I have very longs arms, usually have to get XXL long sleeve shirts to fit my arms. I usually have the stock all the way out and it feels really comfortable and stable to me to hold the mag well or close to it. To each his own.

In reference to the forehand being exposed from cover, I'm guessing he means it's better to have it further back because when entering a door that'd be the first thing to break the plane of the door when the rifle is shouldered, so being as far back as possible would keep it out of the line of fire for someone standing on the left side of the door being entered.

As for the thumb-over-barrel hold, I was told that is mostly used to help muzzle rise, especially in FA, to get back on target.

In my opinion, physics would tell you that your pendulum effect would have your muzzle spin to the next target with less movement from your forehand with it at the magwell. Same reason lacrosse players hold their hands closer together for a faster throw, but further apart for accuracy. Same rings true in my mind. There is, however, the aforementioned dilemma of over-rotating as it takes more actual energy to get the gun moving and stopped. So I see where the closer and further forehand grip has benefits and drawbacks.

Whether you get one that'll have to be whittled or not, I say try it and see if it works well for you.

__________________
-Dik

Ok, I will first answer the OP's actual question and then some of the other comments in this thread.

As far as fitting on the M&P 15-22:

The M&P 15-22 has a lower that has a different shape than normal AR lowers, which is understandable since it is built from polymer.

Both the original version of the MWG that fit MIL-SPEC lowers, but did not fit all variations of commercial lowers, and the second version, which was redesigned to fit most commercial lowers as well as MIL-SPEC lowers will need fitting to work with the M&P 15-22.

The fitting work is simple and can be done with a flat file. You can also use a dremel, but use a bur, not a stone-type bit that will plug up with polymer. The fitting should be done on the MWG, of course, not on the receiver of the rifle. The inside front of the MWG should be taken down, not anything in the rear, or it will interfere with the magazine.

Here is a site that has instructions: Installing the Mako MWG M16/AR-15 Magwell Grip « 7.62 Precision Custom Firearm Finishes

. . . and here is an image showing where the material should be removed. This should take about 5 to 10 minutes.

This is to answer some of the other posts in this thread about this product.

First the question of fitting:
In Israel, basically all of the lowers are Colt M16 lowers. The original MWG was designed to fit those lowers, and fit them perfectly. We were surprised to find, however, that many of the various brands of lowers in the US varied greatly from military lowers. So the original version fit Colt and FN military lowers just fine, but did not fit many commercial lowers.

This problem was solved with the second version, which was redesigned to fit the majority of commercial lowers, plus the military lowers. The second version also has a window for the serial number on military rifles. This window will align with the S/N on many commercial lowers, but not with others.

So the current version will fit most lowers in the US with no fitting required. There may be lowers that require a slight amount of fitting that I am not aware of, but all major brands should be a drop-in fit. It will require extensive fitting or may not work at all with odd-shaped milled lowers, of course.

The first version required no fitting on military rifles, but required fitting on most brands of commercial lowers. The fitting had to be done correctly. If you have one that needs fitting, always do the fitting at the front of the MWG, not the back.

This brings us to the second issue, which is:
Magazine drop-free and fit issues
There was never an issue with magazine fit or magazines dropping free with the MWG. However, there was an issue related to improper fitting of the MWG.
If material is removed from the back part of the MWG, it can be made to fit. You can sometimes tell in photos if an MWG was fit using this method, because it may look tilted forward slightly at the bottom. If the MWG was fit to the rifle this way, it will loose strength, and it may contact the rib on the back of the magazine, sometimes causing drop-free issues and other magazine fit issues.
This led to people believing that the MWG was squeezing the magwell, but in fact it was interfering with the magazine, not changing the internal shape of the magwell.
If you are fitting an old MWG (or a new one for the M&P 15-22) always work on the front side of the MWG, not the back.

MWG vs. competition
The MWG was designed to do two things: provide a simple, comfortable magwell grip, and provide a funnel for more positive reloads.
It was not designed for mounting lights or switches on the receiver, which is not a good place for lights or switches. Lights should be mounted forward, and a pressure switch on the receiver will cause issues with disassembly.
If you are using a light and pressure switch with a magwell hold, then the switch should be mounted to the rear of the rail on the side, where your thumb should hit anyway, so it can stay with the upper. The light can be mounted forward so it is not blocked by the whole side of the weapon.

Also, if you look at the MWG patent, you will see that other magwell grips are a patent infringement, which leaves me with a bad feeling about any company that would engage in that kind of practice.

