Stocked Pistols: Great or Garbage? 

THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN! go.getenteredtowin.com/forgottenweapons Deadline to enter is TONIGHT 07/28/23!

They're better than pistols that are out of stock.

Putting a scope and shoulder stock on the Volcanic is still the most optimistic thing I've seen.

For a solid stretch of firearms history, the average pistol had a higher rate of fire than a long arm. That seems to be where stocked pistols pay off, better stability for close quarters rapid fire. As opposed to the whole “carry like a pistol, shoot like a rifle” concept that never really worked.

Almost 20 years ago, I was involved in a team that was looking at improving the chances for an ejected pilot by figuring a better survival weapon option. At the time, we were really leaning towards something like a Glock 19 sized gun, with a shoulder stock and a suppressor. The idea being that the pistol could be worn on the survival vest (as sidearm are now), and the suppressor and a polymer frame stock could be strapped along the lower legs. Thus, the pilot would always have all three components on them. (Alternative proposal was a takedown SBR carbine conversion kit for the Glock (or whatever) with a integrally suppressed barrel and rifle type sights on the upper This wasn't so 1LT Flyboy could play Rambo. The idea was, if he needed to take small game or take out one random troop, he could do so without giving away his position to everyone within a mile, and the stock would give him a little bit better hit probability, to give him a chance out to about 50m. I'll note the USAF now uses modified take down M4 type rifles in the seat pack for pretty much the same thing, although I don't believe they issue a suppressor. The primary driver there was to give the pilot the chance to survive uncaptured for just a few more minutes by heading to a hilltop or similar and hold the enemy off at distance, to give the PJs more time to get to him.

I remember when the possession of a C96 and shoulder stock was illegal. Then the BATFE decided it was okay. Suddenly all of those sellers who had C96’s without the matching stock, came up with the matching stock for them!🤣

I think a lot of people confuse something being cool with it being good.

I’ve shot quite a few stocked pistols with and without optics. I always say “it lets you shoot 50 yards very accurately” Basically it extends your offhand shooting capabilities by about 15 yards.

I didn't know there were stocked flintlock pistols. SBR regulations DEFINITELY don't adhere to Bruen's standards. This would be huge in the pistol brace lawsuits.

One of my favorite memories as a kid, was Dad taking us to 1976 Energy Exposition in Philadelphia. The energy crisis was in high gear, gas had gone from 23 cents, to 86 cents a gallon, CRAZY! So at the Expo, there's Mini RV's, and one was a VW Bug, that could turn a full 360* underneath the towed camper. My Dad asked the guy where he got the ideal for the tow rig and camper combo? He said, he saw a 1918 Artillery Luger, and it all just clicked.

The problem with a stocked pistol is that people think the stock makes it not a pistol, ballistically speaking. It's still a pistol, just more stable. Because it doesn't magically change that, people think they suck. And in a way, for the bulk of the stock, they do. But it's a tool, an option, that you use when it's the right tool. They have a role- motorcycle cops, a pilot or tanker's bail out gun, that kind of thing. And then you've got the other side of it, the "forbidden fruit" theory. I'd rather have something with better sights where the bolt isn't rocketting back at my eyeball!

This luger would've been legal in ireland up until 2008, RIP.

Ian’s omission of the U.N.C.L.E. P-38 with birdcage flash hider, silencer, Bushnell Phantom pistol scope and collapsible shoulder stock can only denote his devoting an entire upcoming episode to this iconic arms milestone evolution of the premier LEO of the 20th century

I have a G34 build that has a brace/stock setup and the lessons I learned from that are worth sharing: Fixed red dot, not one on the slide. Forget iron sights. Use a fixed red dot. Seriously. It's a 50-75 yard gun. You're not going to take it further with reasonable accuracy quickly, even with a g34 length barrel. If you can accept these downsides, it's easy to have on a single point sling, it's easy to store in a backpack discreetly(which is my purpose for it) and it absolutely will give you more distance than typical pistol shooting which really is 20 yards and in for almost everyone. It fits the idea of a small PDW, but doesn't fit the idea of a PCC/SMG/Carbine. It's just a bigger pistol. I will outshoot that G34 setup all day every day with better ammo with an m1 carbine with iron sights and that's just the reality. However, an M1 is a lot harder to fit into a north face backpack when I travel.

