Which, indeed, is part of the problem. It's designed to serve the story (unlike most firearms in TV/movies), and to look "cool". It doesn't necessarily follow that it would make sense. Having the pistol grip boost the endurance/output of the Cricket (that was the nickname for the TNG Type 1) looks cool, doesn't necessarily play out as logical because it, at least, adds another potential point of failure. Also, in at least one episode of the original series, a phaser is shown being destroyed, and about the only reason not to try to use the Type 1 that was part of it was possibly the damaging of the emitter.

>I know this is not exactly a dramatic revelation. Star Trek's
>technology has always been more about how it looks than what it's
>supposed to do, because at its core, Star Trek is basically
>high fantasy with the magic dressed up like technology. We all knew
>this, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself. I'd just never
>considered this particular bit of in-story technology in this light
>before, so it was a bit of a surprise.

Most of the Trek universe is like that. Like wandering around in shirt sleeves right next to the antimatter reactor; no real-life organization is going to let any crewmember near that thing without serious anti-hazard measures taken, on account of the slight chance its going to "spring a leak" (TNG: Drumhead, where when the hatch blew off, if proper safety protocols were being followed I doubt they would have had engineering crew in for radiation burns). You just happened to find an avenue that I haven't seen most people exploring in print, so to speak, although I'm sure some other firearms people have noticed how garbage the design is from a usability and safety standpoint.