Now for the controversial part; the practicality of the MWG.

One thing that people need to understand is there are a few things in shooting that are right or wrong - things like certain safety rules, etc.

In the majority of shooting practices, there is not a right way and a wrong way. There are often several good ways, several OK ways, and some not so good ways to shoot. There are some methods that are good for one type of shooting, but not for another.

For example, which is the right pistol shooting stance, the Weaver or the isosceles? Which is the wrong way?

There are winning competitors using both methods. There are highly skilled LE officers using both methods. I was originally taught a Weaver stance and shot well with it. I now use an isosceles, type stance for certain benefits in the type of shooting I am doing, but I would never say that the Weaver stance is wrong.

A magwell hold is not the right way to shoot.
A hyper-extended straight arm Costa-style hold is not the right way to shoot.
A traditional handguard hold is not the right way to shoot.

They all have advantages and disadvantages, but none are right and none are wrong.

Magwell hold:
Advantages-
- Least fatigue. This can be a big issue when you are spending days at a time in CQB-type combat, or even patrolling all day. Fatigue can become a problem.
- It keeps the shooter tight and compact and is a very maneuverable stance in tight quarters.
- It keeps the hand off of the handguard. Why is this an issue? Because many designated marksmen are using M16 rifles that are not free-floated. Any pressure on the handguard changes the point of impact. In this case, it may be better to use a magwell hold for precision shots.
Non-issues-
-I have never seen or heard of an actual case of a magazine-well hold causing a malfunction.
Disadvantages-
-It may be slightly less stable under recoil than other stances for many shooters.
-Grip must be changed to use weapon for striking.
-In the rare case of a kaboom, the magazine will at least most likely be blown out, and possibly parts of the receiver can become shrapnel. In this case, I would want the polymer of the MWG keeping my hand off of the magazine and buffering against the aluminum receiver.

The Costa hyper-extended arm stance
Advantages-
-Shooters can move very quickly from one target to the next. This is great for range of competition - not so good for combat or law enforcement.
-It keeps the muzzle on target well under recoil.
Disadvantages-
-It allows very rapid transitions between targets with much of the target area blocked from view by the arm and rifle. People who train this way tend to be more likely to engage friendly or bystander targets.
-It leads to fatigue very quickly.
-It has potential for injury to arms and elbows if used in CQB work. Most who are really experienced do not use this method in combat.

Traditional forend hold:
Advantages -
-Most of the advantages of the Costa style, without the disadvantages.
-More flexible stance.
-Not too fatiguing.
-Most widely used.
-can be used for shooting with a sling.
Disadvantages:
-More tiring than magwell hold.
-Can affect pont of impact when barrel is not free-floated.

One thing to think about is how you transition from target to target. If you drop the barrel just slightly, so the target area is clearly visible, then bring it back up on the next target, you will have better situational awareness, and be more likely to put a bullet on the body of the target, since final movement is vertical and not horizontal. This should not be an exaggerated movement, just a slight down, across, and up. This will help with targeting decisions as well. It may not be as cool on the range, but it makes sense in an actual fight. If you use this method, any of the above methods will work in the transition between targets about as well, with the very slight advantage to to second two.

By the way, I personally prefer the last method, but have shot with a magwell hold quite a bit in the past as well.

For me the biggest advantage of the MWG is the magwell funnel function. It really works well. I have considered cutting one down so only the bottom portion is left for this purpose.

So I have no problem if someone uses a magwell hold. It is not what we teach, and it is not what I use, but if it works well for you, then use it. If you do, the MWG is an advantage. Others do not use a magwell hold, but still use the MWG for the magwell funnel.

Wow. Great contribution.

Personally I use a stubby VFG with a conventional/Costa mix. Closer to traditional butfurther out.

Yeah, that is about where I am - I use a foregrip or not, as far forward as possible on a carbine handguard, except with my forearm against the magazine, not out in the air.

ya ive never been comfortable with the fully extended costa type of clamp. the end of a carbine handguard or about halfway down a full length tube handguard is pretty comfortable and stable for me. however i dont have enough experience with non-.22 ar's to fully decide yet.

__________________
od: xd9 3"&4", 15-22, 1911 .22

Most annoyingly I've finally ditched the ****** 7" (IIRC) carbine rail and replaced it with a 9" free float rail, meaning I don't have to have the grip on the end of the rail, I'll have the extra room to move it around.