A stocked pistol is perhaps a mediocre carbine but much better than no rifle at all. It does have its niche as a pilot's survival gun etc specialty applications. Btw, the Soviet "Makarov" (PM) has a hidden stock potential, the grips are removed and there's a socket for a retention screw. Can be easily equipped with a wooden or 3D stock.

Yea, the small jump up to an SMG gets you a massive jump in fire power, so having the most iconic stocked pistols be from the era just before widespread SMG use makes sense.

When I was young, in the late 70s, a complete artillery Luger rig, like the one offered, was sold at the Tulsa Gun Show for the princely price of $1,500! 😉

The Mauser was popular because smgs didn't exist yet.

I think the modem ideas like the Flux chassis have a lot of merit, but it is highly situational.

I'd argue that the ability to get on longer range targets more quickly & accurately was/is an advantage. Typical hunting rifles & old military rifles (pre AK47, AR's etc.) also had/have less capacity than many pistols are capable of. The Luger with its snail drum became a trench broom. The early carbines like it and the Broomhandle Mauser were used in this way. The newer designs also include AR and AK rifles cut down to pistols and up until recently offered pistol braces that many used as short stocks. These were hugely popular with red dots, scopes, prism optic scopes, etc. The closest many of us can get to the submachinegun is a pistol cal carbine with a short barrel and short stock which is basically a pistol with a stock.

I’ve always felt a folding carbine would be a better option than a stocked pistol

I have a few multitools, including a proper Victorinox "Swiss army knife". I _love_ that Victorinox, because it lets me have the basic functions of several different tools in a tiny package. It will never perform any of those functions as well as a "real" tool, and I'd be stupid to expect it to. But if I just quickly need to tighten a screw, or cut open a cardboard box, it will serve me a lot better than a good screwdriver or boxcutter that I left back home in the toolbox. These pistols are an excellent example of the same thing. They are likely to be more accurate than the same pistol without a stock, and easier to carry than an actual rifle carbine. As Ian points out in this video, those traits are a lot less useful to most firearms users than a multitool is to the average person with a sudden need for a cork screw.

How about Vz-61 and PM-63 RAK? Yes, they are sub machinegun, but have the size like a pistol. We still have the Stechkin APS. Just like the Luger Artillery was originally designed for artillery but used by Stormtroopers, there is a market for the second line military soldiers, and Special Forces that focus on close combat and stealth, they both need small repeating firearms that are easy to carry. For the second line military soldiers, I think the real issue may be that short barreled rifles/carbines are less logistically and training cost to the military than Stocked Pistols. But there is still a market for Special Forces that requires high firepower concealed carry weapons. (although not big)

I think it depends on pistol but it also it seems like a thing mostly used during WW1 and maybe even WW2 before SMGs were a main thing but smgs are pretty much a better pistol with a stock and can be automatic. Also I see no point really for a stocked pistol because you want it to be easily concealable and also as an emergency weapon too, also you're not really gonna be shooting far with pistol mostly anyways.

I feel like your P320 is getting to be a reasonable take on the concept, but essentially you’re just looking at “a more portable PDW.” It feels so close - there’s got to be a combination of red dot, action, and caliber that would get you hits at 125 yards in something you can put in a hip holster and forget about.

Everything you said is why the USA developed the M1 Carbine with realistic accuracy at 100 yards and even 200 yds (not feet). I had one and loved it until the tragic boating accident when it was lost.

Stocked pistols definitely were the predecessor to the Modern PCCs

The last stocked pistol I can think of that had any "large scale" military issue was the Stechkin in the USSR. A 9x18 select fire child of the Fifties, the Makarov supplanted it. I suspect for all the reasons you mentioned.

