Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/13/2005 9:12:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:20:41 PM EDT by OyOfMidworld]
Is this safe? I see it done in movies all the time. They sneek up on the bad guy and smack him in the skull to subdue him quietly. I just don't feel like a buffer tube could take that kind of abuse. Any one ever use thier butt stock in combat? How about for bustin open wood crates full of drugs or refugies? I would sure hate to render my rifle useless in a head-bashing zombie scenario.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:17:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 9:17:39 PM EDT by MachinegunManiac]
In the Army(and i'm sure other branches do to) we're trained to use the butt of the rifle for the very purpose you speak of as part of the bayonet training. So definately yes. Mind you these were with M16A2's. I can't atest to the M4 style stocks. It's a military rifle and is meant to take a beating.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:20:45 PM EDT
I would think an A2 stock could bash some heads just fine. However I don't think an M4 stock would hold up quite as well in the same situation.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:23:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
I would think an A2 stock could bash some heads just fine. However I don't think an M4 stock would hold up quite as well in the same situation.


That's kinda what I was thinking, but haven't worked much with them.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:35:27 PM EDT
No problem with a full standard mil-stock but I wouldn't attempt to abuse my collapsable in that same mannor...I figure you'd probably bend the recoil buffer tube and the next time the carbine goes bang your bolt carrier would get stuck/jammed back there...for good...or until an amorer replaced the damaged/bent buffer/recoil tube.

But I'm not certain...and?...kinda happy that I'm not certain. LOL!!!

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:35:57 PM EDT
I fell down my stairs while I had my rifle, I had the ace socom, the one with the meat tenderizer on it, well that thing flipped wayy up in the air, well it got me in the head, yea right in the m#%er f#$%g head, butt stroked myself. Yea it will knock someone out, trust me
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:38:06 PM EDT
My magpul 93b has a nice serrated metal "strike plate" for just that purpose.
It's certainly a last ditch weapon, but it's one more thing between you and the coffin.

The setup certainly seems strong enough, although I'm not going to go looking for
things to bust open to test it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 9:47:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OyOfMidworld:
Is this safe? I see it done in movies all the time. They sneek up on the bad guy and smack him in the skull to subdue him quietly. I just don't feel like a buffer tube could take that kind of abuse. Any one ever use thier butt stock in combat? How about for bustin open wood crates full of drugs or refugies? I would sure hate to render my rifle useless in a head-bashing zombie scenario.



I've heard of DIs throwing M16s across aircraft bays and them still working....

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 10:06:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OyOfMidworld:
Is this safe? I see it done in movies all the time. They sneek up on the bad guy and smack him in the skull to subdue him quietly. I just don't feel like a buffer tube could take that kind of abuse. Any one ever use thier butt stock in combat? How about for bustin open wood crates full of drugs or refugies? I would sure hate to render my rifle useless in a head-bashing zombie scenario.



A quality rifle buffer tube w/ A2 stock in particular would take some serious horsepower to break in that manner.

However, I have heard stories of stocks cracking while being planted into the ground as a soldier basically launched himself into prone and used the stock to break his fall from standing. Those are just stories, though, and I imagine it would take a hell of a hit to be able to significantly damage it if it's quality and installed securely.

As for a telestock, I dunno, but I wouldn't try it. I'd use the barrel end as a blunt weapon before I tried using a collapsable stock that can and will collapse with a violent enough shock.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 10:10:15 PM EDT
I think a melee to the head with a m4 stock would be ok. Wouldn't try to breach doors or break locks with it thought.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 11:54:06 PM EDT
My brother in law was telling that when he was in the marines (i know... as lame as that sounds "i know someone who was a marine who said...") that he would use the buttstock to break his fall and he's hit so hard sometimes it would chamber a round, but never broke the stock.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 3:48:13 AM EDT
here is my ACE SOCOM stock with meat clever



Link Posted: 8/14/2005 3:59:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steve-oh:
My brother in law was telling that when he was in the Marines (i know... as lame as that sounds "i know someone who was a Marine who said...") that he would use the buttstock to break his fall and he's hit so hard sometimes it would chamber a round, but never broke the stock.




fixed it for ya.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:12:41 AM EDT
Boys...I can atest after being in and around Fallujah......that the m16A4/A2 buttstock is an excellent weapon. The rear sling carrier makes a great striking point. The M4 stock holds up well too. I've seen plenty of strikes or "nudges" that doesn't even phase the M4 buttstock. It's amazing how fragile the human skull is to blunt trauma....even to plastic and aluminum. It doesn't take much......

Just from what I've seen...but you don't have to take my word for it.

ARCAPTN
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:16:59 AM EDT
That fixed sling mount on the A2 stock would work great.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:22:32 AM EDT
I would think that you could minimize risk of damaging the M4 stock by collapseing it. Collapsing it all the way would be best, but would shorten your reach. But collapseing it a little bit would reduce the leverage and therefore the strain on the tube. Right?

-K
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:46:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 4:47:21 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
I fell down my stairs while I had my rifle, I had the ace socom, the one with the meat tenderizer on it, well that thing flipped wayy up in the air, well it got me in the head, yea right in the m#%er f#$%g head, butt stroked myself. Yea it will knock someone out, trust me



"ON MY MARK, Buttstroke self to head!"



Oh man I'm sure that hurt and it should not be funny but I just snorted coffee
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:10:36 AM EDT
A straight blow where the impact is in line with the buffer tube would put alot less stress on the buffer tube and threads as opposed to a right to left or upward blow. Either way you are not going to be swinging it by the barrel/forend like a bat, you are most likely going to switch your strong hand from the pistol grip to the bottom or middle of the stock or you won't deliver much of blow. having your stron hand on the stock will offfer it alot of support and prevent bending for the most part.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:18:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:26:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:29:48 AM EDT by Yojimbo]

I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.

1. It keeps the muzzle oriented towards the enemy.
2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:02:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.

1. It keeps the muzzle oriented towards the enemy.
2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.



And a Phantom/Vortex/A2 will keep you from clogging the muzzle with bone or gray matter.
Thank goodness the ban is gone gone gone!
Hey, maybe I do need that bayo lug on my M4!
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:13:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By donovan007007:
here is my ACE SOCOM stock with meat clever TENDERIZER!
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:37:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 12:24:58 PM EDT by Yojimbo]

Originally Posted By Extracheeze:
Originally Posted By donovan007007:
here is my ACE SOCOM stock with meat clever TENDERIZER!



The Troy Medivel brake is the real meat tenderizer.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:43:11 AM EDT
Horizontal butt stroke and vertical buttstroke were mandatory moves in basic back in 67

Course we had the M-14 back then ...a perfectly balanced weapon for bayonet slash and thrust and
going upside the bg's haid with..

I loved Ft. Campbell's bayonet course...
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 8:46:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 8:51:03 AM EDT by Mike_Mills]
If you think about it, the way to strike is using the butt plate.

This will put the force of the blow along the length of the buffer tube where it is strongest. If you strike with the force across the buffer tube you risk bending/breaking the tube.

Also, don't use it like a baseball bat. If you have to cross stroke, hold/support the striking end of the stock. This will lessen the chance of damaging something. On the ACE SOCOM stock, they give you a rear grip to ensure you support the stock when using the "tenderizer".

If the SHTF, do it. If you have a choice, use the butt plate.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:58:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 10:10:31 AM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
Horizontal butt stroke and vertical buttstroke were mandatory moves in basic back in 67

Course we had the M-14 back then ...a perfectly balanced weapon for bayonet slash and thrust and
going upside the bg's haid with..

I loved Ft. Campbell's bayonet course...




Not limited to the M14. I went to basic in 1982 and we did the same moves with our M16A1s. Not as much weight and momentum as an M14 but still would not feel good if it connected with flesh and bone.

I don't agree with the worry about about damaging the rifle as discussed previously. If you are having to use a buttstroke or bayonet thrust, the stuff has hit the fan, the red hordes are upon you and nothing else matters.