Since doing that the VFG has migrated to almost the exact dame distance out it was on the 7", I now have 2" of rail in front of it preventing my fingers touching the barrel though

(on an AR-15 I get to borrow quite often, I don't own it)

KBK

What well known trainers are teaching a magwell grip? I don't think any of them....that would be a clue.

Welcome Aboard. It's nice to have another manufacturer on the forum.

Understand that you cannot necessarily base decisions on what well-known trainers are doing - some teach techniques that are not necessarily the best practices, or promote equipment that is not the best for the purpose.

Some develop fighting theory to sell new products. Some promote techniques that sell manufacturer's products or or use and promote certain products in exchange for free product, exposure, or advertising dollars from manufacturers. Then other trainers follow the trends they start because their customers see it as the latest and best techniques. Some techniques become a fad more than anything else.

For example, look at the trend with trainers toward micro-sized red-dot sights on full sized carbines. Extensive research has proven that a sight with around a 30mm aperture is most effective for CQB work on a carbine or rifle. Any larger is just more bulk, weight, and potential for breaking, while smaller means it is more difficult to use, requires more precise head placement, and can make it harder to pick up the reticle in awkward positions.

However, when you look at the quality of the good sights today, they will last for many years. You can buy one today and still be using it in 15 years - unlike $70 the knockoffs, which you have to replace every year. So to keep selling sights to you, the quality manufacturer needs to make the sights fail after a given time, which they fortunately do not, or come out with a new concept and make you want it. They work with the trainers to create a shift to the new sight designs. After a couple years, you will see another shift to something else, I'm sure - probably back to a full size sight of some type.

By the way, we also do not teach a magwell hold - we could to sell our product - but we do not because it does not fit the method we are teaching as well as the the stance we teach, and we will not change our proven training to sell a product. Fortunately, there are other training companies that feel the same way about their training, and again, with a lot of the stuff, it is not a matter of right or wrong, but different ways, or even good and better.

Thanks! Feel free to contact me about any of our products or anything else. Keep in mind that I am not really a sales guy, so I will tend to be pretty honest about what I think of each product - there are some I like, some I don't (just because of personal preference - not because they are bad products) and some that just don't fit my needs. I will be glad to help you determine if one of our items will fit your needs, or recommend an item that might work better for you.

Keep in mind that some of the gear we offer is pretty much universally useful, while other stuff may look cool or may look really odd, but was designed for a specific unit or units for a very specific need, and 99% of shooters will have no need for that particular item.

I'm sure you've got some data to back up your claims, but in my sample size of one I prefer the micro red dots.

I've used various 30mm tubes for various applications, going back to the CompM and I must say the performance and weight savings of the H-1 kick most of the 30's in the behind.

That being said I am a hobby shooter. Combat shooters may have a different idea.

KBK

Well stated!

That being said there is a lot of "the Israeli's do it this way!" in current training circles.

Tell your tech guys that the "gear" page on your website is down

KBK

[QUOTE=MakoDefense;136723292]Understand that you cannot necessarily base decisions on what well-known trainers are doing - some teach techniques that are not necessarily the best practices, or promote equipment that is not the best for the purpose.]

I understand that. For me I tend to look at everything I can and then pick out what I feel will work best for me in the situations that I am anticipating. Everyone is different and have different needs.

I still don't see any need for a magwell hold.

Did you not see the earlier image I posted? Do you not see how cool it looks on my tactical 22lr rifle!?!

This is exactly what I was talking about. Around a 30mm aperture may be ideal, but does that mean that you have to change your preference and run out and buy one? Does that mean that you are wrong for using the sight you are using? Absolutely not. If what you have works well for you, then I would be the last to tell you to change. You have it, it works perfectly for your purposes, you like it, so you are good to go.

Thanks, looks like all but the front page is down. I'll see if I can get it fixed.

The reason for the attention on Israeli techniques, is that Israel has been fighting the type of war that the US is now in for many decades. The IDF has had a lot of time to refine techniques that work well for them. However, when we teach, we don't say, "Do it like this because that is how it is done in Israel."
When we teach, we always say, "We do it this way, and this is why." We don't like the idea of saying, "Do it this way because I said so," or "Do it this way because it is the only way."

If we always give the logic behind the method, then the student knows the reasoning, which may not necessarily fit his current situation. For example, there are methods used in Israel that may be fine for a US soldier or civilian, but would not go over well in some LE agencies. Other techniques may be applicable to counter-terror operations or self-defense, but would not be best for anti-terror work. By teaching the logic behind the method, the trainee can more easily recognize what is valuable for him in his particular situation, and what he may not want to adopt.