Can anyone explain why russian style grips leave much more wood covering the back of the hand than "modern" grips like Pardinis or Morinis do? It is due to different climate (that is, hand swelling more in warmer climates like Italy so grip is left more open on purpose) or is it just style (meaning that wood being unnecessary)?
Thanks!
Russian style free pistol grips
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
grips
Toz 35 and IZH1 Grips are made like they are on the premis that they are not finished grips, the extra wood as you call it ,is so they can be modifided to the individual shooters hand , dont forget most of these guns are over 50 years old except the toz m, which is more modern from 80,s onward ,
cheers S
cheers S
-
Jack OAT
First of all thank you for your input, scausi.
I already found that explanation over the net but I'm not persuaded.
Actually, Russians are still making finished grips that way (for example: http://snipurl.com/27j36sk).
Excluding the climate-hand swelling issue, I can think of three explanations:
1. The large "wings" are unnecessary (but is it true?). Those on russian ones are simply a matter of fashion and that's it.
2. Thinking the other way around, Morinis and Pardinis stock grips aren't finished grips either (finished meaning taylored to shooter). So, I wonder if they are left intentionally open to allow adding more material over the back of the hand if desired. This can go along with
3. Costs. These modern style grips are machine made. They benefit from a simpler shape that requires less wood and probably less work to be made.
I already found that explanation over the net but I'm not persuaded.
Actually, Russians are still making finished grips that way (for example: http://snipurl.com/27j36sk).
Excluding the climate-hand swelling issue, I can think of three explanations:
1. The large "wings" are unnecessary (but is it true?). Those on russian ones are simply a matter of fashion and that's it.
2. Thinking the other way around, Morinis and Pardinis stock grips aren't finished grips either (finished meaning taylored to shooter). So, I wonder if they are left intentionally open to allow adding more material over the back of the hand if desired. This can go along with
3. Costs. These modern style grips are machine made. They benefit from a simpler shape that requires less wood and probably less work to be made.
-
RandomShotz
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:24 pm
- Location: Lexington, KY
And this is Igor's own comment on the style in response to a question from "anonymous":
Roger
The loop over the thumb on my own TOZ 35M broke off a while ago - I just dressed off the edges. It felt funny for a while, but there really doesn't seem to be any difference in the way it shoots.Anonymous 3/7/11 22:09
One thing I always have been wondering about is that Russian grip makers always use the "thump opening", also when making grips for western pistols like Morini, and in this case Matchgun.
What is the purpose of that? Manage the recoil correct and steadyness I guess. But in exactly what why does this "opening" support this?
//Frederick
Igor3/7/11 23:23
Grips with covered thumb finger?
It is historically so (traditional look & feel) ... and it does not affect anything.
Roger
Also both Isch and MC55 are customized for Soviet athletes, so you can actually see old pictures of the athletes having a gunsmith literally craved the mold or wood while holding a pistol, so that there is absolutely no wiggling space for the hand. Toz is a massive production and also an export items, so there is no need to have that much of wood.
Timing wise, Isch stopped production in early 60s, while both MC55 and Toz35 were made right after Isch stopped production. Notice that almost all Soviet winners used MC55, while a lot of winners using Toz are non Soviets (for example, East Germans).
Timing wise, Isch stopped production in early 60s, while both MC55 and Toz35 were made right after Isch stopped production. Notice that almost all Soviet winners used MC55, while a lot of winners using Toz are non Soviets (for example, East Germans).
Old regulation
Also I happened to have old Free Pistol Regulations all the way to around 1960. There was only two rules since the 30s until 1958. That is, the caliber can be of ANY kind of .22, and that only iron sights are allowed. Not until 1959 the UIT rule did the regulation requires the grip to not extend beyond the wrist for the sake of supporting the wrist.
This explain why Isch-1 has such a ridiculous huge grip that totally enclosed the entire hand. You cannot even see the wrist, while MC55 and Toz is less extreme.
Also there was still no regulation regarding the idea of one load at a time. So technically you can still use a rimfire revolver or semi-automatic pistol. However, no revolver has won this competition since 1904, and only in 1906 did a semi-automatic win this competition.
The modern free pistol design spirit was pretty much set first by the 1908 World Champion Buechel Stecherspanner with the use of set trigger as a secondary trigger, and then in 1911 when Buechel created the Tell which has the set trigger designed as a lever above the trigger guard. This design idea remains today. The Morini is the first to break this mold, but since an electronic trigger means you have to physically turn on the trigger, and can hence turn on and off between shots, the spirit of set trigger still applies.
The last pistol that won a world championship/Olympics without this design is the S&W Perfected Model, winning the 1920 Olympics and the 1923 World Championship (plus the 1912 when the set trigger idea was still new). The latter, held in Camp Perry, has only a tiny fraction of European competitors, none of them were first class. So it was essentially a sort of US championship.
As to when Free Pistol narrows down to .22lr only I have no idea. There was nothing mentioned in both the 76 and 80 Olympic Rules, so I presume it was already enforced.
This explain why Isch-1 has such a ridiculous huge grip that totally enclosed the entire hand. You cannot even see the wrist, while MC55 and Toz is less extreme.
Also there was still no regulation regarding the idea of one load at a time. So technically you can still use a rimfire revolver or semi-automatic pistol. However, no revolver has won this competition since 1904, and only in 1906 did a semi-automatic win this competition.
The modern free pistol design spirit was pretty much set first by the 1908 World Champion Buechel Stecherspanner with the use of set trigger as a secondary trigger, and then in 1911 when Buechel created the Tell which has the set trigger designed as a lever above the trigger guard. This design idea remains today. The Morini is the first to break this mold, but since an electronic trigger means you have to physically turn on the trigger, and can hence turn on and off between shots, the spirit of set trigger still applies.
The last pistol that won a world championship/Olympics without this design is the S&W Perfected Model, winning the 1920 Olympics and the 1923 World Championship (plus the 1912 when the set trigger idea was still new). The latter, held in Camp Perry, has only a tiny fraction of European competitors, none of them were first class. So it was essentially a sort of US championship.
As to when Free Pistol narrows down to .22lr only I have no idea. There was nothing mentioned in both the 76 and 80 Olympic Rules, so I presume it was already enforced.
Let me hazard a guess here..... I'm in the Aerospace industry and something we have noticed for years is that Soviet products in the arms industry are by and large, a bit AGRICULTURAL. They spend the time and money where necessary on magnificantly engineered stuff, but if it doesnt need to be High Zoot, it isn't. A Mig 21 for example, probably the premier point defence aircraft ever made, has many parts on it that appear to be made by blacksmiths banging parts on old tree stumps. Those parts are robust and take away nothing from the overall effectiveness of the platform... I suspect the grips are the same way.. Hire a few Norweigan wooden shoe makers to build you a one size will eventually fit all grip and spend your time on a fabuluous trigger....
-
Jack OAT
Hi Roger, I had read Igor's reply on thumb loops; that's why I was wondering if the same goes for the other half of the grip (meaning that extra wood is unnecessary and Morini-like bracing "tips" over the hand are enough).
spektr, you have a point there. I think that soviet/russian parts are often made without putting in them more work if function is attained (other than a bit for looks, if they are to be seen). That exactly why, even if they look odd at first, they probably have a somehow hidden (for another mindset) but clever functional reason, for which they are made on purpose.
It seems that russian grips actually require more work than modern style grips, because carving the hand shape inside instead than over the block of wood is more difficult (or at least it seems). So why work so much - in the aforementioned soviet mindset - over something that isn't functionally needed (again, that much wood over the hand)?
(On the other hand - no pun intended - I may be a bit influenced by the pen vs. pencil story...)
spektr, you have a point there. I think that soviet/russian parts are often made without putting in them more work if function is attained (other than a bit for looks, if they are to be seen). That exactly why, even if they look odd at first, they probably have a somehow hidden (for another mindset) but clever functional reason, for which they are made on purpose.
It seems that russian grips actually require more work than modern style grips, because carving the hand shape inside instead than over the block of wood is more difficult (or at least it seems). So why work so much - in the aforementioned soviet mindset - over something that isn't functionally needed (again, that much wood over the hand)?
(On the other hand - no pun intended - I may be a bit influenced by the pen vs. pencil story...)