How does a pistol grip change a rifle from sporting to a death dealing menace?


PDA






Habeed
January 24, 2013, 07:23 PM
I'm having trouble seeing what precisely a pistol grip does other than change your posture slightly. Your elbow ends up higher? If the rifle is otherwise identical but lacks a pistol grip and a flash suppressor, what makes it only good for sporting purposes?

This question is now hugely relevant because it seems to be the differentiating feature that is going to ban a large number of rifles if the proposed ban goes through. See the text here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

The new "assault weapons ban" nixes every rifle with a pistol grip.

If you enjoyed reading about "How does a pistol grip change a rifle from sporting to a death dealing menace?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fryerpower
January 24, 2013, 07:29 PM
And every rifle with a barrel shroud.
And every rifle with a flash supressor.
And every rifle with a bayonette lug.
And every rifle with a threaded barrel. (?)
And every rifle with...
And every rifle with...
And every rifle with...

gspn
January 24, 2013, 07:30 PM
The pistol grip was developed at the end of WWII by a captured Austrian scientist. His original claims for the device were that it would both allow control over the users mind and at the same time make him a deadly menace an order of magnitude worse than the soldier who did not have the pistol grip. We captured him and have been making them ever since. ;)

It makes no difference in lethality obviously...nothing the gubment is proposing is about reducing violence...it's about making a greedy and desperate grab to satisfy a political agenda that is at the core of their platform. They know that reason and logic won't do the trick so they have to exploit the emotional tidal wave that follows the death of scores of innocent children to try to get what they want. It is shameless, baseless, and ignorant.

chipcom
January 24, 2013, 07:32 PM
Guns don't kill people, pistol grips kill people.

Habeed
January 24, 2013, 07:32 PM
I'm trying to imagine the effect it has, exactly. Does it make the weapon harder to fire from a standing or kneeling position?

Or does it simply give it a less comfortable feel. How does it affect accuracy?

The last time I handled a rifle with a normal stock was many years ago. The military rifles do all use pistol grips.

Warp
January 24, 2013, 07:33 PM
It doesn't.

Virtually nothing about the gun-grabbing Liberty killing proposals makes sense in any way.

Do not attempt to apply logic, experience, reasoning, or facts to it.

A pistol grip makes it easier to operate with one hand. Not that you'd want to do that much due to a lack of accuracy and control.

taliv
January 24, 2013, 07:44 PM
Let's not knee jerk too much here. Pretty much every assault rifle uses that grip and it's even become popular on tactical shotguns. It's not coincidence

chipcom
January 24, 2013, 07:46 PM
Let's not knee jerk too much here. Pretty much every assault rifle uses that grip and it's even become popular on tactical shotguns. It's not coincidence
Let's not downplay the stupidity here either. A perfectly legal long gun can automagically become a dreaded "assault rifle" simply by changing the stock. Yes, Virginia, looks can kill.

Warp
January 24, 2013, 08:07 PM
Let's not knee jerk too much here. Pretty much every assault rifle uses that grip and it's even become popular on tactical shotguns. It's not coincidence

Assault rifles are machine guns. ;)

M1key
January 24, 2013, 08:08 PM
"that thing that goes up"....has killed thousands :rolleyes:

M

Auto426
January 24, 2013, 08:10 PM
It doesn't. The gun grabbers have admitted before that quite literally they have targeted so called "assault weapons" because the uninformed public easily confuses them with real military select-fire assault rifles based soley on their looks. That and the constant use of terms like "high-powered" in conjunction with "assault weapons" and you've got members of the general public who think we own full auto death machines that blow apart whatever they shoot.

Hapworth
January 24, 2013, 08:14 PM
I'm having trouble seeing what precisely a pistol grip does other than change your posture slightly. Your elbow ends up higher? If the rifle is otherwise identical but lacks a pistol grip and a flash suppressor, what makes it only good for sporting purposes?

This question is now hugely relevant because it seems to be the differentiating feature that is going to ban a large number of rifles if the proposed ban goes through.The essential flaw in your question is the assumption that there's a reasonable answer to be found.

DJW
January 24, 2013, 08:20 PM
Diane is on a personal power trip and needs to control other people. If she can make them criminals because they have owned something for 20 yrs. and done no harm to anyone then she can feel good about the tremendous power she has demonstrated. Of course the proposed legislation will not solve or cure anything but she will feel good having been instrumental in making slaves of law-abiding American citizens. People are easier to herd into boxcars when they are unarmed............just ask hitler.

