Why A Pistol Grip?

B

boing

New member
Pistol grips on rifles came into poularity with the advent of intermediate cartridge, select-fire assault rifles, right? ARs, AKs, etc...

Is the purpose of the pistol grip on these rifles for controlling the gun when firing full auto? Is that the main reason? Are there other reasons?

I've handled a few PG equipped rifles, and fired an AK once, but it just feels wrong to me somehow, not natural. Now, most of my experience is with my 12 gauge. I have a PG stock (folding) for it, but I don't care for it. The standard field stock is quicker to get a grip on, easier to handle, and shoulders better (more naturally), notwithstanding the fact that the other stock is a folder.

So why is the PG such a must have item for a modern "assault rifle"?

I'd love to have an M-14, but $$$ will make it an AK, most likely. With a pistol grip? You bet. ;)

-boing
 
Aimed fire from a shoulder mount, I find the pistol grip okay. I can't see a non-military use for firing from the hip, and the pistol grip ain' no good there.

Bayonetting or butt-stroking, pistol-grip no bueno. If you have an ammo-less M16, and I have my empty M-1, I'll eat your lunch.

To some extent I see the box-magazine, pistol-gripped weapon as having the same military drawback as the lever action: Too high a profile when in the prone firing position. "I cain't get no lower; me buttons is in the way."

All my scenarios envision a non-military style. I think guerilla, figuring I'd rather be behind you than in front. I'm basically a rifleman, considering hand-to-hand combat to be me and my '06 at 400-500 yards. Up close and personal is why God invented the 1911 and the sawed-off Model 12-style shotgun...

Yup, I'm opinionated, and I figure pistol grips belong on pistols.

FWIW, Art
 
Without a pistol grip, it's hard to get the barrel and recoil inline to the shooter's shoulder. I find them to be quite comfortable.
 
Well, rifle's today try to stick to what's natural b/c natural is "usually" more comfortable.
For example... hold your hand out in front of you and turn it sideways. It's not at a tilt like it needs to be for a regular stock... the pistol grip is built around the natural hand position.
 
boing,

The pistol grip type stock is not necessarily a modern era invention.

The use of a pistol grip that is separate from the buttstock is a modern form but position rifles, benchrest rifles and silhouette rifles have had buttstocks with rather verticle pistol grips for a long time.

The more verticle positioning of the hand allows better trigger control by making the straight rearward pull of the trigger finger feel more natural.

Mikey
 
Controlled full auto fire almost demands straight line recoil, with the barrel almost in line with the shoulder. Else, the rifle recoils around its own center of gravity and "climbs". (Example: The M14 is nearly useless in full auto fire for that reason.)

The human anatomy makes it difficult if not impossible to use a normal stock configuration with a rifle designed for straight line recoil. (Imagine an AR-15 without a pistol grip!)

Rifles with pistol grips were either originally configured for full auto fire or made to look like they were for customer appeal. Contrary to what has been written, the pistol grip was not intended for shooting from the hip; it is awkward and useless in that type of firing.

Jim
 
I shoot more accurately, off-hand, with my right elbow held high. With the right elbow high, the hand is in a comfortable position on a "traditional" rifle. It's not comfortable with a pistol grip. This is not full-auto, of course.

I've noticed significant "climb" on full-auto with FALs and G-3s and Thompsons; not much on an M-16...But if straight-line is only a factor for full-auto, and you're not shooting full-auto, why worry?

Back to the original post: Boing, are you talking about a selective-fire AK 47? A quote from "Small Arms of the World" states, "Although the AK is quite heavy, it climbs rapidly in automatic fire; it is therefore necessary to get a good grip on the weapon before sqeezing the trigger for automatic fire."

Haven't priced a Mac 11, .380, lately; with a silencer on it (and your very own progressive reloader), it's a hoot!

Have fun! Art
 
For fast and furious shooting, say, within 25 yards at, ahem, "barrel" sized targets, I find the pistol grip AR-15s and such faster and easier to use than straight line stock long arms.

However, for precision shooting, I find pistol grip long arms feel much clumsier and more difficult than straight line stocks. I find it difficult to avoid canting with the pistol grip rifles. With straight line stocks somehow I can "feel" the difference much easier in canting.

I own examples of both as I love having lots of tools in the tool box!

Edmund
 
Well, not necessarily just select fire AKs, ARs, etc...

