I like wood grips from an aesthetic point of view, but they're all to slick for my preference. Of course, I'm the kind of guy who glues sandpaper to the grip of his P30 because it doesn't have enough purchase, so...
I like wood grips from an aesthetic point of view, but they're all to slick for my preference. Of course, I'm the kind of guy who glues sandpaper to the grip of his P30 because it doesn't have enough purchase, so...
Wooden autopistol grips are usually too thin to checker aggressively. The checkered Eagle "Secret Service" stocks on my PC13 will darn near draw blood with heavy loads. They grip like an 18-lpi 1911 frontstrap.Originally Posted by TCinVA
I prefer wood grips on revolvers and non-polymer framed pistols and will always choose this option when possible. Tamara is quite correct about checkering needing a thicker grip to work sufficiently but the checkering process in turn thins the grip. Un-checkered grips become slippery when they’ve had a high gloss finish applied to them that completely fill the wood pours or long term sweat and grime build up. Deglaze the grip surface and hand rub a small amount of Tung oil into the surface, then periodically wipe the grips panels and lightly rub in a bit of Tung oil.
Seriously? Choosing wood over plastic, rubber, or something else means a person's mindset is all wrong and that person isn't nearly as capable with their weapon? What about leather over Kydex, or AIWB vs. strong side? Do those factors alone also dictate a person's mindset? I'd want to know the reasons for choosing wood over other material before I jump to any conclusions regarding someone's mindset. (i.e. was wood chosen over something else because it is less abrasive to bare skin when carried IWB all day?)
BTW, I carry a P225 with factory PLASTIC checkered grips.
Thanks for the replies! A lot of good insight here.
In the end, form followed function and I now have a pair of the standard Beretta plastic grips on the gun. For whatever reason, the rubber grips for the compact were noticeably thicker than they are for the full sized gun and this caused issues with the pistol hanging up on the holster and most importantly issues with me operating the safety/decock and mag release. I put the original wood grips on and cut a couple coils on the magazine catch spring which alleviated the issues somewhat but I was still having issues dropping the magazine and was considering going to an extended magazine catch - not something I really wanted to do on a CCW gun. Luckily I was able to find someone on the Beretta Forum who was willing to trade me their OEM plastic grips for my rubber grips. The plastic grips are still thinner and are better recessed around the magazine release making mag changes easier (I still have to shift my grip when dropping a magazine but that is the case with all my Beretta's save my Elite with extended mag release).
So, the moral of my story - material of the grip doesn't matter as much as its ability to allow you to operate the gun's controls and hold onto it when it is rocking and rolling. I see that Hogue does make some "extreme" G-10 grips that are supposed to be ultra thin, but at $75, I really would want to see them before I buy them.
Anyhow a little bit of gun porn of my compact with the sexy wood grips and with the plain Jane plastic grips. Notice how much better recessed the plastic grips are around the magazine release.
what kind of holster are you using? I just picked up a TLR-1 and MR11 rail adapter for my 92.
I am still on the lookout for extra thin grips for my 92 Compact. I tried the Hogue rubber grips assuming they were thinner, but they weren't. My fullsize 92 is sporting Trausch grips, which seriously makes it feel like a single stack gun.
Yeah, I found the Hogue grips to be way too thick for the compact. Funny thing is they are much better on the full size. Trausch doesn't make compact grips which is a bummer, Hogue may make a thinner G-10 grip but I haven't seen it yet. They say they are super thin but given their rubber grip I just don't trust them.
I'm running two different holsters usually, a Boarder Patrol Don Hume holster or a Safariland 6378 ALS. The ALS was the one that the rubber grips would get caught up on. I don't think it really mattered, but there was definitely rubbing. I run the gun with the light on, which is why I like the TICK rail as it mounts and dismounts the gun real easily. I really like my ALS, but I don't know if it will work with a rail or not.
I think I am going to buy the TICK rail unless anybody knows of any particular issues with it...does it work with newer 92s with a slanted dustcover? My Surefire MR11 rail is very secure, but I need an f-ing hammer to take it off and put it back on.
Last edited by shootist26; 03-13-2012 at 09:12 PM.
The TICK won't work stock with the newer dustcover, that is its big disadvantage
But you may be able to make one work by putting some material towards the front of the TICK in order to get it level. I have the streamlight adapter as well and I like the TICK much better for ease of use.
Wood may have turned the corner to being more "tactical" over the past few years. We know that "black is whack" on weapons now since it is commonly known as "target indicator black" instead of "tactical black", while wood is naturally more camouflage-ee and much closer to being the same color as the "new tactical black" which we know is flat dark earth.
Seriously though, especially on revolvers, I'm with Tam, wood works just fine and better than many of the available alternatives.
On a side note and only marginally on topic, I went back to a wood baton, a couple of various lengths actually, for use at work a few years ago, like the grip and handling better than any plastic or expandable baton available on the market. Step out of the car on a bar fight call with three feet of Monadnock brand hard wood and people tend to part like the Red Sea.
Reply With Quote
