What is primary reason for pistol grip on assault rifles?

[bushmaster1313]

What is the main reason for a pistol grip on an assault rifle?

Why do today's M1A's have straight grips?

 

[earlthegoat2]

Yesterdays M1As (M-14s) had straight (or at least semi pistol) grips too.

I think "assault" rifles have full pistol grips mainly for recoil control and faster followups under fully automatic fire.

A rifle can really start pushing back on you in full auto and the full pistol grip at least partially allows you to push back. You can fire the rifle better one handed as well with the full pistol grip.

 

[ArmedBear]

The pistol grip allows a gun to be used comfortably in different positions than a "conventional" rifle stock. Think urban warfare, for example. Note that there's a continuum of designs, from the straight grip on some lever actions to the AR-style pistol grip, with all sorts of things in between like thumbholes, etc.

This M1A variant has a hybrid stock design, with a grip that is close to vertical.

WRT to today's M1As, there are a couple of reasons. One is tradition: the standard rifles are built to resemble and handle like the standard M14. The other is weight: there are "modern style" stocks for the M1A, but I've used one and they are beasts.

Remember: the M14 was an improved Garand, and still was conceived as a battle rifle. The assumptions about how the gun would be used were different from what we now assume. Hence, it was a .308. It was select-fire, but this didn't work all that well in practice. Of course, the M16 was deemed to be far from perfect, either, hence the development of 3-shot burst. Note also that the BAR had a conventional rifle stock, despite being a full-auto .30-06(!)

Personally, I like the way a conventional rifle handles. So do many other people. I also have ARs and straight-grip lever guns. They all work well, in different ways for different reasons.

 

[kludge]

"Modern" military rifles put the barrel more in line with the stock to counter muzzle rise in burst or full auto (as much as possible). Doing this leads to an un-natural grip area if a conventional stock were used. A pistol grip makes it more ergonomic when fired from the shoulder.

The notion that they are designed to be "shot from the hip" is poppycock. (anti-gunners love story about the "spraying bullets" with a pistol grip)

Hold an AR or AK at your hip. Then a rifle with a conventional stock. Your hand and wrist are at a much more comfortable angle with the conventional stock.

As armed bear mentioned it can give you more flexibility in shooting position though.

 

[ArmedBear]

The notion that they are designed to be "shot from the hip" is poppycock.

Quite true. It's utter poppycock, and nothing but AWB propaganda. They had to find some excuse for why a semiauto gun that merely looks like an M16 or an AK47 is "extra dangerous".

Every rifle is designed for aimed fire, even the AK47...

And as kludge said, the one position the pistol grip does NOT favor is "from the hip."

Probably the best hip-shooting long gun grip is a "Prince-of-Wales" grip, which is kind of a shallow bird's head grafted to a buttstock. Anti-gun types don't seem to target it, though, because it doesn't look "evil" or "modern." Though somewhat popular on upland bird shotguns, it is seldom seen on any rifles. Even then it's usually only on dangerous game rifles, made for snap shooting at charging animals that are inches from killing the shooter.

The only problem with hip-shooting this big-bore double rifle is that it would probably drive the front sight into your face on recoil!

 

[MCgunner]

For sporting uses, I cannot STAND pistol grip guns. Their application is military as explained. Ergos suck in the field for hunting, very slow to the shoulder vs a sporting stock and hard to carry in the field. The perfect field carry IMHO is a 92 Winchester with aperture sights, no scope. Handy and quick. Of course, I have scoped rifles and even have a pistol gripped folder, mostly a range toy. JMHO, though. I've been hunting since I was about 7 years old with my Benjamin air rifle. I guess that was 50 years ago, half a century. Damn.......

 

[dom1104]

A pistol grip on an AR makes for very easy " low ready " carry for lack of a better term...

I dont feel like describing this as well as I probably should...


If the buttstock is "up past your shoulder" as you are moving thru your house or what have you, with your strong hand in front of your ... nipple for lack of a better descriptor, you can move thru tight places very easily with a longer gun. It is more difficult with a conventional stock.

Blah I am unmotivated to describe it any better

I find them conventient for that sort of thing.

 

[Z-Michigan]

"Modern" military rifles put the barrel more in line with the stock to counter muzzle rise in burst or full auto (as much as possible). Doing this leads to an un-natural grip area if a conventional stock were used. A pistol grip makes it more ergonomic when fired from the shoulder.

