What is primary reason for pistol grip on assault rifles?

[navyretired 1]

There is some truth in all of the above but there is a reason no-one has mentioned. Jeff Cooper told me once that you should point a weapon like you point your index finger. If you look at an object and just point without aiming with your eye's you'll find you are pointing directly at that object.
Having a pistol grip and laying finger alongside and above trigger allows you to bring the weapon into approx. sight alignment before you even obtain sight lock.
Try it if you don't beleave. Most other reasons are good too accept for lack of fire discipline, the famous assault with massed machineguns ( don't forget the Russians had their people charge machine guns or be shot by the political Officer) to some lives are very very cheap. Something to keep in mind for the future.

 

[Big_E]

Its just more comfortable to use and more ambidextrous imho.

 

[Tirod]

Let's get back to the real reason - straight line action of the bolt. It's a designer's compromise because the of receiver, and any associated buffer tube, spring, or other bolt arresting mechanism that is in the rear. Putting them in the stock changes the balance and makes them less muzzle heavy, allowing quicker targeting.

Note most assault rifles were not heavy billet machined receivers - they used sheet metal or forged aluminum, and smaller intermediate calibers.

So, with a long straight line action that forces a straight line stock design, the pistol grip goes underneath.

Don't over think it.

Ever see a drill team using M16's? No, conventional grip stocks are a lot more ergonomic, you don't have to move your hand dropping to the ground on a three second rush. Pistol grip assault rifles also force the barrel lower in stance, requiring taller sights, and compromising close combat shooting by the offset.

Pistol grip stocks aren't the end all be all, just a compromise in design. Note the rifle of choice for snipers is still a conventional stocked bolt action. There are some sniper stocks with pistol grips, I don't really see the point other than marching in the fashion parade.

 

[tango2echo]

Another reason combat rifles tend to have pistol grips is that it is much harder to take a weapon away from someone if the weapon has a pistol grip. This is also the reason center-point weapons slings have become standard for close-quarters combat.

t2e

 

[HKGuns]

The term assault rifle makes you sound like you work for the brady bunch. Why don't you define assault rifle for us?

 

[Tirod]

Assault rifles are full or burst fire intermediate caliber weapons. The STG44 was about the first, and they were developed to fit the modern combat usage in urban mechanized warfare at ranges of less than 400 yards.

And since you have no clue about my military background, service, and what I've owned, I can only conclude from the concern about my definition that someone has only been around guns since Brady demonized the term. Having owned an HK91 long before he even got shot, I'll call it what I like. It's not the topic at hand.

Pistol grips on assault rifles are a consequence of the action, not a reason for it. Aimed fire from the shoulder is still the preferred method of firing the weapon as it uses the sights. Soldiers and professionals do that, which distinguishes them from the hollywood amateurs most emulate. I'm glad I was taught correctly by professionals, and what I taught working in Basic Training.

Sorry if my definition doesn't meet your expectations. Feel free to correct it as you need.

 

[vaupet]

Pistol grips are more ergonomic, hense the sport rifles grips.
Pistol grips are bulkier (thus heavier) and more expensive, hense not wanted in hunting rifles.
Pistol grips are much better to shoot from the prone position, which is nice for military personel because they ofted have to fire while in cover.

Like always, every disadvantage has its advantages.

greetz

peter

 

[benEzra]

Let's get back to the real reason - straight line action of the bolt. It's a designer's compromise because the of receiver, and any associated buffer tube, spring, or other bolt arresting mechanism that is in the rear. Putting them in the stock changes the balance and makes them less muzzle heavy, allowing quicker targeting.

AFAIK, the M16 is the only assault rifle that puts the recoil spring in the stock. The AK's recoil spring is in the receiver above the bolt, and the stock is structural only.

So, with a long straight line action that forces a straight line stock design, the pistol grip goes underneath.

I suspect that the straight-line concept was indeed the primary reason early on, yes. It is not the only reason pistol grips are preferred, though, hence the prevalence of pistol grips on unlimited-class bolt-action target rifles and precision rifles.

Ever see a drill team using M16's? No, conventional grip stocks are a lot more ergonomic, you don't have to move your hand dropping to the ground on a three second rush.

Straight stocks may be more ergonomic for drill team use and for dropping to the ground, just as they are more ergonomic for holding the rifle horizontally at waist level. Pistol grips are indeed more ergonomic when the gun is mounted on the shoulder in firing position (less wrist flexion), which accounts for the prevalence of vertical grips on target guns.

