I can not remember whether it was the Gun Control Act of 1934 or of 1968 that severely restricted these as an option for American commercial sales. Obviously they enjoyed some popularity in the mid 19th through early 20 th centuries. Famous holster stocks existed for the Artillery Luger and Broomhandle Mauser, and even for the later Canadian Hi Powers of WW2. Before that there was a military dragoon or similar pistol in the percussion era and shoulder stocks for Colt revolvers, among others. In recent years the Israelis happily sell plastic units for Glocks.

I noted that as per the originals, my 3rd generation Colt 1860 Army revolver is set up to accept a shoulder stock. Being that it is not a modern cartridge weapon, this remains legal without a tax stamp (state law may vary). In fact an Italian made shoulder stock is somewhat readily available in the 200to300 range.

Were these a common item circa the Civil War and early Indian wars? Like the Mauser or Artillery Luger, the idea seems to be to provide an ersatz carbine or early version of a personal defense weapon. However a few references, old and modern, mention them as a useful item when hunting.

Has anyone tried one?

Does anyone know what the theory was, once upon a time, behind legal restrictions on them?

The legal restriction was to outlaw guns that were short enough to conceal under a coat, when the Motorized Bandits were traveling around the midwest. Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, etc.

So along comes the National Firearms Act of 1934. Originally pistols were on the banned list, but it was explained to the morons in Congress that if they tried that, there would be a third American Revolution (first two were 1776 and 1861), so pistols were removed. But rifles or shotguns short enough to be concealed were outlawed. 26 inches was the magic number - shorter than that were BAD GUNS. And because of the way they were defined, a pistol with a shoulder stock on it was a rifle, and would therefore be too small.

__________________
I always take precautions

while I did build a tacti-cool Glock 17l carbine, some time back, and it is a fun gun to shoot, the shoulder stock will fit into most any large frame Glock

but the fact that just putting it on a Glock without the 16" barrel is a felony by creating a short barreled rifle,




but you can legally own the ar pistol, the Remington xp, and numerous marelegs lever guns,

dumb law as I see it, but none the less the law since 1934

ps; the 17l stays in its original configuration 99% of the time and the spare parts for the carbine have not seen daylight for a couple of years now

[QUOTE=ky wonder;138292123]while I did build a tacti-cool Glock 17l carbine, some time back, and it is a fun gun to shoot, the shoulder stock will fit into most any large frame Glock

but the fact that just putting it on a Glock without the 16" barrel is a felony by creating a short barreled rifle,


As I am lead to believe, once this handgun has been turned into a rifle, which is legal, it can no longer be turned back into a handgun, which is illegal. Thompson Center Arms got into a lawsuit with the BATF and lost IIRC. Can anyone shed some light on this subject?

Next, to address the original question, I study about every old text and photo and don't recall ever hearing or seeing a shoulder stocked handgun in the old west. I would think that would be a great option especially as poorly as I shoot a handgun.

I remember seeing Clint Eastwood firing a Broomhandle Mauser with shoulder stock in the Movie "Joe Kidd". He kept loaded stripper clips in his hat band.

FWIW I did a small amount of research.



Found an article and it tells about a dime novelist named Buntline who supposedly gave five Buntline Specials" to the Earp clan.

Wyatt Earp's Buntline Special - Tombstone History Archives

And it that vein, I own, and enjoy using a Sig PM400, (AR pistol with wrist brace) and ALWAYS use the 'wrist brace' for a shoulder stock.

The more you study the issue, the crazier it gets.....

Attached Images

2615534_01_sig_sauer_pm400_5_56_nato_11_5_640.jpg (59.6 KB, 30 views)

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

I always thought it wood be nice to have a good 22 pistol with
detachable stock. The only one I ever had a chance to shoot was
a Marbles Game Getter when I was a small kid. We were down
in the mountains of southern WVa. fishing. A friend of my great
uncles, who lived in area let me shoot at some cans. Back in them days, in those parts, they didn't get to excited over Federal
gun laws. They didn't shoot one another either!




Never trust a guy who rents pigs!

I don't think I'd be telling that on a public forum.

Have no problem mentioning it. There IS no 'unlawful way' to hold and shoot a firearm.
If you own an AR pistol, or any handgun and choose to shoot it other than the way it was 'designed', you STILL have not violated any laws. Adding a stock to it to make a regulated NFA item is another matter.

Just in case, I always have the copy of the ATF letter that comes with these pistols indicating that it is NOT regarded as an SBR, and the 'wrist brace' item is an approved accessory.

Lots of walleyed looks when these came out, but at least at this time, they still can't tell you how to hold a firearm.