The notion that they are designed to be "shot from the hip" is poppycock. (anti-gunners love story about the "spraying bullets" with a pistol grip)

Hold an AR or AK at your hip. Then a rifle with a conventional stock. Your hand and wrist are at a much more comfortable angle with the conventional stock.

Bing, we have a winner!

Many designs that use a PG have a long receiver that simply isn't compatible with the older style of stock. The original STG-44, the AK-47, FN-FAL, AR-10 and AR-15, etc. M60, MG-42 and MG-34 would be nearly perfect examples as well.

 

[dom1104]

Many designs that use a PG have a long receiver that simply isn't compatible with the older style of stock. The original STG-44, the AK-47, FN-FAL, AR-10 and AR-15, etc. M60, MG-42 and MG-34 would be nearly perfect examples as well.

I think Z-Michigan is correct, however it should be pointed out that saigas have a conventional stock in a AK 47 pattern, as do MAK-90s etc.

Although it does have a ... pistolish grip, I mean a very curved handle, bah I cant talk today, I am signing out

 

[benEzra]

Better ergonomics. That's why many unlimited-class bolt-action target rifles have pistol grips, too.

it should be pointed out that saigas have a conventional stock in a AK 47 pattern, as do MAK-90s etc.

Only to meet import regulations enacted by people who demonized pistol grips as having "no legitimate sporting purpose." They tend to make the length of pull a little longer than optimum, IMO.

 

[Slamfire]

Why do today's M1A's have straight grips?

The M1a is built to be a semi automatic version of the M14.

Understand who picked the M14 and their organizational behaviors. The M14 was an Army rifle. The Army is extremely conservative. They like what they have, want something better, but only a little different. The Army rejects revolutionary change. You absolutely have to wrestle the pointy sticks from their hands, before you can issue them iron tipped spears.* They will then act pouty over the loss of their pointy sticks until the Old Guard retires.

The M14 replaced the Garand. It was considered to be an advantage, in the source selection material, that the M14 was very similar to a Garand. The primary competitor to the M14 was the FAL. The FAL was adopted by over 100 countries, so it was a very successful design. But it was a revolutionary design change from the Garand. The Army rejected that change.

As much as I like the M1a, and it is a great rifle, it’s design reflects a gradual evolution from the Springfield 1861 musket. The FAL was too big of a jump for the Army.

* As proof of this, see how they act if you criticize the M16 as old and not best in its class.

 

[gondorian]

According to the brady campaign, "A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting"

 

[MCgunner]

Better ergonomics. That's why many unlimited-class bolt-action target rifles have pistol grips, too.

Oh, yeah, I'd wanna still hunt deer with that. You ever try to get something like that to your shoulder before the rabbit hits cover? That's what I'm talkin' about, not Olympics which I've never been a part of and never will.

 

[Oic0]

Easier to keep the gun held to your shoulder in a ready position while moving. Easier to pivot it down and bring it back up.
Useful in fast paced combat, useful in paintball, not useful when quietly stalking a deer through the woods or sitting in a stand.

 

[MCgunner]

Easier to keep the gun held to your shoulder in a ready position while moving. Easier to pivot it down and bring it back up.

Something you do while walking through the woods still hunting, is it? And, hell, I can get on target quicker with a standard stock, personally, providing proper fit.

No, pistol grips are about recoil control, especially under full auto fire. They make ultimate sense in combat.

 

[svaz]

Sad that a part used to control the gun should be used as an excuse for gun control.

Anyway, on the AR platform it's a matter of ergonomics and practicality - it makes the straight comb, required by the recoil buffer tube, possible.

On the rest of the Western guns? I guess it's ergo & makes folding or collapsing stocks easier to implement. For the AK, I'm sure economics had a big roll to play - the Soviets never being known to care much for the comfort of Pvt. Ivanov.

 

[Art Eatman]

The pistol grip definitely makes an M16 easy to handle on full-auto. I did horrible things to a spanish dagger plant at about a hundred yards, just holding the butt between my elbow and my ribs. I could tell from the dust that I got somewhere aroound seventeen hits from a 20-round mag. I wouldn't have called it a tight group, of course.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I'll be the odd man out but I really like my pistol grips for hunting. They allow me to stalk the rifle in a low cross body ready position with my finger alongside the trigger guard and my thumb right next to the safety for extended periods. They also work much better in the sitting position because you can keep both elbows pointed downwards at a natural angle (why a lot of turkey shotguns now have PG's)

 

[benEzra]

No, pistol grips are about recoil control, especially under full auto fire. They make ultimate sense in combat.

