Half Stock VS Full Stock

[Boomerang]

Is there an advantage of one over the other in a mountain rifle or just personal preference? :idunno:

 

[coloradoclyde]

Half stocks offer a manufacturing advantage.

 

[tenngun]

I truly think it was style. Shorter blocks of wood would be a little cheaper, but that's off set by making the under rib. As late as the grande it was close to a full stock. Hawkens full stocks were .50 cents cheaper then half. When you look at British bess/NWG/ officers fusil vs the curved cows foot stock of French muskets trade guns and well made guns, was picked for style. German gunstocks evolved in to American rifles, but we see a lot of Penn rifles following some what's French styles. Then America copied the French 1777 for its muskets, while some German states copied the bess. Style counts a lot.

 

[don hepler]

An accomplished builder told me that it was much more difficult to build a Hawken style, than a long rifle. I think the hooked breech, and snail alignment is more difficult and the under rib is extra work, and getting the wedge pins and plates installed is more work. But, a simple style plains rifle without hooked breech might be easier. Also on a Hawken, if you use the tapered barrel, then a whole new bear arises. Not only the taper in the barrel channel, but getting the under rib and ram rod parallel to the bore.

The half stock was handier on horse back, and carrying in general. But the long rifle is light, with a swamped barrel, and well balanced. The long rifle just seems to be more traditional, with a flint lock. I imagine the eastern hunters found the long rifle with smaller calibers, to be perfect for the game and environment, that they lived and hunted in. But the plains and western hunters needed big guns for larger game and more than likely hunted off horseback and would have preferred a half stock.

 

[tenngun]

This is true but at the same time the Ohio and Michigan guns were developed. At the same time the Brits were developing their own half stocks. Patton breaches and better qulity control of powder allowed for shorter barrels. The 1803 was half stock, but when the first Minnie rifles came out they went right back to full stock. Most of the MM time was a horse back with long rifles, and long hunters spent a lot of time a horse back with long rifles. On the other hand European hunters did most of their hunting with short rifles while afoot. :idunno:

 

[don hepler]

You are right. Half stock vs full stock, depends on the person or people involved in the selection.

 

[Artificer]

I don't think there was just one reason the U.S. Military went from a half stock M1803 rifle back to a full stock for the M1814 and later rifles and rifled muskets.

A military rifle really needed a bayonet during that period for close in fighting, so extending the barrel length and adding a bayonet made sense for the M1814 Rifle and later guns.

There is also the fact that a military rifle could/would be fired more quickly than almost any civilian rifle and that full stock helped ensure it was easier to hold onto the front of a rifle with a hot barrel when reloading.

However, a civilian plains rifle usually had a thicker barrel than a military rifle and would not heat up as much. Most of the time, they did not have to reload as quickly as someone would have to do in the military.

Half stocks don't require as long of a stock blank and that could have been more important in what is now the Midwest and further West

I think it was up to the customer on what he personally liked and those who were more used to or preferred a full stock, bought or ordered their gun that way. Later on when the half stock became more common, a customer may have purchased a half stock because that was the current trend.

Gus

 

[Donny]

What happens in the mountains when you break the forend off a fullstock? It can be repaired. However I would think that I would much rather carry the 1/2 stock, though preference is for a fullstock in civilization. Perhaps that is why the 1/2 stock was eventually selected ? ? A Halfstock woul take a much harder beating on the front than the fullstock and hold up.

 

[Khufu]

Then America copied the French 1777 for its muskets,

I think you mean the 1763/66 Charleville musket
it was used as the basis for the 1795 Springfield musket. the 1777 model was not used by American troops, only sparingly by French troops. because of American familiarity with the lightened 1763 Charlville Musket (1766 Model) it was chosen to be the model for the first American musket

 

[BigBoreBLR]

Historically, I can't say anything.

The full stocks look nicer to me. Especially after seeing maybe 100 thompson center hawkens and lyman gprs.

Howevet, after the shootin is done. I love half stocked rifles with easy to remove barrels. Easy to clean every nook and cranny. No worries about damaging the wood finish either.

Get a builder make a wedge pin fastened full stock with as hooked breech. Best 9f both worlds.

