Practicality of stocked pistols?

[Sam1911]

"it's so unwieldy as a pistol to be very nearly unusable as it "

I would have to disagree with that statement. I've put pretty many rounds down range with mine although it is better with the shoulder stock.

I think we often get lost in our conversations because we're all looking at things from our own particular angle.

The practicality question comes into play when you're focusing on what a service style handgun is for. Fast response to fairly close-in targets, used defensively 99% of the time. Fast on target, fast transitions, powerful enough to have an effect, but soft enough shooting for quick recovery and short split times.

An AR "pistol" is relatively useless for that. It is truly nothing more than a rifle without a stock. The worst of both worlds. From that perspective.

For sitting at the range bench or plinking on a sunny afternoon at the range, an AR pistol is as practical as it needs to be -- for that task.

But that's not what the idea of stocked pistols (like the old Colts, or Mausers, or the HKs more recently) were designed for.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I agree with Sam.

That is why one keeps the pistol as a pistol, but just have a locking mechanism in the back so the holster/stock can be extended and attached on demand.

Might not demand it much, but it's there if needed.

Deaf

 

[jmorris]

Not sure about "practical" but adding a stock does add to the control the user has. That said the only ones I have used were all on machine guns and while making them more useable I have never fired any that could match the accuracy of my single shot and bolt action unstocked pistols.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Deaf,

You wrote, "Now a shoulder stock will put the handgun just maybe a inch or two closer (unless you like real short stocks)."

Well, stocks intended as holsters, including those with a leather holster attached, are short. A conventional two-hand hold puts the pistol muzzle well over two feet from the left ear (measure it!). With a gun like the BHP with its holster stock, the muzzle is less than half that distance if the shooter is careful to extend the gun straight out from the right shoulder. If the shooter angles the gun across the body (as would be instinctive), the muzzle is only about a foot from the ear.

So unless your proposed stock is a couple of feet long or more (in which case it becomes even more of an additional burden and excess baggage), I still consider the idea impractical. A short, light carbine/SMG has advantages, but a gun like the UZI or STEN was never intended to be fired with one hand or to be carried in a holster like a pistol. (The Secret Service tried it with the UZI, but went to the briefcase instead.)

Jim

 

[Deaf Smith]

Jim,

That is why I said for the back of the kydex holster to have the attachment inside it. One pulls the polymer arm from the bottom out to the desired length. Say a holster for a Glock would be about almost a 12 inches long, and a back panel can be almost that length. It might pull out 8 inches in all to give enough distance. Then it attaches to the butt of the Glock.

As for having a SMG or whatever, that is fine. But if one does not have that SMG or carbine they can simply use the handgun and attach the stock. You don't have to give anything up. You can have that M4 and still have the handgun in the holster... and that holster can become a stock if need by.

Deaf

 

[jmorris]

So unless your proposed stock is a couple of feet long or more (in which case it becomes even more of an additional burden and excess baggage), I still consider the idea impractical. A short, light carbine/SMG has advantages, but a gun like the UZI or STEN was never intended to be fired with one hand or to be carried in a holster like a pistol. (The Secret Service tried it with the UZI, but went to the briefcase instead.)

A very good point. Note the LOP difference between the Glock stock above and the "M16" it is laying on, a big difference.

 

[barnbwt]

"If the shooter angles the gun across the body (as would be instinctive), the muzzle is only about a foot from the ear."

If a compact weapon is what is desired/needed, and if we have sighting options that negate the detriment of short radii, why is this a bad thing? Because if you need a small gun --which has always been the assertion for PDW/stocked pistols-- you won't get it from anything that puts the muzzle two feet from your ear. Yes it will be loud, but that isn't the only consideration for design (nor has it ever really been a consideration at all, historically, come to think of it)

Deaf Smith;
Now what would be cool is a Kydex retention holster, wherein the user presses a button and pushes the pistol through the device, sliding the stock elements to the back and latching into place while simultaneously disengaging the belt attachment. Sort of like those Soviet Makarov shoulder holsters that would turn off the safety and rack the slide when shoved out the bottom in a hurry. I suppose you could even design the thing to function as usual when the same release is pressed and the handgun pulled up instead of pushed downward.

"Using an AR "pistol" is cheating. Of course a gun that is designed as a rifle will balance and shoot better as a rifle. Or an Uzi, or w/e heavy, bulky machine pistol you are thinking of."
Pistol. Yes. Exactly. Service size. It's not like we're talking about putting a stock on a compact carry gun, these are Berettas that are probably bigger and heavier (but narrower) than an Uzi Pro. But unlike Berettas, the only firearm platform that readers here are familiar with in both pistol and rifle formats to draw comparisons from, is the AR15. Heavy guns have to have stocks, whereas pistols can merely benefit from them.

"How accurate is a Glock with a Stock?"
Probably as accurate as a Glock off sandbags, and for the exact same reason.

TCB

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Don't have to shoot full auto except when lots of them are coming over the top of the trenches.

You don't have to shoot full auto from a hand-held weapon, period.

All full auto does is empty your magazine faster and give you more misses.

 

[armoredman]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but from the comments here, I think the only sidearm people might agree that would be good with a stock would be the new Glock 40 with MOS mounted.

http://us.glock.com/mos

Where would this be useful? Survival/Evasion/Escape, maybe? Make the "stock/holster" a sling or bandoleer mount than can be thrown on in a hurry, and twisted up to mount in a hurry for long range shots in desperation. 10mm might be able to make the grade.

