Why pistol grips

Status
Not open for further replies.
fistful, it was always the intention of Josh Sugarman et al to blur the distinction between full-auto and semi-auto.

By conceding that point, we validate Sugarman's argument that pistol grips are only meant to facilitate mowing people down indiscriminately.

Since probably 90%+ of the population doesn't even know that ownership of full-auto's is legal under controlled circumstances, the majority will side with Sugarman. If for no other reason than it's just too hard to think about these issues when there are more pressing issues, such as the price of gasoline or the shortage of Beanie Babies during the Christmas shopping season.

Sugarman, Brady, Schumer and the rest owe their very existance to the ignorance of the American people on gun issues. We can't just hand them the "pistol grip" point and expect to walk away unscathed.

Everything they say is a lie. Everything. Pistol grips don't make it easier to kill, nor do bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, folding stocks, collapsibile stocks, or detachable magazines.

Nor do waiting periods, gun-buyback programs, ammo bans, background checks, bans on this gun or that gun, or bans on full-auto's or short-barrelled shotguns make killing any more difficult.

How many studies have the Fed's conducted on the effectiveness of gun-control laws? We had one commissioned by the Carter administration in the 1970's, studying the enactment of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Results? Inconclusive. Decision? Shelve it.

We had the Justice Department in 1994 commission a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the defensive use of firearms. Results? 1.5 million defensive uses versus 400,000 criminal uses of firearms. Decision? Bury it.

We had the BATF do a study in 1997 to track the gun-buying behavior of criminals following the enactment of the Brady Law. Results? Criminal purchases of firearms rose 16%, through illegal sources. Did anybody read that on the front page of the New York Times?

We just had the Centers for Disease Control--not exactly a neutral party in the gun debate--conclude a study of 51 studies of gun control laws. A study of studies...makes my taxpayer wallet get all warm and fuzzy.

At any rate, the CDC found their results of the study of the studies "inconclusive," and recommended more studies of yet more studies.

In other words, they didn't get the results they wanted, and want more money to spend until they can skew the results the way they want them.

There isn't one single gun control law that works, except to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to obtain guns for their lawful purposes.

Don't give anything to the anti's, whether it's pistol grips, bayo lugs, or even full-auto's.

The anti's have been on the run for at least five years, after torturing us for nearly 25 years. Now is not the time to offer concessions.
 
I am not making a concession. I am saying that it is good for civilians to own military rifles and machine guns, and that we *&%^ well ought to have the capability to kill large numbers of people, because that is part of the definition of a free people. I am saying that the public needs to understand that, or we will forever be fending off one ban after another. I am saying that the AWB was bad not because it banned cosmetic features, but because it specifically banned military-styled weapons, those most obviously protected by the 2A.
 
Monkeyleg, whatever a scumbag like Josh Sugarman has to say about the topic is irrelevant. That was what they were put on for. That was the true design purpose of the pistol grip.

I'm not going to rewrite history to make a bunch of whining blissninnys happy, when they will just take the truth and distort the hell out of it no matter what.
 
Pistol grips are HARDER to fire from hip level than straight stocks due to the extreme wrist flexion required; they are more ergonomic for shoulder firing only. I've tried it both ways with the same gun (mini-14), switching between the factory straight stock and a Choate pistol-grip stock. It points better from the hip with the standard stock, but you can shoot the Choate stock from the shoulder without sticking your strong-side elbow out to the side like a chicken wing.

Submachineguns with wooden stocks generally had straight stocks rather than separate pistol grips--the Solothern, Schmeisser, Carl Gustav?, Sten? (working off the top of my head here) come to mind, IIRC, as did the full-auto M14.

The main reason designers went to pistol grips for military longarms is that by putting the grip under the action instead of behind it, the action can extend further rearward, giving you a shorter overall length and a less muzzle-heavy design. That's why the Thompson SMG has a pistol grip; look how far the receiver extends back past the shooter's hand. The separate handgrip also allows you to set the barrel lower compared to the line of the shoulder.

Pistol grips are also much more ergonomic and comfortable to shoot slowfire, which is why practically every uber-serious target rifle on this planet approximates the grip angle of a pistol grip stock, whether by means of an extreme Monte Carlo rake, a thumbhole stock, or a separate pistol grip.

ans2013.jpg


2006%20red%20sm.jpg


25.jpg
 
whatever a scumbag like Josh Sugarman has to say about the topic is irrelevant. That was what they were put on for. That was the true design purpose of the pistol grip.

I'm not going to rewrite history to make a bunch of whining blissninnys happy, when they will just take the truth and distort the hell out of it no matter what.

Because it bears repeating.
 
A good ISU target rifle or Biathalon rifle is with a special stock of where the stock is so shaped to be almost like a pistol grip. I have been using a Walther UIT Match with such a grip & around 9.9lbs. Darn accurate for prone, kneel or standing position. Natch these are .22 rifles STILL it is an interesting point.

Opps I am sorry for I see benEzra has already covered that with photos & all. Looks like I jumped the gun before I read all the posts.
 
Last edited:
Why pistol grip

Modern gun design seems to favor putting the
barrel and stock in as straight a line as possible
to control recoil. When you do that, where do you
put the firing hand? You tack on a pistol grip.
I have a Mossberg Bullpup with pistolgrip stock
and a more conventional S&W slug gun. The
conventional stock IS better for hitting when
shooting from the hip. The pistol gripped long
guns instinctively point low when fired from the hip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top