Folding Stocks DMs

[Diveguy]

It's a moving part with springs, clips, locks etc - plenty of stuff that can brake that can't on a fixed stock.

Eh - based on real-world experience, on any modern folding stock - if a piece like that is broken enough that it might affect accuracy, it's because the stock as a whole has become non-functional. But as far as reducing accuracy on a regular basis? Not a factor.

As point of fact - a high percentage of modern "sniper" or "designated marksman" type rifles actually utilize some form of folding or collapsable stock to reduce overall length for transport - and they certainly aren't seeing any reduction in accuracy or other issues because of it.

 

[Timerover51]

I was at the gunshop today and was looking at a few rifles with adjustable stocks, where you can change the length of the stock to fit the firer. Some of those collapse quite a bit, so at to approximate a folding stock. Where do those fit into this discussion?

Then there are the shotguns with just a pistol grip, and no stock. For an example, see the double-barrel sawed-off shotgun used by James Caan in "El Dorado."

 

[Brandon C]

No, stocks are design to stabilize the weapon, regardless of recoil.

Specifically, it provides the shooter with three points of contact (shoulder, both hands) rather than two points of contact (both hands). This improves stability and thus accuracy.

 

[Brandon C]

Eh - based on real-world experience, on any modern folding stock - if a piece like that is broken enough that it might affect accuracy, it's because the stock as a whole has become non-functional. But as far as reducing accuracy on a regular basis? Not a factor.

Most folding stocks aren't as stable as fixed stocks. I think the modifier represents an average folding stock: cheaper and more flimsy and pricier and more stable folding stocks exist. I would dare say the folding stocks on sniper rifle are more expensive than ones found on an average infantry service rifle.

 

[mike wightman]

Eh - based on real-world experience, on any modern folding stock - if a piece like that is broken enough that it might affect accuracy, it's because the stock as a whole has become non-functional. But as far as reducing accuracy on a regular basis? Not a factor.

My experience is not exactly modern - my comment is based on the sterling smgs I handled. Several of the folding stocks were very loose -due to age no doubt - and definitely affected accuracy.

As point of fact - a high percentage of modern "sniper" or "designated marksman" type rifles actually utilize some form of folding or collapsable stock to reduce overall length for transport - and they certainly aren't seeing any reduction in accuracy or other issues because of it.

Which highlights that higher TL stuff should have different mods - which is a decision the ref can make for their game.

 

[Diveguy]

My experience is not exactly modern - my comment is based on the sterling smgs I handled. Several of the folding stocks were very loose -due to age no doubt - and definitely affected accuracy.

Which highlights that higher TL stuff should have different mods - which is a decision the ref can make for their game.

Yes, I can certainly agree - the Sterling stocks, the older Uzi stocks and many of the MP-5 stocks (particularly with age) were a far cry from a fixed stock. My observations were more based on current-issue or off-the-shelf options, which are a far sight better (no pun intended).

And yes, to comment on the other post - like anything else, "you get what. you pay for" - whether in a collapsing/folding stock, weapon optics, laser system or the like. As in many things, it comes down to how in the weeds you want to get in your game with tech level, weapon. options, price details and all the other choices.

My initial observation was more to offer a counterpoint to the negative DM concept that "folding stocks are inherently less accurate than fixed."

 

[Condottiere]

The point of the folding stock is that it takes up less room, especially during transit.

It could be completely solid or skeletal.

Each variation with it's own disadvantages or penalties.

In combat, you expect the user to have it snapped in full position; the question becomes at what point does the user decide the advantage of having it retracted or left folded outweighs the inherent penalty.

If the user has the inherent strength to absorb recoil, at close quarters follow up shots should be accurate enough.

 

[Brandon C]

Yes, I can certainly agree - the Sterling stocks, the older Uzi stocks and many of the MP-5 stocks (particularly with age) were a far cry from a fixed stock. My observations were more based on current-issue or off-the-shelf options, which are a far sight better (no pun intended).

I'll note that fixed rifle stocks have also improved over the years (strsight to semi-pistol to pistol, to adjustable stocks with or without recoil padding). So, while folding stocks have improved, so have fixed stocks, and making a distinction between the two at any TL is valid.