I was just thinking about stocks and the styles that have existed and was wondering why old straight style stock like the vintage winchester lever guns and the Springfield 1903 originally had fell by the wayside to the "pistol grip" style such as the k98 and the 03-A3? I don't think one is more comfortable to shoot from over the other. Thoughts?
Straight vs pistol grip stocks
- Thread starter RoyalWe
- Start date
Straight stocks were easier to make when guns were all handmade, even from the first machinery. It was the style. Most times pistol grip's are better, but it took a while for folks to adapt function over style.
The straight grip does offer some advantages in some cases, in rifle scabbards as mentioned. On shotguns they can be an advantage for some types of wing shooting.
The straight grip does offer some advantages in some cases, in rifle scabbards as mentioned. On shotguns they can be an advantage for some types of wing shooting.
I have no proof either way, but I do wonder if plain old public demand didn't have a lot to do with the fading out of the straight stocks? If not enough folks won't buy something- why keep making it?
I like the straight stocks on my 03's and Mosin for everything except shooting from a bench. Don't know why- just can't get comfortable with them on bags on a bench. Maybe our stools are too short? Dunno.
I like the straight stocks on my 03's and Mosin for everything except shooting from a bench. Don't know why- just can't get comfortable with them on bags on a bench. Maybe our stools are too short? Dunno.
tahunua001
New member
pistol grips are more natural for your wrist.
If your number one concern about your rifle is to put a bayonet on it and use it as a pike, then a straight stock is the way to go. If however, you want to shoot the thing, then the straight grip stock is as poor a configuration for accurate shooting as an oar.
I always found the straight grip 03 a vicious kicker, if you laid your right thumb across the stock, it would bruise your face, and even with the thumb in line with the barrel, I would still get up out of prone with a fat lip.
If however, your number one concern about your rifle is hitting what you are aiming at, then having an ergonomic stock is a good place to start. Having shot enough small bore prone, I have been learning just how sensitive shot placement is to consistent trigger pull, consistent hand alignment on the pistol grip, consistent stock position in the shoulder, consistent stock weld, consistent everything. A straight grip stock does not put the hand into a natural position for anything except bayonet thrusts.
This stock was state of the art 1976
80's prone style stock
Both of these stocks place the hand in close alignment with the trigger, so when you pull the trigger, you are not applying stress to the stock, or your hand. More modern stocks allow variations in cant, pistol grip angle, etc, all to get the human in a natural position in line with the sights.
And a straight grips stock won't do that.
I always found the straight grip 03 a vicious kicker, if you laid your right thumb across the stock, it would bruise your face, and even with the thumb in line with the barrel, I would still get up out of prone with a fat lip.
If however, your number one concern about your rifle is hitting what you are aiming at, then having an ergonomic stock is a good place to start. Having shot enough small bore prone, I have been learning just how sensitive shot placement is to consistent trigger pull, consistent hand alignment on the pistol grip, consistent stock position in the shoulder, consistent stock weld, consistent everything. A straight grip stock does not put the hand into a natural position for anything except bayonet thrusts.
This stock was state of the art 1976
80's prone style stock
Both of these stocks place the hand in close alignment with the trigger, so when you pull the trigger, you are not applying stress to the stock, or your hand. More modern stocks allow variations in cant, pistol grip angle, etc, all to get the human in a natural position in line with the sights.
And a straight grips stock won't do that.
I have two straight-gripped Remington Semi-Auto shotguns and there is an advantage when holding the gun one-handed when going through brush, etc. It's also supposed to help on rising bird shots, but I don't find it particularly noticeable, especially compared to my curved grip, well-fitting Franchi O/U, which is the fastest-pointing shotgun I've ever used.
I came up to this thread by accident. Interesting question!
However, the fact is, the strait style stock is coming from the striving to ergonomic perfection of old gunsmiths.
The first multiple-shot guns, in fact, were double barreled shotguns and double barreled rifles.
In old times, they had two triggers (one for each barrel), so the straight stock was made so, that after firing the first shot by pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger. This is not so with pistol grip.
Pistol grip, is however more ergonomic for rifle shooter, providing that the weapon is fired by one main trigger.
In that case, straight stock, or english stock, are optional only for esthetic, or traditional purposes.
Thats the European perspective, practical and ergonomic standpoint.
Bottom line is:
The gun with two triggers should have straight or English stock, while for the gun with one trigger this is only optional.
Possible, it is easier (cheaper) to make straight stock then stock with pistol grip, so this could be reason for old lever actions to have this feature, or simple sense of esthetic from old gun designers.
English stock, indeed has some appeal.
Thinking deeper of the subject, many flint locks, and percussion military guns had straight stock (without much ergonomic need), thus it makes it more likely it is easier to mass produce then pistol grip.
However, the fact is, the strait style stock is coming from the striving to ergonomic perfection of old gunsmiths.
The first multiple-shot guns, in fact, were double barreled shotguns and double barreled rifles.
In old times, they had two triggers (one for each barrel), so the straight stock was made so, that after firing the first shot by pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger. This is not so with pistol grip.
Pistol grip, is however more ergonomic for rifle shooter, providing that the weapon is fired by one main trigger.
In that case, straight stock, or english stock, are optional only for esthetic, or traditional purposes.
Thats the European perspective, practical and ergonomic standpoint.
Bottom line is:
The gun with two triggers should have straight or English stock, while for the gun with one trigger this is only optional.
Possible, it is easier (cheaper) to make straight stock then stock with pistol grip, so this could be reason for old lever actions to have this feature, or simple sense of esthetic from old gun designers.
English stock, indeed has some appeal.
Thinking deeper of the subject, many flint locks, and percussion military guns had straight stock (without much ergonomic need), thus it makes it more likely it is easier to mass produce then pistol grip.
Pathfinder45
New member
Someone told me that bayonets are for those who didn't bring enough ammo. 
I prefer straight stocks on leverguns for esthetic reasons.
I prefer straight stocks on leverguns for esthetic reasons.I have to disagree with this statement, as a flat absolute. It is entirely dependent on the degree of angle of the pistol grip, and, of course, the individual gripping it.
I have my Grandfather's Ithaca double, its having its 105th birthday this year, double triggers and pistol grip stock and all.... and its not at all difficult to work the rear trigger.
Pistol grip stocks are not always more comfortable to shoot. It depends on many things, including the specific user. One of the worst pistol grips I ever found, for ME, is on the Swiss K-31. It's simply too fat for me to comfortably take my usual grip. Nearly cramped my hand, until I realized why...
The main advantage to the pistol grip (IMHO) is that it gives you better purchase on the stock than a straight grip. It gives you something to pull against, when pulling the stock against your shoulder with the shooting hand, which the straight grip does not.
This is more important to target and hunting shooting styles, than it is to warfare. Oh, it works in war, too, and anything that aids in accurate shooting and does not detract from some important ability doing so, is a plus. SO, you see the eventual domination of some degree of pistol grip on most stocks.
and, its a virtual necessity on strait line stocks, even if it is one of the "evil" features the anti gun bigots fixate on.
tahunua001
New member
it may also appear as if the discussion got a little convoluted here. the topic was over the pistol grip style of modern hunting rifles, not over the paramilitary style of full pistol grips.
for instance the C stock pictured below for springfield 1903A1 and 1903A4 is considered a pistol grip stock.
as that is the basis for this discussion I must also disagree that a person could not comfortably move back to a second trigger.
however it bears mentioning that the 1903A3 did not have a pistol grip stock, the pistol grip was abandoned, more or less, as straight stocks could be milled faster. A4 snipers had the C stock as it reduced muscle tension in the firing hand and allowed for greater ease of accuracy and the "compromise" pistol grip scant style stock was used to replace any broken C stocks as the scant could be milled from the same block of wood as the straight styles but added that little angle to reduce wrist tension.
for instance the C stock pictured below for springfield 1903A1 and 1903A4 is considered a pistol grip stock.
as that is the basis for this discussion I must also disagree that a person could not comfortably move back to a second trigger.
however it bears mentioning that the 1903A3 did not have a pistol grip stock, the pistol grip was abandoned, more or less, as straight stocks could be milled faster. A4 snipers had the C stock as it reduced muscle tension in the firing hand and allowed for greater ease of accuracy and the "compromise" pistol grip scant style stock was used to replace any broken C stocks as the scant could be milled from the same block of wood as the straight styles but added that little angle to reduce wrist tension.
Last edited:
marineimaging
Inactive
why straight stocks
You are asking a metalsmith why a woodsmith did something. Having been both I can tell you one reason for the straight stock of the early rifles. In the early days our wood for production needs was taken from the wild forest. Trees grew wild and knots and grain were an issue to someone needing to get the most out of each tree cut until we could start growing and shaping our wood at the grow level (see second growth for ladder rungs in fire department ladders) The pistol grip carved into a block of wood crossed the grain creating a weakness where the recoil was expected to hit the hardest. The long, straight stock was stronger and it was considered better than a broken grip in the biddle of a hunt or battle. Later on as we were able to force trees into better patterns we could be more selective of which wood we could cut and how to cut it.
You are asking a metalsmith why a woodsmith did something. Having been both I can tell you one reason for the straight stock of the early rifles. In the early days our wood for production needs was taken from the wild forest. Trees grew wild and knots and grain were an issue to someone needing to get the most out of each tree cut until we could start growing and shaping our wood at the grow level (see second growth for ladder rungs in fire department ladders) The pistol grip carved into a block of wood crossed the grain creating a weakness where the recoil was expected to hit the hardest. The long, straight stock was stronger and it was considered better than a broken grip in the biddle of a hunt or battle. Later on as we were able to force trees into better patterns we could be more selective of which wood we could cut and how to cut it.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Gigglesnort. 