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