Thinking WAY, way outside the box :)

J

Jim March

New member
OK. Something has been bothering me for a while now.

It starts with swords. Huh? Yeah...we've been using those a LOT longer than we've been using guns.

So here's what's got me going.

Here's a one-handed sword...all these images are off of Cold Steel's site, I figure they won't mind:

csstoreonline_2130_6276620


Here's a two-handed sword:

csstoreonline_2130_19893310


One-handed:

csstoreonline_2130_20975508


Two-handed:

big-warrior88bkw.jpg


Call me crazy, but I see a pattern here. In sharp contrast, here's a gun most people today shoot two-handed:

glock17.jpg


What's wrong with this picture?

Seriously?

OK, if we did a double-length grip, we could store more ammo in it but yeah, it would be somewhat clumsy. It could be done, mind you. In fact, you could take something like a standard single-column 1911 and put grip panels on that extended down and formed "more tube" down there. You'd have to feed it with 15rd or so extended mags, but it would work and it would be a cheap way to prototype the concept.

But what if there's an even slicker method? A grip that telescopes out longer if you hit a certain button? Start the draw off-hand, hit the button, extend the grip during the draw, grab the newly exposed "upper grip" with the strong hand?

What would it feel like to shoot a real two-handed handgun?

Note that we don't have any NFA problems - no FORWARD handgrip.

Thoughts? Have I finally lost my marbles here?
 
Well, a hammer has a pretty long handle but I don't see a lot of folks swinging them two-handed.

I think this is more of a 4 am thread than an 11 pm thread! ;)
 
Not a bad idea IF the magazine is not in the grip. If it is, then you either have to make the magazine the same length as the extended grip or figure out a way to compress the magazine (not feasible, I think). Otherwise, you will have to shorten the grip to load a new magazine, eliminating some of the advantage of the extended two hand grip.

A sword doesn't have a magazine; as an Civil War cavalry trooper reportedly said when asked why he preferred the saber to a revolver, "A saber don't run out of bullets."

Jim
 
Thoughts? Have I finally lost my marbles here?
Click to expand...

Ummm. :rolleyes:

Extended length (30 round) 9mm Glock magazines are easy to come by. How hard would it be to make a grip extension sleeve that fits over the longer magazine, as a test of the concept? Like the grip sleeves you can get to use regular XD or SR9 magazines with the subcompact models. Just, a lot longer.
 
You are literally comparing swords to handguns.

A sword is a weapon in which you strike things with whereas a pistol is compact firearm that spews metal objects at things. It is meant to be compact hence it's design. Proper grip to control recoil should be centered to as close as it can be to the bore axis. Gripping a pistol farther from the bore on an extended pistol grip would create less stability.
 
Some cultures used two handed swords as a way to increase power or to increase control, thus giving a tactical advantage.
Changing pistol grips in the way you describe would not increase power or control, so there would be no tactical advantage gained.
Plus, we would all have to go through the trouble of retraining ourselves.
 
I'm not all that experienced with handguns, but one of the first things I was told was to push forward with the trigger hand and pull back with the other hand to keep the gun stable. Not sure if that was good advice, but that's what I've been doing.

If I did that while gripping the gun like a sword, I'd end up pointing at the ground.
 
It seems to me the practice of using both hands on the handgun has only caught on within the last 50 years or so, before then handgun shooting was
very a much a one hand affair whther it be target or combat. Also as others have noted as open carry went out of fashion and fashions changed and as cartridges were developed smaller, more compact and more easily concealed handguns became the fashion. And I think even devotees of the Weaver or Isoceles stances advocate weak and and one hand training "just in case".
 
We already have two-handed guns. They are called rifles.

Now those little flipdown foregrips like you see on the FA Berettas were cool.