I believe that the War Museum I used to give tours at had a C96 with a wooden plank as a shoulder stock with a leather holster attached to it. The shaped plank seemed thick enough to be able to withstand being banged around a bit.

Could it be that pistols with removable stocks are best suited for well to do civilans who travel a lot in high-risk rural areas going from urban area to urban area? Examples may be a business man traveling in the old West or in 20's and 30's China. This way they had a "carbine" to defend themselves against higway robbers etc., but in towns or cities they could put the stock in the luggage and carry the gun like a normal pistol.

I've never shot a stocked pistol, but my first thought was that sight radius would put a limit on accuracy, when using iron sights. I hadn't realised that it's worse, with the pistol sights being used at the wrong distance.

In Norway pistols are very restricted especially for hunting you can not hunt with a pistol because it has no stock but if you get a pistol with a permanetly attached stock you can use it for hunting

Practicality and logic will never stand a chance against swag and cool.

As military arms, I agree with Ian's analysis that stocked pistols have super niche uses, and in the modern era have been replaced by miniature carbines or smgs. However, I think that in a civilian context, the stocked pistol/pdw that can be holstered and easily concealed has a great deal of practical applications, especially with modern red dot optics. The reality for most people, even in disaster scenarios, is that a carbine draws way too much attention. A stocked pistol being able to be tucked under a shirt or in a small satchel makes a lot of sense if your goal is to be armed better than a handgun but not as conspicuous as a rifle

Nice smoking jacket! Seems like the concept reached its zenith of use in China during the warlord period when they used them as semiauto carbines and also sub machine guns with the schnellfeuer and various Spanish copies. It was just one of those perfect alignment of the planets and stars situations that gave brief rise to such a thing. Personally I think the 7,63x25 cartridge was the best for the concept as well, but has its own drawbacks too.

I can't imagine a soldier happily carrying that big ass wooden holster at his belt

I think there's an argument to be made that the problems of prior eras on the subject need not apply to the modern era. The old stocks were fragile, sure, the old stocks were wood with an indefinite amount of weak points in the grain, but we have better materials now. Something like a tweak on the VP70 comes to mind, where the stock is not just a stock and holster but also a fire selector. Instead of making it straight blowback use literally any lockup design, the Beretta locking block comes to mind due to the 93R, though the new S&W M&P 5.7 returning the idea of a rotating barrel also seems appropriate. I also know we're married to 9x19 for the foreseeable future, but such a design could easily benefit from a flatter shooting, higher velocity, and higher capacity cartridge like 5.7x28, or if we wanted a larger diameter 7.62x25, maybe even 30 super carry. I choose to believe the stocked pistol is not dead, but dormant, waiting for another time to arise and find a suitable niche as a sidearm that actually provides a benefit.

I've always liked the idea of having a pistol stock that works as a holster and/or ammo reservoir. Being able to keep your scope and long range ammo in your stock/holster really does open up a lot of possibilities.

@ForgottenWeapons solid points. I remember having a conversation with a Korean War Veteran from our Battalion Association (2 RAR- Australian Army) after we got back from East Timor. The conversation came up because I told him Australian Infantry generally have very little training using pistols. Which is true. Special Forces aka Commandos and SAS do extensive pistol training, however Regular Infantry do not. He said much the same as you. There was a lot of close quarter combat at times in that war, and some small amounts of stocked pistols were used by certain soldiers. Machine gunners in general were issued pistols as backup (especially as the Chinese often overan positions temporarily), however that was generally the extent of it. I don't know if the stocks were issued or otherwise acquired (he did say some American and British troops were issued them), however he said they "weren't much chop". That he would take an Owen Gun anytime for close quarters. If a Digger from a war that didn't finish until 70 years ago was saying what you are saying now, I think time tells all that is needed. Love your work mate. And great work with the Artillery Luger at the range👍

I have a Beretta U22 Neos for plinking and it has a carbine kit with a longer barrel and a grip with an integrated stock. It has a rail on the extended barrel so I leave a red dot attached to the barrel. It's mainly just fun

It would be interesting to see an accuracy comparison between an artillery luger and a luger carbine. The stock could be helpful on an actual machine pistol to aid in control

A stocked pistol like the USW with a properly designed duty holster that auto deployed the stock on the draw would be useful for law enforcement and maybe reduce the amount of mag dumping with low hit ratios. The NFA hinders development of these things because if the common person can’t buy it, it’s harder to justify r&d and production. The NFA hinders sales to LE as well; more paperwork, more record keeping, individual officers can’t purchase, etc. If red dot sights required a $200 transfer tax to own, they would accordingly be less advanced, larger, and not optimized like they are today.

