Pistol grips on rifles.
Will Hartung
As the political hysteria over "ugly guns" continues to spread,
specifically here in California, I wonder about stock design.
I found it interesting (hmm...maybe, perhaps, appaling is a better
word), that in the current CA legislation, the ban criteria specifies
not only pistol grips, but the thumbhole stocks as well. Seen a lot of
10/22s with thumbhole stocks, particularly in recent years.
I know everyone has their preferences, but I'm wondering why most
modern militar-esque guns use the pistol grip. I have enough sense to
imagine that they are there for a specific reason, and not some fashion
statement. While there is certainly an underlying "fashion" theme in
some guns, it's usually not the prevelant reason most enthusiasts
purchase a rifle.
So, for what ergonomic reason do combat rifles carry the pistol grip?
Easier to handle for the masses, perhaps? Less reach to the trigger?
More flexibility in placement of the actions and what not?
I've seen the pistol grip get fine use on the news footage of folks
sticking the rifle over the shooters head, over a wall, and blind
firing "That-a-way". Seems like it would be difficult to do that with a
conventional stock. Similiar to shooting around corners, I guess.
Perhaps it is that bolt actions don't work well with a pistol grip.
This makes a little sense if you're talking transition from hold to
chambering a new round and back to a hold. More movement involved, not
a simple, smooth slide of the hand around the stock to the bolt.
But, a lot of small bore target shooters use a thumbhole stock, which is
essentially a pistol grip. But target shooters do all sorts of strange
things to reach their goal.
Looking at a T/C based rifle, and it's durn near a pistol grip, with
a chunk of stock sitcking out of the back, granted. But it's a single
shot. Of course, the T/C blurs a lot of concepts together.
Does anyone have a pistol grip on your everyday, conventional,
high-powered bolt-action, that they use in the field? Thumbhole stocks
mean bigger stocks, which means more weight, which means tired hunter,
so I can seem them being unpopular. But I'm thinking more like the pistol
grips on the semi-automatic shotguns, only on a bolt gun.
Anyway, I don't really want this to drag into what a stupid idea the
whole "ban ugly guns" thesis is, we all know that. I'm just interested
in the ergonomics of it all.
--
Will Hartung - Rancho Santa Margarita. It's a dry heat. vfr...@netcom.com
1990 VFR750 - VFR=Very Red "Ho, HaHa, Dodge, Parry, Spin, HA! THRUST!"
1993 Explorer - Cage? Hell, it's a prison. -D. Duck
icebear
Will Hartung wrote:
#
# As the political hysteria over "ugly guns" continues to spread,
# specifically here in California, I wonder about stock design.
#
# I know everyone has their preferences, but I'm wondering why most
# modern militar-esque guns use the pistol grip.
snip
The pistol grip design gives better control under full-auto fire. Helps
you hold the muzzle down, because your hand has better leverage. If you
look at submachine guns, most of them from the Thompson on forward have
had pistol grips. The original "assault rifle," the German Sturmgewehr
44, had basically the same outline as a modern military rifle. Imitation
is the sincerest form of flattery - the layout of the AK-47 is very
similar to the StG44. Mikhail Timofeyevich knew a good thing when he
saw it.
icebear
David R. Birch
Most modern military rifles have "inline" stocks which means the heel of
the buttstock is in line with the barrel, so the recoil goes directly
straight back, instead of on a vector as with more conventional stocks.
This tends to reduce the tendency of the barrel to rise with recoil,
especially in full-auto fire. The separate pistol grip or thumbhole
itself is incidental, you have to have something to wrap your paw
around.
David
Meplat
Will Hartung wrote:
#
#
# whole "ban ugly guns" thesis is, we all know that. I'm just interested
# in the ergonomics of it all.
#
When military rifle designers started to build rifles with bore axis in
line with the butt to reduce muzzel climb, the stock became so staight
that it was uncomfortable to grip the rifle around the small of the
stock. Also, on many designs the "small" of the stokc went away due to
the positioning of action parts in that area.
Just some thoughts.
Meplat
shorty
On 25 Jun 1997 16:33:59 -0400, icebear <ice...@dc.net> wrote:
#Will Hartung wrote:
##
## As the political hysteria over "ugly guns" continues to spread,
## specifically here in California, I wonder about stock design.
##
## I know everyone has their preferences, but I'm wondering why most
## modern militar-esque guns use the pistol grip.
#
#snip
#
#The pistol grip design gives better control under full-auto fire. Helps
#you hold the muzzle down, because your hand has better leverage. If you
#look at submachine guns, most of them from the Thompson on forward have
#had pistol grips. The original "assault rifle," the German Sturmgewehr
#44, had basically the same outline as a modern military rifle. Imitation
#is the sincerest form of flattery - the layout of the AK-47 is very
#similar to the StG44. Mikhail Timofeyevich knew a good thing when he
#saw it.
#
#icebear
#
also a lot easier to handle rifle with one hand in some situations.
like when you want to cover someone and call the police at the same
time :)