Talk:Pistol grip

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Image Mosin-Nagant[edit]

People.

The M39 is about the only Mosin-Nagant I know WITH a pistol-grip stock and NOT a straight stock. This you can plainly see by looking at the pistol grip. Compare the pictures. --Dingo (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for ban[edit]

I don't think the reasoning for a ban has been explained in this article at all, though we do get criticism of restriction as a "cosmetic feature". Presumably the legislators who wrote some of restrictions did not consider it merely a cosmetic feature, and thought in some way this made the firearm more deadly.--Pharos (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very obvious why, in fact. A nearer-vertical grip, beneath the receiver, facilitates both easy wielding of the weapon at the waist (ie; can be carried 'ready-to-fire' without having to be shouldered), in such a way that the stock is above the elbow, so can be braced with the upper arm, (while the balance of the weapon is better for the supporting hand, since the receiver is already partially over the trigger hand, rather than in front of it and further away from the firer), along with a very easy-to-raise to shoulder ergonomic from a 'safe caryy' posture when the muzzle is held down - far less twist on the wrist and keeping the weapon in closer to the body at all times than the pre-WW2 mode, even permitting for a shorter weapon in several designs, so better balance for CQB and similar scenarios.

What especially surprises me (and, IMOO, goes to 'Wikipedia Is American') is that so few will actually express this point of simple, factual ergonomics (I have friends in military service who all agree that this is what makes weapons with pistol grips far superior to those with 'old-fashioned' rifle-type stock grips), much less discuss it without passionate arguments breaking out.

Frankly, military usage and shift from the one to the other post-WW2 should be all the evidence that one requires to bear out this simple fact.

Again, though, it's about citations or the pro-gun editors will go hard-line deletionist, am I right? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A50A:E0D:C9AB:5D30 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>facilitates both easy wielding of the weapon at the waist (ie; can be carried 'ready-to-fire' without having to be shouldered)

Does it? Having fired all kinds of weapons, I think it's easier to fire from the hip with a traditional grip. Pistol grips sort of force you to shoulder the weapon if you want to shoot. George Mucus (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would hazard a guess that they use it as a proxy since they can't list every single scary looking gun. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for conjecture. We would have to have legislators explaining their reasoning or have well informed experts outline their theories on the matter before listing it here. Personally, I find the bans senseless so I would imagine we'd be waiting a long time to be able to put that on here. George Mucus (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That Mosin-Nagant[edit]

It's fascinating to a non-American that the Mosin has been selected in this article about an ergonomic feature (as opposed to an article about what defines an 'assault weapon'), with what must surely be one of the most muddying descriptive captions it's possible to imagine.

So, this article is about the modern 'pistol grip', a feature which is particularly associated in its earliest 'modern' form with semi-automatic pistols. This feature is very distinctly identified by being nearer-vertical than older wooden grips integrated with the stocks of weapons and specifically being placed beneath the receiver of the weapon. This, in the case of rifles, allows very prominently for a totally separate stock to be mounted on the rear of the weapon's receiver - two very separate items of furniture.

We all know all of this.

Notwithstanding that 'old' black powder muzzle-loading pistols of the pre-revolver era most certainly had elegantly curved extensions of the wooden furniture projecting backwards at a distinctly slanted aspect, this is not what a 21st-century (or even late 20th-C) individual understands as a 'pistol grip'. To imply this is beyond disingenuous, but still.

We get to the Mosin, with its backward-projecting wooden stock and integrated 'semi-aligned' grip. This is clearly a "semi pistol grip" in the way that an 18th century Cuirassier would understand it; agreed. But it extends behind the weapon's mechanical elements, at a very distinctly not-near-vertical aspect, where a 'pistol grip' as we are discussing in this article is very specifically nearer-vertical and is underneath the firing mechanisms.

Do we all agree on why this Mosin is a deliberate distraction from the clarity of the article, meant to confuse the matter? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A50A:E0D:C9AB:5D30 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]