I’m embarrassed to occasionally let slip with the word “grips” when discussing a S&W revolver. We all know better. This faux pas is the mark of an unsophisticated S&W collector. That’s me.
Gripped with this controversy, let’s take stock of our terminology. Handle it correctly. Here’s the word from SCSW 4th:
That makes it official and easy to understand. Stocks represent quality while grips represent cheap.
This issue concerns me. My stock of S&W revolvers includes some that were shipped with GRIPS! Yes, from the factory! It’s an internal plot or conspiracy - nothing short of fraud. This is not Fake News.
Collectors rely on Letters of Authenticity to document that our prized possessions are original and correct. It’s really hard for me to handle this confession, but I must come to grips with my disappointment.
Let me warn those of you who put stock in originality. When I die, my executor will surely try to market these bogus revolvers. Be forewarned. These are very clever fakes. Don’t handle them.
44 HE 1st Model (Triple Lock), s/n 15
The gripping fraud, rooted at the factory, goes back to 1909 or before. Be careful.
44 HE 1st Model (Triple Lock), cal. .455 Eley, s/n 12787
Yes, the factory shipped this with grips in 1917. S&W evidently tried to palm off grips to our overseas cousins in their time of very urgent need. The Brits were too clever to be fooled. They handled the problem wisely and wouldn’t add this to their stock of trouble. Shamefully, S&W sent it to the U.S. heartland instead.
44 HE Third Model Transition, s/n S63507
It shipped with grips. But even worse, the right grip is stamped with the serial number. An unsuspecting buyer wouldn’t get a handle on this problem without taking careful stock of the letter.
.44 Magnum, s/n S160497
Can you believe it? It’s bogus for sure. Shipped with grips. What would Elmer think about this?
The problem isn’t limited to N frame revolvers.
K32 Masterpiece, s/n K255405
Yep, bogus. Shipped with grips. The factory stamped the right grip with its serial number too.
You may find my situation amusing. Laugh if you care to. Even grip your sides in hysterics if you must. But just remember, it could happen to you. My therapist advised, "The only way to get a grip on these emotions is to let it out." That's why I'm making this post.
In closing, my stock advice is to handle all S&W revolvers with suspicion. They may have grips. Each of you should take stock in your own situation. You may have grips too.
If you have sympathy for my gripping report, punch the "Like" button. I may feel better.
...all I want for Christmas is a set of grips in my stock-ing... or is it a set of stocks in my socks. I probably need to get a grip on this before I send my letter to one of Santa's stock-ing clerks, otherwise the grips I receive may have to be returned and be re-stocked...
You should never count on the SCSW, 4th Edition for accuracy in terminology. For example, I give you the exhaustive use of the term "ball détente lockup" when referencing a revised lockup system, when the proper terminology is "ball detent lockup". Why on earth the authors of this book think locking systems and global politics share any commonality is beyond any reason.
This term is scattered throughout SCSW, 4th Edition, but one example, off the top of my head is located on page 303, Variation 625-6 "V-Comp".
Read it and weep.
__________________
Dave Brown
SWCA #3279
Last edited by D Brown; 12-13-2017 at 02:02 PM.
Reason: Edited to close quote.
Extractor/ejector, crane/yoke, hand,pawl... (yawn...) I appreciate clarity in written and spoken communication, put I get bored with overly pedantic OCD snobs.
Last edited by Warren Sear; 12-13-2017 at 02:31 PM.
Extractor/ejector, crane/yoke, hand,pawl... (yawn...) I appreciate clarity in written and spoken communication, put I get bored with overly pedantic OCD snobs.
Didn't you know...
This stuff is critically important. Otherwise, it wouldn't be posted on the internet.
"Stocks are on long guns.
Handguns have grips.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it."
I observe that throughout the latest S&W product catalog, those things on handguns are always referred to as..."Grips." And never as "Stocks." That should remove any doubts as to what they should be called. "Ergonomic checkered target grips"
"Crimson Trace® Lasergrips® for low-light shooting"
"Ergonomic, textured grip for a confident hold"
"Scalloped E-Series™ laminate wood grips for better grip and control"
"Shock absorbing grips"
"Three interchangeable, newly enhanced, textured palmswell grip sizes to fit any hand size"
"Ergonomic grips for a more comfortable grip"
"Elegant wood grips with aggressive checkering to give a better hand-hold on the firearm"
I personally tend to refer to target stocks as "stocks", and everything else as "grips."