Pistol grip assault rifles also force the barrel lower in stance, requiring taller sights, and compromising close combat shooting by the offset.

It's not the handgrip style that puts the barrel down low, it's the choice to put the barrel under the gas tube in order to put the barrel axis more in line with the stock. You can put a pistol gripped stock on a gun with the barrel mounted high, too (the Beretta BM-59 comes to mind).

Pistol grip stocks aren't the end all be all, just a compromise in design. Note the rifle of choice for snipers is still a conventional stocked bolt action. There are some sniper stocks with pistol grips, I don't really see the point other than marching in the fashion parade.

The pistol grip style is chosen when circumstances permit because it offers better hand position for precision shooting. Even sniper/precision rifles without separate handgrips often attempt to duplicate the grip angle of a pistol grip stock, either with thumbhole or extreme Monte Carlo variants, to offer the same ergonomic advantages.

And of course, the U.S. Army is replacing the M24 sniper weapons system with the pistol-gripped M110 semiauto precision rifle, although M24's will continue to serve for quite a while.

 

[HKGuns]

Assault rifles are full or burst fire intermediate caliber weapons. The STG44 was about the first, and they were developed to fit the modern combat usage in urban mechanized warfare at ranges of less than 400 yards.

And since you have no clue about my military background, service, and what I've owned, I can only conclude from the concern about my definition that someone has only been around guns since Brady demonized the term. Having owned an HK91 long before he even got shot, I'll call it what I like. It's not the topic at hand.

Pistol grips on assault rifles are a consequence of the action, not a reason for it. Aimed fire from the shoulder is still the preferred method of firing the weapon as it uses the sights. Soldiers and professionals do that, which distinguishes them from the hollywood amateurs most emulate. I'm glad I was taught correctly by professionals, and what I taught working in Basic Training.

Sorry if my definition doesn't meet your expectations. Feel free to correct it as you need.

I wasn't talking to you, but whatever.

 

[Hunt3r]

The pistol grip is for ergos. No, not for firing from the hip, but to make it easier to hold while aiming. Also, it reduces length of pull.

 

[armoredman]

M14 did have a pistol grip stock, the A2, didn't work very well, wasn't around long. Drill team rifles don't have pistol grips because you can't spin a rifle around a pistol grip. Try it, doesn't work well. Was on a drill team for some time years ago, Springfield 1903A3s, great rifles.

 

[ElToro]

i live in california.
i cant own a FAL or AR or AK w/pistol grip and use mags over 10 rounds and a bullet button and thats big hassle. until the law changes ( never ) or i can move to a free state, i wont bother with the above rifles.

SO i use a M1A and i can use my 20 round mags. i have a socom with a 12 inch LOP stock and a scout. the socom handles really well

 

[Al LaVodka]

El;
Not the worst thing you end up with -- some here'd claim its the best of all you named.
Al

 

[ohgrady]

Did you know it's for "Pray and Spray" Hip-Firing?

According to the VPC, based upon 5 photos and a diagram they note on a page of there website:

And the following illustrations show graphically how specific assault weapons features allow a "point-and-shoot" grip and help control recoil so the shooter can "hose down" a wide area with a lethal "spray" of bullets.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm

I'm guessing the photos are from the 60's, maybe early 70's. I don't think the photo of the women in training are of women from the U.S. - Israel maybe?

I asked two of my buddies who are Navy veterans about their shoot from the hip training (I knew of course the answer was they hadn't been trained that way) - they laughed and said if someone was ever shooting at them, they hoped they were shooting from the hip and not the shoulder.

 

[shooter514]

the m14 a1 had a front and rear pistol hand grip.... from the army field manual april 1974 quote "The U.S. rifle, 7.62-mm,M14A1 is an air cooled,gas operated,magazine fed,shoulder weapon.... it is designed primarily for automatic fire. it features a stabilizer assembly, modified bipod,front and rear hand grip,straight line stock,and rubber recoil pad....

 

[Tirod]

BenEzra, thanks for your reply, you did a great job of pointing things out. I never got to shoot .22 International with a pistol grip, I do see where it would be a help. Overall, the grip and associated magazine does elevate the rifle in prone during combat, but appropriate use of cover negates any risk in that.

The AK is a case of one, HK and CETME both (obviously) share a buffer design located in the stock. The AR 180, no. So my concept of does have a lot of exceptions. What is similar to all is straightline action and the designers freedom to mount a grip as they see fit, not because it has to be at the appropriately located wrist of the stock. It may well be a holdover from long distance shooting, with the classic style of high combs preferred in prone. What does happen in standing is the barrel relationship to the shoulder - it rides lower, requiring tall sights to keep from forcing the head down excessively (maybe that explains it better.)