I seriously doubt that our grunts in the Korean war, when their position was overrun by masses of ChiCom infantry face-to-face, took the time to think "should I use the buttstroke? perhaps it would damage my rifle". this is ridiculous. It is a last ditch close quarters combat maneuver. Use of the buttstroke and bayonet may not be the ideal defense but it was better than throwing the weapon down and running. The same is true in a home defense scenario. Is your life worth a broken rifle? I'd like to think mine is worth more than that even though I doubt it would make the weapon completely inoperable.

I will say that I prefer a steel buttplate on any rifle and wish they had never discarded this feature on the M16.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:24:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 10:24:53 AM EDT by CJan_NH]
The MagPul hardened strike plate:



I'd hate to get hit with it-that's why I practice my weapon retention drill
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:25:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.

1. It keeps the muzzle oriented towards the enemy.
2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.

+1, to all of this. A guy accidently muzzle-struck me in the sternum, and even with a relatively "light" strike, my chest was sore as hell for a week. I imagine that if you laid a really good hit on someone, it wouldn't be all that difficult to snap the sternum.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:31:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.he2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.



I think I'm down with Yojimbo on this. Makes great sense......even without a bayonet, a muzzle thrust to the Adam's apple is likely to be eventually fatal...and definitely incapacitating...leave 'em choking on their own blood, likely....
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:24:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 11:25:03 AM EDT by Mike_Mills]

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
Horizontal butt stroke and vertical buttstroke were mandatory moves in basic back in 67

Course we had the M-14 back then ...a perfectly balanced weapon for bayonet slash and thrust and
going upside the bg's haid with..

I loved Ft. Campbell's bayonet course...




Not limited to the M14. I went to basic in 1982 and we did the same moves with our M16A1s. Not as much weight and momentum as an M14 but still would not feel good if it connected with flesh and bone.

I don't agree with the worry about about damaging the rifle as discussed previously. If you are having to use a buttstroke or bayonet thrust, the stuff has hit the fan, the red hordes are upon you and nothing else matters.

I seriously doubt that our grunts in the Korean war, when their position was overrun by masses of ChiCom infantry face-to-face, took the time to think "should I use the buttstroke? perhaps it would damage my rifle". this is ridiculous. It is a last ditch close quarters combat maneuver. Use of the buttstroke and bayonet may not be the ideal defense but it was better than throwing the weapon down and running. The same is true in a home defense scenario. Is your life worth a broken rifle? I'd like to think mine is worth more than that even though I doubt it would make the weapon completely inoperable.

I will say that I prefer a steel buttplate on any rifle and wish they had never discarded this feature on the M16.




I thought the context of the question was for an M-16 type weapon with its screwed on stock extension/buffer tube and its plastic butt stock and plastic buttplate. Even with an M-16, when the SHTF, just do it but train to do it correctly.

I don't think there's any worry about a solid wood stock such as you have on an M1 or M14 (Korean War / early Viet Nam War).
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:56:06 PM EDT
M-4 is probably too short for one of those "Last of the Mohicans" stocks ---with a blade on one edge so you can hold the barrel and swing your rifle like an axe.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:19:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:20:21 PM EDT by Firelotus]

Originally Posted By donovan007007:
here is my ACE SOCOM stock with meat clever



i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/donovan007007/badassmofo5.jpg



OOOHHH, very nice for make hamburger out of osama's face


And m16 stocks work better then m4 stocks
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 3:56:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:

Originally Posted By _DR:

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
Horizontal butt stroke and vertical buttstroke were mandatory moves in basic back in 67

Course we had the M-14 back then ...a perfectly balanced weapon for bayonet slash and thrust and
going upside the bg's haid with..

I loved Ft. Campbell's bayonet course...




Not limited to the M14. I went to basic in 1982 and we did the same moves with our M16A1s. Not as much weight and momentum as an M14 but still would not feel good if it connected with flesh and bone.

I don't agree with the worry about about damaging the rifle as discussed previously. If you are having to use a buttstroke or bayonet thrust, the stuff has hit the fan, the red hordes insert enemy of choice here are upon you and nothing else matters.