I didn't know that the Bergmann No.5 pistols had stocks, that last pair with the extended barrels are badass. Would love to get a No.5 if I can ever find one. Saw a Hi-power with a stock that the owner had modified sights to be a tight wedge, made it a bit hard to see at arms length but it did feel nicer when shouldered.

You should make a video where you compare shooting a pistol on the range with and without a stock attached.

I think that the Vz 61 skorpion is one of the best attempts at a stocked pistol. Small enough not to be in the way with the folding wire stock and with plenty of firepower.

The Mauser broom handle is greatly improved with a stock attached do to is really high bore axis. The stock greatly improves the barrel whip.

Thank you for this informative video. I have always wondered about the effectiveness of stocked pistols. Your comment about the sight picture was a revelation.

I recently got my hands on a mk1 inglis hi power with a stock holster. It’s so stupid, but I love it. I was taking potshots at a 440m target at our local range, was getting close enough to keep a persons head down, but didn’t hit.

I think there are three major use cases: 1. They predate many other Semi/full auto designs and many had detachable magazines when rifle calibers either didn’t exist in quantity or were prohibitively heavy. 2. They make limited ammunition supplies go further. Competition shooting isn’t a great indicator of the stresses involved from being shot back at. Mechanically, any movement while firing it as a pistol will be significantly amplified compared to the stocked pistol. Less wild shots makes limited ammo go further. For revolvers this also means less wasted time reloading. 3. They still allowed the pistol to be used as a pistol. If you’re a civilian or officer in the frontier you’ll be transitioning between the outdoors and town fairly often. You still want to pack heat in town but a rifle or shotgun can be unwieldy and obvious. Detaching the stock as using the pistol makes it more portable and concealable again. 4. They were a cheap performance boost for a cheap firearm option. Pistols are cheaper to make or buy so if you have limited funds the stock is just a little bit extra to get a little semiauto rifle performance out of a single gun. I think for WW1 Germans and for the Chinese forces 1 and 4 fits while Australian use encapsulates 1,2,3, and 4. In most other scenarios you had better options. In the American west you had lever guns able to take the semiauto rifle position so they just had multiple guns. For the majority of militaries they had the funds to provide leftover stocks of 2nd line rifles for non-pistol related use. Modern day the submachine gun with folding stock takes up almost all of the same niches with the slight exception of the ability to convert to an even smaller package. Which is even more niche than before. The stipulation I’d make is that machine pistols without stocks are significantly worse than those with.

Red dots and Kydex stock/holsters could make for a plausible modern configuration

I think it would be worth a mention the stocked options in the 1960-70, when the VP70 and the APS Stechkin. The Stechkin was issued much like the original stocked artillery Luger, but found itself more popular with special forces. So history repeats itself. These days, it seems the pistol chassis is taking over the niche previously held my pistol stocks. While the stocked pistols seems to have inspired the development and issue of proper submachine guns, the miniature submachine guns like micro Uzi, CZ Scorpion, Mac 9/10/11 and the smallest of current PDWs seems to fill the same niche as a stocked pistol without offering a good solution to offhand shooting like a true pistol.

Dont know about real fire arms, but I have currently configured my PCP air rifle as a "stocked pistol" and I really dig it, especially with a small red dot. For one its much easier to hold a short weapon steady on target when taking aim free standing, its super easy to carry around, pop off the stock and it fits in a backpack of any size. Of course its a trade off, you get a little less precision and a little less power because of the barrel length, but depending on use case its a good choice.

