1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > General > General Gun Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:35 AM
Dino. Dino. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 225
1911 Shoulder Stocks?




Seems to me, I remember seeing photos of 1911's with shoulder stocks.
Old WWII photos maybe?

Has anyone else seen these?
Are they still available?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:28 PM
Jim V Jim V is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 9,205
Never used by the US that I know of. Several other countries have been reported to use them. I've seen them in Sportsman Guide catalogs, however their use requires the fitting of a 16 barrel to be okay under federal law. Just slapping on the shoulder stock and not changing the barrel is a good way to be visiting Club Fed for a while - not the nice country club ones either.


I'd go with a CCU before I'd buy one of the set ups you are talking about.
__________________
TFL #296 -- MOLON LABE Leonidas c 480 BC -- FFF
If it ain't metal, single stack, and single action, it ain't a 1911 no matter what it looks like!!
Do Not Irk The Forum Curmudgeon
Harold V. B: 03/28/11 D: 11/23/07 Dad, I'll miss you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:46 PM
Hadoken Hadoken is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
The sportsmans guide has them in their catalogue with a longer barrel in a package, I'll edit this once I get a link.

Here be the link http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=213622 $250 though...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-29-2006, 12:15 AM
ERdept ERdept is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 976
Try this one...........

http://www.mechtechsys.com/

cliff
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-29-2006, 01:04 AM
Wes Janson Wes Janson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 539
One of the local range owners has a converted Colt, I think. Stuck a relatively simplistic stock on it, and a 16 inch barrel.

Here's the thing I don't get though: everything I've read about ARs says that if you buy a reciever papered as a rifle, you can't use it to make an AR pistol, and vice versa. So why is it legal for someone to convert a Glock 17 into a rifle? And back again?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-29-2006, 02:52 AM
ERdept ERdept is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 976
prolly just another overlooked loophole.

cliff
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:20 AM
rightwingnut rightwingnut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 62
It is legal to convert something that was originally manufactured as a pistol into a rifle but not vice versa. Wierd huh? If you really want to take a rifle and make it in "pistol" config, you have to register it as a SBR or MG.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:32 PM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
The Colt Model 1905 -- which at a distance doesn't look so drastically different in outline than a 1911, so perhaps that's what you saw in an old movie -- did come with a combination holster/shoulderstock:



If not for the government's bad attitude, that's a pretty good idea.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:37 PM
TimWarner's Avatar
TimWarner TimWarner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. Paul
Age: 33
Posts: 922
a pistol marked receiver can be made into a legal rifle, but not the opposite.

a "rifle" receiver HAS to meet rifle requirements at all times, or it would be a "SBR" class III. A pistol receiver can either be a legal pistol, or if it meets the rifle requirements, it can be assembled as a rifle. That's how the mechtech units work.

Kind of like a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square
__________________
~=[ Tim ]=~
Match Director
Oakdale Gun Club
USPSA Club MN07
Metal workin' tool and die grease monkey.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-30-2006, 05:48 PM
OD* OD* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 1,921
Cobray shoulder stock;

__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:10 AM
John K John K is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego CA
Age: 52
Posts: 129
Slow down, you will get a more harmonious outcome.
Where have I heard that before?
John
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:13 AM
OD* OD* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 1,921
Hi John!

What the heck are you doing here!?

My mentor Wilford Brimley taught me that.
__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:32 AM
Jim Keenan Jim Keenan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Age: 81
Posts: 1,836
Legal issues aside, the idea is not a very good one. I have fired a number of shoulder stocked pistols and (with one exception) the stock is too short to put the muzzle far enough from the shooter's head. Even with a 16" barrel and ear plugs, the blast and noise from a stocked .45 is nasty. Only the 9mm C96 is tolerable, due to its longer barrel and longer stock. On the other hand, the 7.63mm C96, with its sharper crack, is brutal.

Of course, civilian shooters can use ear muffs, ear plugs, etc., but those guns were intended for the military, to be used as carbines. They never really caught on, primarily for the reasons I mentioned. It was a fad whose time has passed. Some folks like to play with the idea, mostly because of the "forbidden fruit" syndrome, but it really isn't practical.

You can try this easily enough without a stock. Just hold the pistol with both hands with the elbows bent and the muzzle 16"-18" from the face. You will see (or rather feel and hear) the problem.

Jim
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-01-2006, 12:37 AM
Wes Janson Wes Janson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 539
But is it legal to take the stocked pistol and remove the stock, thus converting it back into a handgun, from a rifle? After having put the stock on there yourself in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-01-2006, 01:05 AM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Yes if it's something like the Mech-Tech conversion. I don't know about all cases.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-01-2006, 06:15 PM
Inquisitor Inquisitor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 591
I think this goes back to the "Gangster Weapons Act" of 1934, covering MG's, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, etc. The original intent was to prevent someone from taking an unwieldy rifle and converting it into a less than 16" barreled, easily concealed weapon.

The Feds decided anything with a stock was a rifle and a rifle couldn't have less than a 16" barrel, even though the original intent was to prevent someone from turning a rifle into a more concealable pistol, not turning an already concealable pistol into a less concealable rifle. I guess this was a Roosevelt era jobs program for public servants. As I understand it, this is just a regulation that could be changed by executive order, without changing the law.