__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275

[QUOTE=30-30remchester;138292603][QUOTE=ky wonder;138292123]while I did build a tacti-cool Glock 17l carbine, some time back, and it is a fun gun to shoot, the shoulder stock will fit into most any large frame Glock

but the fact that just putting it on a Glock without the 16" barrel is a felony by creating a short barreled rifle,


As I am lead to believe, once this handgun has been turned into a rifle, which is legal, it can no longer be turned back into a handgun, which is illegal. Thompson Center Arms got into a lawsuit with the BATF and lost IIRC. Can anyone shed some light on this subject?

with the 16" barrel the gun is not considered a short barreled rifle, therefore does not require a nfa stamp, but you will not find me carrying the stock without the long barrel and when I have it set up in carbine mode I will not have the pistol barrel anywhere on me, nor the stock when I am carrying any other compatible Glock that does not have the long barrel,

it is my understanding that a serialed pistol can go to rifle and back to pistol, but a serialed rifle can not go from rifle to pistol and then back to rifle

Thompson-Center Arms challenged the BATF's ruling that one could not have a Thompson-Center Contender pistol and rifle simultaneously, because you could put the pistol barrel on the stocked rifle receiver, creating a contraband SBR. T-C bought the arms at retail, took them down to the local BATF office, and challenged the BATF to seize them, which the BATF did. T-C went through all the legal processes to regain their seized property. The case went to the Supreme Court & the BATF lost.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=504&invol=505

The practical result is that if you have the shoulder and the 16" barrel, you are OK. However, just having the stock without a long barrel is a problem, even if you never put the stock on the pistol.


there have been many handguns that were equipped with buttstocks through the years, lots of old colts with frame cut outs for stocks as well as old smiths,

http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/...CCAB7C7650D2A0


I have even seen one set up on a on a 1911 with 16" barrel

rifles are restricted to a 16" barrel minimum, while shotguns have a minimum barrel length of 18" overall long gun length is 26" in both categories

I have no idea how common they were, but I have a feeling they weren't as handy as some would think.

On a revolver, it would be a bad idea to support the gun at the forend. Unless there was some sort of blast shield in place.

On any handgun the rear sight is too big to be useful with your eye that close to it, and if you put a rifle sight on it, it would be useless as a handgun.

Using a pistol as a pistol, and a carbine as a carbine makes more sense then trying to make one gun be both when it can't do both well.

Just to make sure, everybody is aware of "constructive possession", right?
There's also a BATF letter (recent) that says USING Sig brace as shoulder stock = title 2 weapon. As noted above, this is a fundamental shift in regulatory policy.

All I know for sure is that I have read enough about this issue recently to know that I don't want one . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I think it was in the Late 60s or early 70s that a shoulder stock was marketed to LE that would allow a service revolver to pop into it quickly.

Believe it was soon outlawed.

I want to say the company was Rocky Mt arms but not sure.

__________________
LEX ET ORDO

The shoulder stocks for percussion revolvers remain legal, at the Federal level. A shoulder stock for the muzzle loading howdah pistols made by Pedersoli is also available.

I have had a chance to get copies of "Civil War Carbines, Myth vs. Reality" or the companion book on revolvers to see if they address the topic. Another recent book on percussion revolvers mentioned some testing done with a stock fitted to an 1860 Colt Army clone. Even allowing for issues related to the sights, the fitted stock seemed to allow the inexperienced to moderately experienced shooter improved results. For an experienced shooter the authors did not think it a huge improvement over a two handed grip.

The old Colts were sighted at much longer ranges than today's handguns. At one point they sold a shoulder stock that was also a canteen.

The idea seems to have died out around World War One, returning recently with a variety of personal defense weapon designs.

That letter is about a shotgun. Since the Sig brace is for a pistol-sized gun, and there is no such thing as a shotgun-pistol (smoothbore MUST have an 18 inch or longer barrel) they have to be talking about using it on an AOW.

The AOW is already NFA, so the only problem I can see ATF having is, "You paid a five-dollar tax for an AOW, but you have made it an SBS, which is a two-hundred-dollar tax. You did not pay us enough tax. Bad boy."

__________________
I always take precautions

I remember a stock, in the late 70s/early 80s. It attached to your wrist, instead of to the gun. Since it was not attached to the gun, it was not a "shoulder stock". It was an "arm brace". Either ATF shot it down quickly, or it was a dumb idea, because it did not last long.

__________________
I always take precautions

Last year I had a chance to pick up a 1917 Mauser C96 in 30 cal with a 5 in barrel and a wooden holster/stock. I'm not knowledgeable enough about these stocks and was given 2 different types of answers about their legality. One basically said it was fine (forget the details) and the other said it was a no go if I couldn't prove that the stock was original German and not a reproduction. I decided not to chance it and passed. The price was $1700

Looked like this