"protruding pistol grip" and handling...

K

Kaylee

New member
So a couple years when I bought my first rifle, an SKS, I immediately dropped it into a folding pistol-gripped stock so it would look mean, like all the other nasty black rifles. Felt handy at the time to.

Over the last couple years though, I've become more and more fond of the plain-jain sporter-type stock. Sold the SKS, sold an AR lower I was planning on building up, and now yesterday chose a Mini-14 over another AR, almost entirely 'cause of the handling difference. (well, that and preferring the Garand-based action to the Stoner.. if I want ranged accuracy I'll use the Mini's big sister). For some reason the pistol-gripped rifles just feel clumsier to me now.

So, I'm curious... which grip style do y'all prefer, and why? For that matter, why'd the military start moving over to the pistol gripped weapons -- they easier to control on automatic fire or som'n?
 
I'm kinda in the middle. I have found that for slow/long distance shooting I prefer the classic stock. On the other hand, if there is alot of shooting at close range I prefer a pistol grip stock. It just seems more comfortable when there is alot of moving going on. My favorite 'classic' stock is the one on my 303 Enfield.
 
Last edited:
If it came with a pistol grip stock, I'd leave it that way, unless you wanted to ad a different "evil" feature to your pre-ban "black rifle", like a real flash hider or a bayonet mount.

I do like the Dragonov(sp) style stocks though, but I wouldn't run out and buy an SKS just to have one.
 
Kaylee,

I'm kind of with you on this. I do like the feel of the pistol grip stocks, but I never have a problem with traditional stocks either, and the pistol grips sure get in the way in the gun safe, gun cases, etc. I have ARs, AKs, an FAL, etc, with pistol grips, but I recently bought a Mini-14 that I'm enjoying quite a lot - partially because it just seems "handier" without that protruding pistol grip. I'm sue a properly balanced rifle would be easier to shoot one-handed if it had a pistol grip, which might be worth something to a soldier, but the need to fire a rifle one-handed hasn't come up often in my experience.

Doug
 
Pistol grips allow easier one-handed operational control. Beyond shooting, it allows easier reloads, plus freeing up the other hand to grab/carry gear, open doors etc.
 
Interesting question. I am researching an AR-15. I have a Mini-14. I was going to trade in the Mini, but I think not. It does define handy! And it is very reliable but of course not the most accurate carbine at 100 yards. But I digress.

What I found after handling AR-15's is that they feel sort of top heavy, at least the A2 models. They roll, and the pistol grip sort of contibutes to that. But the pistol grip seems to control yaw and pitch better.

Well, when you can't decide, buy both!.
 
In rapid fire, the closer the line of barrel comes to the center of mass of the rifle and the straighter the line from the barrel to the shooter's shoulder, the less "climb" from recoil and the greater the controllability.

But you can't put a conventional stock on a rifle and get those results, the reason an M14 is uncontrollable in rapid fire and an AR-15 grasped like a conventional rifle is absurd.

Hence the pistol grip. Contrary to some silly statements, the pistol grip is not intended for "shooting from the hip" (it is more awkward in that use than a conventional stock).

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top