The Duostock for AR's approaches it differently - it puts a dropped butt low and raises the whole weapon up. Interesting, because the designer is going back to a much older style to raise the barrel higher, and accordingly, the sights. A Duostocked AR is shot almost completely heads up, not tilted forward.

As a young cadet in high school I had the opportunity to visit Ft. Leonard Wood in the early '70s. We visited a range where hip shooting was taught to soldiers in Basic on their way to Viet Nam. The instructors, who were very skilled, could pop Alka Seltzer tablets one by one all day.

The program didn't last, soldiers are more accurate with sights. As the VPC so "expertly" shows, only the untrained or badly educated rely on hip shooting now. It's Hollywood.

Hk, sorry if I took your comment personally, but posting in close proximity sometimes leads to the idea things are directly related. Perhaps a quote would have referenced who was being addressed. This forum programming doesn't support that very well with a button. Of course, wading thru mulitple level quotes on other forums, that may not be so bad.

 

[Geronimo45]

Ever see a drill team using M16's? No, conventional grip stocks are a lot more ergonomic, you don't have to move your hand dropping to the ground on a three second rush.

And when you drop the rifle to the ground, heavy wood stocks aren't as likely to break as the M16 stocks.

 

[Owen]

And when you drop the rifle to the ground, heavy wood stocks aren't as likely to break as the M16 stocks

I'd be willing to debate that...

 

[armoredman]

I wouldn't be willing to debate it - I know rifle stocks break when dropped. One member broke his during a parade tapping it on the ground whilst we marched. Oops. Of course, the stock was rather old...

 

[Geronimo45]

I wouldn't be willing to debate it - I know rifle stocks break when dropped. One member broke his during a parade tapping it on the ground whilst we marched. Oops. Of course, the stock was rather old...

I'm sure they can break. But the M16 stocks have a reputation (deserved or not) for being fragile.
I have the image in my head of the Marine silent drill platoon with M16s... after twirling the weapon around, one of the men slams it on the ground.
*sproing*

 

[Art Eatman]

The training with a Garand was to have your strong-side hand on the heel of the butt and not the pistol grip, when going to prone. Whether M1 or M16, protect the integrity of the stock.

 

[birdshot8's]

i have always been of the notion the pistol grip was for more power and control when using bayonets.

 

[Texpatriate]

not useful when quietly stalking a deer through the woods or sitting in a stand.

I've seen several quotes like this in this thread, and I and I humbly disagree. I think it's kind of neutral in the stand (or could possibly get in the way, depending on your setup), but on a stalk or a drive, there just simply are not better ergos than a "pistol griped rifle" when properly carried. We've been doing some public land deer drives the last couple of years, and having only previously hunted from a stand, I started out with my Mark V .270, but gradually gravitated toward my AR-15 with a 6.8 SPC upper and a 5 round mag. I found that carrying my weatherby on my shoulder through thick cover I just kept getting tangled up in junk and it was a little slower than I would have liked for shots on a running deer. My AR carried with a single point sling (as pictured bellow) fit the bill perfectly. I actually tried this method of carry with the weatherby for one hunt, but it was not comfortable. The ergos combined with the quick aimpoint I have on my AR led to my switch. The pistol grip on my AR was perfect for what I needed.

Now, for a beanfield hunt, that's a different story. Choose the right tool, for the right application.

 

[WarMachine]

No, conventional grip stocks are a lot more ergonomic

I wasn't aware this was a fact...

There's a reason for the prevalence of pistol grips on both modern combat oriented firearms and precision target rifles. This "shift" to pistol grips is not a fad and has a strong, firm grounding in reason. Those arguing against them are merely thrusting their preferences into the equation.

Much like the death of Weaver for most applications, techniques, tools, and technologies are evolving. The old, makes way for the new when it is found to offer more advantages.

I'll refrain from commenting too much on the user claiming the inferiority of polymer stocks when being "dropped". Modern polymers and composites of quality (especially those designed with UV stabilizers) will meet or exceed wood in nearly every application I can think of that doesn't involve what looks "pretty".

 

[Art Eatman]

Birdshot8's, the power comes off your hips as you step in. Arm-push is just a little add-on. The big drawback to a pistol grip for up close and personal social work is that it ain't worth a hoot for a vertical buttstroke to the chin; terrible wrist angle.