Stocks: Some Explaination Needed

Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
1,952
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
I love all the stock threads. What I have never understood is what the different types were actually designed for. Take my new no dash M28 for example. It was clearly designed to be a working gun. No frills, even named Highway Patrolman. Why would they put magna style stocks on it from the factory?? Does anyone find these comfortable for shooting? Everyone says Magna for show, targets for actual shooting. Many folks say targets are like holding a 2x4 compared to combats. why not outfit all working guns with combats and save the sexy wood for the show quality pieces. I guess my question boils down to this: is there or was there a rhyme or reason to the type of stocks each gun was outfitted with from the factory?
 
Register to hide this ad
Stocks are very much a personal choice. My self,I like Magna's and a tyler grip adaptor on N-Frames, on K's Ilike Farrants and Spegal's as well as others.
 
In the end, I have no idea, and I kind of doubt that anyone has a full answer. Historically, IMO, all S&W grips for revolvers have been poor, until very recently. When I was much younger, I thought that the reason S&W didn't put much effort into grips is that they figured that anyone with any sense was going to change them, anyway, so why bother? But that doesn't fully explain why they offered "target" grips (which some people DO like), or why their fancy grips were just as nonfunctional as their standard ones. No matter what the true explanation, I wonder how it will explain how LONG it took S&W (and some other revolver manufacturers) to start designing usable grips.
 
Magnas on a M28 were most likely for cost reduction. S&W was going for certain price point and like the rest of the gun, they scaled back on things that didn't effect function... less polishing, plain top strap instead of checkered etc. Magnas are cheaper to make than the larger target stock.

Some models it was tied to how they originally started out. For example the Model 10, it started out as the M&P Model of 1905... smooth grip frame back strap (no serrations) and service stocks.

The model 10 is still a smooth back strap while the rest of the K-Frames have serrated back straps, and it continue to get the smaller Magna style Instead of larger combat or target stock.

As for why it's taken so long for S&W to start designing usable grips... that's easy, they finally stopped making their own grips in house and contract it out to Altamount and Houge, using what they came up with.
 
Magnas are the traditional style grip. If you look at revolvers going back to at least the 1800s, you can see how the modern magna evolved from the early wood panels.
While I don't favor them for most uses, I like them as the "correct" stocks on my revolvers for display. An older S&W just doesn't "look" right without their matching old wood.
 
BTW, Walter Roper, who DID have some good ideas on grips, used to work for S&W, although obviously not in the grip department. Another person who knew a few things about grips was Matheis Gagne, who made most of the grips sold under Roper's name. I believe that his son also worked for S&W, and may have had some influence on them, although obviously not enough. It is clear that they didn't care much about grips, or know very much, either, but WHY?

Discussions of Magna vs. Target are meaningless. The frame was flawed from the beginning. Why did N frames, and K frames from 1905 (or whatever) on have square butts? Why was there never a grip filler (until "target" stocks came around)? People make fun of the 1896 Mauser pistol, calling it a Broomhandle, but add a grip adapter to it and it is just as good as an S&W with a grip adapter. Take the grip adapter away, and it's just as bad, but no worse.

S&W clearly exercised NO competence in figuring out how a human being was supposed to hold one of their revolvers. The question is WHY?
 
All good comments. My favorite stocks, in appearence, are my least favorite in terms of function & comfort. I'm talking about the large gold medallion grips used between 1911 & 1920. They're beautiful, but holding them is awkward, and shooting them is downright dangerous. All my guns have football target stocks on them, regardless of "correctness".
 
If you look at stocks over time, early 20th century were very small, about enough to get a grip on the metal frame. After WWII magnas were standard and later "Targets." The target grips were very large so folks could shape them to their liking (Oh the horror). Over the years I have seen some "interesting" personalization on these grips, usually rendering them near worthless to collectors. Today we sometime forget revolvers were intended to be working tools. Joe
 
Like Joe said in post #3, it's personal choice. Personally, I prefer the magna grips. Every one of my S&W's have them including recent new guns that came from the factory with the rubber grips that I replaced with magna grips.
 
Maybe people's hand were smaller or less fatty or something making the older grips not as bad back then? Or maybe people didn't shoot as much recreationally as we do nowadays?
 
I agree. I can't even think about shooting a K or N frame with Magnas. And the issue stocks on a 1917 are even worse.

I remember back in the late 70-early 80s , most gun shops had a good sized box of new take-off S&W , Colt and Ruger service stock ($2-$3 a set) as most buyers replaced them with a set of Pachmayrs , Herretts , or other aftermarket grip.
 
I just aquired an older Model 24 and it came with a set of Magnas on it. I took it out to the range two nights ago. As soon as I got home off they came and a nice set of target grips went on the gun. The smaller grips looked ok but they sure didn't fit my large mitts worth spit. After shooting fifty rounds through it my hands were so sore.

I wonder if they are made like they are so people with gloves like motorcycle cops had lots of room to put there hands around them. Just a thought.

Graydog
 
Back
Top