Why do so many modern combat rifles come with a pistol grip? Is there an advantage? Would that advantage carry over to semi-auto?
Is there an advantage to a pistol grip?
- Thread starter macadore
- Start date
- Status
Simple ergonomics, really. It fits humans better, the way we fight.
One of the most important benefits is in using a more "squared-up" stance as all modern combat troops, LEOs, and "practical" style competitive shooters are trained to do.
Place your feet shoulder width apart and face an imaginary opponent and "put up your dukes" like you're going to box. If you place your support hand slightly ahead of your strong hand, you'll more or less be in the perfect position to grip and wield a modern combat carbine. Your strong hand will probably be slightly canted in, but it will be positioned in a neutral rotation posture just perfect to grip an M-16 or Kalashnikov grip.
Traditional straight-gripped rifles require you to roll your strong hand forward to the point of locking the joint which is tiring and reduces balance and control. This works a little better with the traditional "bladed" rifle marksmanship stance (where your support-side foot is way out in front and your strong shoulder is pulled far to the rear) but that hasn't had a place on the battlefield or in most other real-world shooting since much past the Civil War.
A related benefit is that when working with a rifle that's at all light weight and short-ish, you can often keep the rifle up and oriented toward the target with one hand, while manipulating objects, doors, prisoners, etc., with the support-side hand. That's pretty tough to do with a straight-gripped stock.
One of the most important benefits is in using a more "squared-up" stance as all modern combat troops, LEOs, and "practical" style competitive shooters are trained to do.
Place your feet shoulder width apart and face an imaginary opponent and "put up your dukes" like you're going to box. If you place your support hand slightly ahead of your strong hand, you'll more or less be in the perfect position to grip and wield a modern combat carbine. Your strong hand will probably be slightly canted in, but it will be positioned in a neutral rotation posture just perfect to grip an M-16 or Kalashnikov grip.
Traditional straight-gripped rifles require you to roll your strong hand forward to the point of locking the joint which is tiring and reduces balance and control. This works a little better with the traditional "bladed" rifle marksmanship stance (where your support-side foot is way out in front and your strong shoulder is pulled far to the rear) but that hasn't had a place on the battlefield or in most other real-world shooting since much past the Civil War.
A related benefit is that when working with a rifle that's at all light weight and short-ish, you can often keep the rifle up and oriented toward the target with one hand, while manipulating objects, doors, prisoners, etc., with the support-side hand. That's pretty tough to do with a straight-gripped stock.
More controlable specifically when a heavier rate of fire is needed.
Even more control with two vertical grips.
Even more control with two vertical grips.
The big advantage to a pistol grip is the inline stock. By getting your body inline with the bore, you reduce muzzle rise. If you can get the stock directly behind the bore, you maximize that leverage (at the price of needing a pistol grip and more height over bore).
This might be purely speculative and really have no idea even though I spent over 20 years in the Army. I believe it is more of a natural grip in how the wrist and hand grasp the grip and allows use of the trigger finger. I broke the radial bone which is the bone on the side of your thumb. When I shoot my regular hunting rifle with regular stocks there is a slight downward bend at the wrist which causes a little discomfort when shooting all my reqular rifles regardless of caliber. The only one that does not cause me pain is my 20 gauge 870 with a pistol grip, and my rock river arms predator pursuit, also with a pistol grip.
You add the natural grip for everyone carrying 70lb rucksacks, running,sweating, scared out of you mind for been shot at, thus the pistol grip. Just my two cents.
You add the natural grip for everyone carrying 70lb rucksacks, running,sweating, scared out of you mind for been shot at, thus the pistol grip. Just my two cents.
Ultimately, it comes down to what people like.
If your rifle is a machine gun, and you are shooting from the shoulder, there is a big advantage to having a stock in line with the barrel, as the M16 does. The advantage, of course, is that firing a shot does not push the barrel up as well as back (muzzle climb). That gives the operator better muzzle control in full auto mode.
If the stock is in line with the barrel, the only sensible grip is a pistol grip. The gun just about won't go together any other way.
Take away the full auto mode, and that particular advantage isn't quite so important.
