Benelli MR1....and other california legal 223's..

[Barms 98]

so the NY Post had a great piece about the Benelli MR1 and how you can choose the pistol grip or not..

 

i'm so very new to the carbine world.. but if a ban happened..(i know, i know not another lousy "what if" thread, but this one is constructive i think).. do you think a new generation of non-pistol grip carbines would pop up?

 

Can i get the thoughts from the guys who have shot non-pistol grip 223s?

 

outside of the "coolness" and customization factor of the AR platform, what is the major draw back to losing a pistol grip? besides that you can hold it and fire at same time?

 

would a non-pistol grip just get you out of the 223 game completely?

[GlassFanta 0]

Honestly, many guns and calibers are actually easier to shoot without a pistol grip. 12 gauge shotguns being a noticeable example.

[lunker 274]

I have to think there was research done at some point showing a pistol grip had some advantages over traditional stocks (i.e. easier to grip one handed, better able to counteract torsion effects, etc) because all modern military rifles I know of have them. That said, all the way up to and including the M14 in the mid 60's, the US military was shooting rifles with traditional stocks. I don't know that anyone should feel hamstrung if they have a rifle with a regular stock. If my Colt 6940 AR were lost in an awful boating accident, I wouldn't feel undergunned with my Mini-14, which is basically Ruger's interpretation of the M1 Carbine in 223.

[mcbethr 42]

I think a pistol grip adds some ergonomic features and enables a "natural fighting stance" better than a conventional stock. It is easier to manipulate controls with your thumb with a pistol grip than with a conventional stock. It makes firing from the hip or "at the ready" a bit easier too if you are doing something like clearing a room or trench.