Discussion Half Stock Rifles

[koabd1978]

As I was reading various threads about different weapons on here ,it got me thinking ..... scary thought

So in a thread about "country rifles" there was mention of half stocks , as well in a recent thread about the New Mexico campaign.

This is where my brain kicked in ....
Prior to the war (American Civil War to be specific so I'm clear) many rifles were half stock rifles . The mountain men carried them ,many trade rifles had them .Even the M1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle was a half stock .

So why not use them on military rifles during the ACW ? Wouldn't it speed up the production process and materials? Confederate manufacturers could have benefited from that in my opinion.

Thoughts or known reasonings welcomed

 

[Craig L Barry]

The stocks on Civil War-era military guns were longer because the barrels were longer than hunting rifles. In addition a longer stock was needed because it prevented leverage against the barrel because of the torque from bayonet use, and also from impact with ground. Thirdly, with muzzleloaders repeated rapid loading and firing caused the barrel to become quite hot. The longer stock provided a hand-hold while loading. I am sure there are other reasons but these spring immediately to mind.

 

[UCVRelics]

About the only thing I can add is a half stock did not hold up to the riggers of battle as well as a full stock.

 

[CowCavalry]

The barrel wedges were always troublesome on the two half stock rifles I have owned, one being a repro Harper's Ferry 1803, they always want to fall out. And on the Hawken style, they were prone to get lost, not so on the HF as they are pinned. It also is easier to mount sling swivels on the full stock though I'm sure that was not an insurmountable obstacle.

 

[koabd1978]

thanks all for the input , it was just a random thought I had lol.

 

[vmicraig]

Curious, but why did so many carbines have naked barrels? Considering their short size, you have nowhere to put your support hand but on the barrel - was the thought that they were indeed so short and often designed to be fired from horseback that they could be held and supported with the firing hand only??

 

[johan_steele]

Curious, but why did so many carbines have naked barrels? Considering their short size, you have nowhere to put your support hand but on the barrel - was the thought that they were indeed so short and often designed to be fired from horseback that they could be held and supported with the firing hand only??

View attachment 383054

View attachment 383055

I think the idea was that if firing from horseback the shooter would choke up on the trigger for a more stable platform. And if firing from the ground the same might apply. The naked barrel getting hot also tended to slow the shooters rate of fire.

The reality is it takes great skill to actually aim and fire from the back of a moving horse. Which is why the Cav was expected to dismount and use their carbine in a line of battle in skirmish order. The pistol and Sabre were intended to be used from horseback. I've read many an account of Cav emptying their pistols at each other and hitting nothing.

 

[CowCavalry]

I think the idea was that if firing from horseback the shooter would choke up on the trigger for a more stable platform. And if firing from the ground the same might apply. The naked barrel getting hot also tended to slow the shooters rate of fire.

And didn't cavalry wear gloves?