Why are shoulder stocks so popular on the replica 1860 Army and 3rd Model Dragoons?

Ok, I've never fired a cap & ball revolver with a shoulder stock, BUT I've fired and used some unmentionable handguns (originals) with shoulder stocks before and found them cumbersome and sometimes awkward to carry on the move. Even if they are supposed to make accuracy better, they (to me) just get in the way afterwards. Can somebody explain this to me?

? Personally have not noticed any increase in interest in pistol shoulder stocks. What makes you say this?

Same, Smif.

I am kind of tempted, though.

I haven't seen much interest here or anywhere else for that matter. I have 2 shoulder stocks and several revolvers cut for them but have never put them together to try.

They do extend the practical range and accuracy of the 1860, etc, quite substantially, and a lot of people just think they look cool.

They have gotten pricey though.

I'm pretty sure the one reason Uberti gives the 3rd Pattern Dragoon a Cut-For-Stock frame is to give it a little more differentiation from the 2nd Pattern Dragoon. Without a CFS frame, the only difference between the 2nd and 3rd Dragoons would be the trigger guard, a single piece of brass that you can order up and switch around at your fancy.

SDSmlf said:

? Personally have not noticed any increase in interest in pistol shoulder stocks. What makes you say this?

Click to expand...

When I had my 1851s and Walker (before the fire) everyone I talked to would always say.."The 1860 Army is better because you put a stock on it." or "3rd Model Dragoons are way better than the Walker because they can be fitted with a stock".
I'm not trying to put either model down (I'm getting a 1860 Army in the near future), just was wondering why people will say this to someone.

They sure have. Ans some are better than others. The early stocks seem to be plain and featureless in terms of visible wood grain.

TNGhost said:

They do extend the practical range and accuracy of the 1860, etc, quite substantially, and a lot of people just think they look cool.

They have gotten pricey though.

Click to expand...

One of the things that confused me has always been their real world viability, particualrly on horseback. Anyone here who has ridden a horse, imagine trying to install the 1860 stock while galloping.

nightwolf1974 said:

When I had my 1851s and Walker (before the fire) everyone I talked to would always say.."The 1860 Army is better because you put a stock on it." or "3rd Model Dragoons are way better than the Walker because they can be fitted with a stock".
I'm not trying to put either model down (I'm getting a 1860 Army in the near future), just was wondering why people will say this to someone.

Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who says putting a shoulder stock on their 1860 Army is going to make the pistol better.
I guess I should rephrase that to saying, the only person I know of who thought this was a good idea was Col. Sam Colt. I suspect he did this because he wanted to sell the stocks to the Army.

The only other people I know of who own a shoulder stock for their Colt are modern people who want to own one for its historic value. The stocks did exist and a few of the soldiers used them (usually under order). The men at the time didn't like them either.

So do they make the arm any more or less accurate worth a woot?

jonathan butcher said:

They sure have. And some are better than others. The early stocks seem to be plain and featureless in terms of visible wood grain.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree, sir.

These are current Pietta 1860 Army factory-stock-photos as seen on the EMF (owned by Pietta) and the Dixie Gun Works sites, respectively.



This is an Armi San Marco 3rd Model Dragoon from the early-mid 70's. The yoke and the buttplate were made using blackened brass on the early ones; the later ones used blackened steel.




My Armi San Marco 1860 Army (BD/1994) full-fluted cylinder with a true tiger-stripe maple stock stained dark (the wood under the buttplate is very blonde, not walnut brown).



I have shot it like this on a few occasions. The length of pull is 14.5", and as long as one uses precautions (wear shooting glasses, place the off hand under the revolver butt and not near the cylinder, don't put your face/cheek forward of the rear of the stock yoke), one will do just fine.

I almost got this one a week ago, but the seller withdrew it because a family member wanted it. It is an Armi San Paolo 1860 Army (AE/1979) with the very blonde wood that seemed to be the rage during that time period. The wood is not very fancy (flat-sawn) but it has better figure than the present-day quarter-sawn straight grain wood. Very hard to find, especially in this condition.



This is an 1851 Navy 4-screw CFS that Colt presented to Jefferson Davis, then the US Secretary Of War in 1859 in order to curry favor with Davis for possible future Army contracts. The sling attachment loop forward of the trigger guard was standard until Colt realized that the Navy brass backstrap would not hold up under usage, and that is why the 1860 Army and the 1861 Navy revolvers had steel backstraps. (From Pate's 1860 Army book).



I wholeheartedly agree with zonie concerning two of his three comments:

"I don't know of anyone who says putting a shoulder stock on their 1860 Army is going to make the pistol better."

It may not make it "better" but it is more accurate than a pistol held in one hand (three points of body contact: two hands and the shoulder).

"I guess I should rephrase that to saying, the only person I know of who thought this was a good idea was Col. Sam Colt. I suspect he did this because he wanted to sell the stocks to the Army."