RPRNY
January 24, 2013, 08:26 PM
A pistol grip allows an individual to use their opposable thumb in a manner disapproved of by the State of New York, which, in concert with having anything other than a sight on the barrel is clearly A VERY BAD THING. Of course, only legislators know why because they are very smart, whereas we, as gun owners, are very dumb. Thus, at least seems too be their "thinking"....

Not an "assault weapon". No need to register in NY:

http://www.wolf-arms.com/images/veprhunter308.jpg

"Assault weapon". Must be registered...if you "qualify":

http://www.wolf-arms.com/images/veprsuper308.jpg

Banned "assault weapon":

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2012/05/03/389140_01_vepr_ak47_s_7_62x39_308_are_av_640.jpg



Same exact rifle, a VEPR .308. Insanity.

beatledog7
January 24, 2013, 08:29 PM
Clearly, the bad-boy machismo fostered by video games has bolstered the mall ninja crowd's desire for all things tacticool, and that includes many of the things people want on their ARs and similar rifles.

I'm no fan of pistol grips but have nothing against those who like them for whatever reason. I have nothing against tattoos and piercings either, just don't have any myself. Why? Appearance matters, like it or not. We can expect antis to irrationally fear and deeply hate our "evil-looking" guns for the rest of our lifetimes.

Carl N. Brown
January 24, 2013, 08:30 PM
Inclusion of the pistol grip on a long gun (seperate from the buttsock) is dictated by the ergonomic design of having the barrel and action in line with the stock to reduce barrel rise under recoil.

The in-line stock reduces the tendancy of the comb of the stock to rise up and smack your cheek under recoil for single shots. It does make a weapon like the Stg44, AK47 and AR-15 easier to control under full auto which is why you see it on modern military guns. The in-line stock has also been used on single shot, single barrel 12ga trapguns for the same design reason: control of recoil.

JRWhit
January 24, 2013, 08:41 PM
It occurs to me in reflection of history two questions that sum it up quickly.

What has killed more people, guns, or governments?
In regards to the first question, what do we need protection from?


To satisfy the O.P. replace the word guns with pistol grips.

taliv
January 24, 2013, 08:42 PM
Assault rifles are machine guns.

what's your point? that pistol grips are useful in full auto but not rapidly firing in semi? please

blkbrd666
January 24, 2013, 08:43 PM
Clearly, the bad-boy machismo fostered by video games has bolstered the mall ninja crowd's desire for all things tacticool, and that includes many of the things people want on their ARs and similar rifles.

Are you sayin', this whole thing is Gecko45's fault?

cfullgraf
January 24, 2013, 08:48 PM
Yup, a 24 inch long, heavy barrel, 11 pound AR-15 platform rifle with a 20x optical telescope is an assault rifle in Senator Feinstein's mind because it has a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

I cannot carry it in my Fiat 500 without folding down the front and back seat.:)

I also understand that all thumb hole stocks will be banned so the factory installed thumb hole stock on my Remington XR-100 bolt action rifle will be illegal.

We have an uphill struggle.

beatledog7
January 24, 2013, 08:56 PM
Are you sayin', this whole thing is Gecko45's fault?

Of course not. The point is we know the antis are unable to separate their irrational fear of the appearance of a gun from its actual function, and that since we know that, we feed their fear by using guns that have those appearance characteristics.

That's not our fault as the owners of such guns; it's theirs for being moronic about it. But it's a reality we will not be able to change.

Warp
January 24, 2013, 09:18 PM
what's your point? that pistol grips are useful in full auto but not rapidly firing in semi? please

Just trying to see that we use the correct terms.

