Printable View
Okay so the title might seem stupid but why did the ol military guns have so much wood. I personally hate to see any of them sporterized and will not buy if they are but i feel like maybe they would be better without the wood all along the barrel. Only thing i can think of is in military situation with constantly being out in field the wood might protect the barrel some. Any reply is appreciated.
Kinda hard to get a grip on a hot barrel in preparation to running a man through with a bayonet.
What he said ^^^^ !...............
In addition to the "grabbability" requirement already mentioned, there are a couple of other aspects.
If you look at the front ends, you will find that most service rifles have the bayonet fitting on the top band (Mauser types and derivations thereof) or end cap (Enfield No1 MKIII and variants) to reduce the stress on the barrel. A type like the Enfield No4, with the bayonet load taken solely by the bayonet lugs on the muzzle, is unusual, and that too had wood support right up to the foresight.
Furthermore, the combination of a thin barrel (by target rifle standards) supported by a full stock is lighter than a short stock and a thick barrel. And surprisingly rigid.
In some cases the barrel and it's interaction with the stock is an integral part of it's accuracy. This is seen with practices of bedding and shimming, but stocks were also designed with the rifle. I know that No4s in particular were redesigned under some of the most scrutinizing scientific technology of the time, in particular with slow motion photography and even by analyzing series of still photos of the rifle during firing. It was found that the bullet in some respects rides a wave down the barrel. The stock was designed to at once help the barrel contain and direct this wave. This was also true for the SVT-40 series of rifles. They seem "lanky" and "fragile" to us, but the design was intentional and functional.