Jump to content

Why Pistol Grips


Recommended Posts

Educate me please.

 

What is the advantage having a pistol grip on a .308 rifle? Or is it an esthetic choice? The M-1 Garand, M-14, M24, and M40A3 have what almost would be considered sporter stocks. The FALS, CETME, HK's, AKs etc. all have pistol grip stocks.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

DocV

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, sporter stocks are extremely unnatural to hold, I feel I can shoot better with a PG. I think the reason our older MBR's came with sporter stocks was the same reason M-91/30's, 44's, 38's, Kar 98's, all had sporter stocks. Out with the old, in with the new. We switched over on the M-16. Come to think of it, was the AK the first mil issue AR with a pistol grip? When did CETME's come out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons we all change is to get rid of the stock trigger, and also peeps want an "AK" look alike.

 

The first PG assault rifle was the german STG in WWII.

 

The AK series was designed in the late 40's, and accepted for use in 1947 (Hence AK47). Many people say Mikhael used the german gun for a pattern, with the short rifle cartridge.

 

The CETME came along in the 50's (designed by German engineers), and then the H&K was patterned and licensed after it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first real exposure to shooting was presented to me at Ft Dix in the summer of '73 and for the decade following I carried some version or other of the M-16. I can't even begin to estimate how many 5.56 rounds I put through those rifles. The point is I got very familiar with M-16's. So much so that years later when I began shooting straight-stocked M1A's and 12 guage shotguns I would inevitably poke myself in the eye with the thumb on my shooting hand during recoil. Not enjoying this experience I had to train myself how to properly hold them.

 

I think people tend to like what they first learned. In my case, I prefer the pistol grip. I find it more natural and comfortable. Of course, if you get into a bayonet charge, you'll have to take your firing hand off the pistol grip and move it to the stock. That's about the only down side I can think of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, the AR in AR15 does NOT stand for assault rifle. it is a company distinction. armalite rifle. the HK 91/93 pattern was early to mid 50's.

 

I'm aware of that Bvamp, I was asking what the first assault rifles (or carbines) were with pistol grips. Had to make the distinction so people wouldn't start spouting off heavy machine guns. Thanks though. Speaking of AR-15's, don't I owe you some magazines from like 2 years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at it from an engineering or design sense.

 

My thoughts were with a PG it was easier to stabilize the weapon and it was a little more forgiving of a less than perfect shoulder weld. It also pushes the stock up into the cheek weld, rather than pulling it back and up. Secondly it lets you align the comb of the stock with the receiver/sight line. Plus it allows for a straight trigger pull.

 

Just some random musings on a weekend afternoon wondering if I was right or really off base.

 

DocV

Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed every one of my hunting guns to pistol grip this year, it is much better when you can walk with you rifle pointed toward the ground and your hand in a natural position.

 

Fairly obvious what is going to be more comfortable to shoot.

 

B0002S9POC.01-A1XEZHGAWQUMI1._SCLZZZZZZZ_AA280_.jpg

 

300px-M1911_Pistol_US.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points. Here's what I have to add in addition.

 

There are two reasons that pistol grips came with semi and full auto guns. They have nothing to do with the pistol grip facilitating the rate of fire, as antis claim.

 

1.) A bolt action doesn't need to be any longer than the magazine and the trigger assembly, all of which go in front of the grip. With an autoloader, the action has to be at least twice as long as the cartridge, because the bolt has to cycle its whole length back in order to feed another round. On a bolt action, the bolt moves behind the receiver, through the position where the hand would be, but it's the same hand cycling the bolt, so it's been moved out of the way.

A pistol grip placed beneath the action of an autoloader allows the grip to be moved as far forward as the trigger group will allow. Otherwise you would be holding your front end out farther and more awkwardly, which is even worse with the added weight of a semi-auto. Certain autoloaders, particularly the M1 Garand, are so well designed that they overcome this weakness. Cruder semi-autos like the AK in Saiga form make this shortcoming more apparent.

 

2.) The natural position of the hand is indeed more favorable to a pistol grip. So the question is really why DIDN'T guns have pistol grips until autoloaders? Here's why - Because manually operated arms used in war did a heck of a lot more than shoot. Their design wasn't optimized for comfort - it was optimized for use as a polearm and beating implement. Notice that the first firearms were straight and took a plug bayonet right in the barrel. In time they developed more of a buttstock as we know it, styled similarly to straight gripped leverguns. With better shoting techniques and faster reloading tools, they made a socket bayonet that didn't blug the barrel. When repeater firearms came along, you started to see grips evolve, even when the bayonet was still a primary battle implement. Basically the barrels got shorter, the magazines got bigger, the rates of fire got faster, and the grips developed, all along side of each other.

It should be noted that some people call the curved grip on any firearm a pistol grip. Such a grip was found on sporting rifles over 100 years before it found its way onto military ones.

 

So the bottom line is that a pistol grip distinguishes a rifle that was intended to be... gasp... fired.

 

Now some people prefer the ergonomics of a classic stock, and there are certain shooting situations where it is preferred. A pistol grip does protrude, so when there isn't a magazine protruding farther, some people don't want too much grip sticking down. A classic shaped stock can provide a better aim on a moving target by placing the rear hand higher with respect to the center of gravity of the gun. And with regards to Saigas, the angle of trigger pull of a classic stock can be better suited to the longer trigger than a pistol grip. When people ask about P-grips for the S-308, I strongly advise a more classic or sporting style to be used with the stock trigger, and the FCG conversion if they want a pistol grip.

 

Bottom line is there are mechanical and ergonomic advantages of each. Different versions for different uses and different people.

 

Here's an article written by me that discusses some of the mechanical and ergonomic details in a manner intended to debunk AW bans.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/vie...32&entry=32

Edited by BattleRifleG3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That brings up a point I was considering: Pistol grips on rifles went hand-in-hand with folding stocks. Folding stocks came from the necessity for compactness, and pistol grips came from the need of having a reasonable way to hold and fire the compacted weapon. This compactness stemmed from the increasing popularity of deploying airborne troops. Any objections or exceptions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They also came about as rifles caught up with the rest of technology, everything else had nice easy to grab handles and grips and rifles where still long sticks with chunks of pipe strapped to them.

 

Think of every house hold product that uses pistol grips or similar handles. EVERYTHING has them, coffee mugs to hair dryers and just about all power tools. Can you imagine a sporter stock power drill or hair dryer? NO ONE WOULD BUY IT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an article written by me that discusses some of the mechanical and ergonomic details in a manner intended to debunk AW bans.

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/blogs/vie...32&entry=32

 

 

Awesome link! That's a great explanation!

 

DocV

 

+ 1000! Absolutely terrifically written!

 

:super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super: ... :super:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...