Thread: Rifle grip shape - Why?

I got to wondering today. Why are most factory stocks the shape they are?
Specifically the pistol grip area.
(note, this is related to bolt action. Leaver action and semi auto are excluded from the below brain fart)

It all started with something like this guy:


Then things progressed in the 15th Century:



Someone got a sore hand and needed more accuracy so this happened around the 18th Century:



Have some world wars and things looked like so:



This is where things get interesting. The military decided to go with a more upright grip:




Yes it's a sharpshooter platform. Yes I understand the benefits of having a pistol grip on a rapid fire infantry weapon. (AR shape and the like)



I have noticed the American market seems to like it more than European market.
CZ 527 American:



CZ527 Lux:





My burning question is, why do most sporting firearms have a fairly swept back grip? Personally I don't find it overly comfortable for standing or prone shooting.

I've always felt that the free standing pistol grip, eg. AR syle, places your hand at a more natural and comfortable angle, conducive to better trigger finger alignment, and therefore accuracy of shooting...

I would suggest it as all to do with the understanding of how the body works, thumbs up and elbows down is the most strong and stable position.

Its about comfort and control (you have more control when you are comfortable) and it's a compromise between fast pointing and slower but more accurate aiming. Straight stocks (usually at an angle of less than 45 degrees or so) point better, (usually standing) but aren't as easy to aim precisely (especially when prone).
There is also the matter of strength of materials - wood isn't the strongest and the grip area is the weakest part of the stock. Thumbhole stocks helped with this to some extent at the expense of dexterity. Modern synthetic and composite materials means that we have more choice of forms that work without sacrificing strength.
Another compromise is left vs right handed design and the commercial need to keep both camps happy. It's cheaper to make an ambidextrous stock than more ergonomic hand-specific stocks. So, the cheapest stocks are usually a compromise that is never very comfortable. And I haven't even mentioned aesthetics...

a well made stock with nice palm swell and cheek rest comes up like a shotgun and is "relaxed?" to shoot, it feels like you just have to tap the trigger to go off
its how my sako 75 feels when it comes to the shoulder it just "fits"
there isnt any need to Hold the gun in place as it is already pointing where you are looking

I've always thought the pistol grip was about trigger, and to a less extent recoil control but what do I know? I've used straight stock shotguns which were lovely to hold, but less accurate in my hands. Obviously, there are lots of other factors, but that's the impression I've been left with.

Originally Posted by MB

I've always thought the pistol grip was about trigger, and to a less extent recoil control but what do I know? I've used straight stock shotguns which were lovely to hold, but less accurate in my hands. Obviously, there are lots of other factors, but that's the impression I've been left with.

An old guy told me the straight grip who guns were made that way so that when you pulled the front trigger you slid your hand back to position for the rear trigger....well that was his explanation!

I'm not a big fan of a highly curved hand grip, they make my hands feel squashed and a lot of the time like I feel like I have to reach for the trigger.
There are many things other than ergonomics that affect stock design. Manufacturing processes and a combination of weight, material strength and marketing. I think some of the grip designs have more to do with aesthetics that come from "classic" designs than functionality.
I have played around a lot with stock design and more than anything strongly prefer a grip that is tighter on the trigger.

I like flat sides and a flat underneath on the fore end, like the old Sako stocks. Makes it very easy to control with a strong, level and upright hand grip, whereas those rounded fore ends have the gun rolling around

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

Its about comfort and control (you have more control when you are comfortable) and it's a compromise between fast pointing and slower but more accurate aiming. Straight stocks (usually at an angle of less than 45 degrees or so) point better, (usually standing) but aren't as easy to aim precisely (especially when prone).
There is also the matter of strength of materials - wood isn't the strongest and the grip area is the weakest part of the stock. Thumbhole stocks helped with this to some extent at the expense of dexterity. Modern synthetic and composite materials means that we have more choice of forms that work without sacrificing strength.
Another compromise is left vs right handed design and the commercial need to keep both camps happy. It's cheaper to make an ambidextrous stock than more ergonomic hand-specific stocks. So, the cheapest stocks are usually a compromise that is never very comfortable. And I haven't even mentioned aesthetics...

It wouldn't be too hard to have a more vertical ambidextrous grip would it?
Aesthetics.... Function over form is my preference, if something is both that's a bonus!



Shotgun stocks are a whole new world of getting the firearm to fit the user. They have a clearly defined role of standing shots requiring fast aiming (or pointing and hoping in my case)

Some interesting thoughts so far.

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

An old guy told me the straight grip who guns were made that way so that when you pulled the front trigger you slid your hand back to position for the rear trigger....well that was his explanation!

Absolutely correct!

Simplicity wins in mass manufacture, vertical grip loses.

Also... the stock wrist grip allows only a less firm/secure/complete grip compared to a vertical grip. But on a (military) bolt action this incomplete grip is maybe an advantage in achieving a faster rate of fire. It takes relatively longer to un-grip, work the bolt, and then re-grip a vertical grip.

With a semi- or full-auto or pump-action weapon the vertical grip has no speed penalty.

The M40 picture you show above is an airsoft gun.

Originally Posted by grunzter

The M40 picture you show above is an airsoft gun.

I did crop out the orange muzzle bit and everything! Good spotting, 2 points to house grunzter.

Originally Posted by Joe_90

It wouldn't be too hard to have a more vertical ambidextrous grip would it?
Aesthetics.... Function over form is my preference, if something is both that's a bonus!

It wouldn't necessarily change the cost, but the compromise then is that it may then be better for prone, rather than snap shots... A more traditional shape is a better jack-of-all-trades than a vertical grip, and appealing to the masses is why most factory stocks aren't fantastic. Cant (the angle at which your hand is at rest on the pistol grip in the left-right axis - think movie gangsters with pistols...) also means that an ambi pistol grip needs to be slightly wider at the base on left and right - to accommodate both left and right handed shooters at a comfortable angle of cant. The compromise is that it would probably mean your hand is more vertical in that axis or the stock would look odd with a wide base of the pistol grip... McMillan stocks website has a lot about the nuances in their designs, especially the A1 - A10 tactical stocks (I think the currently stop at 10, but anyways) They explain things better than I can.