Alaskan Bush Pistol survival sidearm, maybe. Its a small niche, but who knows, there might be a spot for it somewhere...

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yea, the 10 mm or its cousin.. the 9x25 Dillon, a necked down 10 mm. 125 gr slugs at 1800 fps.

I think there is a stock already made that does not actually attach to the gun (and thus not NFA). It half way wraps around the grip but does not attach to it. Might be a good way to test the concept.

Deaf

 

[jmorris]

All full auto does is empty your magazine faster and give you more misses.

Pretty much across the board I have seen full auto be much more effective than semiauto at putting smiles on faces....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Pretty much across the board I have seen full auto be much more effective than semiauto at putting smiles on faces....

I have seen just the opposite. When I was a Company Commander, it was an automatic Article 15 to fire an M16 in full auto. Of course, I trained my people.

 

[jmorris]

I have seen just the opposite. When I was a Company Commander, it was an automatic Article 15 to fire an M16 in full auto.

Yeah if there is punishment, that would take the fun out of it.

 

[Edarnold]

(Quote)Setting aside NFA issues and the AR arm brace nonsense, I wonder if anyone has any personal experience that they could share with ordinary pistols used with shouder stocks? I mean pistols issued with stocks like some models of the Browning HP or Mauser C96 and Glocks with aftermarket stocks (not full carbine conversions, and of course with the legalities duly observed).

I have always thought that the idea seemed good in principle in the PDW role -- a weapon for folks encumbered with other equipment or performing another role that can't or just don't want to carry a rifle. You still have the ability to draw and fire a pistol on short notice, but once the bad guys are in the area and you are on alert, attaching a stock and sling would make for a much more effective weapon out to 50 or even 100 meters. Yet the stocked pistol in any form is pretty rare.

Holsterable, stocked SMGs (or semi-auto variants) with the stock permanently attached (like the old CZ Skorpion, Steyr TMP-derived B&T MP9 and even the H&K MP7) blur the lines even further.

I am just curious how practical a stocked pistol is in the real world. (Quote)
Wow. Just, wow.
In the true spirit of the Internet, this topic has gotten four responses from people who have EXPERIENCE firing a stocked pistol, and about forty responses from people who feel compelled to share their OPINION.
As a member of the former group, I figure that gives me dibs on offering some of my opinion. As 'barnbwt' pointed out in his post, the holster-stock is not meant for concealed carry, nor for use with your 12ounce mini-micro .380. Full-size service pistols are the guns that have been given the stock treatment in the past for the obvious reasons. Drivers, artillery men, logistics personnel and such have always been the people issued pistols instead of rifles, because their job makes carrying a rifle impractical. Wishing you had an M4 somehow attached to you doesn't make it so.
According to their posts, the majority of the responders to this topic feel they can hit a pie-plate at 50 yards every time with their trusty sidearm. For the 99% of us that can't manage that feat, a stocked pistol would be a real advantage. A stocked pistol is not intended for quick-draw competitions or encounters with bad-guys in a dark alley. As long as the holster does not impede ready access to the pistol when needed, there is no disadvantage to having it except for some added bulk and weight.
The holster is a natural for the cheek piece, while the total 12" length or so needed to get a 14" LOP could easily be provided by a telescoping extension attaching to the slot on the back of the grip. We have the advantage of materials like carbon-fiber composites which would reduce weight of the extension to a few ounces. So, when you need the extra stability and long range accuracy for a threatened engagement, you unsnap the holster, extend the stock and snap it in place. What's not to like, unless you are one of the 1% pistoleros who don't need no stinking stock? Hey, somebody could come up with a 3-gun match that leaves out the rifle and substitutes the same pistol but with the stock.
By the way, add one more stocked pistol: the Beretta 93R, which even in 3-shot burst mode and with the stock attached is a handful to control. At least with the stock attached you would be less likely to cap yourself.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Now a shoulder stock will put the handgun just maybe a inch or two closer (unless you like real short stocks)."

My C96 from Post #36, shoulder stock, yard stick.

C96 as a shoulder gun: Placing my cheek on the comb of the C96 stock in normal shoulder gun firing position, my right ear ends up about 20 to 21 inches from the muzzle.

C96 as a handgun: Holding the gun in my usual two handed hold, both arms flexed for comfort/recoil absorbtion, my right ear is about 30 to 32 inches from the muzzle. Extending both arms, it's about 34 inches earhole to muzzle.

10-12 inches means the muzzle is about 30% closer as a carbine. The pressure from muzzle blast that reaches the ear increases exponentially the closer the muzzle is to the ear.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But you're using a stock that was designed as a holster, not as a stock.

The stock I experimented with puts the gun in the same position it would be if I were using an isosceles stance.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Carl,

If you think that 2 inches closer is going to matter so much.... Go tell the Arny their M4s are many inches closer to their ears than the Marines M16A3s (20 inch barrels.)

Remember the REAL M4 does NOT have a 16 inch barrel. It has a 14.5 inch barrel.

And 2 inches? A 4 inch barrel revolver .vs. a 2 inch snub. So do we not use snub revolvers?

Don't worry about it so much.

Deaf

 

[barnbwt]

Plus, bullpups?

Also, why is the Krinkov so wildly popular (for war, even) if it is logically the most impractical weapon imaginable? Could it be that noise/blast is a distant concern compared to size for people ducking out of vehicles and manning other equipment?

TCB

 

[paracordkydexcummins]

The coolest pistol with a stock that is a production gun is the browning buckmark rifle