P1917 Butt Plates too small?
Hope some of ya'll can shed some light on this. As I keep my eyes open for a nice M1917, I've noticed that a number have butt plates that are too small - i.e., the wood overhangs the metal, mostly in the heel. Replacement stock? Wrong butt plate?
Thanks in advance,
John
Wood wider than metal - OK
How much of an overhang are you talking about? My Eddystone stocks are about 1mm proud of the butt plate, all around the rim, and the toes are slightly rounded. My Enfield No 4 stocks are also noticeably proud of the butt plates. Without taking everything out of the cabinets to look, I think this was probably normal procedure in mass-production stock-making, as wood proud of the butt plate does not cause any problems, but a butt plate proud of the wood certainly does (cuts, hang-ups on clothing). And a "sharp" toe is liable to become chipped. So if I was a manufacturer, I would have the machinery set up so that the thinnest butt was always wider then the widest buttplate.
It is the ones where the wood is precisely down to the level of the metal that I would look at more cautiously. In many cases, I think you will find that the wood has been sanded and refinished. In cases where the metal is proud of the wood, this is more obviously so.
:wave:
Patrick
---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnu
But seriously, I'm wondering if P14 or some other types of plates are sometimes installed on M17 stocks.
As far as I know, there were no dimensional differences between P14 and M1917 butt plates. "The butt plate assemblies on Pattern 14 and Model of 1917 rifles are identical (except for markings) and interchangeable. ...remained unchanged throughout their service lives." (Stratton, p.75).