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

[Hapworth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's easy to be crazy about ARs because we've turned them into a modding platform where you can create virtually anything.

 

[pty101]

Its doesn't. They just look "scarier"

 

[chipcom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^ is the truth, unvarnished.

 

[Buck Kramer]

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]

The same way as "The shoulder thing that goes up."

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Wylie1]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[greenlion]

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]

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]

I've always found that the bayonet lug is a terrifying thing.

 

[HOOfan_1]

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.