Practicality of stocked pistols?

[cluttonfred]

I think when you look at the plethora of PDW and bullpup designs out there today that take advantage of longer barrels, it really negates the utility of the old addable stock guns like Lugers and a few revolvers, if they had any utility to begin with that is.

Which begs the question, why oh why isn't anyone making a cheap, blowback, bullpup pistol caliber carbine styled like (but much simpler than) a Steyr AUG or FN PS90? It would have to be better looking than a Hi Point (isn't everything?) and wouldn't have to be any more expensive. But that's another thread.... ;-)

 

[BobWright]

Seems to me if you've got time to attach a shoulder stock to your pistol, you've got time to grab a rifle. A soldier is trained to use a rifle, infantry or not.

Bob Wright

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I wish to god Springfield would come out with an XDm line bullpup carbine of some kind.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Seems to me if you've got time to attach a shoulder stock to your pistol, you've got time to grab a rifle. A soldier is trained to use a rifle, infantry or not.

Bob Wright

If there is a rifle, yea grab it, but if all you have is a pistol and the holster doubles as a stock, I'd suggest going for cover if you can and attach it.

No reason a kydex holster can't be made with an attachment to the guns grip.

Deaf

 

[Edarnold]

Personal experience rather than opinion: back in the day, I shot both a post-war Browning Highpower tangent sight model, and a model 1935 Radom with the BHP holster/ shoulder stock. The stock for the Radom needed the lug modified to fit. In both cases the combination was much steadier to aim and groups shrank accordingly. I don't remember the sights being off too badly, but my trials were limited by the fact that I was at public ranges, so I could only try the stocked guns when there was no-one around.
Since Luger, Mauser C96, BHP, Radom, and several Star pistols have all been supplied with the means to attach a stock, and the Soviets did the same post-war with the Stechkin, I would vote yes for the utility of an attachable stock. The people who say Nay don't seem to have any experience actually shooting such stocked guns: Internet expertise is worth what it costs.

 

[Miky]

I have to echo what some other posters have said. The primary purpose of any handgun is to be available at all times, on short notice, without hindering your ability to perform other tasks. Once you add stocks that need carrying and attaching, you are getting away from the intended purpose of a handgun.

I'm sure stocks on handguns help shrink paper group sizes on the range. You could probably attach a 4x scope to shrink them even further. But, unless your primary goal is shooting small groups on paper, the bulk and weight of those accessories diminish the benefit of a handgun. IMHO.

 

[Jim K]

I can't discuss the so-called "pistols" based on the AR-15 or some similar setup, but I have owned and/or fired several shoulder stocked pistols, including a BHP, a C96, a C96 "Red Nine" (in 9mm), a .45 1911 and a few Spanish selective fire pistols. First, the sights are not really usable so close to the eye. But the main problem I found was that the muzzle blast and noise are only a few inches from the left ear, even with the C-96, which has a longer barrel and longer stock. The stocked 1911 was especially bad in that regard.

Let me make it clear that I was wearing decent ear "muffs" at the time; without them, a few shots would probably have really wrecked my hearing. (I have lost almost all my hearing in the left ear as it is, but not due to those few rounds from stocked pistols.)

But for someone to just fire a pistol that way, without any ear protection, would be brutal. FWIW, the selective fire pistols were completely ridiculous; I can't imagine anyone hitting anything at over a few feet with such a rig, and then only with the first one or two shots.

Jim

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have to echo what some other posters have said. The primary purpose of any handgun is to be available at all times, on short notice, without hindering your ability to perform other tasks. Once you add stocks that need carrying and attaching, you are getting away from the intended purpose of a handgun.

I'm sure stocks on handguns help shrink paper group sizes on the range. You could probably attach a 4x scope to shrink them even further. But, unless your primary goal is shooting small groups on paper, the bulk and weight of those accessories diminish the benefit of a handgun. IMHO.

Hence having the holster BE the stock. That way the gun resides in the holster and if you don't have time to attach the stock, well you don't have the time to attach it and so use it as a pistol.

But, if you do have the time then attach it and use it.

Simple, no?

Deaf

 

[Miky]

Hence having the holster BE the stock. That way the gun resides in the holster and if you don't have time to attach the stock, well you don't have the time to attach it and so use it as a pistol.

But, if you do have the time then attach it and use it.

Simple, no?

Deaf

Makes sense to me. If you can have a holster that doubles as a stock, and still functions well as a holster I can't see a drawback to having the option.

But if the holster-stock adds an appreciable amount of weight or bulk, I think that weight and bulk could be better occupied with spare magazines, or a flashlight, or something like that.

 

[cluttonfred]

Does anyone have any experience with one of those skeleton stocks and a foregrip on a Glock? Something like a long-slide Glock with a fold down front grip and light folding stock that could be left on the gun but still allow use as a pistol would seem to be the best of both worlds.