I seriously doubt that our grunts in the Korean later Viet Nam war, when their position was overrun by masses of ChiCom Viet Cong and NVA infantry face-to-face, took the time to think "should I use the buttstroke? perhaps it would damage my rifle M16". this is ridiculous. It is a last ditch close quarters combat maneuver. Use of the buttstroke and bayonet may not be the ideal defense but it was better than throwing the weapon down and running. The same is true in a home defense scenario. Is your life worth a broken rifle? I'd like to think mine is worth more than that even though I doubt it would make the weapon completely inoperable.

I will say that I prefer a steel buttplate on any rifle and wish they had never discarded this feature on the M16.




I thought the context of the question was for an M-16 type weapon with its screwed on stock extension/buffer tube and its plastic butt stock and plastic buttplate. Even with an M-16, when the SHTF, just do it but train to do it correctly.

I don't think there's any worry about a solid wood stock such as you have on an M1 or M14 (Korean War / early Viet Nam War).



Well, It doesn't make any difference to me, my take is still the same. But I fixed it for you.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 7:34:03 PM EDT
I had an instructor in HS JROTC who was a retired Major, Special Forces. I can't recall the context of the conversation, but he related one time that he buttstroked a VC with an M16A1 once. Got one round out and it jammed up solid. He had to drop it and grab an M1 Carbine from a dead guy.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 7:44:03 PM EDT
Marine Corps does it.. ALso takes a beating during rushes and holds up quite wel.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 10:42:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.

1. It keeps the muzzle oriented towards the enemy.
2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.



The thrust is like a jab or straight punch, the buttstock strike is like a roundhouse. The both are very useful.

The thrust is fast and direct, the buttstock strike is slower and less di
However, if the bad guy has a hold of the barrel or has deflected your thrust, strking with the buttstock to the head or groin is a natural and effective counter move.

I agree with points 1 & 2 above.
#3 is correct in theory, but not in practice. I've seen a lot of whacking done with M4 style stocks and have yet to see a gun rendered inoperable as a result.

As for #6, if this to suggest that one would pivot the weapon 180 degrees and then thrust with the buttstock, well that would be really be slow. Of course if you had swung the buttstock up in a roundhouse motion to deliver a strike, then it would reasonable to follow with thrusting strike with the buttstock. I've seen this done and have yet to see a malfuction from this move.

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 10:45:19 PM EDT
While I personally did not see it, a friend who was in the marines in Somalia before BHD had a job guarding humanitarian aid trucks. Sometimes the Somali were a little too eager so he would use the A2 stock to smash hands and collar bones.

I dont know how comfortable I'd be using any adjustable stock as a club since the tube is more exposed and at risk to damage.

Then again, in the worst case scenario I'd be swinging for home runs with the best of them
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 11:06:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eland:

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
I'd just stick to hard muzzle strikes to the sternum, neck and face areas.

1. It keeps the muzzle oriented towards the enemy.
2. It's simple and you use the same action as when using a bayonet.
3. The barrel is much stronger than the buffer tube so it's less likely to cause damage that may render your gun inoperable.
4. It's faster because you don't need to swing your whole gun around.
5. It works better in tighter places where there's no room to swing your weapon around.
6. It's less likely to cause your gun to jam/malfunction because it won't cause the BC to move rearward.



The thrust is like a jab or straight punch, the buttstock strike is like a roundhouse. The both are very useful.

The thrust is fast and direct, the buttstock strike is slower and less di
However, if the bad guy has a hold of the barrel or has deflected your thrust, strking with the buttstock to the head or groin is a natural and effective counter move.

I agree with points 1 & 2 above.
#3 is correct in theory, but not in practice. I've seen a lot of whacking done with M4 style stocks and have yet to see a gun rendered inoperable as a result.

As for #6, if this to suggest that one would pivot the weapon 180 degrees and then thrust with the buttstock, well that would be really be slow. Of course if you had swung the buttstock up in a roundhouse motion to deliver a strike, then it would reasonable to follow with thrusting strike with the buttstock. I've seen this done and have yet to see a malfuction from this move.




I'd say they main purpose of the thrust is to gain space and time. It's not going to knock your opponent out of the fight, but it will push them away and take the wind out of them, giving you room to execute a smash or a buttstroke.
Top Top