We all went along with you for the Hexsite thing but I'm afraid you're gonna be riding solo on this one.:D
 
Let's see, a sword needs to be minute-of-bad-guy accurate out to about three feet. A handgun is often asked to be accurate to a couple of inches anywhere from 10 ft - 25 yds or longer, and quickly. Sounds like two hands are better than one for the pistol, for mere mortals anyway, maybe not for Bill Jordan, Miculek, et al..
 
Do you realize that extended magazine capacity magazines had already made their appearance in the first world war, as well as revolver speedloaders? There was a so-called snail magazine for the Luger, which used a small drum at the end of magazine that fitted into the grip in the normal way. I've never seen one and only rarely in illustrations and I have no idea if they worked well or not but they were around. But I think more people were trying to come up with a really good light machine gun instead.

But to the original topic, I'm not sure if this also applies to handguns used with either an extended magazine or a special two-handed grip, but the use of a two-handed sword (still carried ceremoniously in the Vatican) resulted in particular fighting tactics. In other words, everything was built around having to use both hands on the sword, both in Europe and in Japan. The chief difference is not being able to use a shield.

It is worth mentioning here that there existed a variety of handgun, oh, thirty years ago that were usually not terribly expensive and not from a well known manufacturer and which could only be called an assault pistol. Basically they were toys. However, some military arms producers manufacture what are essentially the same things today. They amount to submachine guns with no stock but usually with two grips, a very short barrel and the usual magazine. And at least one usually comes with a holster, the CZ something in .32 ACP, of all things, maybe called the Scorpian.

So basically, it's been done.
 
I have a gun...

not shot it in quite a while, being more of a revolver guy than a semi auto guy, & it's not in my CCW battery... bought it & outfitted it back in the Clinton era...

Ruger P-89 stainless, back then, I found several 30 round stainless magazines, & wrapped the bottms of the magazines with closed cell foam & friction tape to match the diameter & rough shape of the Ruger grip, forming what was in effect, one long grip with the extended mags in...

the gun fuctioned well, & I shot it well with the longer grip... possible problems with my set up, would be torque on the long magazines messing up with the feeding ( though I didn't have any issues, but didn't put it in "battle situations or conditions" )

but if there was some ridgidity added with an attached extended grip, that could help the torque issue... I always though my system had the potential for alot of conceilable fire power, with a standard magazine in the gun, & 3 - 30 round magazines on the belt, so the extenable grip on the gun would be more attractive IMO, than a permanently extended grip

BTW... there are 30 round mags for the FN 5-seven, that are only 1.5 times the length of the grip, & have molded grip on the portion that sticks out the bottom

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 30 round 5-seven mag.jpg
    30 round 5-seven mag.jpg
    4.4 KB · Views: 736
Call me crazy, but I see a pattern here.
Click to expand...

I saw it, too, Jim. I had a hunch this thread would go seventeen ways from Sunday, and it did. Some of the comments are definitely the right way to start a new day, for which, all, I do thank you.

I have a hunch the question "How is a pistol different from a sword?" will get us lost in a swamp, and another hunch the question "How is a pistol like a sword?" will get us lost in a desert. They're interesting questions, to be sure, but they look unlikely to take us very far forward.

I don't have the exact right question. A Zen master might, but 1.) I don't, and 2.) I haven't even made it to the bottom of my first mug of tea this morning, so don't bet on my coming up with the exact right question very soon.

Here's a thought: within the past century or so, personal weapons have become more effective and accessible to the common people the world over. The old adage "God created man, and Samuel Colt made all men equal" comes to mind, as does the Kalashnikov family of rifles. At the same time, the weapons of national wars have become far more destructive and expensive. Compare and contrast? That's not it.

If you think of the printing press and revolver with brass cartridges as "empowering," as it were, the common people...
 
In all reality... why?

A two handed sword is, in large part, to allow the user to delivery greater power with the slash.

In a handgun, no matter how many hands you use, you're not adding more power no matter how many hands you add.

Yes, you get a steadier platform by using both hands, but the traditional two-hand grip gives you that without adding bulk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top