I always looked at stocked pistols not as short carbines but as PDW's. You get a stock to help take your nerves out of the equation to some extent. You're not going to exceed the pistol limitations but when hungry, cold, scared out of your mind: it helps in defending your foxhole or building.

I do not believe that the problem with 9mm accuracy at longer ranges is entirely because the ammo manufacturers aren't making accurate/consistent ammo out to longer ranges. There's also the big physics problem of crossing the supersonic/transonic/subsonic barrier. When transitioning between supersonic and subsonic, shockwaves in the air behave weirdly... Which can easily throw off the trajectory of any projectile. I'll admit I had to look it up, but: it looks like most 9mm ammo is crossing that line at between 25 yards and 100 yards. Very few loads of 9mm are still supersonic past 100 yards. And this is very dependent on the specific ammo. 9mm is barely supersonic to begin with. Of course, this transition will take place over a certain time... Explaining why some 9mm ammo might be consistent past 100 yards. That'd also change with a longer barreled gun as well. To compare, 5.56 is supersonic past 500 yards. Some .308 loads are supersonic past 1000 yards (though, that seems to be exception). That data seems to match up with the "effective range" of all 3 cartridges. I suspect that you'd see a similar trend with other cartridges as well: The transition point between supersonic and subsonic (plus a few yards) is roughly the effective range. Subsonic ammunition just has a lower effective range to begin with. Lower starting velocity means lower initial energy and a more pronounced "drop" of the bullet.

Many of those early XXth century stocked pistols were also full auto capable. In that case, the stock is a necesity. But the SMG made them obsolete, since their intended uses overlap. and SMGs tend to be better at all particular cases, being also simpler and more rugged. At least for military service. Then different laws all around made the full-auto pistols (and other weapons) not available to the general populace. In civilian use, maybe a bodyguard with a selective fire pistol, and a small stock in case full auto is needed for short range engagements (inside buildings, vehicles, etc), would be the appropiate scenario for it. But very niche uses, nonetheless.

if not for the NFA I'd definitely have some stuff along the lines of the FLUX Chassis or B&T USW. Not sure I'd have much use for the more traditional type of stocked pistol, though. But if not for the NFA, something in the form of the MP7 is better in just about every way over a stocked pistol. The PDW is really the evolution of the old stocked pistol in many ways.

I wonder if you could benefit from the recoil mittigation/redirection effect today. Attaching a stock as high as possible and in line with the barrel on a Pistol with a fairly big cartridge. Along the lines of .357 or bigger. Having a heavy hitting pistol which you can shoot as fast or faster than a 9mm.

Pietta and Uberti do have stocks for cap and ball revolvers as well Ian. I have one and i have setup a few pistols to use it... I have a decent collection of colt repros. In general, i agree. With the 1851s in particular, its hard to get my eye low enough to get the colt sights. The stock just doesnt bring the gun up high enough. Ive used it a few times and it helps, but i really need a pistol I've shot quite a bit as its basically reactive shooting.

I tried 2 different replicas, 1855 58 cal. pistol and stock, 1851 Navy, 44 with a 12 " bbl. the cap is very close to your face. Hard to shoot well. Navy Arms carried both

Joe Kidd starring Clint Eastwood had some cool usage of a stocked C96. The movie also featured other interesting firearm choices. A scoped Canadian Ross Rifle, Remington Keene Frontier 45-70, a Savage 99. It's actually a decent movie as well even if you aren't a gun nerd, but it's all the better if you are!

I feel like the biggest downside of modern contexts (namely civilian) of these is the intent pistol caliber. Concealment of a carbine, effectives of a pistol. It'd be nominally easier to hand a stocked pistol with a dot to someone (wife, friend, brother, etc) who may not have as much handgun experience and have them be a bit better with it, but at that point why not just get a little carbine breakdown? Three points of contact are nice but for the effort, I'm not going to lug around a backpack or similar to conceal it just to get 9mm when i could use .300 blk, heavy 5.56, or even (and in my schizo use case train of thought) 7.62x39 in a broken down backpack pistol. All that being said, I still think they're cool and I want one someday.