Sort of like some past threads here in which it was contended that Sam Colt was ignorant and incorrect when he called his products "pistols" because everyone knows that he really should have called them "revolvers."
Someone will probably cringe when I call my revolver a SPINNER ..... geez.
A spinner? I've never heard anyone call a wheelgun that. A roscoe? Sure. A heater? Sure. A hogleg? Sure. A gat? Sure. A piece? Sure. But never ever a spinner.
I often will use the two words grip and stock together because I was taught in a creative writing class that it is often considered boring to repeat yourself, use your vocabulary...
On another thought the terms "lock, stock and barrel" do refer to long-guns, but then do they? Not necessarily true because the flint-lock and early percussion single shot pistols were built on the same basic platform, lending the term stock to refer to the wood used as a handle and support for the barrel,lock and trigger mechanism.
To further add confusion to this issue of grips and stocks, back in the bad old days when I was messing around with AK-47 variants what do ya think some of those people used for a reference to the wood or plastic pieces commonly used...furniture....I could not believe it when I first ran across the usage. If you were looking at modifying the portions of the firearm like the forearm or butt-stock or grip you were looking at furniture modification, then there were discussions about "Soviet Bloc" vs "NATO" specifications...if you think for a minute that this grip vs stock thing is complicated you ain't heard nothing yet.
Sort of like some past threads here in which it was contended that Sam Colt was ignorant and incorrect when he called his products "pistols" because everyone knows that he really should have called them "revolvers."
Just don't call them "six guns".
Some inventors at the dawn of the automotive industry used to call their product a "horseless carriage". Just because someone invented it, does not necessarily mean they named it correctly!
Last edited by Warren Sear; 12-13-2017 at 07:55 PM.
Some inventors at the dawn of thge autromotive industry used to call their product a "horseless carriage". Just because someone invented it, does not necessarily mean they named it correctly!
I love posting things to the S&W Forum on my car phone, especially when I am driving around in my 4wd Honda horseless carriage.
.....
I observe that throughout the latest S&W product catalog, those things on handguns are always referred to as..."Grips." And never as "Stocks." That should remove any doubts as to what they should be called.
.....
It would be interesting to check the sequence of catalogs to determine at which point they switched, as the old ones used stocks exclusively.
But for those who want to be “terminology Nazis”: I’m tempted to check your old posts to find out how often you used the term “checkered wood”. As you can see from this S&W catalog, there is no such thing: S&W stocks only come in “checked wood” .
I use both terms, depending on who's listening. Around here, I try to use "stocks", as well as other correct nomenclature. With people who don't know any better, and who I'm not in fear of being criticized, chastised, mocked and ridiculed by, I use "grips".
What I'd like to know, though, is why we keep saying "recessed" when it's clearly "counterbored"?
Hello, I’ve been GRIPGRABBER @ SASS since 94. Now I am questioning reality in my life! Should I change my name to STOCKGRABBER??? Doesn’t have a ring to it like GRIPGRABBER.
HOW ABOUT STOCKY GRIPGRABBER? I am over weight.
Wow this tread is fun! LOL
SEMPER PARATUS
But for those who want to be “terminology Nazis”: I’m tempted to check your old posts to find out how often you used the term “checkered wood”. As you can see from this S&W catalog, there is no such thing: S&W stocks only come in “checked wood” .
Except the 2017 S&W catalog uses "checkered."
"Ergonomic checkered target grips"
"Elegant wood grips with aggressive checkering to give a better hand-hold on the firearm"
As one of the OCD weirdos maligned above and a proponent of the terms stocks, yoke and checked when referring to Smith and Wesson's I will offer my reasoning for your consideration.
I have been studying S&W's for almost 50 years. The early catalogs published during the reign of the founders used the above terms. Once control of the company was no longer held by the Wesson family in the mid 60's, the use of these terms waned. Even the S&W historian writing the history letters used the terms that were more conventionally known within the firearm community such as grips and checkered. That is their choice.
However, as a student of the Smith and Wesson legacy and out of respect for the founders, I choose to use the terms that they began with.
Compared to cancer or nuclear war with North Korea it is of small significance however as a way of honoring Horace and Daniel, I will continue.
There is no written historical evidence as to why these terms were used. Long guns made in the mid 1800's had wood stocks. Perhaps that is the reason. As far as the yoke/crane usage, I have often wondered if the boys chose that term just to be different than their largest competitor from Connecticut.
We may never know but as I said I will continue the tradition and honor the founders without whom we would be on a different forum perhaps talking about pan heads.