So why doesn't NRA pressure Bush to do that? Since many states allow handgun hunting and the stock makes them both more useful and more humane for that purpose, it seems like a political slam-dunk.
__________________
Never love anything that can't love you back.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-01-2006, 06:25 PM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Hmm, you think liberals would agree with it?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-01-2006, 06:33 PM
Inquisitor Inquisitor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by trenace
Hmm, you think liberals would agree with it?
If it's done by executive order, it doesn't matter what they think.
__________________
Never love anything that can't love you back.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-01-2006, 06:55 PM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
It's a nice view that it doesn't matter, I wish it were so, but the fact is an enormous amount of media noise results from indignation of intolerant liberals and the present Administration appears to have great fear of liberal opinion. (Perhaps because Republicans that aren't liberals are a minority in both the House and Senate -- Republicans comprise a majority only when their liberal members are included. Or perhaps other reasons, such as wanting to be liked by everyone as much as possible, or something. Anyway the bendings to the liberals have been extremely numerous, hence the 40% increase in domestic spending in 5 years as one example.)

If what was meant by "slam dunk" was that it could be done 100% guaranteed, that may be so; if what was meant was that there would be no vicious-mouthed repercussions as well as possible political intransigence on other issues in retaliation, I'd disagree with that.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-01-2006, 07:16 PM
Inquisitor Inquisitor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 591
Trenace

As near as I can tell, Bush doesn't much care who likes his policies. In this case, he could just sign a piece of paper, without dragging a single Republican Congressional candidate into it, and it is over. Bush is not running for re-election and no member of Congress would have to admit to favoring what he did.

Besides, this thing doesn't have adverse polical consequences to speak of. If he were allowing a rifle or shotgun to be sawed-off, maybe political hay could be made; but lengthening an already legal hunting weapon to assist in a more humane kill? Not bloody likely.
__________________
Never love anything that can't love you back.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-01-2006, 07:34 PM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
Well, I suppose anyone is entitled to believe liberal reaction to be rational when it comes to gun and other hair-trigger (no pun intended) issues for them, but personally I don't.

The fact that it makes sense is I think completely irrelevant when it comes to that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-01-2006, 08:07 PM
Inquisitor Inquisitor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by trenace
Well, I suppose anyone is entitled to believe liberal reaction to be rational when it comes to gun and other hair-trigger (no pun intended) issues for them, but personally I don't.

The fact that it makes sense is I think completely irrelevant when it comes to that.
This is a dead-horse issue anyway, since nobody with clout is pushing it. I will only say this before departing the thread: I don't think the "liberals" could get traction, since you have to have some plausable theory to sell of how it endangers the public safety. Hollywood and TV have villified the sawed-off anything to the point that it is an easy sale to the uninformed.

If they couldn't get traction with the lifting of the "Assault Weapons" ban, how would they get the average Joe to think he and his are going to be murdered in their beds if hunters are allowed to temporarily attach a piece of wood to their legal pistol? I don't think so. Disagree if you like.
__________________
Never love anything that can't love you back.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-01-2006, 08:31 PM
SistemaTodd SistemaTodd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TX, rural Tarrant Co.
Age: 43
Posts: 4,786
You'd be amazed what seemingly logical ideas the liberal media (and senators) can attach a handle to and wield as a club to beat our President about the head and shoulders.

Logic has no bearing when the purveyors of information refuse to disseminate the truth.
__________________
"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature--that of self preservation--is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life."
--John Wesley Hardin--

NRA(Lifetime) & TSRA MEMBER and CHL holder, & always will be.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-01-2006, 08:35 PM
OD* OD* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 1,921
Quote:
liberal media (and senators)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
__________________
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." - Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-01-2006, 09:27 PM
trenace trenace is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,192
The "assault weapons" ban also is problematic as an analogy, because that was not a case of action being taken to lift it -- which did not happen, Bush doing nothing to end it throughout the years of his first term when it was in effect -- but rather it ended because of inaction to continue it and the law originally having a "sunset" provision.

And furthermore, it was inaction where everyone knew any action to extend it had absolutely no chance to succeed. If Bush had requested Congress to extend the bill, there would have been no chance of that passing the House in an election year, which it was. So there was nothing to beat him about the head and shoulders with. The media was also focusing at that time in trying to do him in with the failed and fraudulent Texas Air National Guard story anyhow, which apparently seemed to them a better attack point. So, his not extending it, which was not within his power anyway, is not at all equivalent to taking action to end a gun control provision, which would be required in this instance.

In fact, it's worse than that: Bush at least once said that he would sign an extension of the assault weapons ban if Congress passed it. So this is an example of his willingness in the face of liberals to act against gun control? If it is, it's an example in the wrong direction.

If only inaction were required to end the restriction on short-barreled rifles, then the ending of the "assault weapons" ban could be a good analogy and it might happen. As it is, as you say, it isn't on the table and almost certainly is not going to happen, I think as personal opinion for predictable reasons.

Last edited by trenace; 08-01-2006 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved