Straight vs pistol grip stocks

RoyalWe · July 8, 2014, 04:27 PM

I was just thinking about stocks and the styles that have existed and was wondering why old straight style stock like the vintage winchester lever guns and the Springfield 1903 originally had fell by the wayside to the "pistol grip" style such as the k98 and the 03-A3? I don't think one is more comfortable to shoot from over the other. Thoughts?

Picher · July 8, 2014, 04:49 PM

I think the straight stock was primarily a rifle-scabbard design. Pistol grips seem better to pull the stock against the shoulder and to make a more natural grip to contact the trigger without strain in the wrist.

jmr40 · July 8, 2014, 06:06 PM

Straight stocks were easier to make when guns were all handmade, even from the first machinery. It was the style. Most times pistol grip's are better, but it took a while for folks to adapt function over style.

The straight grip does offer some advantages in some cases, in rifle scabbards as mentioned. On shotguns they can be an advantage for some types of wing shooting.

JWT · July 8, 2014, 06:41 PM

I rather like the straight stocks on the old Winchester rifles. I find their lines pleasing. The Model 62 .22 rifle comes immediately to mind. The straight stock just seems to go with the exposed hammer rifles.

10-96 · July 8, 2014, 11:27 PM

I have no proof either way, but I do wonder if plain old public demand didn't have a lot to do with the fading out of the straight stocks? If not enough folks won't buy something- why keep making it?

I like the straight stocks on my 03's and Mosin for everything except shooting from a bench. Don't know why- just can't get comfortable with them on bags on a bench. Maybe our stools are too short? Dunno.

tahunua001 · July 8, 2014, 11:58 PM

pistol grips are more natural for your wrist.

Slamfire · July 11, 2014, 04:05 PM

If your number one concern about your rifle is to put a bayonet on it and use it as a pike, then a straight stock is the way to go. If however, you want to shoot the thing, then the straight grip stock is as poor a configuration for accurate shooting as an oar.

I always found the straight grip 03 a vicious kicker, if you laid your right thumb across the stock, it would bruise your face, and even with the thumb in line with the barrel, I would still get up out of prone with a fat lip.

If however, your number one concern about your rifle is hitting what you are aiming at, then having an ergonomic stock is a good place to start. Having shot enough small bore prone, I have been learning just how sensitive shot placement is to consistent trigger pull, consistent hand alignment on the pistol grip, consistent stock position in the shoulder, consistent stock weld, consistent everything. A straight grip stock does not put the hand into a natural position for anything except bayonet thrusts.

This stock was state of the art 1976

80's prone style stock

Both of these stocks place the hand in close alignment with the trigger, so when you pull the trigger, you are not applying stress to the stock, or your hand. More modern stocks allow variations in cant, pistol grip angle, etc, all to get the human in a natural position in line with the sights.

And a straight grips stock won't do that.

HankC1 · July 11, 2014, 10:42 PM

Straight grip is much more comfortable to shoot from the waist and faster to shoulder. Better control if you need to fight with a bayo!

SR420 · July 12, 2014, 07:34 AM

Quote:

tahunua001 pistol grips are more natural for your wrist.

PGs are much more comfortable for me.

They are easy to shoulder, and just all around better for me.

Picher · July 12, 2014, 07:44 AM

I have two straight-gripped Remington Semi-Auto shotguns and there is an advantage when holding the gun one-handed when going through brush, etc. It's also supposed to help on rising bird shots, but I don't find it particularly noticeable, especially compared to my curved grip, well-fitting Franchi O/U, which is the fastest-pointing shotgun I've ever used.

barnbwt · July 13, 2014, 06:54 PM

I always think the Japanese Matchlocks were the weirdest looking. I don't know if the stock lines were imitating swords, because they surely weren't imitating spears or anything approaching 'ergonomic". Yes, they were shouldered for firing.

TCB

jolly1 · July 17, 2014, 08:12 AM

I came up to this thread by accident. Interesting question!

However, the fact is, the strait style stock is coming from the striving to ergonomic perfection of old gunsmiths.

The first multiple-shot guns, in fact, were double barreled shotguns and double barreled rifles.

In old times, they had two triggers (one for each barrel), so the straight stock was made so, that after firing the first shot by pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger. This is not so with pistol grip.

Pistol grip, is however more ergonomic for rifle shooter, providing that the weapon is fired by one main trigger.

In that case, straight stock, or english stock, are optional only for esthetic, or traditional purposes.

Thats the European perspective, practical and ergonomic standpoint.

Bottom line is:
The gun with two triggers should have straight or English stock, while for the gun with one trigger this is only optional.

Possible, it is easier (cheaper) to make straight stock then stock with pistol grip, so this could be reason for old lever actions to have this feature, or simple sense of esthetic from old gun designers.

English stock, indeed has some appeal.

Thinking deeper of the subject, many flint locks, and percussion military guns had straight stock (without much ergonomic need), thus it makes it more likely it is easier to mass produce then pistol grip.

RoyalWe · October 4, 2014, 08:33 PM

I find your take in this quite interesting, I have an old Czech double barreled 20 gauge with 2 triggers and a pistol grip.

SR420 · October 4, 2014, 10:21 PM

Straight stock on both of my lever guns.

Quote:

tahunua001 pistol grips are more natural for your wrist.

Yes indeed, and they are especially nice if you have experienced hand/wrist injuries as I have.

Quote:

Slamfire A straight grip stock does not put the hand into a natural position for anything except bayonet thrusts.

I prefer running a sound suppressor over a bayonet

Pathfinder45 · October 4, 2014, 11:07 PM

Someone told me that bayonets are for those who didn't bring enough ammo.

I prefer straight stocks on leverguns for esthetic reasons.

**44 AMP** · October 5, 2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

..pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger. This is not so with pistol grip.

I have to disagree with this statement, as a flat absolute. It is entirely dependent on the degree of angle of the pistol grip, and, of course, the individual gripping it.

I have my Grandfather's Ithaca double, its having its 105th birthday this year, double triggers and pistol grip stock and all.... and its not at all difficult to work the rear trigger.

Pistol grip stocks are not always more comfortable to shoot. It depends on many things, including the specific user. One of the worst pistol grips I ever found, for ME, is on the Swiss K-31. It's simply too fat for me to comfortably take my usual grip. Nearly cramped my hand, until I realized why...

The main advantage to the pistol grip (IMHO) is that it gives you better purchase on the stock than a straight grip. It gives you something to pull against, when pulling the stock against your shoulder with the shooting hand, which the straight grip does not.

This is more important to target and hunting shooting styles, than it is to warfare. Oh, it works in war, too, and anything that aids in accurate shooting and does not detract from some important ability doing so, is a plus. SO, you see the eventual domination of some degree of pistol grip on most stocks.

and, its a virtual necessity on strait line stocks, even if it is one of the "evil" features the anti gun bigots fixate on.

tahunua001 · October 5, 2014, 11:39 AM

it may also appear as if the discussion got a little convoluted here. the topic was over the pistol grip style of modern hunting rifles, not over the paramilitary style of full pistol grips.
for instance the C stock pictured below for springfield 1903A1 and 1903A4 is considered a pistol grip stock.

as that is the basis for this discussion I must also disagree that a person could not comfortably move back to a second trigger.

however it bears mentioning that the 1903A3 did not have a pistol grip stock, the pistol grip was abandoned, more or less, as straight stocks could be milled faster. A4 snipers had the C stock as it reduced muscle tension in the firing hand and allowed for greater ease of accuracy and the "compromise" pistol grip scant style stock was used to replace any broken C stocks as the scant could be milled from the same block of wood as the straight styles but added that little angle to reduce wrist tension.

marineimaging · September 17, 2017, 11:50 AM

You are asking a metalsmith why a woodsmith did something. Having been both I can tell you one reason for the straight stock of the early rifles. In the early days our wood for production needs was taken from the wild forest. Trees grew wild and knots and grain were an issue to someone needing to get the most out of each tree cut until we could start growing and shaping our wood at the grow level (see second growth for ladder rungs in fire department ladders) The pistol grip carved into a block of wood crossed the grain creating a weakness where the recoil was expected to hit the hardest. The long, straight stock was stronger and it was considered better than a broken grip in the biddle of a hunt or battle. Later on as we were able to force trees into better patterns we could be more selective of which wood we could cut and how to cut it.

ThomasT · September 17, 2017, 12:18 PM

I had to wait 3 years for this question to be answered. Gotta love Zombie threads.

Art Eatman · September 17, 2017, 01:33 PM

Gigglesnort.

444 · September 18, 2017, 09:02 AM

It may just be a mental thing (but I don't think so) that it is much easier and much more natural to squeeze the trigger straight back with a pistol gripped stock. It also allows the pad of your finger to be on the trigger and not the side of your finger.

