Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deadvolcanoes]

The only advantage is that most pistol grips are universal. You don't have to worry as much that the grip angle is too shallow or that the grip area is too big for smaller hands or to small and prone to break.

This is demonstrably not true. Pistol grips come in lots of different shapes, sizes, textures, angles, etc.

[Extrazero8]

I'm not saying they're magical. I'm saying they are preferable to straight stocks when engaging in combat, thus making them more suitable for combat.

Good job passing over the rest of that post.

Here I'll post the part thats important.

My Ruger MKII rifle has a hunting style stock and I can shoot it all day without issue. I can move it just as well as I can my AR15 or any of my AK47 clones. Putting a pistol grip stock on it wont improve it for me.

If a person can move the rifle from target to target at the same rate with either style of grip then the grip choice is just preference.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Good job passing over the rest of that post.

I passed over the rest because it isn't relevant. You're not engaging in combat.

[Extrazero8]

Except... from my limited experience firing actual pistols (not rifles with pistol grips), I am pretty sure they are not universal. Some felt more comfortable than others in my specific hands. Just like you said about your straight grips.

Sorry, I should have said more universal than a hunting style stock.

[Svifnymr]

If I were to enter combat, I would want every advantage possible, no matter how small.

Either the pistol grip is advantageous over a straight stock when participating in combat, or it's not. Since almost every single current service rifle in developing nations contains a pistol grip, I think it's safe to say that they are preferred for combat situations over straight stocks.

Am I wrong in that assessment? If the advantages are negligible, why is almost every single service rifle equipped with a pistol grip?

A lot of countries are going with bullpups, which require the pistol grip by definition. There is no magical "combat" that it's advantageous in. It is not a universal benefit, least of all due to height. As I said, in the semi-automatic rifle, it doesn't make a real difference except in ergonomics as they pertain to personal preference. The hive-mind of design does not mean that people copying each other have done research to see if it is optimum for every situation. Especially in a prone/stealthy situation there are drawbacks.

I'm not saying they're magical. I'm saying they are preferable to straight stocks when engaging in combat, thus making them more suitable for combat.

You've said that they present a clear advantage over straight stocks and that there was justification for them being banned beyond simply being a visual characteristic that was used to single out "assault weapons (rifles)" as a category. It was a defining feature because the guns they were looking at, had it, not because an AR15 is more effective than a mini14 in semi-auto.

[Extrazero8]

This is demonstrably not true. Pistol grips come in lots of different shapes, sizes, textures, angles, etc.

And so do hunting style stocks. Whats your point?

---------- Post added 2013-05-15 at 11:13 PM ----------

I passed over the rest because it isn't relevant. You're not engaging in combat.

Well I'm actually shooting the rifle and moving it from target to target.

Do you even have that much experience with either style of grip?

[Deadvolcanoes]

A lot of countries are going with bullpups, which require the pistol grip by definition. There is no magical "combat" that it's advantageous in. It is not a universal benefit, least of all due to height. As I said, in the semi-automatic rifle, it doesn't make a real difference except in ergonomics as they pertain to personal preference. The hive-mind of design does not mean that people copying each other have done research to see if it is optimum for every situation. Especially in a prone/stealthy situation there are drawbacks.

I'm yet to be convinced that this is accurate.

Why does every single elite combat squad in the most sophisticated military in the world use pistol grips on every single combat rifle? Why is it's use practically universal among countries? It's not just "hive-mind." These are deliberate decisions being made at the highest levels.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 12:40 AM ----------

And so do hunting style stocks. Whats your point?

My point? That pistol grips are not "universal," as you claimed they were.

Well I'm actually shooting the rifle and moving it from target to target.

That's not combat.

Do you even have that much experience with either style of grip?

No, I don't. Which is why I've been citing individuals and groups that do (SWAT, Seals, general infantry).

[Eroginous]

These are deliberate decisions being made at the highest levels.

Yes, what's easiest and most cost effective to mass produce efficiently.

I am willing to be that it's easier and less expensive to mass produce polymer pistol grips and folding stocks for service rifles than it is to produce fixed polymer stocks with no pistol grip. I'm also willing to bet that both are cheaper than producing wood rifle stocks.

Don't forget that a military has to supply hundreds of thousands of troops, you're not going to sit around crafting weapons out of the highest quality of materials. You're going to pick something that is functional and mass produce them for as cheaply as possible.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Yes, what's easiest and most cost effective to mass produce effectively.

I am willing to be that it's easier and less expensive to mass produce polymer pistol grips and folding stocks for service rifles than it is to produce fixed polymer stocks with no pistol grip. I'm also willing to bet that both are cheaper than producing wood rifle stocks.

And when we're talking about groups like the SEALS, where money is no object, they still use pistol grips.

[Extrazero8]

My point? That pistol grips are not "universal," as you claimed they were.

That's not combat.

No, I don't. Which is why I've been citing individuals and groups that do (SWAT, Seals, general infantry).