PS--Light bulb! Tthe modular design of guns like the Sig P320 would allow a manufacturer to integrate a foregrip and folding stock into a single frame, and the rest of the parts would then just drop in. Instant baby B&T MP9 (semi-auto)!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Shoulder Stocked Pistol

It's an old idea, never widely popular, that still pops up. So it must be popular with some of the people, some of the time.

The Colt revolvers in the Civil War era could be had with detachable shoulder stocks. The grips of the Borchardt C-93 (1893), the Mauser C96 (1895), and the Luger (1898) were slotted for a detachable shoulder stock. Of the Borchardt 1893 pistol routinely sold/issued with a shoulder stock, historian W.H.B. Smith wrote: "In practice, shoulder use of the pistol is not desirable."

The Mauser C96 (Broomhandle) and the Soviet Stechkin (1951) had a hollow wooden stock that doubled as a holster or carrying case. The H&K VP70 (1970) had a polymer stock that doubled as holster plus it activated full-auto mode when attached. The full-auto Mauser M712, Stechkin and VP70 were hard to control w/o their shoulder stocks; with the VP70 full-auto was disabled when the stock was removed.

The usual purpose cited for the shoulder-stocked pistol, semi- or full-auto, is as "a sidearm for artillery soldiers, tank crews and aircraft personnel" who could not be burdened with a service rifle. When the light rifle project that gave us the M1 Carbine was started in the late 1930s to 1941, the ordnance call was for a weapon about 5 pounds for personnel who duties did not allow either carry of the service rifle or extensive training in use of the handgun. Colt offered a long barrel, long slide version of the .45 automatic Colt pistol with detachable shoulder stock and 20 round magazine; ordnance field tests showed it was a good pistol (some testers liked it better than the then-issue Colt M1911A1) but with stock in place it was not as effective as a carbine.

As Jim K pointed out in post 32, a big drawback is having the muzzle blast closer to the ear with a shoulder stock as opposed to holding the pistol at arm's length; the noise that reaches the eardrum increases exponentially: half the distance between the ear and muzzle = 4 x the noise not twice.

The comment I have seen most is that a shoulder stock can convert a good pistol into an indifferent carbine. What a shoulder stock on a pistol can do is to give an indifferent pistol shooter a slightly better chance of hitting his target. I suspect that the shoulder stock might offer a shooter under stress more stability. A small benefit to a few people.

Practically? When I can get groups like this at 25 yards, standing position, two hand grip, without the shoulder stock:

the shoulder stock becomes useful only as a carrying case or holster, or as a display item.

(I have had this photo up at THR since 5 Oct 2009. I have a 2003 letter from ATF FTB that an original C96 with original or accurate repro stock is considered a Title I (1968 GCA) pistol and not a Title II (1934 NFA) firearm. However, adapting a non-original stock or foregrip would make it an NFA firearm and require an ATF Form I.
The dealer later had a 9mm Mauser pistol that had been rebuilt on a new-made receiver but I had to pass: possession of a shoulder stock for the original Mauser + possession of a non-original Mauser = constructive possession of an NFA firearm. Theme song for NFA: "Tiptoe Through The Minefield"!)

 

[Deaf Smith]

Makes sense to me. If you can have a holster that doubles as a stock, and still functions well as a holster I can't see a drawback to having the option.

But if the holster-stock adds an appreciable amount of weight or bulk, I think that weight and bulk could be better occupied with spare magazines, or a flashlight, or something like that.

I agree.

And with modern polymers like Kydex there is no reason say the new Glock long side 10mm, The G41, in say 9x25 Dillon, and with a slim frame, I can see it with a red dot sight, Kydex holster that doubles as a stock.

Bet it would be good past 200 yards and still be usable as a pistol.

What is more for military use, with body armor becoming more prevalent, such as the 9x25 or .357 Sig, with tungsten carbide cores, would still penetrate any bullet resistant vest.

As for muzzle blast, there ARE silencers nowdays that work very well.

Deaf

 

[Sam1911]

I won't argue the idea doesn't work, to a degree, and that it couldn't function as intended.

I don't believe it will ever be the most practical solution, or one sought out by any group such a weapon might be designed or intended for. Too many compromises, too many other guns that exceed the hybrid in every way.

The concept was designed, built, and WAS fielded at various times through history, and never proved to be useful enough to keep employing it. I don't really see anything on the horizon that would make it appealing enough now to revisit it.

 

[GLOOB]

Some few people might shoot this much better than a handgun. But with a decent level of handgun proficiency, most folks will not gain much if any accuracy with this kind of setup, unless you are adding a full forestock, extra muzzle mass, and proper sights.

Or unless you mandate a 12 lb trigger. I guess the stock would help, there.

I would love to be able to legally do this, though. Darn NFA. I can see this being useful for very large, heavy recoiling calibers in muzzle heavy handguns. I'm thinking 357 mag and up, and in a configuration that is much more like a carbine that you can take the shoulder stock off, rather than a pistol you can put a stock on.

 

[Jim K]

Let me see, now. First, we have a pistol, a short, handy firearm for close range defense. Then we add a stock. Then we hollow the stock out to be a holster for the pistol, but we need a holster or strap system for the stock. Then the gun blows off our ears with the stock attached, so we need a suppressor to quiet it down. Now our short, handy pistol is three feet long and weighs 7 pounds. Then of course we need some high capacity magazines, 20 or 30 rounds. And a magazine carrier. And then.....

Let's play another game. First, we have a pistol. Period.

Jim

 

[Deaf Smith]

Let me see, now. First, we have a pistol, a short, handy firearm for close range defense. Then we add a stock. Then we hollow the stock out to be a holster for the pistol, but we need a holster or strap system for the stock. Then the gun blows off our ears with the stock attached, so we need a suppressor to quiet it down. Now our short, handy pistol is three feet long and weighs 7 pounds. Then of course we need some high capacity magazines, 20 or 30 rounds. And a magazine carrier. And then.....

Let's play another game. First, we have a pistol. Period.

Jim

No Jim,

We keep the handy pistol, develop a Kydex holster that at the back has a sliding tab that locks into the holster and has an attachment that fits the handgun.

You can use it as a handgun OR as a short rifle. It is not a one or the other thing. One has options!

Blow out your ears. Hmm Hold a handgun with two hands and measure the distance from the muzzle to ones head.

Now a shoulder stock will put the handgun just maybe a inch or two closer (unless you like real short stocks.) It would be like using the Weaver Stance holding the weapon.

So there won't be much difference in the distance from the barrel to ones ears.

Yes we can add a suppressor if we want to quiet it down. Actually it is a wise idea if you don't want people figuring out where you are. They do use them on ARs in the military.

Deaf

 

[barnbwt]

"a big drawback is having the muzzle blast closer to the ear with a shoulder stock as opposed to holding the pistol at arm's length; the noise that reaches the eardrum increases exponentially: half the distance between the ear and muzzle = 4 x the noise not twice."

As opposed to what, exactly? A short barrel AR? You're not seriously comparing a pistol that can be carried on the hip with a full length barrel, full stocked rifle are you? Obviously short barrels and small guns are louder, but that's because their entire purpose is to be small; kind of unavoidable. Especially when the alternative is no gun.

There's a reason all, check-em, all PDW's and full auto machine pistols have stocks. They are simply easier to use. And the same increase of control that makes an ultralight full auto the least bit usable also drastically improves the handling of a semi-auto at range and rapid fire.

I think the holster-as-stock concept is fatally flawed, since holsters tend to be firmly attached to their wearers. A telescoping/folding skeletal stock is much handier, and at pistol recoil, all that's needed (see VZ61 Skorpion, or a much-lightened Uzi stock). Doesn't need to be more than 6" long if you use a red dot, too. And the whole thing will still fit/lock into a thigh holster.

The biggest problem is probably getting hit in the face with brass at close range (lots of designs do this intermittently), or somehow getting a kiss from the slide when you crouch up on it too closely

"Some few people might shoot this much better than a handgun. But with a decent level of handgun proficiency, most folks will not gain much if any accuracy with this kind of setup, unless you are adding a full forestock, extra muzzle mass, and proper sights."
Sorry, I'm calling BS. AR pistols are far less usable than stocked (or braced) versions, and it has nothing to do with their weight. The same goes for lighter/smaller guns, too. The Steyr TMP was even too unwieldy in all of its four or so pounds, so Brugger & Thommet added a stock when they bought the rights. This ain't the movies, where the John Woo gunman can make hits beyond 100yards with precision if he trains hard in a montage and wants it bad enough. Sight radius on handguns is small, and an extended hand(s) is not stable, so accuracy suffers rapidly. Stabilize one end of that sight radius on your shoulder, and it effectively grows to the length from your shoulder to the front sight.

The NFA's got us so turned around we don't know what's good anymore (heck, just the other day I met a Brit transplant learning to shoot an AR at the range, who claimed that some rule of theirs that a rifle's trigger must exceed the weight of the gun was for drop safety )

TCB

 

[Deaf Smith]

Barn,

They could design a kydex holster to be quickly unattached to serve as a stock.

US military holsters are made to be taken off the belt quickly even now.

Deaf

 

[cluttonfred]

When the light rifle project that gave us the M1 Carbine was started in the late 1930s to 1941, the ordnance call was for a weapon about 5 pounds for personnel who duties did not allow either carry of the service rifle or extensive training in use of the handgun. Colt offered a long barrel, long slide version of the .45 automatic Colt pistol with detachable shoulder stock and 20 round magazine; ordnance field tests showed it was a good pistol (some testers liked it better than the then-issue Colt M1911A1) but with stock in place it was not as effective as a carbine.