This discussion, and the proposed ban discussed in the OP, don't have anything to do with assault rifles. They are classified as machine guns and already extremely tightly regulated and are essentially unavailable to most people.

taliv
January 24, 2013, 10:23 PM
it has everything to do with this discussion. and i did use the correct term.

simply put, the premise of this thread is that pistol grips are not important because they do nothing and serve no purpose, and therefore the gun banner's attempts to regulate them are nonsense.

and yet, the fact is that nearly every assault rifle on the planet has a pistol grip.

given an opportunity to engage our brains for a few minutes to ponder why, when given a choice of any weapon design in the world, nearly every military in the world chose pistol grips... what did we do? of course, assume the other side is wrong and take some silly tangent about an utterly meaningless semantic debate.

why would you assume pistol grips don't make a difference?

benEzra
January 24, 2013, 10:36 PM
Let's not knee jerk too much here. Pretty much every assault rifle uses that grip and it's even become popular on tactical shotguns. It's not coincidence
So do single-shot free rifles, and the biathlon rifles used in the Olympics accomplish the same thing (vertical handgrip) via an extreme Monte Carlo style stock. Vertical handgrips are simply more ergonomic for firing from the shoulder.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/biathlon-6.jpg

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Anschutz21st%20CenturyAd.jpg

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 01:23 AM
Yup, a 24 inch long, heavy barrel, 11 pound AR-15 platform rifle with a 20x optical telescope is an assault rifle in Senator Feinstein's mind because it has a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

I cannot carry it in my Fiat 500 without folding down the front and back seat.:)

I also understand that all thumb hole stocks will be banned so the factory installed thumb hole stock on my Remington XR-100 bolt action rifle will be illegal.

We have an uphill struggle.
Only if its a semi auto. All manual firearms are exempt... for now.

Hapworth
January 25, 2013, 07:54 AM
simply put, the premise of this thread is that pistol grips are not important because they do nothing and serve no purpose, and therefore the gun banner's attempts to regulate them are nonsense.

and yet, the fact is that nearly every assault rifle on the planet has a pistol grip.

given an opportunity to engage our brains for a few minutes to ponder why, when given a choice of any weapon design in the world, nearly every military in the world chose pistol grips... what did we do? of course, assume the other side is wrong and take some silly tangent about an utterly meaningless semantic debate.

why would you assume pistol grips don't make a difference?Perhaps I've misinterpreted, but I think the premise of the thread was to say that the difference between a traditional stock and a pistol grip style are negligible enough as to make it absurd for the gun control crowd to say rifle x with a traditional stock is fine, but the same or similar rifle with a pistol grip is inherently more dangerous and should be banned.

I don't think it was a comment on a pistol grip's utility or lack thereof.

x_wrench
January 25, 2013, 07:59 AM
it only does in the minds of people who's only experience with a firearm is watching movies and negative tv news shows. the media is responsible for much of the fear that surrounds the firearms industry. and people who fear something without understanding what they are afraid of, is what is driving this current campaign. if they would actually try shooting in the correct environment (at a range with proper equipment and instructors), at least 80% of this garbage would go away. but they are to afraid to do so because they have been brainwashed by the media itself.

10mmGlock
January 25, 2013, 08:24 AM
Typical nonsensical legislation. My AR50 with pistol grip, detachable stock, and threaded barrel is fine because it is bolt action, but my evil 10-22 must be banned because it can accept detachable magazines and has a threaded barrel. I have written all my elected officials both federal and state and most have responded that they will not support any legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment rights. They will not support the global arms treaty that is slated for negotiations at the United Nations this March, nor will they support the reinstating of the AWB. I strongly encourage everyone to write letters.

Welding Rod
January 25, 2013, 03:51 PM
I have always wondered if the iconic silhouette of the M16 / AR and the former's link to the Viet Nam war hasn't in some way been at least a component in the irrational and emotional response we have seen from some of the baby boomers who are in positions of political power today.

Perhaps they link that silhouette with a previous fear of being drafted, or an anti-war sentiment they may have grew up within, or whatever. Even some gun owning sportsmen of that generation seem to have an unnatural adversion to modern sporting rifles.

Some logical reason must underlie the appareant phobia.

I interact with todays college kids all the time. They seem to be crazy about ARs. I have to wonder if this isn't partially due to their growing up in a time when the media portrayed the work being done by those carry a gun that looks like it as "good" and heroic.

BTW, this is not meant to be disrespectful in any way to any generation in general.

sixgunner455
January 25, 2013, 05:28 PM
I have always wondered if the iconic silhouette of the M16 / AR and the former's link to the Viet Nam war hasn't in some way been at least a component in the irrational and emotional response we have seen from some of the baby boomers who are in positions of political power today.