That is very accurate. In 1857-58, with the possibility of civil war looming, while Colt was developing the 1860 Army for possible future Army contracts (to replace the heavy 3rd Model Dragoon), Colt tinkered with four designs, eventually patenting the Type 3 stock (in 1859) which we see today, both with originals and modern replicas. Some US Army contracts called for one shoulder stock to be sold with two revolvers. Colt did the same with 3rd Model Dragoons he wanted to unload from his inventory to make way for the production of the 1860 Army revolvers (Pate's 1860 Army book, pgs. 20-21).

The only other people I know of who own a shoulder stock for their Colt are modern people who want to own one for its historic value. The stocks did exist and a few of the soldiers used them (usually under order). The men at the time didn't like them either."

Spot on with both observations. The US Army had many carbines in inventory for cavalry use which were much better suited for the purpose of dismounted cavalry. While mounted, with a carbine slung, the revolvers could be carried on the belt and/or in holsters slung on the saddle pommel. The Confederate Missouri "Bushwackers" (Confederate guerillas) adopted this practice extensively.

I collect modern replica revolvers and want them for historical value, as much as possible, as you stated. If one gets involved with buying modern stocks, it would be wise to verse one's self with the difference between stocks for the Navy and the Army (and possibly the Dragoon if one ever comes across one for sale on the used market). The 1851 Navy has a shorter gripframe than the 1860 Army, thus the J-hook housing is different in length.

These are Uberti revolvers: 1860 Army Full-fluted cylinder, 1861 Navy, and "1858" Remington ( 1863 New Model Army). Notice the difference in the Type 3 stocks for each of the first two revolvers.



The stock for the Remington is for a 3-screw frame not CFS. Pietta markets one for both the Remington and the 1851 Navy 3-screw frames. It comes with an extended 2-headed hammer screw wherein it locks to the screw heads on the upper end, secured by the J-hook at the bottom backstrap aperture. Pietta is not the first to do this; Gregorelli & Uberti did the identical thing around 1960-62.




One must also take into consideration that gripframe profiles are different for each manufacturer (ASP, ASM, Uberti, and Pietta), and the Pietta Navies have at least three different gripframe profiles that I have found so far: 1990 (and previous) to ~2001; ~2002-2014; and 2015 to present.

To make sure the stock that is obtained by one will take some study so that it is properly mated to the gripframe assembly one has. It is somewhat of a crapshoot, so beware. One size does not fit all.

Regards,

Jim

Wow. Now that’s what I call a wealth of information! Thanks for posting this, have a question; I infer from your comments about the Dragoon stock is that’s exceedingly hard to find. Why would this be ? I’m guessing they made fewer than for the 1860 Army but is there some other reason ?

sourdough said:

I would have to disagree, sir.

These are current Pietta 1860 Army factory-stock-photos as seen on the EMF (owned by Pietta) and the Dixie Gun Works sites, respectively.

View attachment 41937View attachment 41938

This is an Armi San Marco 3rd Model Dragoon from the early-mid 70's. The yoke and the buttplate were made using blackened brass on the early ones; the later ones used blackened steel.


View attachment 41941

My Armi San Marco 1860 Army (BD/1994) full-fluted cylinder with a true tiger-stripe maple stock stained dark (the wood under the buttplate is very blonde, not walnut brown).

View attachment 41939

I have shot it like this on a few occasions. The length of pull is 14.5", and as long as one uses precautions (wear shooting glasses, place the off hand under the revolver butt and not near the cylinder, don't put your face/cheek forward of the rear of the stock yoke), one will do just fine.

I almost got this one a week ago, but the seller withdrew it because a family member wanted it. It is an Armi San Paolo 1860 Army (AE/1979) with the very blonde wood that seemed to be the rage during that time period. The wood is not very fancy (flat-sawn) but it has better figure than the present-day quarter-sawn straight grain wood. Very hard to find, especially in this condition.

View attachment 41942

This is an 1851 Navy 4-screw CFS that Colt presented to Jefferson Davis, then the US Secretary Of War in 1859 in order to curry favor with Davis for possible future Army contracts. The sling attachment loop forward of the trigger guard was standard until Colt realized that the Navy brass backstrap would not hold up under usage, and that is why the 1860 Army and the 1861 Navy revolvers had steel backstraps. (From Pate's 1860 Army book).

View attachment 41950

I wholeheartedly agree with zonie concerning two of his three comments:

"I don't know of anyone who says putting a shoulder stock on their 1860 Army is going to make the pistol better."

It may not make it "better" but it is more accurate than a pistol held in one hand (three points of body contact: two hands and the shoulder).

"I guess I should rephrase that to saying, the only person I know of who thought this was a good idea was Col. Sam Colt. I suspect he did this because he wanted to sell the stocks to the Army."

That is very accurate. In 1857-58, with the possibility of civil war looming, while Colt was developing the 1860 Army for possible future Army contracts (to replace the heavy 3rd Model Dragoon), Colt tinkered with four designs, eventually patenting the Type 3 stock (in 1859) which we see today, both with originals and modern replicas. Some US Army contracts called for one shoulder stock to be sold with two revolvers. Colt did the same with 3rd Model Dragoons he wanted to unload from his inventory to make way for the production of the 1860 Army revolvers (Pate's 1860 Army book, pgs. 20-21).