All of those groups have access to and use rifles without pistol grips. Why would any of them use those types of rifle stocks if a pistol grip was demonstrably better?

[belfpala]

All of those groups have access to and use rifles without pistol grips. Why would any of them use those types of rifle stocks if a pistol grip was demonstrably better?

I think the better question is, "For which tasks do they choose guns with pistol grips?"

[Extrazero8]

I think the better question is, "For which tasks do they choose guns with pistol grips?"

I think a better question would be, "What benefit will the addition of a pistol grip give to the user of a weapon"?

[belfpala]

I think a better question would be, "What benefit will the addition of a pistol grip give to the user of a weapon"?

Stop dodging the point.

[Elegiac]

Stop dodging the point.

There's a point to this stupid banter about pistol grips?

The fact of the matter is that pistol grips do not make weapons demonstrably more lethal to merit banning them.

[PhaelixWW]

Except... neither one of those would be banned under the 1994 AWB because both are pump-action, not semi-automatic.

But the fact remains. Pistol grips on rifles increase operational efficiency, especially in combat situations.

I'm trying to figure out how "increased operational efficiency in combat situations" isn't the same as "increased lethality".

By operational efficiency, do you mean that they make it more comfortable to hold your gun while standing on sentry duty for hours at a time? Because any other functional difference I can think of in a combat scenario involves lethality, or at least factors that would tangentially lead to lethality.

I think the failure to connect here lies in the fact that pistol grips do not in fact increase the chance someone will be killed when hit by a bullet at a certain point. However, in certain situations they may increase the combat efficiency of the weapon, thus making it more likely for the person to hit their target. Depending on how you define lethality, the pistol grip either does or does not increase it. However, it does take a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty to say that a pistol grip is purely aesthetic.

And just as much intellectual dishonesty to say anything other than that the only legitimate reason they're on the list of "evil" features is due to their aesthetics. In other words, they're there not because they're going to substantially (or maybe even noticeably) increase the lethality of the firearm. They're there because they make the gun look scary.

Sustained fire without cramping is not facilitated by the pistol grip. There probably is a benefit to fully automatic fire, which has nothing to do with semi-auto guns, no matter how fast you fire them, especially given modern light calibers.

I made this point back when we were first debating the combat effectiveness of the evil features. I don't think Deadvolcanoes cared about it back then, either.

In my mind, the pistol grip has only 2 significant benefits, aside from a simple personal comfort choice.

1) It allows the user to keep their aim more on target for sustained automatic fire.

2) It allows the user to collapse their body profile slight by a) allowing them to tuck the firearm closer to their body (via the adjustable stock) than they could achieve with a standard stock grip, and b) tuck their grip-arm elbow into their body. This is part of the classic S.W.A.T./Special Forces assault rifle shuffle/crouch/walk. Keeping a low body profile reduces the risk of exposing an extremity to enemy fire.

The first is not applicable to civilian semi-automatic firearms and the second is completely irrelevant to the types of shootings typified by a lack of return fire. Especially considering the lack of real training evidenced by the typical psycho/thug shooter.

[Elegiac]

And just as much intellectual dishonesty to say anything other than that the only legitimate reason they're on the list of "evil" features is due to their aesthetics. In other words, they're there not because they're going to substantially (or maybe even noticeably) increase the lethality of the firearm. They're there because they make the gun look scary.

Exactly. You might as well ban bayonets.

[belfpala]

There's a point to this stupid banter about pistol grips?

The fact of the matter is that pistol grips do not make weapons demonstrably more lethal to merit banning them.

idk, PhaelixWW just gave two reasons in the post above.

---------- Post added 2013-05-16 at 12:51 AM ----------

Exactly. You might as well ban bayonets.

You may as well ban screwdrivers, crowbars, and rocks too. Of course, I'd need a damn good arm to kill a lot of people at range with any of those. And I'd look funny walking around with a 30 round magazine of crowbars.... hmm.

[Elegiac]

idk, PhaelixWW just gave two reasons in the post above.

And also gave two reasons why those two reasons are useless from a standpoint of preventing gun violence.

Automatic weapons are already highly illegal, and their minor tactical advantage isn't really applicable to the kinds of violence that the anti-gun lobby wishes to prevent.

[PhaelixWW]

Exactly. You might as well ban bayonets.

Banning dot sights and scopes would have more of an effect on lethality than pistol grips and bayonets combined. :P

[belfpala]

And also gave two reasons why those two reasons are useless from a standpoint of preventing gun violence.

Automatic weapons are already highly illegal, and their minor tactical advantage isn't really applicable to the kinds of violence that the anti-gun lobby wishes to prevent.

I'd disagree. If pistol grips help me keep on target in full auto fire, wouldn't they also help me do so when I'm pulling a trigger as fast as I can? Or am I mistaken that "pulling as fast as I can" is the limiting factor for legal semi-auto guns.