That is a very logical thought. I wonder if it doesn't have some truth.

dmckean44
January 25, 2013, 05:30 PM
It's easy to be crazy about ARs because we've turned them into a modding platform where you can create virtually anything.

pty101
January 25, 2013, 06:07 PM
Its doesn't. They just look "scarier"

chipcom
January 25, 2013, 07:55 PM
Only if its a semi auto. All manual firearms are exempt... for now.
by semi-auto you have to include revolvers, like the specifically named Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

ACP
January 25, 2013, 08:16 PM
To the OP's question, owning 2 AR15s and having owned various M1As and other military-type weapons, a pistol grip which extends below the action allows ME to place my hand closer to the trigger/trigger guard area, which allows ME a more secure placement of my trigger finger, which in rapid fire with higher capacity magazines (30) allows ME to shoot faster and more accurately by being able to control the (slight) recoil of the 5.56 round that much better.

With NO pistol grip extending below the action (such as an M1A or M1 carbine or a Ruger Mini14 or an SKS) I find my hand placement is not as quick, my trigger finger placement is not as certain or secure, and I cannot shoot the weapon as quickly or as accurately as I can an AR-15.

That's not to say that semiautomatic rifles (or pump actions or lever actions) without a well-defined pistol grip (or NONE, like the straight stock on my old Marlin 1894 .44 Magnum levergun) aren't deadly.

But I believe a case can be made that a well-defined pistol grip, very close to the trigger guard area of a semi-auto rifle, aids in acquiring a faster shooting grip and in handling recoil.

Auto426
January 25, 2013, 08:21 PM
Perhaps they link that silhouette with a previous fear of being drafted, or an anti-war sentiment they may have grew up within, or whatever. Even some gun owning sportsmen of that generation seem to have an unnatural adversion to modern sporting rifles.

I think it's more of an association with "machine gun" from those who's gun knowledge is entirely based on what they see in movies, television, and video games. That carry handle silhouette is as instantly recognizable as the curved magazines and wood furniture of an AK47.

Just look at the guns that Fiensteine had on display when introducing her AWB. If I'm not mistaken I believe every single AR on her little display had a carry handle. None of them with the removable carry handles had them removed and had scopes of anything "sporting" attached.

k_dawg
January 25, 2013, 09:16 PM
Oh please, Feinstein doesn't care one whit about how a 'pistol grip' affects the firearm.

It is entirely propaganda for the ignorant masses.

No more, no less.

They can't ban all guns immediately, so chip away at it. In this case, one of the most popular and successful sports arms is the AR pattern rifle. So lets identify cosmetic features, demonize them and then 'ban them'.

RPRNY
January 25, 2013, 10:06 PM
^ is the truth, unvarnished.

Buck Kramer
January 26, 2013, 12:03 AM
The theory I've been hearing is that it allows easier bump firing and shooting from the hip........what will they come up with next?

colorado_handgunner
January 26, 2013, 12:29 AM
The same way as "The shoulder thing that goes up."

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Wylie1
January 26, 2013, 12:39 AM
Just yesterday I was looking at my Tikka T3 thinking a pistol type grip could potentially make me more accurate and how it would be better at killing game animals quickly so they don't suffer.

nfafan
January 26, 2013, 03:08 AM
"The theory I've been hearing is that it allows easier bump firing and shooting from the hip........"

Feinswine said pretty much exactly that in her news conf when the bill was announced - to be fired rapidly from the hip.

I guess she had her staff research guns on YooToob..

BobTheTomato
January 26, 2013, 03:18 AM
They have always said it makes shooting from the hip easy which as we all know is the most accurate way to fire a rifle. Disclaimer: i wouldnt shoot from the hip for fear of terrible accuracy.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 26, 2013, 04:02 AM
I would rather go up against someone with a full auto that is firing from the hip than someone aiming a rifle gripped semi auto. What DF is saying makes it sound like hip fire is more deadly than, you know, AIMED FIRE. :rolleyes:

The idea behind banning pistol grips is basically just banning most common semi autos like ARs and AKa. It's nothing really about banning the pistol grips but more banning certain rifles.

Cee Zee
January 26, 2013, 05:03 AM
While a pistol grip, in combination with other features that make up a true assault rifle, does have a real purpose and changes the ability of a person to fire quickly and especially with a fully automatic rifle the presence of a pistol grip alone on an otherwise non-assault rifle is nearly a non-issue. It does very little to make my Savage MkIIBTV into a killer of humans but it would still be illegal in New York. It's the total lack of understanding of this point by the gun grabbers that make true patriots cringe at the political correctness of it all.

This doesn't just affect the gun grabbers either. My cousin, who was raised a country boy like myself and really should know better, has fallen victim to the propaganda of the left, which is the chief reason for banning pistol grips. It "looks" deadly so they ban it. Your grandpa's squirrel rifle didn't have one. John Wayne didn't need one. So why do you need one. My cousin actually believes that a AR-15 is more destructive than an M1 Garrand. No matter how many times I tried to explain that a 30.06 semi-auto is several orders of magnitude more destructive than a 5.56 semi-auto his response was, "You didn't see what I saw" because he saw an AR-15 being fired apparently for the first time in his life. No matter how many times I tried to explain that I've fired semi-auto and full auto AR's it didn't matter. Because it holds more rounds it's more destructive. No matter how many times I explained that a M1 could be reloaded very fast it didn't matter. The propaganda had him bamboozled. His brain was on vacation because him and his buddy had sat down (in a bar) and worked it out and decided that AR's should be banned.

Propaganda is an effective weapon. We shouldn't ignore it. I think belittling the idea that pistol grips makes a rifle more deadly is a good idea. We can substitute our own propaganda. We can belittle those that think some way other than how we think. It works and I'm not ashamed to do it. It's being used against us and we dang well better use it too. This is why we lose these arguments too often. We limit ourselves to rational though when your average voter is a scared little sheep that takes what he hears on tv as gospel. Let's give them another view of the world. Banning pistol grips is silly. I'll promote that idea any time I can. It makes it seem as though all the concerns of the gun grabbers are silly. It's effective. I'm not ashamed to use it. It is the truth after all.

helotaxi
January 26, 2013, 05:46 AM
by semi-auto you have to include revolvers, like the specifically named Street Sweeper and Striker 12.Those were classified as "destructive devices" thanks to having a bore larger than 0.5cal

greenlion
January 26, 2013, 08:58 AM
Oh... I heard the answer to the original question on the news one night. The pistol grip allows you to control the ferocious recoil of the 223 so you can keep the gun on target while you blast away in full auto. Apparently, if you want to control the MUZZLE end jumping up, that is where you would put a handle for best leverage... in the back. Makes perfect sense.:scrutiny:

greenlion
January 26, 2013, 09:10 AM
The gun grabbers are using the same logic they did last time. They don't want to directly go after the hunting crowd, so they pick on ANYTHING that does not look like your grandfather's Remington model 700. The problem is, and I am sure they have not looked into it enough to realize anything has changed, this time a LOT of people are hunting with AR-15 style rifles, and a LOT of people are using them for competition.

I also do not think they have considered the huge market that has grown up around these rifles and their accessories, which was not there the last time. There are many companies that exist solely to produce add-ons for the AR-15. That is just what our economy needs right now, hundreds of small businesses stripped of their livelihood, and hundreds more internet based businesses destroyed because of an inability to ship gun related items. The gun industry is one of the few businesses able to show a profit for the last few years, and they want to bankrupt it too.

hq
January 26, 2013, 10:11 AM
Valmet Hunter - the hunting rifle of the year award 1986
Valmet M76 - banned as an 'assault weapon'

The same gun, M76 was available only in .308 and smaller calibers, Hunter in .308, .30-06 and 9.3x62, the only real differences being pistol grip and plastic forend.

Don't EVER expect the notoriously ignorant anti-gun lobby to know anything or have any kind of common sense. They used gun catalogs as picture books 20 years ago and they still do now.

aka108
January 26, 2013, 10:59 AM
I've always found that the bayonet lug is a terrifying thing.

HOOfan_1
January 26, 2013, 11:25 AM
Let's not knee jerk too much here. Pretty much every assault rifle uses that grip and it's even become popular on tactical shotguns. It's not coincidence

Ok...but does their purpose make them more deadly?

Does a barrel shroud make them more deadly?

Does a flash supressor make them more deadly?


Or do you think that someone of equal shooting skill with an M1 carbine with none of these features will be less deadly that someone with say a 9mm AR with all of those features?

The point remains...the ignorant antis are banning features common to modern military rifles...not because they are more deadly, but because they are common to modern military rifles.