Still, there are other reasons people like a pistol grip just for fit and convenience. But I think the big functional difference goes away when you do not have the full auto function.
If your rifle is a machine gun, and you are shooting from the shoulder, there is a big advantage to having a stock in line with the barrel, as the M16 does. The advantage, of course, is that firing a shot does not push the barrel up as well as back (muzzle climb). That gives the operator better muzzle control in full auto mode.
If the stock is in line with the barrel, the only sensible grip is a pistol grip. The gun just about won't go together any other way.
Take away the full auto mode, and that particular advantage isn't quite so important.
Still, there are other reasons people like a pistol grip just for fit and convenience. But I think the big functional difference goes away when you do not have the full auto function.
Some neat explanations, but the real reason is that those rifles were originally designed for full auto fire, where the closer recoil is kept to a straight line with the shoulder the less muzzle climb there is. Trying to make a straight line stock with a conventional pistol grip is nearly impossible, and holding such a rifle would be, to say the least, awkward; the easiest thing to do was to use a pistol grip below the receiver.
That's all, and the only reason for the pistol grip. The ideas that it somehow gives better accuracy, or allows firing from the hip are nonsense. In fact, a pistol grip rifle is more difficult to fire from the hip than one with a conventional stock, since the wrist must be bent at an abrupt angle.
Jim
That's all, and the only reason for the pistol grip. The ideas that it somehow gives better accuracy, or allows firing from the hip are nonsense. In fact, a pistol grip rifle is more difficult to fire from the hip than one with a conventional stock, since the wrist must be bent at an abrupt angle.
Jim
Perspective!
May I make a simple point please? This isn't so new...
There are other names too but a "pistol grip" had been the downward-arching wrist on a stock for a century. Because of the "full pistol grip" of some guns for the last 60-years or so they are often referred to as semi-pistol grips today. Their reason for being?
Ergonomics. More natural. Less felt recoil. Arguably better control.
Personally I like a straight (non-semi-pistol-grip, or English) stock too...
May I make a simple point please? This isn't so new...
There are other names too but a "pistol grip" had been the downward-arching wrist on a stock for a century. Because of the "full pistol grip" of some guns for the last 60-years or so they are often referred to as semi-pistol grips today. Their reason for being?
Ergonomics. More natural. Less felt recoil. Arguably better control.
Personally I like a straight (non-semi-pistol-grip, or English) stock too...
Attachments
Pantomime this out. It's very easy to see.
Put your strong hand up in front of your face, on the centerline of your body, like you're a boxer, or like you're holding a can of Coke that you're about to take a drink out of, or like you're holding the grip of an M-16. (All pretty much the same hand position.)
Now holding your hand there, try to rotate it forward as though you'd grip the stock of an M1 or M14 or Mini-14 (and reach that safety!). You can feel the tendons and bones in your wrist tighten up and fight you as you try to roll that hand forward so far. You'll find you want to pull your whole strong arm and shoulder up higher to try and relieve that pressure once your wrist runs out of range of motion. It isn't natural and isn't comfortable, and is quite tiring to try and maintain and move in that position for very long.
Then try to move through doors and around cover with your strong side elbow jacked up in the air to allow your hand to roll so far forward. You're losing fluidity and smoothness and balance as well as presenting a bigger target.
Put your strong hand up in front of your face, on the centerline of your body, like you're a boxer, or like you're holding a can of Coke that you're about to take a drink out of, or like you're holding the grip of an M-16. (All pretty much the same hand position.)
Now holding your hand there, try to rotate it forward as though you'd grip the stock of an M1 or M14 or Mini-14 (and reach that safety!). You can feel the tendons and bones in your wrist tighten up and fight you as you try to roll that hand forward so far. You'll find you want to pull your whole strong arm and shoulder up higher to try and relieve that pressure once your wrist runs out of range of motion. It isn't natural and isn't comfortable, and is quite tiring to try and maintain and move in that position for very long.
Then try to move through doors and around cover with your strong side elbow jacked up in the air to allow your hand to roll so far forward. You're losing fluidity and smoothness and balance as well as presenting a bigger target.
Jackal
Member
Absolutely true.
That seems to be true. However, the OP asked for the ADVANTAGES of the design, not necessarily simply why someone originally tried it.