I'd love to learn more about this Colt pistol-carbine alternative to the M1 Carbine, as the latter is a particular fascination of mine. Do you (or anyone else) have any photos or scans or links that you could share? Thanks!

 

[GLOOB]

"Some few people might shoot this much better than a handgun. But with a decent level of handgun proficiency, most folks will not gain much if any accuracy with this kind of setup, unless you are adding a full forestock, extra muzzle mass, and proper sights."
Sorry, I'm calling BS. AR pistols are far less usable than stocked (or braced) versions, and it has nothing to do with their weight.

Well, AR pistols generally have a full forestock, lots o muzzle weight, and some sort of RIFLE sight. Check the comment you just responded to.

And I'm calling BS, here, on an additional level. 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. When you can win a marksmanship contest with an AR pistol, then you can use it as the ambassador example of handgun handling and accuracy. A 4+ lb pistol with a happy switch will obviously work better with a shoulder stock.

I said I would LOVE a carbine that you could turn into a pistol. That's what an AR "pistol" with a stock would be.

Now put a shoulder stock on a true sidearm like a Glock and tell me how much more accurate that is going to be. I'm not saying a sidearm can't be as accurate. I'm suggesting it can be fired very accurately without the stock, because it is designed to be fired without a stock. And it won't be as accurate as a real carbine if you throw a stock on it, because it won't have the ergos and balance of a real carbine. So the difference in accuracy or effective range won't be incredibly impressive, unless you are a bad shot with a handgun. Or unless the stock is incredibly effective - ergo very large and bulky, with cheek rest. And add vertical foregrip and red dot sight. And by then you're probably gonna leave it like that forever and buy a new pistol. Sorta what happens if you buy a Mec Tec conversion kit.

When slide-mounted red dot sights become reliable and small enough to be commonplace, this might have a shot at being practical. But for the size and weight of carrying around the stock, and all you get is the same ballistics, it's still not that big a draw.

Most people would rather just buy a real carbine with a longer barrel and have two guns. A carbine and a sidearm. But I like the idea of a short 357 carbine that you can convert into a Mare's Leg. And I'd leave it as a carbine 99.99% of the time.

In case you haven't seen it, check it FPSRussia shooting a fully automatic Glock with a stock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqwPY-0UpjYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqwPY-0UpjY
Not very impressive. He has about a 50% hit rate on 2L bottles at 12 yards? He would have nailed soda cans at that range with a regular Glock.

Or... Hickock 45 shooting a supressed Glock with the sights blocked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBofwiYwGho

Seems like handguns work pretty well as designed.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Blow out your ears. Hmm Hold a handgun with two hands and measure the distance from the muzzle to ones head.

The stock that I made (which is not actually attached to the gun) was designed by taking measurements while holding the pistol in a two-handed grip at full extension. In effect imagine holding the pistol in an isosceles stance, but with a piece of wood stretching from the backstrap of the gun to your shoulder.

 

[TimSr]

In the John Wayne movie, Big Jake, one of the bad guys had a Bolo or Broomhandle Mauser with a shoulder stock. Didn't help him in the movie.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In the John Wayne movie, Big Jake, one of the bad guys had a Bolo or Broomhandle Mauser with a shoulder stock. Didn't help him in the movie.

That's because the script called for him to lose. If it had called for him to win, that shoulder stock would have been a wonder weapon as powerful as a Ma Deuce.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I said I would LOVE a carbine that you could turn into a pistol. That's what an AR "pistol" with a stock would be.

Now put a shoulder stock on a true sidearm like a Glock and tell me how much more accurate that is going to be. I'm not saying a sidearm can't be as accurate. I'm suggesting it can be fired very accurately without the stock, because it is designed to be fired without a stock. And it won't be as accurate as a real carbine if you throw a stock on it, because it won't have the ergos and balance of a real carbine. So the difference in accuracy or effective range won't be incredibly impressive, unless you are a bad shot with a handgun. Or unless the stock is incredibly effective - ergo very large and bulky, with cheek rest. And add vertical foregrip and red dot sight. And by then you're probably gonna leave it like that forever and buy a new pistol. Sorta what happens if you buy a Mec Tec conversion kit.

When slide-mounted red dot sights become reliable and small enough to be commonplace, this might have a shot at being practical. But for the size and weight of carrying around the stock, and all you get is the same ballistics, it's still not that big a draw.

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

How accurate is a Glock with a Stock?

Just get a Glock, say 17, and a piece of wood like a dowel about 17 inches long. Duct tape it to the grip of the Glock and see what it does. Now I am NOT sure if that is NFA legal to do or not, but you can find out just how accurate you can be with a Glock and s stock on it.

Deaf

 

[joem1945]

"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.