I personally don't care if they are more deadly...they are still protected.

Baba Louie
January 26, 2013, 04:20 PM
You guy need to learn the anti's POV and mentality.

Pistol grips are for spraying from the hip. Duh! I thought that everybody knows they're to maximize damage to the innocent in gun free zones without regard to careful aimed fire... :scrutiny:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/feinstein-proposes-assault-weapons-ban/
“Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that’s a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.”Just like Capt Winters did in Band of Brothers wth his Garand at the crossing (in the show at least, I doubt he actually fired it that way, but then again, I wasn't there)

taliv
January 26, 2013, 05:13 PM
"Ok...but does their purpose make them more deadly?"

it makes it faster and easier to shoot.

"Does a barrel shroud make them more deadly?"

did i say that?

"Does a flash supressor make them more deadly?"

did i say that?

Or do you think that someone of equal shooting skill with an M1 carbine with none of these features will be less deadly that someone with say a 9mm AR with all of those features?

yeah, someone of equal skill with an m1 carbine will be less effective.



The point remains...the ignorant antis are banning features common to modern military rifles...not because they are more deadly, but because they are common to modern military rifles.

how can you separate the two? it's as if you think modern military rifles have totally arbitrary attributes with no relation to their effectiveness.


I personally don't care if they are more deadly...they are still protected.

i do care and i want to protect them because they ARE more effective.

Welding Rod
January 26, 2013, 06:10 PM
It appears the left thinks "Small arms are effective at killing large amounts people quickly, therefore it makes sense than only American soldiers and government officials should possess them."

There are more than a few governments through history who demonstrated to their citizens' peril that they thought exactly the same way.

BTW, I found this quote by Wayne LaPierre in his article "What Do We Do Now" interesting (Feb 13 American Rifleman, P. 58, 2nd Para.): "Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn't there - or simply doesn't show up in time."

Back to the original topic, any way to divide 2A supporters will work to their favor. How many gun owners will say "Well, my rifle doesn't have a pistol grip so why should I put myself out?" The answer, as we saw in 1994, may be most of them.

taliv
January 26, 2013, 06:56 PM
BTW, I found this quote by Wayne LaPierre in his article "What Do We Do Now" interesting (Feb 13 American Rifleman, P. 58, 2nd Para.): "Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn't there - or simply doesn't show up in time."

off topic for rifle country, but gotta disagree with wayne there. it's not like there's been a sudden wave of violent crime across the country causing everyone to want protection from crackheads. people aren't talking about burying guns to keep them from crackheads while you're dialing 911. this is all about confrontation with gov.

Welding Rod
January 26, 2013, 07:00 PM
Well said Taliv.

Warp
January 26, 2013, 07:00 PM
off topic for rifle country, but gotta disagree with wayne there. it's not like there's been a sudden wave of violent crime across the country causing everyone to want protection from crackheads. people aren't talking about burying guns to keep them from crackheads while you're dialing 911. this is all about confrontation with gov.

I think it's both, depending on the individual.

But the NRA tries to be a little more PC/'moderate'/friendly to the masses than that, unfortunately.

And it is right at home in rifle country. The way somebody talked me into going to an Appleseed...he said "nobody ever won their Liberty with a handgun".

That is rifle territory.

Lost Sheep
January 26, 2013, 07:31 PM
I'm having trouble seeing what precisely a pistol grip does other than change your posture slightly. Your elbow ends up higher? If the rifle is otherwise identical but lacks a pistol grip and a flash suppressor, what makes it only good for sporting purposes?

This question is now hugely relevant because it seems to be the differentiating feature that is going to ban a large number of rifles if the proposed ban goes through. See the text here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

The new "assault weapons ban" nixes every rifle with a pistol grip.
I think beatledog7 in post #15 hit on something relevant. Tattoos and piercings.

It's more about appearance than function.

If a pistol grip, flash suppressor or other largely cosmetic features can turn an ordinary semi-auto firearm into something worthy of banning, shouldn't similar characteristics mounted on the owner also disqualify the purchase?

Oh, no. THAT would violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment, refers to "the people" as individuals, where the Second Amendment refers to "the people" as only the regulated National Guard.