Seeing as the vertical pistol grip has been adopted as hugely advantageous in almost all dynamic rifle shooting -- very little of which is actually done full-auto -- I'd say the "chicken-and-egg" question of which reason was first becomes much less important.
There really are no advantages for a manually operated rifle or shotgun. For a semi-auto rifle, a quick follow-up shot might be easier because of the straight recoil. Other than that, the usual reason for choosing the full pistol grip (or whatever it is) is that folks think it looks "cool."
Jim
Jim
Clearly, a lot of people disagree with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubb_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2010_Enhanced_Sniper_Rifle
https://cheytac.com/
http://www.accuracyinternational.com/aw_series.php
and those are just a few manual action precision rifles using pistol grips. I am having a hard time believing that David Tubbs or the Army is designing their precision rifles based on what looks cool. In fact, there seems to be a fairly consistent preference for pistol grips in just about all of the newer precision bolt guns. Heck, Accuracy International was using the same idea (thumbhole grip though) long before pistol grips were cool.
I would also submit that the evolution of firearms has been to a more and more pronounced 90 degree pistol grip. Look at the very old flintlock pistols; even the PISTOLS didn't have a real pistol grip back then and were more akin to a modern shotgun grip.
I think that modern lightweight materials and the move to recoil-operated semiautomatic weapons has really allowed humans to have a relaxed grip like an M16 rather than the awkwardly canted forward grip that the pirates had to use.
I think that modern lightweight materials and the move to recoil-operated semiautomatic weapons has really allowed humans to have a relaxed grip like an M16 rather than the awkwardly canted forward grip that the pirates had to use.
1903s, M1s and 1903 "C" stocks and "American" style shotguns all have "pistol grips" but I know you are talking about "extended" pistol grips like a submachine gun, M-60 or M-16.
The "extended " pistol grip is a great aid in magazine reloads when it allows you to keep your strong hand in place near the trigger.
The "extended " pistol grip is a great aid in magazine reloads when it allows you to keep your strong hand in place near the trigger.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
People forget that the whole point of the straight grip was to make the rifle easy to manipulate a bayonet with, and the added bonus of the straight design being easier, cheaper, and stronger to make from wood . Having made a stock with a separate pistol grip, I know for a fact what a bear it is to make them strong enough to not snap off under use or recoil.
Everything from staple guns to jack hammers to hand saws to hatchets position the knuckles roughly perpendicular to the forearm. The strongest orientation, which transfers force most efficiently along our anatomy, and allows us to slug each other without damage to our bones or ligaments. Even spears are used with the arms perpendicular to the shaft so the bones are aligned stably, not pushed out forward and at eye level, with the joints locked at an extreme angle.
I would submit that the only reason non-wooden stocks are still made straight is because people are used to them and would find the more natural ergonomic position un-natural after years of conditioning. Pistol grips will become more and more popular as companies compete using easily marketable ergonomic design improvements, and fewer and fewer people grow up with only traditional stock designs to shoot. I've heard people say the P90 stock design is unergonomic and merely there to look "cool" --really?
TCB
. Having made a stock with a separate pistol grip, I know for a fact what a bear it is to make them strong enough to not snap off under use or recoil.Everything from staple guns to jack hammers to hand saws to hatchets position the knuckles roughly perpendicular to the forearm. The strongest orientation, which transfers force most efficiently along our anatomy, and allows us to slug each other without damage to our bones or ligaments. Even spears are used with the arms perpendicular to the shaft so the bones are aligned stably, not pushed out forward and at eye level, with the joints locked at an extreme angle.
I would submit that the only reason non-wooden stocks are still made straight is because people are used to them and would find the more natural ergonomic position un-natural after years of conditioning. Pistol grips will become more and more popular as companies compete using easily marketable ergonomic design improvements, and fewer and fewer people grow up with only traditional stock designs to shoot. I've heard people say the P90 stock design is unergonomic and merely there to look "cool" --really?
TCB
Carl N. Brown
Member
One of the big trends of 20th century gun design was toward the stock in line with the barrel, to direct recoil straight back rather than up.