I heard a us federal agent made prolific uss of a red 9 with a stock in some Spanish village almost 20 years ago.

I'm definitely in Ian's camp. Your only going to get so much out of a pistol barrel, sights and ammo aside. Hence the carbine and let us remember the groans and whines of the M1 carbine when used outside it's role as a defensive arm, being better than having a pistol.

Would you call these the grandfathers of the modern PDW concept? Seems like they may not have been big in their day but look at the Flux Raider and Micro Roni getting more popular as the stocks get stronger.

Any person killed by a pistol with a stock attached knows that a stocked pistol is not to be under estimated a second time! Too bad they cant can't give me the thumbs up now.

Navy SEALS used a modified S&W Model 39 the mk 22 mod 0 called the "hushy puppy" in Vietnam, it came with a silencer AND A STOCK and was used for sentry and guard dog removal

LoL, noticing the holster on the stock of the long Luger is now perfect for a left hand shooter. :)

I fired the B&T USW not long ago, which is essentially a shoulder stock handgun. I really wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised. There's definitely something to it. I was able to easily drill tight little groups at 25 yards with the optical sight on it. More so than an unstocked pistol. So it surely is something. But ultimately it doesn't seem to offer a substantial advantage over having a high level of skill with a conventional handgun. Which is far more portable and maneuverable. Definitely really cool and fun though. 🙂

I think the proper modern incarnation of the stocked pistol is the Submachine Gun, PDW or PCC with a folding or collapsing stock. Guns like the vz. 61 Skorpion, Uzi or the MP7 especially fit the bill - they can be carried with relative ease in pistol configuration, pulled out and fired pretty readily with either a modern two-handed pistol stance or even fired in an early 20th century 1-handed stance, while having an integral stock that can be easily set up even in the heat of combat for accurate rifle-style shooting. Is a true pistol smaller and more easily concealable? Sure, but that's always the compromise you make, and carrying a separate stock for your pistol is probably just as conspicuous as carrying a larger gun with a collapsed stock anyway.

Sportsmans Guide had a kit for sale at one point of a 16" barrel and a stock for the 1911, with a big warning that you were not to install the stock unless you had changed the barrel.

I really think the stocked pistol concept really only works in a civilian context. Specifically as a bagged hold out gun/emergency survival gun, or in security roles where having a rifle/carbine isn't feasible. The military has a tendency to push things well outside their box to the point where they become inferior to other options.

I put a skeletonised stock on my Crosman 2300T to get a feel for the pistol-carbine form factor. The main issue in my opinion is that on most pistols you can't hold with your front hand like you do for a rifle, you need to hold like you hold like you hold a pistol with two hands. And it's not quite as easy as a rifle hold I found. It's moving a fair bit.

The design of the stock seems to make a big difference. A detachable stock doesn't alter the base gun too much, but you now have to keep track of a separate item that's slow and clunky to equip. A folding or collapsing stock is always on the gun, but can make it clunkier when folded and prevent holstering, also the cheek weld usually suffers.

The main reason to use a pistol is how compact it is, adding a stock and long barrel removes that main feature, might as well go with a carbine or SMG that are far more effective for about the same size and a little more weight.

I remember seeing a picture of a Colt .45 Single Action Army with a metal skeleton shoulder stock , ( What looked to be ) a 16 inch Barrel and a flip up adjustable ladder sight .

I love them but my opinion on the matter in a military context is they were great when they were relevant which was really WW1 because a stocked C96 or Luger P.08 was so much better when going over the top to raid a trench then even a Kar 98az. Once the mp18 came out they were immediately obsolescent. I don’t think they are relevant today either, because of submachine guns and guns like the AKs-74u and Mk18 (I think thats the designation lol) that have a more powerful cartridge and short profile.

I remember watching an Alaska reality show where a lady on the show injured her shoulder and she carried a heavy caliber pistol and while she was healing she showed on air a custom shoulder stock she had made. Then the next few showes we never saw it again. I always wondered if ATF made a visit.

