1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rifle Grips, Traditional, Protruding, Straight?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by amprecon, Jun 3, 2003.


Which Grips?

  1. Protruding Pistol Grip (aka M-16/AK-47)

    7 vote(s)
  2. Tradional Pistol Grip (aka M-14/M-1)

    4 vote(s)
  3. Straight Grip (Some Lever Actions)

    3 vote(s)
  4. Other

    0 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. amprecon

    amprecon Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    I have a SLR-95 and a Rem 700. The SLR-95 has the Sporterized stock with the ignorant thumbhole but I guess it's more or less classified with the protruding pistol grip found on it's pre-ban cousins.

    I was just wondering which design most of you prefer on your rifles the protruding pistol grip or the more traditional pistol grip that you find on your favorite hunting or sporter rifle.

    I feel that the protruding grip adds unnecessary bulk and protrusions to the rifle, it may help if fired in the full-auto mode, but I have no experience there.

    I prefer the traditional pistol grip, feeling that it makes the rifle feel more streamlined and compact and also it's much easier to quickly butt-stroke by just swinging the butt out towards the object. Not very easily done with protruding grips without relocating your firing hand onto the stock which takes time.

    However, aesthetically speaking, with extruding box magazines a protruding grip makes a rifle look more proportional, take the M-16/AK-47 vs. the M-14. The M-14 looks better without the box mag, aka M-1 Garand. Could you imagine an M-16 or AK-47 without a protruding grip? I guess Saiga did it with the AK, but it just doesn't quite look right.
  2. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 25, 2002
    Down East in NC
    I STRONGLY prefer protruding pistol-grip stocks for ergonomic reasons. I have small hands and have never found a "traditional" style rifle stock that felt comfortable. On the other hand, I have never found a modern-style pistol grip stock that didn't feel natural.

    As far as tactical advantage, yes, the traditional (M1 Carbine/M14 style) wooden stock is easier to buttstroke with, "bump fire" with, and fire from hip level with. (Of course, the last two "advantages" are tactically useless.) On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to "short stock" a traditionally stocked rifle due to the wrist angle, whereas it's easy with a modern-style stock. I feel the pistol-grip stock is also less vulnerable to the "shove barrel down/pry stock up" style of disarm in close quarters (see Applegate, Kill or Get Killed for description) since the pistol grip stock allows your whole hand to resist the motion, not just the thumb. It also allows you to control the rifle better when changing the magazine.

    To me, then, the modern-style stock is (1) more comfortable, (2) more suitable for defensive purposes, and (3) just plain looks better. Which is why I have one on my mini-14 (Choate E2 style, trimmed w/custom buttplate) and why I will be REALLY upset if the gun prohibitionists succeed in banning them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page