Thanks. I knew I had see that profile before but could not recall where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
Printable View
Thanks. I knew I had see that profile before but could not recall where.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
From the pictures this would appear to me to be a test of a solution to the problem of recoil altering the angle between butt and barrel which is, of course, normally opposed by compression of the forend wood between the vicinity of the "king screw" and the (normally perfect?) butt/ wrist interface. In the pictured rifle it appears a slightly modified action body (no longer with wrists attached) sits on a very solid housing which is attached to the wrists. With the butt firmly attached this is an attempt to emulate a solid stock with its improved control over the angular deflection. My question would be, as a cost cutting measure why not chop off the wrists and revert to the original Remington-Lee one piece stock design? It has always fascinated me as to why the decision was made to go the two-piece stock route. I've seen references to "utilization of stocks of Martini-Henry stocks. Is that for real?
The Lee design has very small recoil absorbing features, so no improvement there! Also finding suitable wood that much longer is a bit more difficult and expensive. With the rear locking system, I think the correct decision was made when it was decided to use the butt socket design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
(I don't have yet a photo thread on the 1882 and 1885 Lees, But you may find the "1879" and "1899" model Remington Lee threads interesting.) Click on the links below:
1879 Remington Lee Photos, etc. (Warning! LOTS of big photos)
See Post #6 for action body and inletting photos.
1899 Remington Lee
See Posts #8,9, and 11 in the 1899 thread for action and inletting details, particularly Photo #11g.
My M1899 Remington Lee had a dirty great crack in the wrist. So the LE is stronger in that area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The very original Remington Lee brought to the UK is still housed at the Small Arms School at Warminster. And to cut a long story short, the butt snapped off at the wrist during the bayonet fighting phase of the trisl. As a direct result of this, thereafter, it was a two piece butt and fore-end with a stout stock bolt and they ain't broke since!
That rifle is a simplified design for wartime production. It has it written all over it and has soooo much in common with the other designs
I note the subject rifle has a visible screw for the volley sight plate located in the fore stock.
it looks like a French attempt to do Something. Has a MAS look to it.
The fore-end looks like it was converted from a standard fore-end. Hence the volley fire foresight. Another use of standardised parts or damaged standard parts to my way of thinking. It'll also be recessed for the rear handguard retainers. I'm sure the drawings will have beenb prepared so as to eliminate the use of the top handguard and the volley fire sights.
Ridolpho, think simplified AK47. The great man decided that for its inherent strength, all his AK47 chassis (body) REALLY needed was the breeching and locking facility at the front and the support for the butt that takes the recoil at the rear. Eliminate the great steel machined part between the two, replace it with a flat one-hit stamped pressing, insert the front bit and the back bit then insert the ribs and pins and you have an AKM.
That's just my take on this enigma. Mind you, I have £20 resting on it being a wartime cheapening exercise
How far north ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
The person they're thinking about to is far to the East of you Big Man! But if it's the same person, I don't quite think that he'd have the mechanical acumen to make/fabricate this