Why a full stock?

Why were (are) colonial era longrifles and fowlers predominantly full-stocked? A buddy asked the other day and I didn't have an answer for him.

Because even then the were afraid not to be PC. Sorry Claude,I couldnt resist. Bob

Amusing, not very informative, but amusing.

I think it was just the way things were done back then. It was all style and nobody knew any different until the evolution of firearms came around to halfstocks through human ingenuity and creativity. Styles change because of folks getting tired of the same old thing.

The old boys from the 18th century would probably look at a modern gun or rifle and say,"Where is the rest of the stock?"

This maybe way off base but, just makes sense to me. You need something to hold the ram rod pipes, easiest thing to do and lightest is to extend the stock wood yes? :hmm:

I suspect it was a style thing that begin during the match lock period and was carried on, it allowed a place to put the rammer with out any further metal work , I have never heard a difinitive answer to this maybe it will come to be here?

looks like I type slower than Cooner and Sawmp Rat....

The underribs of the 19th century were made of sheet iron and folded into a trough. They didn't weigh anything and were much lighter than wood forestocks.
I don't think anyone thought up halfstocks yet. Why fix it if it ain't broke. Every one was happy with fullstock guns because they didn't know any thing else.

I wonder why folks used hand crank washing machines 80 years ago?

The underribs of the 19th century were made of sheet iron and folded into a trough.

Click to expand...

Ahh I did not know that. Thank you for learnin me somethin today Cooner. :thumbsup:

That may very well be the case. Humans love to hang on to our traditions. But... why hang onto a style that keeps weight on a gun when the makers of the day opted for smaller bores. Presumable to lighten load and save resources. Than again they did lengthen the barrel. But, they weren't afraid to experiment with rifle twist. Hmm, the longrifle of the 18th century was obviously a work in progress. So, why retain the full-stock? I think I read somewhere that by the golden age of the longrifle in America, some other nations were experimenting with the half-stock.

Ever grab a barrel when it's 20º while wearing wool mittens or bare hands? Sometimes you can't let go. They're Pennsylvania tools and it gets cold in PA. I think part of it is also barrel protection from skin acids that would quickly rust the old iron barrels.

That and it looks nice. Consider the clothes folks were wearing at that time that are far from functional or practical. Them guys were very style conscious.

mmm, the cold weather and finger oil protection sounds reasonable.
I will have to question the clothing observation. I'm sure their workaday clothes were eminently practical, or they'd have stripped down and dressed like indians.

I haven't read anything that gives an answer so the following is just my rational to answer the question.

I think the use of sheet metal under-ribs was used in the mid 1800s after rolling mills began to appear and sheet metal became common, but prior to that iron sheet metal wasn't very common unless the smith pounded it out (which takes a lot of work).

The use of steel for anything that didn't need the strength and hardnness steel could give was almost unheard of in the 1700s and it was far to valuable to use for sheet metal to support a ramrod.

This leaves wood as the most available material to support the ramrod pipes. It's cheap, lightweight and had been used for hundreds of years for this task.
Its only problem is the fact that it is somewhat fragile when the barrel is not in place to support it.

Besides, IMO it looks good to me. I even prefer the Full stocked modern rifles looks over the common half stocks most people buy today.
zonie

A lot a whites did just that. They dressed like NDNZ and lived with them as well. Given the chance to go back to their white families many opted to remain NDN. Some fought like wild cats to stay with their NDN families.

Another thing about the fullstock longrifles and guns...if the forestock adds appreciably to the weight of the piece, it is way too thick. There just isn't very much wood out there on a piece that is built right. And...the wood going all the way out to the muzzle sure is pretty.