I came to terms with this issue by calling real S&W Grips, Stocks. So if S&W Made them I call them stocks.
If someone else made them, I call them grips.
Technically speaking I think the term probably should be stocks, but grips does make more sense on a handgun given that a stock is now so synonymous with long guns.
Really though, I was sort of primed to accept the term because when I first got into guns I found the old guys called them clips, and the young guys called them mags. The old guys had the stuff I wanted to buy, but the young guys were technically correct.
Thing about being technically correct is that it is annoying. Being "right" should not trump being pleasant to be around. I'll stick to my formula, it seems to work with Stocks and Grips and Clips and Mags.
I'll save my energy to fight people who try to tell me I am doing physical harm to them for not recognizing their gender identity of Two-spirit because I am clearly a cisgendered nazi dripping with toxic masculinity and whiteness.
This world is getting way too weird to worry about whether to call them grips or stocks.
Going back to the 1944 Gun Digest, in its catalog section (which really represented S&W's pre-WWII offerings), "Checkering," not "Checking," is used throughout. As is "Stocks."
"As far as the yoke/crane usage, I have often wondered if the boys chose that term just to be different than their largest competitor from Connecticut."
Very possibly so, as Colt came out with hand ejectors having "cranes" before S&W did.
So let me see if I have this correct; the Wesson Grip Adapter (or is that Adaptor ) is a grip adapter and not a stock adapter because it adapts my grip on the stocks, correct?
Perhaps they're handles afixed to the grip frame...
I've always heard that the Colt weenies call them stocks while S&W weenies refer to them as grips.
A bigger concern to me is calling a firearm a "weapon" when in reality it's a bullet launcher or simply a perforating device. The word weapon gives guns a negative, offensive conotation that only gives fuel to the anti-gun crowd.
Thanks to the OP for starting this quest for balance...I dug out my 1940 Stoeger "Shooter's Bible" and looked up Smith and Wesson Heavy Frame Revolvers: Under specifications it lists-Stocks: Especially selected Circassian Walnut with monograms and S&W checking. Choice of standard S&W stocks with Wesson Grip Adapter, or the new MAGNA stocks as shown in illustration.
Then just for laughs I looked up Colt Target Revolvers: Under specifications it lists-Stocks: Checked Walnut
On none of the listings for Colt revolvers does it once say anything but Stocks. But on the same page the is listed "Colt Fancy Pearl and Ivory Grips" But then under the description it reads: All genuine Colt Pearl or Ivory stocks are identified by the rampant Colt medallion.
No wonder some of us have been confused for decades...
To further add to the confusion I went forward a couple of pages to find custom aftermarket stocks for Smith and Wesson revolvers and found....Finest Quality Pearl, Ivory and Stag Grips: Through-out the explanation of the product this character mentions grips at least three times, never once mention stocks . By the way getting a Steer or Eagle Head carved on your Pearl, Ivory or Stag Grips cost an extra $5.00, a fully flying American or Mexican Eagle $9.00
I suspect if it came down to a quiz between you and the authors, you'd be crying and sucking your thumb in a corner fairly quickly . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by D Brown
You should never count on the SCSW, 4th Edition for accuracy in terminology. For example, I give you the exhaustive use of the term "ball détente lockup" when referencing a revised lockup system, when the proper terminology is "ball detent lockup". Why on earth the authors of this book think locking systems and global politics share any commonality is beyond any reason.
This term is scattered throughout SCSW, 4th Edition, but one example, off the top of my head is located on page 303, Variation 625-6 "V-Comp".
Read it and weep.
I am one of those "stock snobs." I agree with JSR III above. Both Smith & Wesson and Colt used "stocks" exclusively in the "early day." In the "early day" is when the finest products were made. I began using "stocks" in my "early days" of collecting more than a half century ago and see no reason to change now.
As a point of interest, all Colt archive letters use the term "stocks." I further note that when Colt first used "g***s" in its catalogs is when things began to go bad for Colt. Coincidence? I don't think so. The Gun God does not like such blasphemy and she clearly has punished Colt for it. Take heed all of you who take this matter lightly. You could be next. Don't say you weren't warned.
Stocks? Grips? Get a handle on it!
I probably need to get a grip on this before I send my letter to one of Santa's stock-ing clerks, otherwise the grips I receive may have to be returned and be re-stocked...
) is a grip adapter and not a stock adapter because it adapts my grip on the stocks, correct? 
Linear Mode
