No4 Mk1 Buttstock dimesions

Hello, I have received all of my bits and pieces to begin my No4 Mk1 restoration from a sporterized rifle. My question concerns the dimensions of the butt stock relative to the butt plate. In the photos I have attached, the more polished butt plate is on a complete rifle and the butt plate is wider than the wood of the stock. On the "new" beech butt stock I received the opposite is true. The plate on the complete rifle measures .125" wider than the one that is resting on the new stock.

Is this common or should I attempt to fit the stock to the plate?
Are wider butt plates available?

In my opinion this is merely aesthetic and not of much importance but it does catch my eye as incorrect. The butt stock is otherwise finished well and acceptable to me. I will have to fit the socket end of the stock.

I readily admit that I do not have much patience for long term wood projects and I don't feel like I have the necessary skill to reduce the overall size and shape of the stock to get the same fit as the other rifle.

Any advice is appreciated!

I probably should have posted this in the Restorer's Corner.

I've had some NOS Canadian buttstocks that were quite "fat". Hasn't really been a bother except that any size reduction removes all of the nice inspection marks on the underside of the wrist.

Let's start again.......... The butt plate on the l;eft is a No4 butt plate while that on the right is a No1 rifle/Lanchester butt plate. In UK Military service, we would replace butt plates as and when required with No4 butt plates, regardless of whether it was a No1, Lanchester or a No4 as the screw holes and butt trap holes and general format were similar.

However, when we fitted butt plates, we ensured that there was ALWAYS a slight wood overhang of between, say 1/16" and 3/32" around the butt plate. Filing the butt plate to suit the wood or if well oversize, then the wood to suit the butt plate.

Common sense would dictate a well worn/used/too small butt plate.

Next question..........

The wood should ALWAYS be "bigger" than the buttplate.

It might make the cabinet-makers cringe, but the idea is that the metal buttplate is not meant to be able to snag on anything. You will also notice that, unlike some other military rifles, the buttplate does not fully "cup" the entire end of the butt, but merely protects it from damaging impacts. The problem with "cup" type buttplates is that if water gets in, it might not escape as easily, thus contributing to corrosion and wood rot.

The practice of "oversized" wood continued on the timber L1A1 butts as well.

Have a look at an "all original" M1 Garand for another rifle with an "undersized" buttplate.

A couple of thoughts on practical reasons for making the timber a bit "oversized"::

1. In service, the wood will get a bit scruffy and need tidying up with scrapers and sandpaper from time to time to keep splinters out of the operator..
2. Wood can (will) shrink in hot-dry climates.

Many brass buttplates show evidence of having done a lot of "square bashing"; being thumped onto concrete or bitumen parade-grounds. My recollection of the correct drill is that such abuse was reduced by correct technique, but fifty-plus years of "training" will ensure some damage. Try bashing a plain timber butt into the tarmac and see how long before it gets really shabby and/or splits.

I think that the only exception to this overhang rule was the Mk1 Bren butt plate, but there was a reason for that. And as Bruce points out, true to type, the butt plates would fill with water. So a novel modification was designed to prevent this.................. A small hole was drilled in the bottom.

So, if you have a Mk1 Bren butt plate with a small hole drilled in through the base, that's the reason!

Thanks to all who replied. I may swap the plates since neither are matching rifles anyway. Thank you for your help.

I just filled a brass No.4 butt plate down to suit the profile of the No4 Mk1 I'm building. The brass is soft and easy to grind, file and linish to a profile to suit