Part had to do with controllability of recoil of full auto military weapons. (Compare the buttstock of the experimental 1923 Thompson to the original M1921.)
Part had to do with controllabity of recoil in single shots: less cheek slap with a thumbhole stock on a bolt action rifle.
When the stock is in a straight line with the barrel, the grip has to go underneath the gun. There you get the modern military rifles StG44, AK47 and AR15/M16.
Part had to do with controllability of recoil of full auto military weapons. (Compare the buttstock of the experimental 1923 Thompson to the original M1921.)
Part had to do with controllabity of recoil in single shots: less cheek slap with a thumbhole stock on a bolt action rifle.
When the stock is in a straight line with the barrel, the grip has to go underneath the gun. There you get the modern military rifles StG44, AK47 and AR15/M16.
"Quote:
...the real reason is that those rifles were originally designed for full auto fire...
That seems to be true. However, the OP asked for the ADVANTAGES of the design, not necessarily simply why someone originally tried it."
except the first US battle carbine to employ a pistol grip wasn't full auto. I submit the para-trooper M1 Carbine.
While the folding stock was the primary focus, the crusty dudes I asked all said it was much more comfortable then the Garand.
...the real reason is that those rifles were originally designed for full auto fire...
That seems to be true. However, the OP asked for the ADVANTAGES of the design, not necessarily simply why someone originally tried it."
except the first US battle carbine to employ a pistol grip wasn't full auto. I submit the para-trooper M1 Carbine.
While the folding stock was the primary focus, the crusty dudes I asked all said it was much more comfortable then the Garand.
Attachments
Either M1 carbine is "easier" to shoot than the M1 Garand. The former are simply fun'n easy modern-er really big and accurate pistols.
Other than the several that Mr. Roberts linked, the DTA SRS is another bolt action with a pistol grip. I find the grip to be extremely comfortable, I can easily keep my hand in place on the grip for long periods of time, and I shoot it better than conventionally stocked rifles from every position. If it didn't weigh so much it would be my only bolt centerfire, but I keep a lightweight .260 around for hiking.
I will say this from the other side....using a traditional rifle....I find it easier to go from...sitting cross legged with rifle laying across my lap to a fire position. The pistol grip seems a little more awkward of a motion....or maybe its that holding the rifle cross-lap is a little more awkward.
As a hunter, I sit like this quite a lot.
I also find that when in motion, the pistol grip is easier to hang and carry muzzle down with one hand.
So if your hunting..where being still is important...tradition seems better..
But if your moving around in a tactical manner...the pistol grip is the clear choice.
As a hunter, I sit like this quite a lot.
I also find that when in motion, the pistol grip is easier to hang and carry muzzle down with one hand.
So if your hunting..where being still is important...tradition seems better..
But if your moving around in a tactical manner...the pistol grip is the clear choice.
"...advantage carry over..." Yep. Gives far more control. Ditto for the vertical grip on forestocks.
"...much more comfortable then(SIC) the Garand..." Hmmm, lug around 8 pounds empty or 6? The PBI lose every ounce they can.
"...more difficult to fire from the hip..." Shooting from the hip is heavily frowned upon by militaries. It gives zero control and zero expected accuracy.
"...flintlock pistols..." They were pointed, not aimed.
"...much more comfortable then(SIC) the Garand..." Hmmm, lug around 8 pounds empty or 6? The PBI lose every ounce they can.
"...more difficult to fire from the hip..." Shooting from the hip is heavily frowned upon by militaries. It gives zero control and zero expected accuracy.
"...flintlock pistols..." They were pointed, not aimed.
For the most part it is a more natural, comfortable position for your hand, partcularly on pump or semi-autos. There are exceptions. On a bolt rifle it means it is farther to move your hand if you want to quickly manipulate the bolt handle. A straight, english type of grip is faster to shoot because your hand can easily slide back to operate 2 triggers.
Some may disagree if they are not accustomed to the pistol grip. Like anything it takes time to unlearn things that you have been doing your whole life. But once mastered most folks think it is more comfortable and natural.
Some may disagree if they are not accustomed to the pistol grip. Like anything it takes time to unlearn things that you have been doing your whole life. But once mastered most folks think it is more comfortable and natural.
- Status
