[SPG Edit]

First, if it matters, Keith Brown calls them 'stocks, while Nill calls them 'grips', so I imagine both will do.

Next, I have to admit these aren't the best pics, but I think they suffice to illustrate a few of the differences well enough. In particular, though, the colors are not very accurate.

Both grips are mounted on S&W 617s, but one has a square-butt frame, and the other is a round-butt. The older gun also wears a dot scope, which limited safely mounting it in my small angle vise to just two positions.

On the upside, these two rear-view pics are pretty close to the same 'scale' and nearly the same angle.

Keith Brown 'Stocks' on Square-Butt Model 617

Nill-Griffe 'Grips' on Round-Butt Model 617-1 (Square-Butt 'Conversion' Type)

These two quartering views were much more difficult to match up, but I'd say they came out reasonably close.

Keith Brown

Nill-Griffe

Comments

The Keith Brown stocks are arguably nicer to look at, but I think the Nill grips beat them in just about every other respect.

The Nill grips fit the gun better, and because they have a tightly-fitted, stainless-steel dowl pin centered in their lowermost section, they absolutely do *NOT* rotate around the grip screw like most other stocks do − including these by Keith Brown. In addition, the 'fit line' between the two halves of the Nill grips is so close they feel like a single piece of wood (the Keith Brown stocks are pretty 'close', too − but not that close).

While many prefer smooth grips − and I often do − the checkering on the Nill grips feels just right, at least to me. There are a few overruns, and probably other flaws I haven't noticed yet, but none seem very likely to be fatal.

The Nill grips are also fatter, but they are nowhere square, so they do not feel blocky. Instead, they simply feel very solid in the hand, I think due in part to their girth. In particular, the much wider filler of the Nill grips provides a significantly more solid base of operations; both the gun and trigger pull feel lighter, an effect that is minimized by the skinnier filler of the Keith Brown stocks.

Returning to the looks department for a moment, while I greatly admire Keith Brown's ability and talent, I always thought his finishes looked a little too modern, especially considering the other elements of his style. To be honest,
I think the oil finish on the Nill grips might look even better on the Keith Brown stocks, but that's just my opinion.

The bottom line? If I could only have one, I would choose Nill grips.

Sources

• Keith Brown

• Nill-Griffe

--

My first pair of "custom grips" came from Herretts about 1961 and I have had many by then since as well as by other makes like Bear Hug, Blu-Magnum, Kurack, Craig Cary, Scott Kolar and a number of others.

None of them have fit my hand as well as the ones I modify myself from cheap Herretts Shooting Star grips I buy cheap. I remove the thumb shelf/bulge, remove the checkering to thin them and remove the flair at the bottom. They may not be fancy, but they sure fit my hand good and shoot well.

The subject of grips is very personal, but this is where I am at after laying out a small fortune to custom grip makers over the decades. Here are 2 Ks,an N frame and a Colt I have modified. I have more. I have about $15 to $25 in each pair. Often the walnut is to light in color to suit my fancy, so I will stain the wood. Finish is most often BLO topped by a good wax.

Charles, I'm right with you on the reshaped Shooting Stars. There used to be an older fellow who made all the gun shows around here and dealt mostly in grips and magazines. He always had a big box of used grips for $5-$10 a pair. I'd spend a half hour or more pawing through that box looking for scuffed-up S&W and Herret grips to cut down. Those Herrets always had lots more wood on them than they needed, and there was usually some nice wood under the ugly brown finish.