1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Stock design

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Blakenzy, Apr 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy Member

    Jun 12, 2004
    I was just wondering why modern weapon trend is to have a stock that has straight comb and that is placed almost on the same level as the bore axis. For instance take the old Thompson M1A1 whose stock was placed well below the bore axis and lifted the sights almost to eye level; compare that to the more modern ar-15 whose styock is straight and goes along the bore axis and requires greatly elevated sights so that you don't have to huch over to get a good sight picture.

    For CQB I feel that the Thompson style stock would be more comfortable than stocks that are straight with the bore axis because you could fire it with out getting al hunched over and bent out of shape..

    What's up with this? Educate me please :)
  2. SigfanUSAF

    SigfanUSAF Member

    Aug 26, 2006
    North Carolina
    The Germans figured that out in WWII. The closer the two axis are together, the less the muzzle will rise during automatic firing. The Thompson putts a tremendous ammount of leverage upward, hence the Cutts compensators on the 1927 style. The M1A1s saving grace is that it weighs close to 12 pounds.
  3. WinchesterAA

    WinchesterAA Member

    Mar 9, 2006
    or the AK that's like the AR, except you do have to hunch over? =)

    Also the tommy is in .45, so that saves a little more grace.
  4. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Jan 21, 2004
    Norra Texas
    Well, to a certain extent the AR-15 stock design is limited by the fact that the bolt's recoil spring has to traverse a tube that extends into the stock, limiting the top of the stock to a plane equal to the barrel/bolt. Other semi-auto designs have overcome this (Remmie semiauto shotguns and FAL, for example) by angling the recoil spring tube downward, but since the design of the AR had a carry handle that served as a dandy spot to anchor the rear sight - why bother? And, as SF pointed out, the fundamental relationship between the barrel, recoil assembly, and stock have FA implications.

    In general, I find that stocks that are meant to be shot slow-fire offhand have far more drop than stocks that are expected to be shot from the prone position or FA, all other considerations being equal.

    The Tommygun is clearly a CQB weapon that was designed during an era of offhand slow fire ergonomics. The M16 is both a field rifle and a CQB weapon, so the stock is going to be a compromise no matter how you look at it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page