Hope you guys will put up with a truly ignorant question, but a number of years ago I cut the barrel down on my Model 870 to use as a bear gun for up close (I had run into one in heavy bush on a hike and wasn't able to see it. Up until then I had carried a regular shotgun when coming onto a kill etc.) At any rate, I purposely found a shotgun with a handle rather than the straight stock just to try one out. I found it to be useless for hitting anything and doubt that I ever would be accurate. I found the straight stock to be much superior and couldn't think of any situation that would favour the pistol grip. What's the story here anyway? Can anybody hit anything with those pistol grip thingys?
Pistol Grip vs Straight Stock
- Thread starter BCFred
- Start date
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
i can hit alot of stuff from the hip with my mossy 500 and a PG, its for close range situations and where being to move freely is a must i guess.. i have 2 500's. one with a telescoping stock, and one with the PG, when im out in the bush. i take my 500 with th PG and sling, for me its a practical back packers Boomstick.
The best explanation that I understand for a straight wrist is that it prevents a strong hand grip while shooting. This is important in the English style of wingshooting. Paired with an extended left arm position which develops greater swing momentum, it reduces your ability to start/stop the swing quickly with light guns, which English game guns typically are.
It has nothing to do with double triggers.
It has nothing to do with double triggers.
No, OAL over 26" applies to maintain non-restricted, ie use of buttstock.
8.5" + pistol grip or folder = Restricted
(Dlask initially got away with this as it was 'manufactured' as such, but you'll find that people with the pistol grip version now have a RCMP classified pump action handgun......
)
Last edited:
I would check that statement, I can't say I'm up on it but I think Dlask had reasons why a pistol gripped 8.5" was legal and non restricted.
A pistol-grip only shotgun is something that everyone should try and decide for themselves. Personally I think they are useless for anything other than a nose-to-nose encounter. They also don't make range practice much fun. If a compact package is needed then a full stock with a short barrel is a better option.
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
X2 well said, i would rather have a short barrel, full stock... waitin on can am for a 8.5" mag fed.
I had both options on my Dlask 870, then decided to compromise and put on an adjustable Choate pistol grip stock with the shortened length of pull. This allows me to have the best of both worlds - more controllable with the pistol grip and full stock, totally legal, (28-1/2 inches overall) and it still fits easily in my back pack for easy access in case I need it in a hurry.
Usually the first shot will be a little off for me. Then the second will be either right on or very close. It's just about adjusting. That being said, I'd rather walk in the bush with a full stock with an 18.5" barrel. For me it's faster and more accurate right off the first shot.
Kind of an interesting idea Scout, especially for those who like a pistol grip and want a bit more control. Looks like how easily the stock fits in a pack is one reason for the shorter pistol grip. Some guys can hit with them, but I'll stick with superior control...different strokes for different folks, I guess. No way I want to miss a first shot in the situation I'm thinking of.
- Location
- Vancouver, BC
Knoxx copstock, best of both worlds.