There’s another practical reason that was sort of touched on, and that is size. Pistols are a close-quarters firearm that, ideally, can be quickly drawn, maneuvered and fired at close range. Add a stock to that weapon and now you’re doubling or tripling its size, making it harder to do all those things.

I have a WW2 Finnish contract Hi-power with an original stock (and holster) and it is remarkably easy and comfortable to use. Maybe an anomaly, I don’t know?

I like a stocked pistol over a pcc for being shorter, the magwell is in the grip, lighter, and having a delayed action vs a heavy blowback action. Only issue is if it’s on a sling you have to figure a manual safety solution

I have tried a few stocked pistols. What I found was that they shot to different points of aim with and without the stocks. The more powerful the gun the more the difference. C-96 Mausers have sights sized and regulated for use with the stock. Shot as pistols they shoot high and right although not enough to miss a man-sized target at usual pistol short ranges. This is inevitable because these guns recoil differently with and without the stock attached.

It all depends on the purpose that the stocked pistol was designed. The "Broomhandle" Mauser was used to clear trenches and supposedly assisted in rapidly eliminating enemy as you came upon the enemy's trench. For long range shooting...l think there was also some benefit. The 7.63x25mm round was pretty "hot" and could reach out to 100 meters...this is where the detachable stock shined. I had a 1896 Mauser in original caliber and l purchased an excellent modern full holster/stock and it was a joy to shoot ( except for the occasional hammer pinch).

I know Ian almost certainly said "self-loading pistol", but what I actually heard was "self-loathing pistol". And now I can't unhear it.

Image...you are in the upstairs washroom of a house you've been ordered to hold. Your mate is downstairs with a Lee-Metford he smuggled out of Canada. Coming up the road directly at you is a full strength infantry battalion, bayonets fixed. And you? In lieu of reinforcements, your battalion Commandant has given you his own C96 with shoulder stock and a case of ammunition. What is about to happen is the Battle of Mount Street Bridge. The young carpenter turned Volunteer officer was Michael Malone. He held that house for 6 hours and reaked havoc on that first battalion and the one that followed it into the inferno followed with that C96 (a treasured relic in Ireland's National Museum). The C96, unloved elsewhere, has legendary status in Ireland's War of Independence. And the Artillery Luger? The much feared Dan Breen (after Michael Collins, the most wanted man in Ireland by the British) loved his so much its laying across his and his brides' lap in their wedding picture. And, ironically, his bride was Michael Malone's sister Brigid. Perhaps a Weapons of the Easter Rising/Irish War of Indepence episode might be in order?

Well, I guess sometimes shoulder stocks work, and sometimes they don't. I have Weihrauch HW75 which is an air pistol intended for competition shooting at 6-10m, I put a collapsible folding stock on it, along with a 2-6 power rifle scope, and I can shoot sub 10mm groups with it at 18m, soooo...

I think there are some distinctions that need to be made with niche weapons designed for a purpose and using this weapons (or a compromise of those) to replace a general purpose rifle. Like the USW, the original being an SAO gun with a fixed optic designed for duty belt carry, using quality duty ammunition. Its common alternatives being two striker fired guns with reciprocating optics, most often using ball ammo, all these factors leading to less performance especially when considering these being used like surrogate rifles at matches instead of an on-body pdw like initially intended for LEO

Playing around with arisoft and bb stocked pistols i foind that they do better at eliminating a hand off the pistol than adding stability. Basically you can have a fast firing weapon thats reasonably accurate to 50m and you can free up a hand for grappling or knife

Dad had a Colt Model 1905 with a shoulder holster that was very awkward at best, My fav was a WW2 Inglis Hi-Power with a wooden shoulder stock/ holster

Take a look at a stocked Browning P35 full auto machine pistol. They are very fast and somewhat controllable.

I wanted a shoulder stock for my long barreled '58 Remington "Buffalo", Taylor arms makes one but it costs more than I paid for the pistol...so I made one myself, it works great, I can smack the gongs at 40 yards!