On rifles that I own just because I think they are cool, having a straight stock doesn't bother me. But on the rifles I use for serious accuracy, I have replaced the stocks with ones that have a "pistol grip" were my trigger hand is as close to perpendicular to the barrel as I can get it.

the possum · September 18, 2017, 10:28 AM

Good thing this is a topic that is relevant at any time.

I remember Elmer Keith writing about this. His rule of thumb is a straighter stock is better for hunting, and a pistol grip is better for target shooting. Of course there's overlap depending on the design and how radical the pistol grip is, like with a thumbhole stock or protruding grip like an AR, vs. an almost straight grip with a little knob to form the "pistol" part of the grip. But reading the comments above seems to reinforce his stance.

A straight grip is easier to carry in both hands across your body with the muzzle up, or one handed with the butt resting on your hip, or over your shoulder. So for the type of hunting where you're walking or stalking all day & need to bring the gun up for a fast flushing shot, a grip that leans more towards the straighter side will be more comfortable. Others above have already mentioned how a more pronounced pistol grip works better on the bench so you can pull it tight into your shoulder & get a consistent cheek weld, etc.

So, I guess it boils down to whether you're gonna do more walking or shooting with it, and what feels comfortable to you personally.

dgludwig · September 18, 2017, 12:53 PM

Quote:

In old times, they had two triggers (one for each barrel), so the straight stock was made so, that after firing the first shot by pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger.

Every so often this argument for having a straight stock on a double barrel shotgun comes up (I've even read said reasons "affirmed" by a couple of established gun writers over the years, including Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor) but I believe it's more myth than fact. The proper way of firing both shots on a shotgun having double triggers is to move from the front trigger (usually the one with the more open choke) to the rear one with your index finger, not by sliding your hand up or down on the stock.

reinert · September 19, 2017, 09:25 AM

Recently I've acquired two old Marlin 336s. One has a pistol grip, and the other is a SS. To me personally, either one is just as comfortable to shoot as the other.

Don Fischer · September 19, 2017, 12:14 PM

I guess my old Win 94 had a straight stock, at that point in my life I had no opinion one way or the other. Only straight stocked guns since then have been shotgun's, a double trigger SxS and an 870 special field. I don't see any advantage to the straight stock on the 870 but it looks good, at least I think so. I see no advantage to a straight stock on a SxS with a single trigger either but with double trigger's there might be an advantage in that when you leave the front trigger for the back you can slide your hand a bit also rather than simply removing it from the front trigger. The double I had like that, double trigger's just seemed to react quicker on the second shot. Couldn't prove it but think that way. Of course it doesn't matter that I really like the looks of a SxS with double trigger's.

Actually the truth is probably that which ever stock style you like will likely work well for you. Some people swear by a thumb hole stock. I've shot a friend's quite a bit and don't like it, feels strange to me! He love's it but what does he know!

July 8, 2014, 04:27 PM	#1
RoyalWe Member Join Date: January 31, 2014 Location: Eugene OR Posts: 62	Straight vs pistol grip stocks I was just thinking about stocks and the styles that have existed and was wondering why old straight style stock like the vintage winchester lever guns and the Springfield 1903 originally had fell by the wayside to the "pistol grip" style such as the k98 and the 03-A3? I don't think one is more comfortable to shoot from over the other. Thoughts?

July 8, 2014, 11:27 PM	#5
10-96 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2005 Location: Tx Panhandle Territory Posts: 4,159	I have no proof either way, but I do wonder if plain old public demand didn't have a lot to do with the fading out of the straight stocks? If not enough folks won't buy something- why keep making it? I like the straight stocks on my 03's and Mosin for everything except shooting from a bench. Don't know why- just can't get comfortable with them on bags on a bench. Maybe our stools are too short? Dunno. __________________ Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day) I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.

