I appreciate the detailed answer, but I’m not looking for a murder machine. All I wanted to know was whether pistol grips gave mass shooters some kind of advantage over conventional rifles. I guess the consensus is simply that rifles with pistol grips are “cool”.
For the purposes of those shooters, yes, as said it’s what’s in style and what has a large aftermarket. They are not that sophisticated about their choice.
Militaries in general have adopted it more as a consequence of the mechanics of the platform, that is, once you optimize the weapon for its intended function, it’s most often what fits best when you ask “OK now do how does the guy hold it?”
A pistol grip is a lot more comfortable to hold near shoulder height for extended periods of time, like while on patrol. You need to don’t bend your forearm as much, and the weight of the weapon rests more easily on your hand.
I’d like to see a cite that the 7.62mm NATO does more damage than 5.56mm to the human body at combat ranges (under 100m). Not to metal plates - to flesh.
This.
Everything I’ve seen and read indicates that a pisol grip on a longarm improves ergonomics and comfort, nothing more.
But since combat weapons are in-hand for hours at a stretch, for months at a time, this matters to competent designers of military firearms.
For a criminal user? Rule of cool, buying civilian weapons on the same pattern as established military weapons, or illegally acquiring actually military arms. Most of which favor pistol grips for the reason given above.
I’m calling bullshit on this. The AR-15 by function and design is for all practical purposes an assault rifle. You classify the M-16 as an assault rifle because it is capable of full-auto and 3 round burst fire, but in reality those are the LEAST useful fire modes of the M-16. For full effectiveness and accuracy soldiers will use the same semi-auto firing mode as the AR-15 99% of the time, one shot per trigger pull, but pull as often and as fast as you need. So there’s really no difference between the M-16 and the AR-15 when it comes to usage.
I concur. I carried various M-16 and Galil variants for years, firing thousands of rounds, and not once did I move the selector to auto. It’s not my army’s doctrine. Would it have been any different if I had carried an AR-15?
But to stay on topic, a pistol grip riffle makes it slightly easier for most ppl to use for rapid fire than a stock grip, and the internal mechanisms of a pistol grip rifle make it easier to accommodate larger magazines with lighter rounds.
A Vietnam veteran friend of mine said that if a NV soldier fired on full auto, one or more of the Americans would yell, “Get the guy with the machine gun!”, and fire would be concentrated on him. Consequently, if an American fired on full auto, NV voices would yell something incomprehensible, but which meant, “Get the guy with the machine gun!”. He and his associates never fired full auto.
Though ISTM mostly you begin by wanting a higher capacity mag in a rapid firing weapon, and then at some point you figure what’s the best solution for balance in handling or compactness of the firing mechanism.
I will debate this narrow point. The US military’s goal with infantry combat firearms is to kill people. They switched from the M-14 to the M-16, and more importantly, never looked back. Maybe they know what they’re doing. Maybe.
ISTM a mass shooter needs to select a rifle & a cartridge. They’re going out to do their deed with probably one weapon and one load of ammo. In the target rich environment of a school, shopping mall, etc., how much ammo they can carry becomes a very large determinant of how many people they can wound or kill. A person who can carry 150 rounds of 5.56 has the potential to wound or kill many more people than somebody who can carry 100 rounds of 7.62 or 75 rounds of .30-06.
For ranges under 50m, which most school or shopping mall or street fair shootings will be, the difference between a torso, head, or leg shot with any of these three cartridges is a rounding error. To the degree they’re better able to control their aim while firing quickly, the lighter cartridge will put more shots into the crowd and fewer over the crowd’s head. Even on semi-auto. Adding a bump stock to the picture further improves the relative lethality of the 5.56 over the heavier cartridges.
I carried one of these
for three years in the GAU-5/A variant fielded by USAF for use by their TACPs attached to the US Army.
The lighter weight & easier swing helped in close conditions and enabled us to carry two more loaded 20-round clips for the same total poundage vs the then-current M-16A1 my Army coworkers carried. Professionally speaking, it’s plenty deadly as long as you’re putting a round into somebody, not just spraying wildly into the air making an impressive noise.
Many people with any coaching on shooting are familiar with what is called point shooting. Its pretty simple and can deliver serious accuracy at short ranges. something with a pistol grip feels more intuitive for point shooting at least to me.
I have always been under the impression that the primary advantage of 7.62mm NATO vs. 5.56 mm is the range; the former can “reach out” considerably farther than the latter. At a much closer range, e.g. 100 yards, I would think they would do similar damage when it comes to wound ballistics.
I think one of the main reasons for the move to lighter ammo was recognition of the fact that with modern infiltration tactics, the vast majority of small arms combat takes place within 100 meters, so the need for anything heavier was outweighed, so to speak, by the ability to carry more rounds per mag and per person.
At over 100 meters, one guy with a machine gun is more effective than a squad of riflemen.
But this one goes up to 15…
I assume the bad reputation of the AR15 in mass shooting is in part fed by the type of ammunition used, more than anything. Fragmenting bullets that do a lot more damage seem to be the weapon of choice for clothed targets as opposed to furry ones.
I think the bad reputation is caused by the fact that AR-15s are used in a lot of mass shootings. There’s no “good” bullets to use for that.
Well, maybe more like a LOT of education… Which you have given them, quite nicely, and very effectively.
Note that the FBI has compiled stats that show that Rifles in all their forms, are very very rarely used in homicides, like about 2% of the time.
Usually it is pistols, which of course… have pistol grips.
The defining point of an “assault rifle” is autofire capability. Nowadays many others have three shot burst selectors, which apparently is often the best way to go.
If I wanted to know what an “assault rifle” was I would have asked. But I did state my original question at least 3 times. And I think it got answered to my satisfaction, thank you.
Not your fault, Son_of_a_Rich. But you, know how it goes “…but, there’s someone being WRONG on the internet!!”
Standard 5.56mm ammo is not designed to fragment. It’s a full metal jacketed round like most standard rifle ammo. It’s not more deadly or damaging than other calibers. Less so than many. It’s just relatively cheap and plentiful