I have used one
![[Image: gun_zpshmphrnn0.jpg]](http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/ag436/stupidbernard/gun_zpshmphrnn0.jpg)
It is about as minimalistic as you can get with these things. Fits nice a tight on the tube, no slop. There's a ambi QD hole facing down in front of the latch and this works better than you think. It tilts the gun slightly away from you when resting. The QD hole is not anti-rotating as some manufacturers like Magpul are. The latch is flush but exposed but unlikely to be accidentally activated.
I am indifferent to it. I think it is slightly overpriced for what is available. It has two worthwhile features in my book; a built-in QD hole and it is minimalistic. It is more expensive than the equivalent Magpul MOE type. Magpul MOE's don't come with QD hole so that's an extra attachment which brings the price up to equivalent to the MFT. Magpul's STR types have a QD hole but work on one side only (you choose). The bottom pointing QD hole on the MFT makes it ambi.
Neither the Magpul MOE or the MFT do anything to balance a front-heavy gun unless you are talking about SBR setups where the centre of gravity is close to the receiver anyway.
It works, but as Mr Waites rightly points out it is not rear-bag friendly when benching. You sit the butt-prong on the bag and that's as good as you get. It does not slide on a bag in the recoil which no doubt affects accuracy when shooting from the bench. With an angled rear-stock you can use the rear-bag to adjust elevation, but not with the MFT.
If the price was cheaper I'd say it is well worth it for an SBR (only). At the current price only if you need the QD hole otherwise the Magpul MOE types are just as good for a lightweight buttstock. It looks easy enough to trim the bottom of the claw if using body armour and/or centre-body type shooting. I don't think it is suited for a longer barrel where you tend to take more accurate shots. Probably less suited for this forum.
Up to you.
It is about as minimalistic as you can get with these things. Fits nice a tight on the tube, no slop. There's a ambi QD hole facing down in front of the latch and this works better than you think. It tilts the gun slightly away from you when resting. The QD hole is not anti-rotating as some manufacturers like Magpul are. The latch is flush but exposed but unlikely to be accidentally activated.
I am indifferent to it. I think it is slightly overpriced for what is available. It has two worthwhile features in my book; a built-in QD hole and it is minimalistic. It is more expensive than the equivalent Magpul MOE type. Magpul MOE's don't come with QD hole so that's an extra attachment which brings the price up to equivalent to the MFT. Magpul's STR types have a QD hole but work on one side only (you choose). The bottom pointing QD hole on the MFT makes it ambi.
Neither the Magpul MOE or the MFT do anything to balance a front-heavy gun unless you are talking about SBR setups where the centre of gravity is close to the receiver anyway.
It works, but as Mr Waites rightly points out it is not rear-bag friendly when benching. You sit the butt-prong on the bag and that's as good as you get. It does not slide on a bag in the recoil which no doubt affects accuracy when shooting from the bench. With an angled rear-stock you can use the rear-bag to adjust elevation, but not with the MFT.
If the price was cheaper I'd say it is well worth it for an SBR (only). At the current price only if you need the QD hole otherwise the Magpul MOE types are just as good for a lightweight buttstock. It looks easy enough to trim the bottom of the claw if using body armour and/or centre-body type shooting. I don't think it is suited for a longer barrel where you tend to take more accurate shots. Probably less suited for this forum.
Up to you.