I believe the reason Sen. Feinstein's bill can get traction with people is that the LOOKS of a weapon as well as its action are important in selling the idea to the general public. Doing the RIGHT thing, the EFFECTIVE thing is less important to re-election than APPEARING to do SOME thing.

The O.P. 's question (it seems to me) is more about perception than reality.

The reality is that the shape of the stock is meaningless to the amount of violence potentially avoided. The perception is that a rifle that looks more deadly than a smoother twin is more likely to be purchased by a nastier person. Call it the "Mall Ninja" prejudice. Someone who wants a mean-looking weapon is more likely to be a "Mall Ninja", therefore perform a mass killing. Same thing applies to people who own racy-looking cars or toothy dogs or have tattoos.

Political statement: I no more think a gun should be outlawed for its appearance than a woman should be required to wear a burka. The stock I put on my rifle is an expression of free speech.

Soapbox mode off.

Thanks for reading.

Lost Sheep

HOOfan_1
January 28, 2013, 08:35 AM
did I say that

I never hinted that you did, but the antis think so, and I think the spirit of this thread was going beyond just the pistol grip and to the other features tha antis want to ban



yeah, someone of equal skill with an m1 carbine will be less effective.


I don't think we can say that categorically...



how can you separate the two? it's as if you think modern military rifles have totally arbitrary attributes with no relation to their effectiveness.


More effectiveness of the guns does not necessarily mean more effectiveness at killing....at least killing in the situations that the antis seem so scared off.

The effectiveness of some of those items will sometimes only appear in long and protracted use of the weapons...so they may not at all affect the effectivness of a shooter in one of these 30 minute shooting sprees.


Again...the point remains...THE ANTIS are going after these features because they are on modern military weapons.....THE ANTIS are not going after them because they make the weapons more deadly....THE ANTIS don't even have a clue to the purpose of most of the features they are trying to ban.

taliv
January 28, 2013, 09:39 AM
if you want to belabor the obvious by arguing that feinstein and company have no idea what they're doing and are basing their decisions on appearance, go right ahead.

but the fact that THEY don't know what they're doing, shouldn't mean that WE propagate falsehoods like this:

If a pistol grip, flash suppressor or other largely cosmetic features...

bayonet lugs are NOT "cosmetic". they hold bayonets.
flash suppressors are NOT "cosmetic". they suppress flash. it may not be important to you, but it's very important to others, including me.

I don't think we can say that categorically...

of course we can, for a dozen different reasons from accuracy and effective range to modularity to ergonomics. geez, when was the last time you saw an M1 in the top ten at a major 3gun match? you want to take a survey of LEO and ask if they'd rather have an M1 when kicking in doors?

HOOfan_1
January 28, 2013, 11:10 AM
of course we can, for a dozen different reasons from accuracy and effective range to modularity to ergonomics. geez, when was the last time you saw an M1 in the top ten at a major 3gun match? you want to take a survey of LEO and ask if they'd rather have an M1 when kicking in doors?

M1 Carbine (.30 Carbine) against 9mm AR.

I am sure that the police would still prefer the AR, but I am not sure a 9mm AR would be more deadly than an M1 Carbine.

I know that the features they want to ban are more than cosmetic...but at the same time, I don't see where banning those features would render the guns any less deadly....that is to say, I don't see where banning those features would prevent deaths at places like Newton...

Sav .250
January 28, 2013, 12:03 PM
Nothing. More a matter of preference.

rondog
January 28, 2013, 12:17 PM
I like the pistol grip on my AR15, but it seems to aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms for some reason. Probably gripping it too tightly, or might be the angle.

Lost Sheep
January 29, 2013, 02:42 AM
If a pistol grip, flash suppressor or other largely cosmetic features...

bayonet lugs are NOT "cosmetic". they hold bayonets.
flash suppressors are NOT "cosmetic". they suppress flash. it may not be important to you, but it's very important to others, including me.


OK, you caught me. Bayonet lugs do hold bayonets and flash suppressors do suppress flash.

But it seems to me, the way the proposed laws are being packaged and sold to the general public by the anti-gun proponents, it is not their primary function that leads to their objectionability.

I will propose that the ARGUMENTS are cosmetic (or camouflage, if you will) for the true anti-gunners' intentions. And it would not matter one bit if the flash suppressor/bayonet lug were functional or not.

Lost Sheep

Not to mention the fact that the proposed laws would do little to make anyone safer.

