National Gun Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
G

·
Dethlokk said:
What are some of the advantages that collapsible stocks have over regular stocks on a rifle or shotgun, aside from allowing the stock to be adjusted to fit the shooter? What would be better in a combat situation?

I'm especially interested in hearing the opinions of those of you servicemen, both active and retired.
Thanks for asking this, I've been curious as well. Does a collapsible stock work similar to a folding stock, so you can shoot with the stock totally out of the way (and thus turn it into a large pistol)?

I'm going to watch this thread.
 
G

·
I think it is a matter of preference!

I for one do not care for a colapsable stock as they just do not feel right to me.

But I could see advantages for shooters with short arms to be able to shorten the stock up to fit them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Collapsable stocks and folding stocks are two completely different things.

You all know what a fixed stock is. In combat, it's in the way more than anything. It doesn't do a whole lot of good unless you for some reason get into hand-to-hand combat, and then it has no equal in the ammount of force you can put behind each hit.

A folding stock is either there for use or it's not, making it not all that great for combat operations, unless it's APC carried Infantry, and then only for saving space inside the vehicle.

A collapsable stock, however, is the best of both worlds. It has the ablility to be used as a long, fixed stock for controlled, accurate fire. It has the ability to be adjusted to fit the individual shooter, thus making each soldier as comfterble as possible when firing. But the biggest advantage of a collapsable stock in combat is it's use during urban fighting and room clearing. It allows the soldiers to have a steady firing platform (the shoulder), maintain control of the weapon, and have as small a weapon as possible. In urban combat, the smaller, shorter and lighter weapons will always have the advantage. They are easier to move around and get on target in a short time, they don't get in the way as much in extremely crowded conditions and you can get closer to doorways and windows without showing your position. The closer you and your team is to a point of entry for a building or room, the larger your element of suprise becomes because there is less time for noise made during entry to register in the minds of whoever is inside the room before entry actually happens.

I hope I haven't lost any of you.
 

·
Iron Maiden
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
Zulu7 said:
I hope I haven't lost any of you.
With that face?!?! Never.............. Geez! I did it again.............. LOL


Great explanation, and I must say I prefer a collapsible stock. My hubby and I have different reach so in order to "share" the AR, the stock needs to be adjustable.
 
G

·
If you need a maneuverable weapon for close range, you're better off with a sidearm - .45ACP or .44Magnum.

My opinion of collapsible stocks is low. Hard to use them to bash an assailant's brains out.

So, I vote for a full stock, even on such wimpy weapons as M16s and AK variants.

They can however, serve the purpose of making a guy feel like a John Wayne.

Doug
 
G

·
I love the Vlotr Modstocks. I had one put onto my M16 while I used it in Iraq and then got one for the M14 I had as well. They come in really handy when conducting vehicle ops, clearing buildings and when wearing body armour.

I personally don't see any need to butt stroke someone with a fixed or collapsible buttstock seeing as how both are prone to breakage upon impact with someone else. It's easier and quicker to put the muzzle of your rifle in guy's throat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Doug Wilson said:
If you need a maneuverable weapon for close range, you're better off with a sidearm - .45ACP or .44Magnum.

My opinion of collapsible stocks is low. Hard to use them to bash an assailant's brains out.

So, I vote for a full stock, even on such wimpy weapons as M16s and AK variants.

They can however, serve the purpose of making a guy feel like a John Wayne.

Doug


Pistols are great and all, but in close range combat like inside a building or a room, a rifle or shotgun is, believe it or not, more accurate. The pistols small size and lack of points of contact with the shooter's body makes it very easy to miss, even at 10 feet. With a rifle or a shotgun, there are 3 to 4 points where you are in contact with the weapon, so you have a considerably larger amount of control over where the rounds are going to go. In the heat of battle, you need every advantage you can get, and not having to think about aiming is a major advantage.

As for the argument that a full stock is better, you're right...for hand to hand combat and long range shooting/sniping. In the world of close quarters battle, a collapsable stock on a rifle or a shotgun has no equal.
 
G

·
I agree completely with the other soldiers. Collapsible is absolutely the way to go. Ever see the pics of the contortions guys in body armor have to go through to shoot an M16A2 or A4, with the fixed stock? On the modern battlefield, all of us wear armor. The fixed stocks work for crap with armor, whereas the collapsible stock on the M4 makes shooting in armor a cinch.

Most fixed stocks are also too long to properly use in a modern, squared up fighting stance. This is not a conventional rifleman's stance at all, which has the torso bladed away from the target. Rather, the modern stance squares the shoulders to the target, necessitating a shorter length of pull. The collapsible stock allows this; the standard fixed does not.

When I am in armor, I completely collapse my M4's stock. When unarmored, I use the first "notch" in the four-position stock because I use the modern fighting stance.

The collapsible stock also has major advantages in maneuverability in buildings and vehicles, as already noted.

Folding stocks only make the gun easier to store. They do nothing to enhance shootability, while a collapsible enhances it quite a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
761 Posts
Mike Barham said:
I agree completely with the other soldiers. Collapsible is absolutely the way to go. Ever see the pics of the contortions guys in body armor have to go through to shoot an M16A2 or A4, with the fixed stock? On the modern battlefield, all of us wear armor. The fixed stocks work for crap with armor, whereas the collapsible stock on the M4 makes shooting in armor a cinch.

Most fixed stocks are also too long to properly use in a modern, squared up fighting stance. This is not a conventional rifleman's stance at all, which has the torso bladed away from the target. Rather, the modern stance squares the shoulders to the target, necessitating a shorter length of pull. The collapsible stock allows this; the standard fixed does not.

When I am in armor, I completely collapse my M4's stock. When unarmored, I use the first "notch" in the four-position stock because I use the modern fighting stance.

The collapsible stock also has major advantages in maneuverability in buildings and vehicles, as already noted.

Folding stocks only make the gun easier to store. They do nothing to enhance shootability, while a collapsible enhances it quite a lot.


See? Sometimes I know what I'm talking about. Doesn't happen too often, but when it does, I'm dead-on. Thanks for backing me up, Mike.
 
G

·
I defer to the guys whose lives daily depend upon their rifles.

My thoughts are based upon the experience of an old-time rifleman, not a current combat soldier.

The only thing that had either one of the stocks in the thread title, when I was in, was the M-1 Carbine (Paratrooper). And I don't believe it was still a TO&E weapon, even back then.

Doug
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top