That doesn't explain this:

That rifle is a single-shot with almost no recoil whatsoever (I think it's a .22), and is used to compete in matches where there are absolutely no limits on stock/handgrip shape. The grip on that rifle is all about human forearm anatomy, not recoil control.

Now, having said that, putting the barrel and the stock in a straight line (like the M16 or the FAL) helps with recoil control, and packaging an inline design is made easier with a separate handgrip to avoid wierd gooseneck stocks and/or excessive length. But the pistol grip itself is about where to put your hand, not so much holding the muzzle down.

Oh, yeah, I'd wanna still hunt deer with that. You ever try to get something like that to your shoulder before the rabbit hits cover? That's what I'm talkin' about, not Olympics which I've never been a part of and never will.

A pistol gripped rifle is very, very quick to shoulder from a low ready position (what I think of as the rifle equivalent of position sul) if your hand is already on the pistol grip, which it should be. Pistol gripped rifles are slow from high ready, not from low ready. If they were slow to the shoulder, then competitors in fast-paced matches where hundredths of a second separate winners from losers wouldn't use them.

If you find them slow, it may because you have thousands of hours of practice with straight stocked rifles and less than that with pistol gripped rifles. If you had as much time on pistol gripped rifles as you do with straight-stocked rifles, you'd probably be just as fast with the pistol grip stock.

Now, straight-stocked rifles may be handier if you are carrying them slung in thick brush (fewer snags), are easier to transport in a rifle scabbard than a bulkier pistol-gripped model, and so on, but given equivalent time on them, they work just as well, and they allow the receiver to extend further to the rear than is the case on straight-stocked guns, allowing a couple of inches more barrel for a given overall length.

For me personally, I prefer a pistol gripped rifle all around, and if I ever do take up hunting, it will probably be with a rifle having a vertical grip style. There is plenty of room for personal preference.

 

[Z-Michigan]

I think Z-Michigan is correct, however it should be pointed out that saigas have a conventional stock in a AK 47 pattern, as do MAK-90s etc.

The Saiga and Chinese AK-Hunter simply prove my point. They are overlong, clumsy, unbalanced rifles in their imported form. While the standard AK is shorter, much handier and much better balanced.

According to the brady campaign, "A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting"

Might as well ask the Brady Bunch for stock picks, how to reform the healthcare system, and maybe a discussion of global warming.

 

[essayons21]

The notion that they are designed to be "shot from the hip" is poppycock

Even the wildest stories sometimes have an element of truth. Check out older Russian and even US Army Infantry manuals. "Assault fire" is done by charging the target, firing from the hip on full auto. Hopefully you have about 50 other guys on either side of you doing the same.

 

[rcmodel]

Not poppycock at all.
Russian combat doctrine during the cold war was to ride up to within 200 - 300 yards of the enemy line in Armored Personnel Carriers, dismount, and use full-auto suppressing fire from the hip for the final assault on foot.

But, as already stated by kludge in post #4, the real reason assault rifles have pistol grips is to make possible a more straight line stock to help control muzzle climb.

The completely straight line stock/bore line and very high sights on the M-16 is the ultimate result of this.

rc

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Infantry firing from the hip during an advance is a part of infantry manuals going back to WWII days at least. However, that tactic has nothing to do with why the pistol grip was developed.

 

[Hatterasguy]

It started with the machine pistols in the 30's and 40's, such as the Thomspon, and MP40. Than the Germans created the STG44 with a pistol grip defining the modern assualt rifle.

Its easy to hold, and everyone does it, are probably why they have them.

 

[benEzra]

Infantry firing from the hip during an advance is a part of infantry manuals going back to WWII days at least. However, that tactic has nothing to do with why the pistol grip was developed.

Exactly. Remember, back then a lot of the guns involved looked like this:


MP18


PPSh-41



Those guns are actually easier to fire from the hip than (say) an AK, because the more horizontal stock allows the wrist to be straight with the gun at hip level.

And despite popular Hollywood portrayals, BTW, the Thompson was pretty well set up for shooting from the shoulder: