5 ms·

Form follows function. The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. It doesn't just look scary. The tactical ability

Form follows function. The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. It doesn't just look scary. The tactical ability of a semi/fully-automatic rifle does not exclusively come from its ability to rapidly chamber rounds, it also comes from its tactical maneuverability, especially when firing multiple rounds in a short period of time. This is why the military uses rifles that look like the M4 platform, and not rifles that look like the M14 platform anymore. This is why the AK-47 doesn't look like the SKS. The addition of a pistol grip to a semi or fully-automatic rifle represents an advance in military technology. The 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Orlando nightclub shooting all involved light, tactical rifles with pistol-grips. Stephen Paddock had 21 pistol-grip rifles, and not a single Mini-14. There is a meaningful advantage in the ability to kill people in in-close, rapid-fire situations with a light, semi-automatic rifle featuring a pistol grip. This is why people whose job descriptions involve killing people at relatively close-ranges (military, SWAT) use this style of weapon, and not a weapon that looks like a Mini-14. The stock Mini-14 looks like a traditional hunting rifle, because it is engineered for hunting. Its design is not optimized for controllability when rapidly firing multiple rounds in multiple directions in a tactical setting. A good hunter shouldn't need to discharge much more than two rounds, and they have one single target. They're not controlling for recoil over the course of an entire 30-round magazine, while pivoting in multiple directions. In that context, the legal classification of an assault weapon does make pretty good sense.

Bancakes 6y ago
Pistol grips do not inherently make a weapon system more maneuverable, as they do not change any of your leverage on the firarm, nor its centre of mass or mass distribution. Making a weapon more comfortable does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss. Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss More rounds on-target is the definition of more deadly. > Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic. I don't follow. A hollow pistol-grip is not only more plastic, it also requires a much more complicated mold. There's a reason every modern, light, self-chambering rifle system uses a pistol grip. If it were simply a matter of ease of manufacture, or of comfort with zero tactical advantage, nobody would care if AR-15s were banned because they'd be perfectly happy with their Mini-14.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. They don't have pistol grips but have the same ergonomic layout as a pistol grip. In fact, you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning. Learning to shoot a classic rifle grip is only a matter of training - after all, everyone from precision sports shooters to special forces utilised them to their full extent. >More rounds on-target You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. >hollow pistol-grip Attatch two stamped pieces of metal or molded plastic. >they'd be perfectly happy One major reason not to ban pistol grips is that there is no major reason to ban pistol grips. I haven't been a witness to any statistical analysis regarding its positive effects. If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. Plus, the AR-15 platform has versatile configurations like the short-stroke piston operation of an HK416 or picatinny rails for attachments. After all, mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      > Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. These are both bolt-action rifles. The purpose of assault-weapons bans are to reduce the likelihood of a single, mentally-unstable person from killing large numbers of people with a semi-automatic rifle. > you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning Not in California. That grip is considered a 'feature' and is not allowed in conjunction with detachable magazines on a semi-automatic rifle. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ > You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. Center-mass is on-target. For an inexperienced person working their way through a school or office-building, they are trying to increase the number of on-target shots, and reduce the number of magazine reloads. > The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. We can't ban mental illness, so the purpose of the laws is to reduce the likelihood of certain weapons systems from falling into the hands of people with mental illness, or those with an ideological grudge and the motivation to carry out an attack. This has worked out pretty well in the state of California so-far. > mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering. If a hunter needs an infrared scope to place a humane shot, then they need to go to the range and get better before they go outside and shoot an animal. > If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. I understand this perspective, as I am a shooting enthusiast as well. However, this perspective is simply not in-line with the opinions of most voters, who don't really care how much anyone enjoys these weapons. They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. When they hear 'more disciplined,' they hear 'more skilled at killing my kids.' Since firearms for the vast majority of gun owners are little more than a hobby, it's really hard not to see the logic in their perspective.
nokcha 6y ago
>The 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Orlando nightclub shooting all involved light, tactical rifles with pistol-grips. Stephen Paddock had 21 pistol-grip rifles, and not a single Mini-14. The Mini-14 has also been used in mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use >Its design is not optimized for controllability when rapidly firing multiple rounds Yes, that is a real disadvantage of the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15. And for military use, when engaging targets over 50 yards away, it is important. My understanding, though, is that most mass shootings happen at fairly close range, where the AR-15's reduced muzzle rise isn't as much of an advantage. >This is why people whose job descriptions involve killing people at relatively close-ranges (military, SWAT) use this style of weapon, and not a weapon that looks like a Mini-14. The military didn't choose the AR-15 for its performance at close range (like under 25 yards). At that range, the AR-15's greater difference between bore axis and line-of-sight becomes a disadvantage compared to the Mini-14. >The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. Do you have a source for that? Personally, I haven't found a pistol grip to make much of a difference in maneuverability. The overall length of the rifle certainly makes a big difference, though.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  > The Mini-14 has also been used in mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use Not in the United States since 1986 according to that list. Tactical maneuverability when discharging rounds at a rapid rate can come from maintaining the stock in-line with the bore of the rifle as-with a pistol grip, which allows for better control of rapid fire. It is also easier to pull the rifle into the shoulder quickly, which allows you to re-sight more quickly when firing rapidly, and transitioning from running to a shooting position. If you look at a standard, factory wood or synthetic-stock Mini-14 (not a side-folder), the bore is elevated over the stock. The fractions of a second needed to re-sight the rifle would create a disadvantage when rapidly discharging a weapon in close quarters. This is especially important for someone who has not received extensive training in handling weapons in these situations, such as the people who go postal in schools and nightclubs and such. > At that range, the AR-15's greater difference between bore axis and line-of-sight becomes a disadvantage compared to the Mini-14. This seems like a weird example, since I don't believe any modern, well-funded urban combat operations team uses the factory Mini-14, or any similarly-configured rifle with a more horizontal-grip stock. The prototypical close-combat rifle, the MP5, most definitely uses a pistol-grip, and SWAT teams in the United States seem rather fond of the AR-15-style platform. Although I do not have evidence to support this, I would also make the argument that a pistol-grip offers advantages in quickly swapping mags in a high-pressure situation, as the mag release button is nicely situated with the wrist in a neutral position, and the ability to bring the rifle back-up to shoulder using the pistol-grip as a lever following a mag swap would be easier, especially for someone who is inexperienced, moving quickly, and prone to fumbling. Plus, people are tired of seeing mass shootings on TV, and just don't want to have to worry about lunatics running around with these types of weapons. The definition of 'these types of weapons' will evolve, and typically correlate with what people see being used in mass shootings on the news. I don't know that people's negative reaction to these weapons is particularly unreasonable in this context.
ryathal 6y ago
Pistol grips are a common interface, they don't have a significant tactical improvement on their own. It is massively beneficial to have all/most weapons a soldier might be called upon to use to have the same basic setup though.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Why wouldn't they have a tactical improvement? It's a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. It allows: 1. The stock to remain in-line with the bore of the rifle. 2. Additional leverage to control recoil. 3. Quicker and more intuitive return of the weapon to-shoulder after running or changing magazines. 4. The wrist to remain in a neutral position when depressing the magazine release button. The Sten, BAR, and the PPSH were pretty much the last generations of fully-automatic rifles to use a horizontal grip configuration, and in both cases, (Soviet and Western) weapons designers converged on the pistol-grip for subsequent designs of the autoloading light rifle, despite substantial differences in design between the M16 and the AK-47. Why did they make the change? All three of those weapons (Sten, BAR, PPSH) were in widespread combat usage at the time, as were horizontal-grip semiautomatic rifles like the SKS, M14, and M1 Garand/Carbine (as well as a variety of horizontal-grip bolt-action rifles). Why not keep the same configuration for the next generation of rifles so that soldiers would be using the same basic setup that they had originally been trained on? Why did the StG 44, AK-47, Thompson, and later the M-16 all make the switch? Even the Swedes started adding pistol-grips to the BAR in the twenties. Horizontal-grip rifles just don't seem to be as well-suited for controllability of fully-automatic, or rapid semi-automatic fire.

Bancakes 6y ago

Pistol grips do not inherently make a weapon system more maneuverable, as they do not change any of your leverage on the firarm, nor its centre of mass or mass distribution. Making a weapon more comfortable does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss. Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Why wouldn't a pistol-grip impact leverage? It's literally a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. > does not make it more deadly since you can always fire more rounds if you miss More rounds on-target is the definition of more deadly. > Pistol grips are simply easier to manufacture than weird shapes of wood or plastic. I don't follow. A hollow pistol-grip is not only more plastic, it also requires a much more complicated mold. There's a reason every modern, light, self-chambering rifle system uses a pistol grip. If it were simply a matter of ease of manufacture, or of comfort with zero tactical advantage, nobody would care if AR-15s were banned because they'd be perfectly happy with their Mini-14.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. They don't have pistol grips but have the same ergonomic layout as a pistol grip. In fact, you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning. Learning to shoot a classic rifle grip is only a matter of training - after all, everyone from precision sports shooters to special forces utilised them to their full extent. >More rounds on-target You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. >hollow pistol-grip Attatch two stamped pieces of metal or molded plastic. >they'd be perfectly happy One major reason not to ban pistol grips is that there is no major reason to ban pistol grips. I haven't been a witness to any statistical analysis regarding its positive effects. If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. Plus, the AR-15 platform has versatile configurations like the short-stroke piston operation of an HK416 or picatinny rails for attachments. After all, mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    > Look at rifles like the SV98 or AW series. These are both bolt-action rifles. The purpose of assault-weapons bans are to reduce the likelihood of a single, mentally-unstable person from killing large numbers of people with a semi-automatic rifle. > you can evade pistol grip laws by making butt stocks with holes that provide the same effective hand positioning Not in California. That grip is considered a 'feature' and is not allowed in conjunction with detachable magazines on a semi-automatic rifle. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/california-legal-ar-15/ > You only need one .223 centre mass or in the intestines to require immediate surgery. Center-mass is on-target. For an inexperienced person working their way through a school or office-building, they are trying to increase the number of on-target shots, and reduce the number of magazine reloads. > The fact that some commit heinous crimes is mentall illness, not the fault of the gun or even more so the fault of legal gun ownership. We can't ban mental illness, so the purpose of the laws is to reduce the likelihood of certain weapons systems from falling into the hands of people with mental illness, or those with an ideological grudge and the motivation to carry out an attack. This has worked out pretty well in the state of California so-far. > mounting a good infrared scope on a hunting rifle helps hunters place humane one-shot-stops rather than blindly causing suffering. If a hunter needs an infrared scope to place a humane shot, then they need to go to the range and get better before they go outside and shoot an animal. > If anything, you want to motivate people to like the guns they own, so they shoot more often and are more disciplined. I understand this perspective, as I am a shooting enthusiast as well. However, this perspective is simply not in-line with the opinions of most voters, who don't really care how much anyone enjoys these weapons. They simply don't want to have to worry about themselves or their children getting shot by some lunatic with a gun. When they hear 'more disciplined,' they hear 'more skilled at killing my kids.' Since firearms for the vast majority of gun owners are little more than a hobby, it's really hard not to see the logic in their perspective.

nokcha 6y ago

>The 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Orlando nightclub shooting all involved light, tactical rifles with pistol-grips. Stephen Paddock had 21 pistol-grip rifles, and not a single Mini-14. The Mini-14 has also been used in mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use >Its design is not optimized for controllability when rapidly firing multiple rounds Yes, that is a real disadvantage of the Mini-14 compared to the AR-15. And for military use, when engaging targets over 50 yards away, it is important. My understanding, though, is that most mass shootings happen at fairly close range, where the AR-15's reduced muzzle rise isn't as much of an advantage. >This is why people whose job descriptions involve killing people at relatively close-ranges (military, SWAT) use this style of weapon, and not a weapon that looks like a Mini-14. The military didn't choose the AR-15 for its performance at close range (like under 25 yards). At that range, the AR-15's greater difference between bore axis and line-of-sight becomes a disadvantage compared to the Mini-14. >The addition of a pistol grip does lend increased tactical maneuverability to a rifle. Do you have a source for that? Personally, I haven't found a pistol grip to make much of a difference in maneuverability. The overall length of the rifle certainly makes a big difference, though.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
> The Mini-14 has also been used in mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#Criminal_use Not in the United States since 1986 according to that list. Tactical maneuverability when discharging rounds at a rapid rate can come from maintaining the stock in-line with the bore of the rifle as-with a pistol grip, which allows for better control of rapid fire. It is also easier to pull the rifle into the shoulder quickly, which allows you to re-sight more quickly when firing rapidly, and transitioning from running to a shooting position. If you look at a standard, factory wood or synthetic-stock Mini-14 (not a side-folder), the bore is elevated over the stock. The fractions of a second needed to re-sight the rifle would create a disadvantage when rapidly discharging a weapon in close quarters. This is especially important for someone who has not received extensive training in handling weapons in these situations, such as the people who go postal in schools and nightclubs and such. > At that range, the AR-15's greater difference between bore axis and line-of-sight becomes a disadvantage compared to the Mini-14. This seems like a weird example, since I don't believe any modern, well-funded urban combat operations team uses the factory Mini-14, or any similarly-configured rifle with a more horizontal-grip stock. The prototypical close-combat rifle, the MP5, most definitely uses a pistol-grip, and SWAT teams in the United States seem rather fond of the AR-15-style platform. Although I do not have evidence to support this, I would also make the argument that a pistol-grip offers advantages in quickly swapping mags in a high-pressure situation, as the mag release button is nicely situated with the wrist in a neutral position, and the ability to bring the rifle back-up to shoulder using the pistol-grip as a lever following a mag swap would be easier, especially for someone who is inexperienced, moving quickly, and prone to fumbling. Plus, people are tired of seeing mass shootings on TV, and just don't want to have to worry about lunatics running around with these types of weapons. The definition of 'these types of weapons' will evolve, and typically correlate with what people see being used in mass shootings on the news. I don't know that people's negative reaction to these weapons is particularly unreasonable in this context.

ryathal 6y ago

Pistol grips are a common interface, they don't have a significant tactical improvement on their own. It is massively beneficial to have all/most weapons a soldier might be called upon to use to have the same basic setup though.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Why wouldn't they have a tactical improvement? It's a lever attached to the bottom of the rifle. It allows: 1. The stock to remain in-line with the bore of the rifle. 2. Additional leverage to control recoil. 3. Quicker and more intuitive return of the weapon to-shoulder after running or changing magazines. 4. The wrist to remain in a neutral position when depressing the magazine release button. The Sten, BAR, and the PPSH were pretty much the last generations of fully-automatic rifles to use a horizontal grip configuration, and in both cases, (Soviet and Western) weapons designers converged on the pistol-grip for subsequent designs of the autoloading light rifle, despite substantial differences in design between the M16 and the AK-47. Why did they make the change? All three of those weapons (Sten, BAR, PPSH) were in widespread combat usage at the time, as were horizontal-grip semiautomatic rifles like the SKS, M14, and M1 Garand/Carbine (as well as a variety of horizontal-grip bolt-action rifles). Why not keep the same configuration for the next generation of rifles so that soldiers would be using the same basic setup that they had originally been trained on? Why did the StG 44, AK-47, Thompson, and later the M-16 all make the switch? Even the Swedes started adding pistol-grips to the BAR in the twenties. Horizontal-grip rifles just don't seem to be as well-suited for controllability of fully-automatic, or rapid semi-automatic fire.