OK, what is the purpose of a pistol grip

[Monkeyleg]

The last couple of days I've had a touch of the flu, which always sends my mind off in weird directions. Well, let's just say "weirder."

At any rate, I got to wondering why military-style weapons so often have pistol grips. Do they make full-auto fire more controllable and, if so, why? If that's not the reason, then what is?

 

[Nightcrawler]

Many designs simply require one, especially the bullpups. They do offer a slighly shorter overall length for the same length of pull. Also, it allows for a folding or collapsing stock.

 

[Zak Smith]

When you hold out your arm and make a fist, the axis of your first is at almost a right angle to your forearm. When you draw back your fist to where it would hold the rear grip of a rifle, a pistol grip is likely to be more ergonomic and provide better leverage on the weapon.

-z

 

[zahc]

Most millitary weapons are designed with the bore axis in line with the shoulder stock to reduce muzzle rise and make FA fire more controllable. With this design a pistol grip is just necessary.

Traditionally guns had straight stocks not because they were more ergonomic or comfortable but because it was the only way to design a stock out of wood. A pistol grip wuld not have been possible with wood.

It wasn't until laminates and plastics came to be that we had more freedom to design, and a grip with a more vertical gip is just more ergonomic.

But since people still like wood stocks and we have an idea of what is traditional or 'pretty' straight stocks live on.

 

[Nightcrawler]

and a grip with a more vertical gip is just more ergonomic.

That's a matter of opinion. What's comfortable and ergonomic for one is ungainly for another.

 

[Monkeyleg]

zahc, that makes sense except when it comes to the first "assault rifle," the Thompson. It had wood stocks, and the bore axis was above the stocks. Can you elaborate, please?

The shorter stock explanation also makes sense. But M14's were full-length and many were full-auto.

What I'm trying to do here, aside from take my mind off the flu symptoms, is prepare myself for arguments over the Black Rifle ban sunset. It's pretty easy to get people to dismiss a ban on rifles with bayo lugs, "flash suppressors," barrel shrouds, etc. But the public has been conditioned to believe that pistol grips make firing from the hip easier. I want to explain to them, factually, why most military rifles have pistol grips.

And I can't believe I ever sought out this info. Maybe I should get sick more often.

 

[zahc]

zahc, that makes sense except when it comes to the first "assault rifle," the Thompson. It had wood stocks, and the bore axis was above the stocks. Can you elaborate, please?

The thompson was a submachine gun. Anyway, it doesn't even have a one piece stock and the grips and shoulder stock were not made out of the same hunk of wood, but are separate parts fastened onto the chunk of milled steel that is a Thompson.

When you make a stock you have the wood grain go longways. If you made a pistol grip stock out of that piece of wood it would quickly break off because the grain direction would be all wrong. You could make the wood grain go up and down so that the pistol grip was strong but then the buttstock would break off. This is why muskets and other one piece stocked rifles made of wood do not have pistol grips. It just doesn't work.

I have never fired a thompson. I do believe it would be more efficient with a lower bore axis. Ask the designers why they made it like that. They were probably working with tradition and just mounted the sights to the barrel and receiver instead of conceiving the raised sights that a low bore requires. Just a guess. The thompson also weighs approximately a ton, which might do something for making it controllable and accurate for full auto fire.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks, zahc. You're right about the weight of the Thompson. With a full 50-round drum it's pushing 15 pounds. Bore axis or no, that weight makes it very controllable on full-auto.

 

[Zach S]

I have never fired a thompson. I do believe it would be more efficient with a lower bore axis.

Yeah, the bore axis is about as high as a stoner on payday.

 

[lycanthrope]

I've fired some Tommy's. The high bore axis isn't a detriment in my opinion. With a drum mag they balance nice (albeit heavy) and muzzle rise is pretty much nonexistent.

The Tommy is a CQB weapon. It was made to cycle fast (for the time) and one doesn't really use much cheek weld since shooting over 100 yads with 230 gr bullets in .45 isn't very effective. It's a heads-up kind of weapon.

 

[4v50 Gary]

To piss of Fineswine, Schumer and Teddy.

 

[clubsoda22]

It's actually harder to fire a pistol gripped rifle from the hip. try holding one at your side sometime as compared to a regular stock.

 

[Drjones]

OK, what is the purpose of a pistol grip

They make it easier to spray-fire from the hip so that we can more efficiently mow down babies, puppies, kittens, and endangered species.

Just like flash hiders, bayonet mounts, and nickel-plated Desert Eagles that are no longer CA-legal.

 

[Travis McGee]

The ergonomic reasons are all correct.
Plus, they just plain look and feel cooler.

 

[Riphalman]

So........what I'm reading here is.......

no one was ever bright enough to figure out how to fix a pistol grip as a separate component onto a wooden stock...........OH....KAY.

 

[Absolut]

more natural, better control

 

[Nightcrawler]

Pistol Grip Challenge

Take two shooters of equal training and skill, and equally familliar with a rifle. Take two otherwise identical rifles, one with a pistol grip and one with a standard stock (probably have to use the Mini-14 for this, but the M1 Carbine and M1A might work also.), and have them shoot some kind of course.

I'm willing to bet neither will do noticably better than the other, assuming each shooter is more comfortable with HIS type of stock.

 

[JohnKSa]

If the rifle is light enough, the pistol grip makes firing one handed much easier.

I've asked this question before but never gotten a satisfactory answer.

For those who think pistol grips are less ergonomic or offer equal ergonomics to more conventionally shaped stocks...

Why is it that every true match rifle on the market has the functional equivalent of a pistol grip stock? They all use either a thumbhole, or a design similar to the Thompson Encore rifle stock. Both designs place the hand/wrist/arm in exactly the same position as a pistol grip stock would.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Then you tell me why is it that the sniper rifles our military uses virtually all have conventional stocks?

I fail to see how having your hand angled forward a bit more would affect the inherent accuracy of a rifle, especially a 15-lb match rifle that's on sandbags or a rest anyway. I'm willing to bet most match rifles use the pistol grip to accomodate those funky adjustable stocks that have all sorts of buttons and knobs on them. I'd be more difficult to make such a stock (with an adjustable cheek piece, length of pull, drop, etc.) with a standard wrist stock.

 

[powderific]

I don't see that either one would necessarily be better than the other. I imagine that it would be difficult to make a bullpup with a pistol grip. To me, pistol grips and the like offer a much more natural wrist angle. A person may like one or the other better, but I think that zak smith's point still holds true.

 

[Mikul]

I find the pistol grip to allow more versatility in grip. Imagine that the butt of your palm in against the rearmost portion of the pistol grip. You could rotate it left or right depending on which position works best for you. With a standard wooden rifle stock, you would also be rotating your hand up or down depending on which way you move. On a thumbhole stock, you can only move so far left because the bottom loop gets in the way, but you retain good freedom to the right.

Another advantage is the pistol gips are also modular grips. They are removable and replacable with a grip more suitable to your tastes and anatomy. Try making a drastic change on an M14 without having to rebed your rifle. Look at all of the varieties available for the AR-15.

I also agree with others. One piece wooden stocks with pistol grips are inherently weak. New manufacturing styles developed within the last 50 years has made this new style possible.

As far as needing to argue this point, this is an easy one to turn around: what makes them suitable only to criminals. If they do serve purely criminal activities, what does this say about our police and military?

 

[cracked butt]

Take two shooters of equal training and skill, and equally familliar with a rifle. Take two otherwise identical rifles, one with a pistol grip and one with a standard stock (probably have to use the Mini-14 for this, but the M1 Carbine and M1A might work also.), and have them shoot some kind of course.

A better example, though not exactly a pistol grip itself is to shoot a straight stocked '03 springfield vs the same rifle with a C-stock. One is much easier to shoot than the other.

Your trigger finger naturally wants to pull towards your thumb. If you can have your thumb, triger finger and trigger pulling all on the same plane, it makes for a more precise and consistant trigger control.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

The shorter stock explanation also makes sense. But M14's were full-length and many were full-auto.

I don't think many were full-auto. I only saw one, in IAT at Ft Polk. I couldn't control the thing - maybe the first bullet hit the target, the rest went elsewhere into the Louisiana woods.

I don't think a pistol grip would have helped.

Regards

 

[45King]

Some years back, I saw an article in one of the gunzines about a fellow who rebuilt a Smith & Wesson M19 so that the barrel was at the bottom of the frame. According to this article, the bore axis being in line with the center of the hand significantly reduced the muzzle rise of the pistol.

If you design a rifle stock so that the bore axis is centered on the shoulder, a pistol grip is the ONLY way to grip the rifle with the strong hand. If you design the stock with a traditional curved wrist, it will raise the bore axis above the centerline of the shoulder. The recoil force then "levers" the muzzle up against the fulcrum of your shoulder.

 

[benEzra]

Then you tell me why is it that the sniper rifles our military uses virtually all have conventional stocks?

Because they're based on older designs that were designed for the straight-stocked geometry of their original wood stocks. Note that the .50 sniper rifles and the newer British-design sniper rifles use pistol-grip stocks, I think.