That does make a lot of sense. Prohibitive cost kept it from being an option. Still you'd think we'd see a few every now and then. We see apparent contemporary european examples of the half-stock on the forum. (e.g. the "very cool Scottish fowler on TOTW") Though the Colonial gunsmiths of the time may not have been aware of them.
I have to claim a great deal of ignorance here. There may well be examples galore of early Colonial half-stocks out there and I just don't know about them. I very quickly fell in love with the full-stock when i first started into BP and have spent all my time admiring them. Some transcend the label of gun and are true works of art.
Because of my newfound fascination with the longrifle, i've developed an urge to learn much more of it's time and place in history, but am just starting. Maybe a more in depth survey of the history of the rifle itself is a good place to go next.
Cooner54, I see your point on the stock not adding a lot of appreciable weight and I agree. And on the NDNZ, i was making the point that on the frontier the colonists didn't have time or inclination to fuss with things that didn't serve a purpose and weren't shy about discarding them for more useful items or practices. So if they kept their full stocks, they probably served a useful function. Now, i'm making an assumption here, and you know what happens when you assume! :shocked2:

I used to live in the south central Pa area, not far from Lancaster. I saw a lot of origional rifles that people told me was Pappy's old rifle. Many were half-stock. Small caliber, Barrel around 32-36 inches. I believe these rifles were mostly percussion. But may have been converts. Some had brass furniture, and some had silver, and some had iron. These rifles I believe were made in that area, but I can't put a date on them. HALF STOCKS ARE OUT THERE. :wink:

I know for a fact there are halfstock flinters converted to percussion out there. I have seen them at gun shows and in collections. They were guns that had been chopped back because of breaks in the forestock and pewter caps poured on the end to protect the end grain. Sometimes ribs were added and sometimes not. When not, the thimbles were soldered to the bottom of the barrel like the Scottish fowler on the TOTW site.
Maybe the Scots were making halfstocks that early and I don't know about it. I would like to know and if there is someone out their that can correct me on this I would appreciate it.

You can not assume that a gun in a book or a collection was made that way to begin with. Neither is it safe to assume that a modern maker is making a piece as it would have been made 250 years ago.

Things were very different in times past. Today a nice piece of curly maple long enough for a full stock costs an arm and a leg. Back then trees were cut and burned on the spot just to clear the land for agriculture. Free wood could be had for the asking and labor was cheap as well. Iron was expensive and to hammer and file out a long thin rib took considerable time and skill. Even in the "Hawken era" a half-stock cost more than a fullstock. I think there were enough half-stocks around so people knew of them, 1803 Harpers Ferry for example, but they still were expensive and offered no advantage over the common fullstock. To my own eye, halfstocks look rather odd with barrels longer than 36" and most American flintlocks wore barrels of 44-48".

Another thing to think about is heat. I haven't ever made my rifle to hot to handle but I bet if you were doing a lot of shooting that the stock up around the muzzle could provide at least some insulation between a hot barrel and your hand when it came time to reload again.

BUT... I doubt your average farmer/hunter shot that much. It is an interesting thing to ponder with the long rifles used in military action. It wasn't until the repeaters and breach loaders came about that you saw considerable shortening of the stock on military weapons. No need to touch the hot barrel cause all the loading was done at the back end. And the military always gets the "cool toys" before mass marketing to civilians.

Allow me to speculate...(this is hypothetical) Lets say that a full stock is cheapest and most easily produced; a fair assumption based on above posts. This would make it the most attractive prospect to a government trying to supply and army. The best buyer of weapons is the government so an easy way to learn how to make guns would be to apprentice with a smith on a government contract. They don't require fancy stuff and there is usually a fair amount of leeway you can take in regards quality, but it is a good way to start. Thus an aspiring gunsmith would learn how to make a full stock weapon first and would be most proficient at that style. After he finished his apprenticeship and started his own business this style would be the foremost in his mind and his most commonly produced style of firearm. Thus a long standing of full stocked firearms are prevalent throughout history.

Just one more idea. One barrel wedge would be 4-6 pins worth of metal (hard to come by). On early rifles, where you wanted to embellish it some, more wood gave more area to do it. Or, on working rifles with long barrels, more pins along the way would/may put less stress on the breech (the weakest part of the wood) when firing. Not sure myself. I do like fullstocks though :thumbsup: