Real reasons for "protruding pistol grip"

[ArmedBear]

With all the political BS regarding the pistol grip on a rifle, I looked at some designs and I can see two reasons the pistol grip was adopted for some modern rifle designs:

1. Overall Length: look at the Thompson, the FAL, the original Johnson Carbine prototype that looks like a big steel and wood AR, the AR, the AK. What they all have in common is that the receiver extends above the trigger hand. The pistol grip allows for a "semi-bullpup" design, with shorter OAL than a traditional rifle like an M14.

2. Folding stock: M1 Carbine Paratrooper is an example. The PG allows a traditional gun design to have a folding butt for storage, without losing all stability when it is fired.

Neither reason has anything to with "spray and pray" capability, hipshooting, or even ergonomics.

A lever gun with a straight grip can be hipshot as well as anything, and a straight grip is easier to hold in a low position, since you can have your trigger arm directly above the weapon and still fire it.

"Spray and pray" works as well with an SKS as an AK, or with a Mini-14 as an AR. Try it. You can miss just as easily with the traditional-stocked gun!

Ergonomics are even doubtful. The PG might be better for one situation, worse for another. If it were so much better ergonomically across the board, you'd see it used a lot more on guns used for serious competitive clay shooting, big game hunting, etc. You don't.

Just my thoughts on why this aspect of the AWB is complete BS, even if you DO believe in limiting firepower available to civilians.

 

[kcmarine]

For once, someone is discussing why AWBII is BS instead of talking about how they are gonna make a quick buck off of their guns by selling them on the eve of a new ban.

THANK YOU.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I think the fact that a pistol grip allows for an inline stock, reducing effects of recoil and muzzle rise during automatic or rapid semi automatic fire, is another selling point in the use of a pistol grip (though some designs did not capitalize on this geometry as much as others).

I tend to agree with the point made, in any case. Having a traditional stock profile does not, for instance, make an M14 clone any safer in the hands of a violent criminal, homicidal lunatic, etc., than a FAL or G3 (or M14 clone with pistol grip stock). Same thing comparing a Mini-14/30 to an AR or AK.

But pistol grips look all military and such, and so those who know nothing about guns whatsoever assume they must provide some extra double-special super killing ability, etc. Or maybe they assume that the pistol grip can exert telepathic mind control and turn otherwise sane citizens into psychotic spree killers. As fuzzy headed as the anti-gun crowd's thinking usually is, I don't put anything past them.

 

[ArmedBear]

I think the fact that a pistol grip allows for an inline stock, reducing effects of recoil and muzzle rise during automatic or rapid semi automatic fire

Perhaps so.

However, few designs actually use this potential feature, and it certainly wasn't what gave rise to the pistol grip design. Most buttstocks, apart from the AR family, end up at the same angle as they would with a conventional stock. That's why AR's have the distinctive "carry handle" rear sight.

None of these designs have inline stocks. This leads me to believe that the pistol grip was not developed for that reason, even if certain designs might have inline buttstocks.

Thompson, shorter OAL:


M1A1, folding stock:


AK47, shorter OAL and/or folding stock capability:


FAL, shorter OAL:


Stoner 63, shorter OAL:

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW for comparison, here's an M14:

Note that it's longer for a given barrel and receiver length, than the other examples. However, the buttstock drop, comb angle, and offset of buttstock to bore are the same as the competing designs with pistol grips under their receivers and the trigger moved forward, e.g. FAL.

 

[Plink]

We all know the real reason is to look "kewl" like those guns on TV! Why else would people now be putting a pistol grip on front also? "Kewlness" must be very important, otherwise folks wouldn't be cutting down barrels to 10 inches, only to lose velocity and sight radius, then welding on 6 inches of pipe to make them legal length again.

When is the last time we saw real marksmen using a vertical foregrip? Apparently it doesn't add accuracy or they'd use them. But it does look oh so kewl and give you a place to put your hand since the foregrip is now full of lights, lasers, can openers, turn signals and curb feelers.

I think your idea of allowing a shorter overall length has a lot of merit. Just looking at the Thompson and AK shows it.

I actually shoot better with guns that don't have a pistol grip. It might just be the way I'm built, but with everything in more of a straight line, I have less trouble holding on target. I own a lot of pistol gripped guns too, so it's not like I'm against pistol gripped guns, just against the silly Rooney guns some folks make from them.

 

[ArmedBear]

with everything in more of a straight line, I have less trouble holding on target

You're not alone. While there are a few rare custom trap guns with pistol grips, 99.999% of clay shooters use conventional stocks.

To shoot moving targets in competition, you have to keep your entire upper body moving as a single unit. You don't want the gun to pivot around your trigger hand, EVER.

The conventional stock design helps with this.

Like you, I'm not anti-pistol-grip. I just think that those who say "it's more ergonomic" are not entirely right. It might be better for some people, for some applications, in some shooting positions, but certainly not for all. And it's worse for some, too.

 

[cheygriz]

Just A guess, but I'd bet that the reason you don't see full pistol grips on trap and skeet guns is purely tradition.

Many trap/skeep shooters and hunters are very hide-bound traditionalists. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but I truly believe that is the One and only reason you don't see them.

I don't shoot trap/skeet but I have fired thousands of rounds of buckshot and slugs with so-called "fighting shotguns" equipped with full PG, and I simply could not imagine ever owning a shotgun without one.

 

[Plink]

I've gone back and forth with straight stocks and PG stocks on my 870. I even made the mistake of trying a vertical foregrip on it. I still have the pistol grip stock on it because the buttstock of that particular stock setup fits me so well. I still shot better with the straight stock. Like I said, it might just be how I'm built though.

I'm not so sure I buy the tradition reason for trap and skeet guns. We're seeing a lot of alloy and polymer receivered guns, sitting in polymer recoil reducing stocks, hitting the market, obviously targetted towards the clay games shooters. I don't know how popular they're becoming, but they're far from traditional. If a pistol grip actually improved shootability, I'd think these new style guns would incorporate them, as their buyers are certainly not traditionalists and would buy anything that actually works.

 

[Gator]

I think the fact that a pistol grip allows for an inline stock, reducing effects of recoil and muzzle rise during automatic or rapid semi automatic fire, is another selling point in the use of a pistol grip (though some designs did not capitalize on this geometry as much as others).

Bingo! Imagine the redesign necessary if you couldn't have a straight line stock on an M16. It is not as simple as just a new stock, you'd end up with a whole different rifle. And in my experience a pistol grip does allow more control with full-auto fire, it gives me a much stronger grip for pulling the butt stock back and down.

You could go this way (California, of course) without changing the rifle, and the overall length is the same, but it wouldn't do for the military;



http://www.californiarifles.com/

 

[HorseSoldier]

I think the fact that a pistol grip allows for an inline stock, reducing effects of recoil and muzzle rise during automatic or rapid semi automatic fire

Perhaps so.

However, few designs actually use this potential feature, and it certainly wasn't what gave rise to the pistol grip design. Most buttstocks, apart from the AR family, end up at the same angle as they would with a conventional stock. That's why AR's have the distinctive "carry handle" rear sight.

Possibly this state of affairs would explain why the words immediately after "automatic fire," where your quoting of me ended, in my post were "(though some designs did not capitalize on this geometry as much as others)."

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't shoot trap/skeet

I knew that right away.

Competition guns are often "space guns", just like in other shooting sports. Serious clay shooters want the highest score; other things are secondary.

What they don't have is pistol grips, because pistol grips don't offer benefits for shooting moving targets that way, at least for most people. Try it.

Pistol grips do work for point shooting. A defensive shotgun works fine with a pistol grip. It can work just as well without one, except that you take up more horizontal space with a conventional stock. In close quarters, the PG definitely does offer an advantage.

Hunters sometimes even like straight grips. They carry better and shoulder quicker. Your elbow sticks out and up when you hold the thing, but people like them for field use for strictly practical reasons. The fact that they pre-date newer designs doesn't mean that's the reason people like them. Furthermore, you seldom see them at the range. People use them when and where they work best, seldom because they're hardcore "traditionalists."

My point is just that, while a PG might offer an ergonomic difference, it doesn't make a gun more effective or more deadly, or even more ergonomic across the board.

 

[ArmedBear]

Possibly this state of affairs would explain why the words immediately after "automatic fire," where your quoting of me ended, in my post were "(though some designs did not capitalize on this geometry as much as others)."

My point wasn't to refute what you had said. I was just talking about the origins of the pistol grip stock. Most of the designs don't even attempt to capitalize on the geometry. It was probably a later discovery, with the design of the AR. From what I can tell, the designers of the AK, FAL, etc. had other things in mind, not the direction of recoil and barrel displacement under rapid fire.

Again, my beef is with lawmakers who see the pistol grip's purpose as other than it is, not with you!

If they wanted to ban guns with inline buttstocks, they could have.

 

[Titan6]

On the brady website it clearly states that assault weapons allow ''rapid, accuarate fire from the hip''.

How can you do that without a pistol grip? Seriously, they put this out as a fact and it is is an easy way to explain it.

 

[kcmarine]

You can do that just as easy without one. It might even be easier to use a straight gripped rifle for this purpose. Just compare your wrist positioning. Go ahead. You have to bend your wrist more to go to a pistol grip position. Uncomfortable if you ask me...

 

[Caimlas]

Ergonomics are even doubtful. The PG might be better for one situation, worse for another. If it were so much better ergonomically across the board, you'd see it used a lot more on guns used for serious competitive clay shooting, big game hunting, etc. You don't.

I've got a friend who, before recently, hated shooting trap because he couldn't hit anything. What got him into it? He just happened to try it once with a Mossberg 500 w/ a pistol grip, and he found he was hitting quite well with it.

My personal opinion on pistol grips - as well as European style rifle stocks - is that they allow a more natural body posture while shooting from the shoulder, not from the hip or anything like that. They allow your body to more easily and naturally align itself with the gun without straining it into an unnatural position (ie tilking your wrist forward muscularly).

Using this reasoning, it makes absolutely no sense to ban them from a "it allows mass killers to do this or that" perspective, but it makes every bit of sense to ban them from the perspective of "the peasants might use them to insurrect against the government".

Anyway, it's not like the grabbers use any other logic than "we can prohibit x number of guns in civilian ownership by prohibiting y and z features".

 

[Caimlas]

What they don't have is pistol grips, because pistol grips don't offer benefits for shooting moving targets that way, at least for most people. Try it.

Pistol grips do work for point shooting.

Hey, uh, isn't point shooting typically how people shoot trap? I don't shoot trap myself, but my grandfather taught me how to shoot and he's been (literally) banned from more than one sportsman's club for consistently winning too many competitions. He's no slouch, in other words.

As for the point of it being easier to shoot from the hip with a pistol grip than without: I don't buy it. That may be (and probably is) true with something which has a pistol grip exclusively, but not something which additionally has a stock. Just pick up any of your guns with a straight, traditional wood stock, and hold it like they do in the movies, ready to shoot from the hip: your wrist on your trigger arm is mostly straight and, therefore, natural.

Contrast that with a pistol gripped rifle or shotgun: it's going to cant your wrist in a fashion which is contrary to natural physiology, and is all but impossible to do. If it were natural, you'd not see photos of Somalians running around with a forward grip on their AK, holding the rifle out in front of them: they'd be shooting from the hip.

Pistol grips are designed with the blade of your hand to inline with the underside of your arm - thus why different pistol and pistol grip brands and manufactures use a slightly different grip angle (for differently angled/shaped hands).

Is this "shooting from the hip"? This kind of pose isn't, IMO, shooting from the hip (for a long arm, though it would be for a pistol). It's shooting without the use of the stock.

[image=http://www.xofacto.com/a/commando.jpg]
Anyway, the point is moot, because "shooting from the hip" is a pointless euphemism for criminal activity.

 

[zinj]

Hey, uh, isn't point shooting typically how people shoot trap? I don't shoot trap myself, but my grandfather taught me how to shoot and he's been (literally) banned from more than one sportsman's club for consistently winning too many competitions. He's no slouch, in other words.

You can't point shoot trap because the thrower launches at random angles. Also, people who shoot consistant straights (25/25) aren't at all uncommon in trapshooting, so I doubt he would get thrown out for being too good.

 

[Caimlas]

Also, people who shoot consistant straights (25/25) aren't at all uncommon in trapshooting, so I doubt he would get thrown out for being too good.

Are you saying I'm being dishonest?

It's happened twice, both times because he was able to out shoot the others in the clubs during competition (usually for prizes - usually turkeys, shooting equipment, or other food stuffs bought with club dues). He got back into club shooting again about 10 years ago, and only did for several years before they kicked him out. At at least two times, I recall he had a large chest freezer full of 'free' turkeys (ok, I know there were at least a half dozen), and he'd been giving quite a few away as well.

And yes, it's quite possible to point shoot at targets moving at different vectors.

 

[44AMP]

Pistol grip

Notice that the guns with pistol grips often have very deep receivers (or maybe tall is a better word), anyway, just look at the AR, AK, FAL, etc. A conventional stock design would be very awkward.

The Thompson has a pistol grip (some versions have 2), originally many had detachable butt stocks.

I have rifles with thumbhole stocks, the sharper angle of the pistol grip of these stocks allows you to pull the rifle hard into your shoulder without straining your wrist and affecting your trigger finger.

And as far as the idea that you need a pistol grip inorder to fire from the hip, The Rifleman, Chuck Conners, seemed to do just fine without one. Of course, that was TV.

 

[BigG]

Just like candy apple red cars go faster.

 

[benEzra]

As far as ergonomics go, check out the grip angles on a lot of high-end competition target rifles. Most of them have very vertical grip angles similar to an AR or an AK, rather than a more horizontal grip angle like a Mauser. Many may use an extreme Monte Carlo design or a thumbhole instead of a separate handgrip, but the vertical hand position seems to be very ergonomic for precision shooting from the shoulder, or else most high-end elite target rifles would have more traditional stocks.