These kinds of guns were designed for military service, thus select fire, and the semi-auto variants for the civilian market came after, in the military (pistol gripped) configuration.

I figured the pistol grip feature had something to do with full-auto fire, as compared to other service rifles, like the M1.

But then's there was the M14: full auto with no pistol grip. Hmmm... lack of control to the point of being useless. That's a pretty good reason for a PG, I guess. :)

So, it's primarily a question of how to physically arrange the components of the rifle for the straightest line between barrel and shoulder/stock, giving the least amount of rotation around the gun's own center of mass, due to recoil. Do I got it?

thanks
-boing
 
Boing, you've pretty much got it right. The models that had a "normal" rifle stock (M-14, M2 carbine, BAR, etc)were really tough to control in full auto fire. The pistol grip allows better control of a rifle(or subgun)that is actively trying to get away from you!

In a semi auto AR, it isn't really necessary from a dynamics point of view, but it sure is from an asthetics point of view. Comfort is a personal issue, I'm so used to them that I don't really notice the grip anymore, so I guess I'm biased in that reguard.

Hope this helps.
 
the rule says:
A.a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

protrudes conspicuously seems like an interpretable state

could you design a bull pup where the "Action"
extends below the pistol grip and bypass the law?

dZ
 
Cheaper to just use a fixed magazine instead of building a whole new weapon. It would be possible, of course, the only trick would be to get the grip as close a possible to the bore line. Possibly you could even lay the grip over like the ones on the FN P90, they don't stick down as far. Very few limits when designing a new weapon. That might make an interesting topic- what features are needed on a newly designed weapon, something like that. Maybe twice, once for existing law and once for the ideal. Anybody want to start it?
 
Ok, I can understand a detachable magazine being an "evil" component, but why in the world is a pistol grip "evil?!"
 
That speaks to part of what I posted: Pistol grips have become almost mandatory on modern "assualt weapons". Having a PG on a civilian gun conjures up all sorts of unpleasant pictures of "Evil Military Guns Designed For The Needless Killing Of People".

The pistol grip is psychologically associated with people-killin' guns, and no civilian should be allowed to have such a thing.

Politics of Public Perception. Not Reality.

-boing

[This message has been edited by boing (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
Realm, Boy, you just don't GET IT!

Some things are just plain evil! If you don't believe in the Devil, you gotta find a substitute. So, pistol grips, hi-cap mags, bayonet lugs, folding stocks...

Write on the blackboard until you understand: "There is no reason for it. It is just our policy."

Remember, facts are unimportant. Perception is all. If you legislate cosmetics, you can give the voters the appearance of having "done something"!

I'm sorry. You had a momentary aberration and thought you were living in a rational world...

No fee for the therapy, Art
 
Yeah, I about laughed out loud when USA today outlined the then-proposed '94 uglygun ban, and they wrote that the pistol grip allowed more accurate fire from the hip.

Then I cried because they were so ignorant.

Heck, I always figured I was safer when the bad guys & gals were shooting from the hip. One careful aimed shot from me and it's all over.

Same for full-auto (remember the machine gun moratorium? icck!). It just makes the BGs&Gs run out of ammo faster.

If you bullpup the action downward, it has to land all forward of the grip. Unless the grip is at the side(s? ambidextrous?) of the action... Anyway, that could lower the center of gravity more and help reduce recoil torque.

Worth investigation. The natural hand position and trigger control posts above answer the "why" on PGs.
 
Whoa, thar!

I think someone is getting things backwards. It is not that the pistol grip helps control in full auto fire. FA fire control is aided by having the barrel, receiver, and stock in as straight a line as possible, and this makes pistol grips and high sights necessary.

Guns that are near ideal are the Johnson LMG and the AR-15/M16. But the gun is nearly impossible to grip with the (normally) right hand unless a pistol grip is used.

It is the straight line configuration, not the pistol grip that adds to control in FA fire.

The FAL and G3 have near straight line stocks, the Thompson does not.

By the way, don't confuse climb of a weapon itself, when it recoils around its own center of gravity, with climb caused by the shooter pulling the gun up as it pushes him back. All guns of any significant recoil will "climb" in rapid fire as the shooter is pushed back. That is why many FA shooters will lean into the gun, even as light a recoil gun as the TSMG or the AR-15/M16.

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