Pistol grips are for pistols.

in my opinion the ergonomics are much more conducive to accuracy with pistol gripped firearms once you get off the bench.

Besides many more stocks than you might realize fit into the category of "pistol grip" even the marin 336 stock is considered a pistol grip design. Tell your buddy that if it isn't straight gripped is stocks are pistol grips as well

more controlability when you are fireing it in the air like a maniac!!!! lol


no seriously i would say it would be more control during rapid fire sessions, and they scare the crap out of the anti gun crowd

So they can be fired from the hip. Because that's they're supposed to be fired, right?

I don't have much of a preference. I think a rifle is still a rifle even without a pistol grip. I have pistol grips on mine because it is what came with the guns.

they scare the crap out of the anti gun crowd

Click to expand...

I like 'em for the same reason. Amazing how ignorance works in the human mind.

Pistol grips can be more comfortable and allow a shorter trigger reach. They also permit a more straight-lined stock that can reduce muzzle flip. In other words, they're there for reasons other than just pissing liberals off.

The whole "spray firing from the hip" thing has always been a mystery for me. It's much easier to shoot a traditionally-stocked rifle from the hip than one with a pistol grip.

Don't you read the Brady alerts? It's to assist in spray-firing from the hip.

Jeez.

A pistol grip generally gives better alignment of wrist, hand and trigger. Most pure target rifles have a nearly vertical grip angle for this reason. A good thumbhole stock gives a similar effect.

A pistol grip also allows a more secure hold on the rifle whether firing or carrying.

Pistol grips are more ergonomic for shooting from the shoulder; it puts the wrist in a more natural angle. Shooting a straight-stocked rifle from the shoulder puts the wrist in extreme flexion, hence the "chicken wing" stance.

Most really high-end freestyle target rifles have pistol grips, or other designs that approximate the grip angle of a pistol grip (e.g., thumbhole or extreme Monte Carlo). There are reasons for that.





It has absolutely nothing to do with rapid fire (Bradyite BS to the contrary); those rifles are both bolt-actions.

For a defensive long gun, pistol grips also have the advantage of better retention from most positions, and safer operation (position sul is easy with a pistol gripped carbine but rather difficult with a straight stocked carbine). From an LEO via instructor John Farnam:

24Oct05

On serious gun handling, from a friend and one of our instructors recently returned from New Orleans:

"In New Orleans, it was hot rifles the entire time, both in the field and in garrison. Rifles and pistols were constantly carried and were never unloaded.

(snip)

I, of course, enforced correct gun handling among my guys. The worst examples of poor gun handling were associated with those carrying rifles without pistol grips, like the M14. We work muzzle depressed (low/ready), always.

Non-pistol grip rifles encourage a high/ready carry, or a horizontal carry. Both are unsatisfactory, as the rifle ends up pointed in unsafe directions constantly..."

Click to expand...

Pistol grips also make it much easier to "short stock" the rifle, i.e. put the buttstock outside and behind your strong-side shoulder in order to have less sticking out in tight quarters, and adjustable stocks are easier to implement.

Pistol Grips are GOOD

All of the rifles and shotgun that I shoot have pistol grips





Traditional stocks are for show, pistol grips are for go.




.

Here's how I would have explained it.

"Hold your hand out... Ok. Now look at your hand."

Done.

It is true that pistol grips are more ergonomically friendly but in the case of some hard recoiling rifles and some turkey guns pistol grips are anything but pleasant to have. The pistol grip will recoil right into your hand and can cause major damage to the wrist. In these case the other kind fo pistol grip is preferable (Marlin 336) because this way the stock can slide a little in the hand and offer a sort of buffer. Just have to watch out for that trigger guard.

It has absolutely nothing to do with rapid fire (Bradyite BS to the contrary); those rifles are both bolt-actions.

Click to expand...

Ditto.....

Best to all,
Swampy


Garands forever

You can control the firearm with one hand.

The handle isn't used as a lever arm, this reduces muzzle rise.

It's more ergonomic.

I have always considered the term 'pistol grip' to be one of the nomenclature terms anti-gunners come up with to make a firearm appear to be something conjured up with nothing but evil in mind.

Whether it is made in one piece with the shoulder stock or as a seperate piece mounted at some point along the lower receiver, a hand grip is a hand grip, is a hand grip.

i use them and i have my reasons, if someone else does or dosen't use them that is fine, and up to them, i pick my battles when i am talking to "gun owners".

Maybe you're not interested in lever action rifles, but I like 'em. I have an old straight-stocked Win 94, a newer straight-stocked Marlin 1895M, and a "pistol-grip"-stocked Marlin 1895MR. The grip angle on the MR is easier on my wrist.

A pistol grip you say? is that like "the shoulder thing that goes up"?

Ask any gun grabber and they'll say that they make the gun more lethal.

the pistol grips obviously must improve bullet performance. and they also necessitate the need of a barrel shroud... you know, the "thing that goes up"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

he won the debate

Click to expand...

Really? You didn't do your job, then.

The whole debate re pistol grips on rifles is at the heart of the assault rifle controversy. They're saying a pistol grip has no place on a rifle, therefore you have no business owning a rifle with a pistol grip.

This is what the Democrats said back in '94. This is what some of the Democrats
(hopefully not the majority) will say in '09.

The answer? And the reason it's none of their business?

The second amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They're trying to infringe on my right.

So here's how the discourse should have gone.

"A pistol grip has no business on a rifle."

"That's none of your business. And stop trying to infringe upon my right to own firearms."

Then you could have done something poetic like sticking him in the eye with a chopstick or something.

My kind of debate.