Straight vs pistol grip stocks

It may just be a mental thing (but I don't think so) that it is much easier and much more natural to squeeze the trigger straight back with a pistol gripped stock. It also allows the pad of your finger to be on the trigger and not the side of your finger.

On rifles that I own just because I think they are cool, having a straight stock doesn't bother me. But on the rifles I use for serious accuracy, I have replaced the stocks with ones that have a "pistol grip" were my trigger hand is as close to perpendicular to the barrel as I can get it.
 
Good thing this is a topic that is relevant at any time. :)

I remember Elmer Keith writing about this. His rule of thumb is a straighter stock is better for hunting, and a pistol grip is better for target shooting. Of course there's overlap depending on the design and how radical the pistol grip is, like with a thumbhole stock or protruding grip like an AR, vs. an almost straight grip with a little knob to form the "pistol" part of the grip. But reading the comments above seems to reinforce his stance.

A straight grip is easier to carry in both hands across your body with the muzzle up, or one handed with the butt resting on your hip, or over your shoulder. So for the type of hunting where you're walking or stalking all day & need to bring the gun up for a fast flushing shot, a grip that leans more towards the straighter side will be more comfortable. Others above have already mentioned how a more pronounced pistol grip works better on the bench so you can pull it tight into your shoulder & get a consistent cheek weld, etc.

So, I guess it boils down to whether you're gonna do more walking or shooting with it, and what feels comfortable to you personally.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Every so often this argument for having a straight stock on a double barrel shotgun comes up (I've even read said reasons "affirmed" by a couple of established gun writers over the years, including Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor) but I believe it's more myth than fact. The proper way of firing both shots on a shotgun having double triggers is to move from the front trigger (usually the one with the more open choke) to the rear one with your index finger, not by sliding your hand up or down on the stock.
 
Last edited:
Recently I've acquired two old Marlin 336s. One has a pistol grip, and the other is a SS. To me personally, either one is just as comfortable to shoot as the other.
 
I guess my old Win 94 had a straight stock, at that point in my life I had no opinion one way or the other. Only straight stocked guns since then have been shotgun's, a double trigger SxS and an 870 special field. I don't see any advantage to the straight stock on the 870 but it looks good, at least I think so. I see no advantage to a straight stock on a SxS with a single trigger either but with double trigger's there might be an advantage in that when you leave the front trigger for the back you can slide your hand a bit also rather than simply removing it from the front trigger. The double I had like that, double trigger's just seemed to react quicker on the second shot. Couldn't prove it but think that way. Of course it doesn't matter that I really like the looks of a SxS with double trigger's.

Actually the truth is probably that which ever stock style you like will likely work well for you. Some people swear by a thumb hole stock. I've shot a friend's quite a bit and don't like it, feels strange to me! He love's it but what does he know!
 
I see no advantage to a straight stock on a SxS with a single trigger either but with double trigger's there might be an advantage in that when you leave the front trigger for the back you can slide your hand a bit also rather than simply removing it from the front trigger.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even though some respected authors have opined otherwise, the notion that a straight stock was developed to accommodate shooters accessing the second trigger quicker by sliding their hand back is pretty much bunk. I've shot guns having double triggers for decades and can attest to the fact that moving your hand instead of your finger to trip the second (back in most cases) trigger makes no sense whatsoever. The following quotes are from writers who feel the same way:

John Barsness, in his book Shotguns for Wingshooting says this: "...Shotgunners argue about whether the straight or pistol grip works better. Some say the straight grip allows you to slide your hand back and forth between the two triggers of the typical side by side. This sounds logical, but both barrels of any decent two-trigger gun can be easily fired without moving the hand more than a tiny fraction of an inch, if at all. The rear trigger lies on the far side of the gun, positioning both triggers equally distant from the shooting hand...".

Don Zutz, in his book The Double Shotgun, opined, "...Without pet prejudices and preconceived notions, and unencumbered by a concern for sheer style, the straight grip was developed and retained because it met practical and theoretical needs on twin triggered doubles having the normal (for those times) splinter forearm. This does not especially include the supposed need for hand slippage as the shooter switches from one trigger to another, although that has traditionally been the justification for the straight grip. Trigger switching can be done as easily without sliding the entire hand, and many shooters who believe they need slippage room actually don't move their trigger hand as much as they believe they do, if at all...".

Finally, Michael McIntosh, in his book Shotguns and Shooting, explained, "...Actually you can find similar statements elsewhere in print, either implying or stating flat out that you have to slide your hand backward on the grip to pull the rear trigger. I don't know where this got started, but if you shoot a two-triggered gun, you know better. If you've never fired one, take my word for it: You trip both triggers without moving anything except your finger...To fire both barrels you simply pull the front trigger, slide your finger over it and on to the back one. It's all one motion, nothing moves but your trigger finger, and none of it affects the way the stock feels in its length of pull...".
 
I feel that pistol grips give a far better hold, more consistent placement of trigger and fingers, for example. Wrapping your hand around a broomstick, or locking it in absolutely with a 90degree grip?

Certain primitive weapons didn't even sit against the shoulder. For a rifle, this is natural.
 
Straight stock with double trigger's works for me. Guess you just have to pick your expert. I'm certain there are a lot of people that would prefer a pistol grip stock. I did try a pistol grip with double trigger's once. Found myself pulling my finger out of the first and trying to stab it into the rear trigger. Again I am certain that guy's familar with pistol grips an double trigger's don't have that problem. I suppose the bottom line is what your used to is what you should shoot.
 
Straight grips were pretty much standard on most guns even with single barrels for a long time. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I've ever seen a flintlock (long gun) of any kind with a pistol grip. The closest were some Kentucky rifles and target guns that had a really fancy metal extension behind the trigger guard, but not all had that, and I'm not sure I'd really consider those a pistol grip anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top