Cee Zee
January 29, 2013, 11:23 PM
yeah, someone of equal skill with an m1 carbine will be less effective.

Hmm... Gotta say maybe on this. It depends on the situation. If the bad guys are dug in behind a fairly solid wall, like concrete blocks for example, I believe the M1 would be much more effective. If there was a room full of bad guys give me the AR to fight them.

When I said before that an M1 was more deadly than an AR I meant that. There are lots of situations besides clearing rooms. For example if I was protecting my farm I'd want an M1 every time. The distances are great enough that I would want to be able to fire at the enemy across those distances. And yes that's murder when done against all but the most determined gangsters or whatever but against the onslaught of government troops bent on confiscating my weapons so they can enslave me at a later date I'm going to be going all out to defend my property. As you said it's about protecting ourselves from the government going out of control. I think it's both actually and that's why I have more than one gun. But between an M1 and an AR-15 the terrain and the situation will determine which is more destructive. Just for example someone dumb enough to hide behind a tree in an assault on my house where I am now would get a nasty surprise when I shot right through that tree with an M1. That's less likely to happen with a 5.56 based weapon. It depends on the size of the tree of course. But there's also cars and car doors that they might hide behind. Clyde Barrow preferred a BAR because the Thompsons wouldn't penetrate car doors. It would depend on the vehicle of course but I think an M1 has a much better chance of firing through layers of metal to get the job done. Those that think hiding behind a car and counting on two layers of steel doors and the steel inside those doors may get a real shock from a 30.06 based weapon when it penetrates both sides of that vehicle and strikes them with significant force.

I still think a 30.06 does more destruction most of the time. But I have both just in case. The trick is to pick up the right one at the right time. When I said my cousin was wrong about which could do more damage I still think what I said was true. There's more to battle than just killing soldiers. There's disabling vehicles for example. There are lots of times a 30.06 based weapon would be more effective IMO.

Auto426
January 30, 2013, 02:15 AM
Features like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs do serve a real purpose, but having a gun without those features would not change the outcome of an event like Newtown which is what this law is supposed to address. Whether Lanza had a Mini 14 ranch rifle with 10rd mags or an AR 15 with 30rd mags the outcome would have been the same on a side note, I'm still not convinced the a rifle was used in the shootings at all.

Hmm... Gotta say maybe on this. It depends on the situation. If the bad guys are dug in behind a fairly solid wall, like concrete blocks for example, I believe the M1 would be much more effective. If there was a room full of bad guys give me the AR to fight them.

They were reffering to an M1 Carbine, not an M1 Garand.

In something like a 3 gun competition, I would certainly expect the AR user to excel. But when you are talking about everyday street violence or mass shootings, I don't see one being more effective than the other.

R.W.Dale
January 30, 2013, 04:18 AM
I'm just gonna throw this out there to blow some minds.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/krochus/2012-12-02150300.jpg






posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

justice06rr
January 30, 2013, 04:52 AM
^ Whoa there man! That is now 10x more deadlier because of the pistol grip and collapsible stock.

ROFL.

Nice rifle though. What is it?

R.W.Dale
January 30, 2013, 06:09 AM
^ Whoa there man! That is now 10x more deadlier because of the pistol grip and collapsible stock.

ROFL.

Nice rifle though. What is it?

Its a TC encore. Yes a single shot!

My 9mm barrel had a flash suppressor on it too (to protect the threads)




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

JFtheGR8
January 30, 2013, 07:50 AM
One of DF's staffers must have shown her a YouTube video of someone bump firing a pistol grip semi auto. Of course she was horrified to see such a thing. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone bump firing in the course of a mass shooting. You'd think someone would notice that.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

breakingcontact
January 30, 2013, 11:38 AM
Because: emotions.

Auto426
January 30, 2013, 11:47 AM
I'm just gonna throw this out there to blow some minds.

http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mindblown.gif

Mind=Blown

groundhog34
January 30, 2013, 04:31 PM
Obama says it does so it does. How dare you question Obama.

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 05:35 PM
Obama says it does so it does. How dare you question Obama.

When and where did he say this? I realize you're probably kidding but as of late it seems many will believe just about anything about Obama so long as it is negative.

If you enjoyed reading about "How does a pistol grip change a rifle from sporting to a death dealing menace?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!