stock evolution

This is an off shoot of the thread on tang screws.

BD6 made a comment about using the gun as a club and I got to thinking about witnessing this use in modern times among the decendants of the hill country riflemen.

When we speak of using the gun as a club we instantly see John Wayne batting Mexicans off the walls of the alamo. How about the other daily uses of the rifle as a club?

I have hunted with people that hated wasting shells. A finishing shot on game was considered such a waste, and distroyed good meat. Wounded game got a killing blow from the butt of the gun.

I am not talking about a baseball bat type swing. I am speaking of a direct straight on blow with the gunbutt that cracks the skull like a wallnut.

In fact, all game got a tap on the head! No one wanted a squirrel or rabbit coming "back to life" on the way home. This might be important if one was noted for "barking" squirrils.

If hunting big game they do the same to insure stunning the game while they cut the throat.

If you were hunting in Indian country would you fire that second shot or club the animal no matter what its size?

As the Indian threat lessened and the large game was hunted out, the heavy wide stocks were no longer needed and the slinder TN/OH/late PA stock styles developed. You don't need a robust stock to tap a rabbit on the head.

The guns that were designed to go into dangerous places remained robust with thick wood and metal reinforcement.

Therefore: was stock evolution based on the secondary need for the gun to serve as a skull tapper?

Am I the only one that sits around thinking about this stuff?

 

[Voyageur]

The guns that were designed to go into dangerous places remained robust with thick wood and metal reinforcement.

Therefore: was stock evolution based on the secondary need for the gun to serve as a skull tapper?

I think you might just find some 'trial & error' involved here. Military firearms were always robust due to rough usage as well as it's initial use as a makeshift pike. The M1 Garand and the M14 still retained this robustness through the grip with the situation only changing at the time of the introduction of the AR15/M16.

Surplus military firearms have always been a staple for the civilians. 40+ years ago we were still buying military surplus for our hunting rifles. Modified or completly custom... we found the price to be right.

So, now start backtracking from the Springfield .30 US (.30-40 Krag) Next the Springfield Trapdoor in .45, .50 and .58 caliber. We're talking Civil War surplus here.

Working backwards through the various Springfields we finally get to the Committee of Safety muskets. Again, these were the types of firearms that men were used to and acquired in one way or another. Cheap smoothbores, more like shotguns, were easily acquired. It's easy to say that there were all these various caplocks and flintlocks made by regional makers but what were the firearms acquired by the mass of civilization that may have valued a plow more than a firearm and only needed the shotgun (smoothbore) for small game?

The romantic picture of the colonialist snaking through the woods with his long rifle is great but you know that there were many more farmers than hunters 'taking up land'. The firearm wasn't the end-all and be-all of the farmer. It was just another tool for food or self-defense. Firearms might be passed down many times before new ones were purchased.

A good education can be had by studying the existing photographs (dageurotype) showing men who were involed in posses and such. You can see just about any old firearm with a lot of shotguns thrown in. Some simply carried swords.

The 'trial & error'? The broader buttplate reduced felt recoil for sure. But it needed a few generations to wean away from the traditional deep curved, narrowed buttplate since conservative rural folk change slowly. The Winchester lever actions maintained this type buttplate for quite sometime and most of the original percha gutta buttplates on early bolt actions had somewhat of a built in curve. It finally evolved into what you see now.


In addition... the Scheutzenfest might have gone far to influence the buttplate designs but target firearms are not necessarily hunting firearms as many have found out.

I suspect that even early firearms makers were susceptible to 'fads & fancies' as much as folks are now. Overall, I try to keep in mind that the general run of the people really did not know much about firearms design as many do now. Some folks are quite knowledgeable on firearms... witness the existence of this forum.

One last pointer... consider the existence of the hunting sword.

 

[rich pierce]

Good discussion. I suspect many hunters carried a long knife and tomahawk. I have finished deer with the hawk. I doubt a gun butt would do as well. So for hunting, anything thick wristed and sturdy in my mind was to sustain the usual falls, drops, and accidents on water and land that anyone who spent a lot of time hunting would experience. For military, I agree, the guns were built to take or deliver a pounding.

 

[2172]

I remember a New Jersey hunter who was finishing off a piece of game with a buttstroke, and managed to blow his own head off...don't recall the details, but NJ was and is a shotgun only state, so the odds are he had a double bbl...that aside, I agree with Ghost...back when only M-L were used, if I'd shot a piece of game, I'd be darned if I'd reload to finish it off (unless it was capable of hurting me)...Hank

 

[dlemaster]

I worked in a gun shop back in the 60s and 70s and I can't tell you how many stocks we replaced or repaired because someone used the butt of their gun to finish small game such as a rabbit or squirrel. I would say don't use your gun for a club, rabbits are easily killed with a chop to the back of the head and neck with the side of your hand, I always carry a .22 revolver to finish squirrels where it's legal (when using modern guns).
I would think on the Frontier you wouldn't waste a second shot unless you were in immediate danger of losing the animal. Thats where a knife and/or tomahawk would be handy.
Just my .02 cents worth.

Regards, Dave

 

[Doc Arroyo]

I can't tell you how many pheasants, quail, doves and ducks were dispatched by the butt end of a shotgun in the hands of the "Arroyo" clan. Yet never as a club. Hold small game by the body, swing them in a slow circle. When they are slightly dizzy, they relax, and then you whack them against the toe of the shotgun stock. No muss, no fuss, no broken stock!

I do think that many of our forefathers had to treat there firearms to what we would concider abuse. Look at how many repaired wrists and cracked toes are on firearms in museums.... :hmm:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Hold small game by the body, swing them in a slow circle. When they are slightly dizzy, they relax, and then you whack them against the toe of the shotgun stock. No muss, no fuss, no broken stock!

:haha: Sounds complicated. Why not swing them in a fast circle with a tree in the path. :rotf:

I carry a rifleman's knife that is 1/4" wide at the spine and the saber-shaped blade is 10" long, weighs about 1-1/2 lbs. No false edge, it carries the weight all the way to the tip. The backside of that knife has introduced many, many squirrels and bunnies to a last look at stars.

It's also a great comfort with a single shot firearm.

I have no doubt that the butt-plate of the Bess was designed with a *** to the face of an attacker as part of the plan. That big 'ol slab of brass is too heavy to be for just protecting the end grain. The early American rifles also had beefier wrists and could certainly support a block and punch in close quarters.

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Why not swing them in a fast circle with a tree in the path

Most places I hunt you have to walk a mile or two to get to a tree! :grin:

 

[Stumpkiller]

But that's where the squirrels is! :rotf:

For a pheasant, just start the arc upwards and then "Kapowie" when the ground comes along.

I'se sorry. I'll be quiet. :v

 

Years ago a farmer friend gave me an ols single shot .22. An "Ace #1" or something like that. Anyway, the stock was an obvious replacement and when I asked him about it he told me his brother was shooting gophers one day and after shooting one, it was fibrilating in the grass so he reloaded to shoot it again. Then on second thought not to waste the round, he promptly turned the gun around and clubbed the gopher. In the process, he killed the gopher, broke the stock, and shot himself in the lung, DOH!!! :shocked2: He survived.

Cody