The only other people I know of who own a shoulder stock for their Colt are modern people who want to own one for its historic value. The stocks did exist and a few of the soldiers used them (usually under order). The men at the time didn't like them either."

Spot on with both observations. The US Army had many carbines in inventory for cavalry use which were much better suited for the purpose of dismounted cavalry. While mounted, with a carbine slung, the revolvers could be carried on the belt and/or in holsters slung on the saddle pommel. The Confederate Missouri "Bushwackers" (Confederate guerillas) adopted this practice extensively.

I collect modern replica revolvers and want them for historical value, as much as possible, as you stated. If one gets involved with buying modern stocks, it would be wise to verse one's self with the difference between stocks for the Navy and the Army (and possibly the Dragoon if one ever comes across one for sale on the used market). The 1851 Navy has a shorter gripframe than the 1860 Army, thus the J-hook housing is different in length.

These are Uberti revolvers: 1860 Army Full-fluted cylinder, 1861 Navy, and "1858" Remington ( 1863 New Model Army). Notice the difference in the Type 3 stocks for each of the first two revolvers.

View attachment 41956

The stock for the Remington is for a 3-screw frame not CFS. Pietta markets one for both the Remington and the 1851 Navy 3-screw frames. It comes with an extended 2-headed hammer screw wherein it locks to the screw heads on the upper end, secured by the J-hook at the bottom backstrap aperture. Pietta is not the first to do this; Gregorelli & Uberti did the identical thing around 1960-62.

View attachment 41954
View attachment 41955

One must also take into consideration that gripframe profiles are different for each manufacturer (ASP, ASM, Uberti, and Pietta), and the Pietta Navies have at least three different gripframe profiles that I have found so far: 1990 (and previous) to ~2001; ~2002-2014; and 2015 to present.

To make sure the stock that is obtained by one will take some study so that it is properly mated to the gripframe assembly one has. It is somewhat of a crapshoot, so beware. One size does not fit all.

Regards,

Jim

Click to expand...

jonathan butcher said:

Wow. Now that’s what I call a wealth of information! Thanks for posting this, have a question; I infer from your comments about the Dragoon stock is that’s exceedingly hard to find. Why would this be ? I’m guessing they made fewer than for the 1860 Army but is there some other reason?

Click to expand...

The only Dragoon stocks made (to my knowledge) were from ASM, which went out of business in ~2002. VTI and Track Of The Wolf bought out what was left of the ASM parts, but that was almost 2 decades ago and remaining parts at both sites are scarce as hens' teeth. I don't recall ever seeing a ASM shoulder stock (or even parts for them) ever offered.

Once in a blue moon something comes up on GunBroker related to this. Back in December an outfit named October Country (Idaho) offered what they had bought from Dr. Jim L. Davis' (RPRCA) collection (he passed last September) and there were two ASM stocked revolvers, one with an 18" barrel. I passed on those only because I focused upon a shoulder stock cased set with a Pietta 1851 4-screw CFS with the maple stock I showed with my ASM Army above, and a cased set with a very rare Pietta 1862 J.H. Dance and Brothers .36 revolver (BH/1996). It is SN C00013, only one of 35 total production. I paid $325 for the Dance set and Davis estimated in 2010 that the revolver alone was worth in excess of $1000. I ran out of money for the ASM guns.

I don't want to hijack this thread. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Regards,

Jim

My 1860 Army snubby is clipped to a shoulder stock and will get shot Sunday
Report to follow no pun intended. It should be interesting when that cap goes off in front of my face.
Like shooting a flintlock sort of?
Bunk

Smokey Plainsman said:

So do they make the arm any more or less accurate worth a woot?

Click to expand...

They do not improve the actual accuracy of the pistol, but do make it easier for you to hit things with it, and increase its practical range, same as with a shoulder stock or brace on a modern pistol.

Jim, more kudos for sharing your extensive knowledge on a rather obscure subject.

just remember to KEEP YOUR LEFT HAND AND FINGERS OUT OF IN FRONT OF THE CYLENDER! YOU WILL STAND A CHANCE OF LOOSING THEM. the hot gasses will give you a wake up call!. this message should be included when it is purchased!

Today the Pietta fluted Army and shoulder stock came out of the armory. All this talk about the shoulder stock intrigued me so it seemed the thing to do.
Let me tell you 25 grains of GOEX FFFg going off right in front of your face is exciting and gives reason for SAFETY GLASSES with all the Carbonized Randomly Accelerated Particles (CRAP) that comes back at you it really something.
My 50 yard target took some hits, the 25 yard target got a lot of hits, but after three cylinders full that was all the fun I wanted for the day.
Respectfully Submitted
Bunk

wb78963 said:

Today the Pietta fluted Army and shoulder stock came out of the armory. All this talk about the shoulder stock intrigued me so it seemed the thing to do.
Respectfully Submitted
Bunk

Click to expand...

Bunk, you need to give us at least one photo of the revolver with stock!

Your local shoulder stock addict,

Jim