 

[Cowboy]

I think that there is no right or wrong answer to anyone's opinions about halfstock vs fullstock. Both have there advantages and disadvantages. As to each ones personal choice, I think that where a persons geographical back ground plays some part in what they would prefer. Some people tend to gravitate towards what their ancestors used in the part of the country their from. As an example, I tend to prefer the beautiful lines and shape of a halfstock plains type rifle, single or double wedge, .50 or larger. Growing up, that was my idea of what an old timey muzzleloader should look like. Grew up in The Rockies, just out side of Cody Wyoming. Worked at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center as a teenager doing janitor work. Was around these type of rifles on display most of my life growing up. So I think alot of what a person prefers is to what they were exposed to and to their geographic family ancestry. Then there are some who loves history as a whole! They could gravitate to any number of make, region, type of muzzleloader. Respectfully, cowboys1062

 

[RedFeather]

Muskets were designed with more than shooting in mind. They could (and were) used as clubs and battering implements. The long stock gave a measure of protection to the barrel and ramrod. This style continued well into the 20th Century. Consider the .303 British Enfield, full stocked. And, as mentioned, long stock blanks were likely at a premium on the prairie. I guess you could get almost two half stocks from one good sized blank of hard wood.

 

[Col. Batguano]

The other advantage of full stocked rifles for the military is that the shooter's hands are prevented from touching a hot barrel. Not really as much of a factor with most ML'ers, but in a modern cf repeater it sure is during sustained fire.

 

[azmntman]

I have never shot an AK or AR-15 w/o burning the crap outta my hand! I have shot BP so long I automatically but the stock on the foot and grab the barrel! With my muzzlelaoders I dont get burnt, they often barely warm up I shoot soo slow.

 

[Artificer]

The other advantage of full stocked rifles for the military is that the shooter's hands are prevented from touching a hot barrel. Not really as much of a factor with most ML'ers, but in a modern cf repeater it sure is during sustained fire.

Well, it can be a serious consideration for reenactors.

We used to do a Mock AWI Battle in front of the National Archives in downtown Washington, DC on the 4th of July. Temperatures were always around 90-100 degrees and the temperature of the asphalt on Constitution Avenue where we fought ran around 120 degrees. The latter was the reason that no one "took a hit" and went down in the mock battle. Yeah, though the Units were very authentic, the battle was a Farbfest.

One year we did "The Highland Drill" that is basically like UnCivil War Skirmish Tactics, so we fired quickly and a lot. My Brown Bess barrel got so hot, I tried to make sure my hands only touched the wood stock. Didn't quite work as I left seared patches of skin from my hands and fingers in quite a few spots on the barrel. Gosh they were difficult to clean off the barrel.

Doubtless most period battles would not have seen firing that fast, so the barrels would not have heated up like that, but I have wondered if they had similar problems at the Battle of Monmouth.

Gus

Edited to add: Oh, I imagine they were very thankful for the full stock for those troops stationed in "Injah" in the Muzzle Loading Period as well.

 

[coloradoclyde]

A full stocked rifle is more aesthetically pleasing...IMO :grin:

 

[Pete G]

I have noticed that blank charges heat a barrel much more than a live load. Partly has to do with having to load a larger charge to get a boom instead of something that sounds like a musket sneeze, but I think there is something else going on there also. I have been in re-enactments where the rate of fire was less than normal range shooting and the barrel got scorching hot. :idunno:

 

[Khufu]

it feels better in your hand while loading too IMHO

 

[Col. Batguano]

While true, I'm not entirely certain that the creators of the originals exactly had re-enactors' concerns some 200 years hence when they designed the originals. :wink:

 

[tenngun]

Then America copied the French 1777 for its muskets,

I think you mean the 1763/66 Charleville musket
it was used as the basis for the 1795 Springfield musket. the 1777 model was not used by American troops, only sparingly by French troops. because of American familiarity with the lightened 1763 Charlville Musket (1766 Model) it was chosen to be the model for the first American musket

Right, old brain, I was thinking of the 77 since that was the first Charley I ever saw or shot. When I got in to this the 77 was what a lot of ARW guys were carring