Winston Churchill used c96 as a carvery man in ww1. When he had a bad arm and could not use his sword. Killing several of the enemy. This was a tight and turning fight that required shots to be made at varied ranges.

Hello, I agree with all your comments in general. However, my Grandfather was an officer in the Canadian Army in WW1, he captured a Luger early in the war, and carried it shoulder-stocked all through the war, and in almost all the major battles, including Vimy Ridge. He cut out the back of the holster, and carried it with the shoulder stock on/attached to it that way. My point being he thought it was a pretty good set up for leading his men "over the top" and charging enemy trenches. Of course, being an officer his requirements for a weapon were a bit different, but still, he engaged in a lot of combat with a shoulder stocked Luger, and staked his life on it. ! He was wounded once, and gassed once. I have that Luger and holster, (and one magazine serial numbered to the pistol) however when my grandmother brought it and his shotgun to us after he passed away, The U.S. border people confiscated the stock. My father told me that the stock had a different serial number on it, so he must have picked it up after capturing the Luger. I suspect it was an artillery or navel Luger stock. I did see it once or twice in Canada, it was the flat-board type of stock. The pistol is a DWM/1915 with German unit/weapon numbers on the grip. Okay, just saying, some considered it (shoulder stocked Luger) a useful weapon in combat. If you are ever in Eastern Washington state, drop by and do a video on it. :) It is dripping with "provenance".

It was interesting about the ammo consistency. I had not considered that. I was thinking the barrel length would also negatively impact the practical range. The military failure of them makes more sense to me. At longer ranges it's actually a disadvantage to equip someone with one of these. It encourages engaging an enemy beyond effective range, instead of getting out of there, or taking cover. For a downed airman it would probably just reveal their position when they would be better off either using stealth to escape, or to just surrender if outmatched.

One of the only RU-vidrs that will post at 5:30am PST and I’ll stay awake to watch.

I notice the stocked Browning was one fitted with a tangent sight. Which happens to go up to 500 yards. Even with a shoulder stock, that pretty much defines optimism . . .

One thing that isn't addressed when people think about stocked historic pistols is that they were pretty much the only time you would use two hands to fire a pistol. Pistols were a weapon to use when your other hand is busy doing something else so a rifle would be impractical. As late as WW2, two handed pistol shooting was only taught if firing from the prone position. Not everyone can be easily taught to shoot a pistol one handed, but it is fairly easy to teach someone to shoot a stocked weapon. I've got three original stocked pistols in my collection and using the stock vs shooting them offhand does certainly close your groups up on target. To use the stock means using both hands though, and if going into battle, I'd rather have an actual rifle than a 9mm or 7.62 pistol regardless of the HiPower having a 13rd mag.

The Soviet Stechkin pistol also came with a shoulder stock. There is also a Stechkin with a wire stock and silencer.

Another example is the soviet Stechkin automatic pistol, based on 9 mm Makarov cartridge. Interesting fact, SADU factory in Romania, produced a modified clone of it, called Pistol model 1998. But it is a 9 mm Parabellum automatic pistol. The Romanian engineers dumped the stock and designed a notch on the front of the frame in which a spare 20 round magazine can be fitted, upside down and function as a foregrip, ensuring more stability when firing full auto. The pistol was nicknamed Dracula, and was issued to Romanian antiterrorist units and secret service.

red dot + screw on barrel extender (pushing the five seven, barrel from 4.8) out to 16", with a stock attachment. I can see being able to shift an FN Five seven from a pistol, to a carbine... given the five seven's abilities... Would actually turn the five seven into an ok varmint rifle, or multi-purpose survival weapon.

Seems like a very niche need that would be beneficial only in very specific circumstances, even in the modern times with say an RMR on a polymer frame polymer stock striker fired double stack handgun. But like everything the compromise of having to also carry a stock seems to take away from the portability from the handgun and a negligible increase in accuracy or handling of the weapon. But there are very specific conditions that could make it an okay solution. But a modern PCC could likely do the same job likely more effectively.