A question about modern revolver grips


PDA






Tortuga12
October 28, 2006, 03:33 PM
Why is it that I see so many wood grips these days with NO checkering? Am I alone now in thinking that this provides both an improved look and grip? I just don't know what S&W is thinking these days. I love my dad's K-22, and on the Colt side his Trooper MK III, but the new S&W's just don't match up in the aesthetic quality (esp. the performance center models). Blued finish and walnut stocks all the way!

If you enjoyed reading about "A question about modern revolver grips" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dfariswheel
October 28, 2006, 03:35 PM
One big reason is cost.
Non-checkered wood is simply cheaper than checkered.

BobMcG
October 28, 2006, 03:42 PM
I can't think of any other logical reason off hand besides keeping costs down.

SnWnMe
October 28, 2006, 03:48 PM
Well, the old stocks may look pretty but they are not the best choices for "modern technique" shooting and for controlling big boomers.

Starter52
October 28, 2006, 05:41 PM
I'm with you, Tortuga. I have half-a-dozen pair of smooth stocks that I've taken off revolvers and replaced with Pachmayrs. I can't stand smooth wood stocks on any double-action revolver.

But I like 'em on the 1911A1.

srtboise
October 28, 2006, 06:26 PM
i have smooth wood grips on my 3" m60 for a couple of reasons. first, i carry this piece iwb often and checkering is not very comfortable rubbing my spare tire for hours. second, imo the checkering sorta hides the grain of the wood and reduces the aesthetic quality of the grips.

i dont find the gun any less controllable with the smooth wood grips vs the factory rubber grips. although, the rubber grips cushioned the recoil of 357s much better but that has nothing to do with checkering...

steve

Standing Wolf
October 28, 2006, 09:48 PM
...the new S&W's just don't match up in the aesthetic quality (esp. the performance center models). Blued finish and walnut stocks all the way!

Smith & Wesson is owned by a lock company, not a firearms company.

aaronrkelly
October 29, 2006, 01:11 AM
Im with you guys....


go checkered or go home

I do own a set of non-checkered grips for my Taurus, only becauuse I got a steal on them.

SeanSw
October 29, 2006, 10:31 AM
I find that I can shoot with almost any grip reasonably well if it is secure and not prone to slipping. Slick wooden grips, large or small, give me a some problems. Aren't bone and ivory supposed to be a little 'grippier' even when smooth compared to wood? Those look better on most revolvers than a lot of exotic woods IMO too.

I have been shooting with people who remarked how abrasive the grip on their pistol is (twice with an HK USP) and they showed me the imprint left on their palms from the checkering. I must not grip nearly so hard as they do when shooting.

At heart I'm a revolver man but I wouldn't choose one for primary carry, and if I did I would try to find a suitable smooth grip for an easy draw.

Majic
October 29, 2006, 11:02 AM
To each his own, but personally I prefer smooth stocks. I really dislike checkered stocks on heavy recoiling handguns.

If you enjoyed reading about "A question about modern revolver grips" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!