July 8, 2014, 11:58 PM	#6
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	pistol grips are more natural for your wrist. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

July 11, 2014, 04:05 PM	#7
Slamfire Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2007 Posts: 5,261	If your number one concern about your rifle is to put a bayonet on it and use it as a pike, then a straight stock is the way to go. If however, you want to shoot the thing, then the straight grip stock is as poor a configuration for accurate shooting as an oar. I always found the straight grip 03 a vicious kicker, if you laid your right thumb across the stock, it would bruise your face, and even with the thumb in line with the barrel, I would still get up out of prone with a fat lip. If however, your number one concern about your rifle is hitting what you are aiming at, then having an ergonomic stock is a good place to start. Having shot enough small bore prone, I have been learning just how sensitive shot placement is to consistent trigger pull, consistent hand alignment on the pistol grip, consistent stock position in the shoulder, consistent stock weld, consistent everything. A straight grip stock does not put the hand into a natural position for anything except bayonet thrusts. This stock was state of the art 1976 80's prone style stock Both of these stocks place the hand in close alignment with the trigger, so when you pull the trigger, you are not applying stress to the stock, or your hand. More modern stocks allow variations in cant, pistol grip angle, etc, all to get the human in a natural position in line with the sights. And a straight grips stock won't do that. __________________ If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

July 13, 2014, 06:54 PM	#11
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	I always think the Japanese Matchlocks were the weirdest looking. I don't know if the stock lines were imitating swords, because they surely weren't imitating spears or anything approaching 'ergonomic". Yes, they were shouldered for firing. TCB __________________ "I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things." -- Alex Rosewater

July 8, 2014, 04:49 PM	#2
Picher Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Maine Posts: 3,694	I think the straight stock was primarily a rifle-scabbard design. Pistol grips seem better to pull the stock against the shoulder and to make a more natural grip to contact the trigger without strain in the wrist.

July 8, 2014, 06:06 PM	#3
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,808	Straight stocks were easier to make when guns were all handmade, even from the first machinery. It was the style. Most times pistol grip's are better, but it took a while for folks to adapt function over style. The straight grip does offer some advantages in some cases, in rifle scabbards as mentioned. On shotguns they can be an advantage for some types of wing shooting.

July 8, 2014, 06:41 PM	#4
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	I rather like the straight stocks on the old Winchester rifles. I find their lines pleasing. The Model 62 .22 rifle comes immediately to mind. The straight stock just seems to go with the exposed hammer rifles.

July 11, 2014, 10:42 PM	#8
HankC1 Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 531	Straight grip is much more comfortable to shoot from the waist and faster to shoulder. Better control if you need to fight with a bayo!

July 12, 2014, 07:44 AM	#10
Picher Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Maine Posts: 3,694	I have two straight-gripped Remington Semi-Auto shotguns and there is an advantage when holding the gun one-handed when going through brush, etc. It's also supposed to help on rising bird shots, but I don't find it particularly noticeable, especially compared to my curved grip, well-fitting Franchi O/U, which is the fastest-pointing shotgun I've ever used.

July 17, 2014, 08:12 AM	#12
jolly1 Member Join Date: November 28, 2012 Posts: 83	I came up to this thread by accident. Interesting question! However, the fact is, the strait style stock is coming from the striving to ergonomic perfection of old gunsmiths. The first multiple-shot guns, in fact, were double barreled shotguns and double barreled rifles. In old times, they had two triggers (one for each barrel), so the straight stock was made so, that after firing the first shot by pressing the first trigger, the hand could just easily slip down, and keep comfortable grip for pressing the second trigger. This is not so with pistol grip. Pistol grip, is however more ergonomic for rifle shooter, providing that the weapon is fired by one main trigger. In that case, straight stock, or english stock, are optional only for esthetic, or traditional purposes. Thats the European perspective, practical and ergonomic standpoint. Bottom line is: The gun with two triggers should have straight or English stock, while for the gun with one trigger this is only optional. Possible, it is easier (cheaper) to make straight stock then stock with pistol grip, so this could be reason for old lever actions to have this feature, or simple sense of esthetic from old gun designers. English stock, indeed has some appeal. Thinking deeper of the subject, many flint locks, and percussion military guns had straight stock (without much ergonomic need), thus it makes it more likely it is easier to mass produce then pistol grip.

October 4, 2014, 08:33 PM	#13
RoyalWe Member Join Date: January 31, 2014 Location: Eugene OR Posts: 62	I find your take in this quite interesting, I have an old Czech double barreled 20 gauge with 2 triggers and a pistol grip.

October 4, 2014, 11:07 PM	#15
Pathfinder45 Senior Member Join Date: January 7, 2008 Posts: 3,224	Someone told me that bayonets are for those who didn't bring enough ammo. I prefer straight stocks on leverguns for esthetic reasons.

October 5, 2014, 11:39 AM	#17
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	it may also appear as if the discussion got a little convoluted here. the topic was over the pistol grip style of modern hunting rifles, not over the paramilitary style of full pistol grips. for instance the C stock pictured below for springfield 1903A1 and 1903A4 is considered a pistol grip stock. as that is the basis for this discussion I must also disagree that a person could not comfortably move back to a second trigger. however it bears mentioning that the 1903A3 did not have a pistol grip stock, the pistol grip was abandoned, more or less, as straight stocks could be milled faster. A4 snipers had the C stock as it reduced muscle tension in the firing hand and allowed for greater ease of accuracy and the "compromise" pistol grip scant style stock was used to replace any broken C stocks as the scant could be milled from the same block of wood as the straight styles but added that little angle to reduce wrist tension. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin Last edited by tahunua001; October 5, 2014 at 11:46 AM.

September 17, 2017, 11:50 AM	#18
marineimaging Junior Member Join Date: March 2, 2011 Location: Cypress, TX Posts: 8	why straight stocks You are asking a metalsmith why a woodsmith did something. Having been both I can tell you one reason for the straight stock of the early rifles. In the early days our wood for production needs was taken from the wild forest. Trees grew wild and knots and grain were an issue to someone needing to get the most out of each tree cut until we could start growing and shaping our wood at the grow level (see second growth for ladder rungs in fire department ladders) The pistol grip carved into a block of wood crossed the grain creating a weakness where the recoil was expected to hit the hardest. The long, straight stock was stronger and it was considered better than a broken grip in the biddle of a hunt or battle. Later on as we were able to force trees into better patterns we could be more selective of which wood we could cut and how to cut it.

September 17, 2017, 12:18 PM	#19
ThomasT Senior Member Join Date: January 22, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 2,753	I had to wait 3 years for this question to be answered. Gotta love Zombie threads.

September 17, 2017, 01:33 PM	#20
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Gigglesnort.

September 18, 2017, 09:02 AM	#21
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	It may just be a mental thing (but I don't think so) that it is much easier and much more natural to squeeze the trigger straight back with a pistol gripped stock. It also allows the pad of your finger to be on the trigger and not the side of your finger. On rifles that I own just because I think they are cool, having a straight stock doesn't bother me. But on the rifles I use for serious accuracy, I have replaced the stocks with ones that have a "pistol grip" were my trigger hand is as close to perpendicular to the barrel as I can get it. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

September 18, 2017, 10:28 AM	#22
the possum Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2004 Location: Southern Illinois Posts: 555	Good thing this is a topic that is relevant at any time. I remember Elmer Keith writing about this. His rule of thumb is a straighter stock is better for hunting, and a pistol grip is better for target shooting. Of course there's overlap depending on the design and how radical the pistol grip is, like with a thumbhole stock or protruding grip like an AR, vs. an almost straight grip with a little knob to form the "pistol" part of the grip. But reading the comments above seems to reinforce his stance. A straight grip is easier to carry in both hands across your body with the muzzle up, or one handed with the butt resting on your hip, or over your shoulder. So for the type of hunting where you're walking or stalking all day & need to bring the gun up for a fast flushing shot, a grip that leans more towards the straighter side will be more comfortable. Others above have already mentioned how a more pronounced pistol grip works better on the bench so you can pull it tight into your shoulder & get a consistent cheek weld, etc. So, I guess it boils down to whether you're gonna do more walking or shooting with it, and what feels comfortable to you personally.

September 19, 2017, 09:25 AM	#24
reinert Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 646	Recently I've acquired two old Marlin 336s. One has a pistol grip, and the other is a SS. To me personally, either one is just as comfortable to shoot as the other.

September 19, 2017, 12:14 PM	#25
Don Fischer Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2017 Posts: 1,868	I guess my old Win 94 had a straight stock, at that point in my life I had no opinion one way or the other. Only straight stocked guns since then have been shotgun's, a double trigger SxS and an 870 special field. I don't see any advantage to the straight stock on the 870 but it looks good, at least I think so. I see no advantage to a straight stock on a SxS with a single trigger either but with double trigger's there might be an advantage in that when you leave the front trigger for the back you can slide your hand a bit also rather than simply removing it from the front trigger. The double I had like that, double trigger's just seemed to react quicker on the second shot. Couldn't prove it but think that way. Of course it doesn't matter that I really like the looks of a SxS with double trigger's. Actually the truth is probably that which ever stock style you like will likely work well for you. Some people swear by a thumb hole stock. I've shot a friend's quite a bit and don't like it, feels strange to me! He love's it but what does he know!