Pistolgrip Buttstock

[Gripmaker]

Has anyone on this site ever tried to mount a "73" pistolgrip buttstock on a New Model Henry (66)? I am looking to turn my 66 into a custom 4th Model 66 from 1870s and this seems like a viable exchange.  So, what obstacles may I incur? 

If this works I am also thinking of making faux ivory forend and buttstock of this configuration.

[Coffinmaker]

Well, ........ there are several.  Obstacles that is.  The lower tang on a '73 is a separate part so removing it, changing it's shape, length, etc. is fairly straight forward. 
The sower tang on a '66 is not removable, it is cast a a pert of the receiver.  It (the tang) also has several large holes drilled thru it.  The tang would have to be heated, then bent to it's new shape, ad since it is a cast part, not forged, that would be some trick.  As it is bent, it WILL break at the screw holes.  And as it is bent, the dimensions of the screw holes will change as will their relationship to what is screwed to the tang.  Remembering thru all of this, the tang must be kept in perfect alignment.  After all that is done (looking pretty grim so far), you have to make a stock.  A '73 butt stock won't fit after all the aforementioned work is done.

Ah, did I mention, Winchester never made the '66 with a pistol grip style stock??  There is a really good reason.  Just isn't practical.  Not even "one off."

But, ......... Good luck!!

Coffinmaker

[Gripmaker]

Coffinmaker,  Give me some specifics as to why the "73" stock will still not fit after all that work. I have compared the two and it still looks feasible to me albeit probably more than some would wish to handle. I have made it my life's goal to do things others have said was not possible and it has not only been fun but profitable.

[Flint]

Depending on when the 66 was made, the drop to the heel is different than the 73, so the rear upper tang won't match either.  The newest production, I am led to believe, has the same drop in the Henry, 66 and 73.

[Major 2]

Coffinmaker,  Give me some specifics as to why the "73" stock will still not fit after all that work. I have compared the two and it still looks feasible to me albeit probably more than some would wish to handle. I have made it my life's goal to do things others have said was not possible and it has not only been fun but profitable.

  "...I have made it my life's goal to do things others have said was not possible and it has not only been fun but profitable. "

That Sir , is rule # 2 in the Movie Propmaker's handbook !

Rule 1 ? .... anything is possible..impossible just takes a little bit longer 

[Dusty Morningwood]

I had a small frame Husqvarna rolling block rifle (Model 33) that had a pistol grip butt on a straight grip frame.  They simply inlet the grip to allow the straight lower tang to fit.  Had a removable wood filler piece in the slot.  Not a bad job.  But the rifles typically came with pistol grips, so the straight grip was actually more rare.

[Gripmaker]

Major 2,  Glad to hear that there are other people as eccentric as I who can make a go of impossibilities even if they do take a bit longer.

Dusty, That is exactly the method I had come up with to fit the pistolgrip stock to the 66.  First make it fit and then adapt it to come up with the design in faux ivory.

Coffinmaker,  I have a feeling as a businesman that the reason Winchester didn't make pistolgrip  stocks for the 66 is because it was not profitable, not that it was not feasible. That is the same reason I don't make grips in some designs, ie. either no one asks for them or not enough people ask to make it profitable. We still have to pay the bills.

Thank you all for your input. As Proverbs says, "In the counsel of many there is wisdom." (Of course we have to heed that wisdom in order to benefit from it).

[Coffinmaker]

Ah, a light at the end of the tu ....................

A pistol grip '66 would have been no problem if the tangs were originally cast that way.  Would have been simple.  Not cheap mind you, but simple.  It would have required a separate mold for limited run guns.  Winchester would do almost anything a customer could dream up, as long as it could be done with available parts.  That is why the '73 pioneered the removable lower tang that was continued to the '76, '86, 92 etc.

As the lower tang is bent, the radius of the outside and inside changes, the inside has to stretch and the outside has to compress to maintain the correct length.  It won't do that.  Something has to give.  The tang will either crack on the inside radius or buckle up on the outside radius.  The most likely result is cracking at the screw holes and at the main spring relief at the front of the tang.  It is a really substantial piece of ...... Bronze.  It isn't actually pure brass.

Now, were one to inlet a pistol grip stock to the '66 tangs, and make an insert to the new pistol grip butt stock, the whole equation changes.  Wood is simple to alter (relatively) and a nice contrasting insert would be right appealing.  Using a pistol grip lever ...... no brainer.  The internal working parts of the two guns are identical ........ except for the dimensional changes over the last few years.  You want parts from the same period of manufacture.
The Uberti Iron Frame Henry uses the back side of the carrier block arm as the lever stop (up travel). No reason you can't use the same method on the '66.

The way you describe, very very dooable.  Bending the tang ............ ah well, I'd pass.

Coffinmaker