Steyr & Morini - The Grips

Oz · Post by Oz » Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 pm

*sigh* I thought my decision had been made in this debate. About a month ago, I was able to hold a couple unmodified LP10's as well as an unmodified 162. At that time, I SWEAR that the 162 grip felt significantly different (and for me, better).

After today's match, I got to hold a couple of 162's again, and I dry-fired a barely modified LP10. The grips this time felt nearly identical. The 162's I was holding were the older versions (with the funky batteries). The LP10 was relatively new.

At some point, did the newer 162's begin to use a different type of Morini grip? On the other hand, at some point, did LP10's ever use different grips?

toznerd · Post by **toznerd** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:47 pm

"At some point, did the newer 162's begin to use a different type of Morini grip? On the other hand, at some point, did LP10's ever use different grips?"

Yes. There is a difference in the "tang" aka the section that comes over the top of your hand. The Old style has the "50mm compliant" tang. It is shorter and has a different profile than the new style. The newer tang is longer, perpendicular to the vertical axis of the pistol, and curves down toward the wrist. There is significantly more contact over the top of the hand with the newer style grip.

toznerd

Oz · Post by Oz » Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:08 pm

That's it! That is exactly the difference I noticed when holding the newer 162. Well, I'm assuming that you're talking about the grips on the 162's, with longer tang, right?

Also, how I interpreted your comment, is that the old 162 grip _IS_ ISSF compliant while the newer 162 grip is not (unless requested at the time of purchase)?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:50 am

toznerd wrote:The Old style has the "50mm compliant" tang.

I don't understand. What is "50mm compliant"? Compliant with what?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:57 am

Oz wrote:Also, how I interpreted your comment, is that the old 162 grip _IS_ ISSF compliant while the newer 162 grip is not (unless requested at the time of purchase)?

I'm not sure how to interpret toznerd's comment.

162 grips have always been generally compliant with ISSF rules. I use the word "generally" because, in common with virtually every grip manufacturer, you might find some examples which do not comply.

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:12 am

The first series 162 grips comply with the 30mm rule, so the grips could be used in standard pistol, too. Those grips are compatible with the 102E. I remember that there was a uncertainty for a long time about whether the 30mm rule was relevant for AP or not. At some time in the 90s, it was decided that AP grips could be longer in that part above the hand, but without curving downwards to the sides. Both grips are and have been at every time ISSF compliant. There are also other differences in the grip design, as the first series grips seem to be designed by Cesare himself (early 90s), and the later series 162 grips were made by Ciro, and there are several interim stages. IMHO the he most obvious variance would be the position of the thumb. 162's can be dated vaguely by the type of electronics, but there is a significant time frame when both variants were produced.

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:44 am

The grip of the LP10 was also changed over the time => its possible that the several LP10 you have tried had different shape of grip.

Note also that the new ISSF rules might also imply changes in grip shape for new pistols.

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:24 am

Another fact is that two grips on pistols made one after another may feel different.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:38 am

jipe wrote:The grip of the LP10 was also changed over the time => its possible that the several LP10 you have tried had different shape of grip.

Note also that the new ISSF rules might also imply changes in grip shape for new pistols.

What changes?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:38 am

Anonymous wrote:
jipe wrote:The grip of the LP10 was also changed over the time => its possible that the several LP10 you have tried had different shape of grip.

Note also that the new ISSF rules might also imply changes in grip shape for new pistols.
What changes?

The only change on grips, apart from rule numbering, is that the word "Griffachse" has become "Axis of grip". The meaning and requirements of the rules have not changed.

toznerd · Post by **toznerd** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:24 am

Sorry about the confusion. To be clear, both old and new Morini 162 grips are and have been UIT and then ISSF compliant.

Tycho got it correct concerning my mistyped overhang dimension; I meant 30mm, not 50mm (thats the max width!). Like Tycho, I seem to recall that there may have been a limit on the overhang on 10M pistol gips up until sometime in the very early 90s.

Feinwerkbau also evolved their overhang dimension at the same time. Compare a C-10/20 grip from the mid eighties with a later C-20/25, P-30 grip from the mid-nineties. Unfortunately, their grips were still "primitive" compared to other makers like Morini, Knill, Kuechler, etc...

Sorry again for the confusion.

Easy tens,

toznerd

edster99 · Post by **edster99** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:16 am

LP10s have come with Morini and Steyr grips, as well... I have a CM grip that doesnt work at all for me, and a steyr grip for my LP10 which is great. I think there have been a lot of different variations over time.

JulianY · Post by **JulianY** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:50 am

edster99 wrote:LP10s have come with Morini and Steyr grips, as well... I have a CM grip that doesnt work at all for me, and a steyr grip for my LP10 which is great. I think there have been a lot of different variations over time.

I believe you are correct. they have changed over time.

Personally, I cant work with either morini or styer. but Rink fit like a glove in my hand :)

Julian