are quite contradictory. Aluminium may just be more portable. The rifles are quite heavy to start with, so adding more steel will not help. I like the idea of a free-floated handguard as it is supposed to be less affected by the support hand (or solid support) position on the handguard changing the POI. However, considering the effect the piston has on POI due to the barrel being pushed down, I do not think the effort is worth the cost. Just support the handguard at both ends for the best rigidity. I would like a handguard that acts as a reciever extension and actually supports the barrel around the gas block to prevents piston-induced barrel flex. An extended handguard is still the best optic mount, so this is going to be a popular upgrade.

    2. For anyone who has lots of AR mags, such an adaptor makes sense. I have lots of R/LM mags, so I would not want to change.

    The adaptor and AR mags would speed up your reloads, which makes sense for a sport shooter who needs to do reloads. Most SLR shoots that I have been involved in did not need a speed reload if I did not need to "fill in" a lot.

    3. What I hate about the typical AR stock is that the cheek piece sits on the rear section, meaning it moves rearward when lengthening the stock. Taller (or longer necked) shooters want the stock longer, but want the cheek piece more to the front. So a stock that can be lengthened but with an adjustable cheek piece that stays in the forward position would suit me perfectly. So, we need a raised (and adjustable) cheek piece to go with any optic sight. We just need it in the right place too. For now, I have a home made cheek piece bolted to my standard plastic stock. A better setup would be great.

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Quote Originally Posted by A-R View Post
    My opinion, and just mine:

    1. "Heavy guage steel" and "light weight" are quite contradictory. Aluminium may just be more portable. The rifles are quite heavy to start with, so adding more steel will not help. I like the idea of a free-floated handguard as it is supposed to be less affected by the support hand (or solid support) position on the handguard changing the POI. However, considering the effect the piston has on POI due to the barrel being pushed down, I do not think the effort is worth the cost. Just support the handguard at both ends for the best rigidity. I would like a handguard that acts as a reciever extension and actually supports the barrel around the gas block to prevents piston-induced barrel flex. An extended handguard is still the best optic mount, so this is going to be a popular upgrade.

    2. For anyone who has lots of AR mags, such an adaptor makes sense. I have lots of R/LM mags, so I would not want to change.

    The adaptor and AR mags would speed up your reloads, which makes sense for a sport shooter who needs to do reloads. Most SLR shoots that I have been involved in did not need a speed reload if I did not need to "fill in" a lot.

    3. What I hate about the typical AR stock is that the cheek piece sits on the rear section, meaning it moves rearward when lengthening the stock. Taller (or longer necked) shooters want the stock longer, but want the cheek piece more to the front. So a stock that can be lengthened but with an adjustable cheek piece that stays in the forward position would suit me perfectly. So, we need a raised (and adjustable) cheek piece to go with any optic sight. We just need it in the right place too. For now, I have a home made cheek piece bolted to my standard plastic stock. A better setup would be great.
    I appreciate the commentary. Even though I'm limited in what I can share, it does help to hear a user's view. Admittedly I should've been clearer in the usage of a thicker gauge of steel - most likely 1mm or 1.5mm. It just sounded cooler saying "heavy gauge steel" It is indeed heavier - if I used the same length and radius of the current handguard and added a rail to the top, it would top out at 423 grams (cutouts excluded) vs 200 grams for the current handguard. So I'm shrinking it down (reducing the radius) a bit and reducing the amount of individual components from 9 down to 3. I agree the rifle is too heavy already. I'm trying my best to keep the component weight as low as possible; first prize would be the same weight or slightly less.

    Aluminum is a great material, but that wouldn't work for the design I have in mind. For spring tension and strength, steel would work best for these purposes.

    The magazine adapters will definitely have more utility in the USA than here.

    I didn't realize the stock issue for tall users. Does the M16 full length stock work better by default?

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP View Post
    Number one. So you can mount a dot. It would be great if the handguard could extend past the existing mounts so you can get your support hand a bit further forward.
    Noted. The only concern I have is the handguard retainer getting in the way. When we finally one day complete my original design, I'm omitting the handguard retainer completely. That should free us up to extend the length a bit.

  6. #6

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    A mag adapter would be interesting and may be marketable offshore. I do however remember reading that the Galil had different cuts to facilitate the adapter. Yes I know that we made for Israel as well, but just what I read years ago. It would allow better mag standardization. I usually keep a few unloaded mags in the car for range use.

  7. #7
    Moderator SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Quote Originally Posted by VNI View Post
    Noted. The only concern I have is the handguard retainer getting in the way. When we finally one day complete my original design, I'm omitting the handguard retainer completely. That should free us up to extend the length a bit.
    Sure, even a remotely competent gunplumber could put the handguard retainer back if necessary.
    Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But I know one thing that never dies,
    the glory of the great dead.
    Havamal

  8. #8
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Quote Originally Posted by FNBROWNING View Post
    A mag adapter would be interesting and may be marketable offshore. I do however remember reading that the Galil had different cuts to facilitate the adapter. Yes I know that we made for Israel as well, but just what I read years ago. It would allow better mag standardization. I usually keep a few unloaded mags in the car for range use.
    Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Would've been annoying to only pick up that possible compatibility issue in testing.

  9. #9
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Garden Route
    Posts
    988

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Not sure if you have checked these guys out but something along these lines be great.

    http://sureshot-armament.com/product...mk1-handguard/

    https://www.instagram.com/sureshotarmament/

  10. #10
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: LM/Galil owners - which of the following upgrades would you pick first?

    Quote Originally Posted by holdingthezero View Post
    Not sure if you have checked these guys out but something along these lines be great.

    http://sureshot-armament.com/product...mk1-handguard/

    https://www.instagram.com/sureshotarmament/
    Those were referenced to me before yes. Looks cool, but the fact that they don't publish the weight anywhere on the website should cock an eyebrow. At R6000 I would say those are definitely meant to be for raceguns. I'm a bit more of a pragmatist, but I have definitely noted the "look".

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •