1903 stock fitting question for the experts

Specifically about wood-to-metal contact in the area "around" the tang...I mean the wings, or the flared undersides, not the underside where where the rear screw is. Doco and I were chatting and couldn't reach an answer.

I've fit several stocks now, and I always try to get uniform contact around the flared part, and light compression under, with the bushing sitting ~1/8 below the woodline. My results speak for themselves...it works. With a good USGI barrel, I've never failed to make a wonderful shooter.

I ask the question for 2 reasons. First, I have a few NOS keystone scants I plan to use on a few current project rifles. Inletting is spot on everywhere, basically just have shave the flat a little to get the perfect contact at the muzzle. However, there isn't material on the wings to get contact on the tang flare. Also, there is no room to lower the action to get contact...the gap between magazine and receiver is exact all around...any lower and there will be metal-to-metal on the base of the receiver, which will be the death of accuracy. If contact on the wings don't matter, I will be a very happy person and my rifles will thank me for finally finding/fitting an original stock.

Second...I can't find any mention of contact in this area in period sources. Howe's "Modern Gunsmithing" describes hand-making a sporting stock from a blank with even contact all around the receiver...and calls attention to bushing and contact under the tang...nothing specific about the wings. Hudson's "Modern Marksmanship From the American Perspective" was published in 1903, and describes accurizing the Krag. He mentions contact around the tang of the krag is important to prevent lateral movement of the receiver under recoil. This makes sense given the inletting of the Krag..there really is no other "tight" fitting area until the lower band to prevent lateral movement given the screws are so far back.

I'm guessing it doesn't matter...every NOS USGI stock I've handled does not have contact. However, I only have Remingtons. I've seen pictures of Springfield and Rock Islands that look like the wings of the tang are concave (certainly not intended for contact with the wood), whereas the A3 and Remington 1903 are convex (which would lend itself to contact). But, I can never tell for sure whether or not its just a bad pic or shadow. Here is an example
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5jpg6325-1.jpg

Interesting re the scant Keystones. I fitted a Keystone 'C' to my A4 build and it fooled me initially, the inletting was really well executed, but the action was actually too high in the woodwork resulting in the mag well not in the exact position it needs to be and the recoil horrible...

Not being used to Springfield's, it was a learning curve to adjust the inletting to drop the position of the action and find the sweet spot.

You know when it's right, because accuracy suddenly comes together and the recoil drops to a nice predictable straight back push, as opposed to getting punched in the shoulder by an angry gorrila!

The 'fractional' adjustment and tweaking is transformative.

here is another pic from vi-shooter. Looks to me like there wasn't suppose to be any real contact or bedding under the sides of the tang, except maybe at the very end.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gHecIYf5-1.jpg

Yep, mine was the same, the tang slot on my Keystone was a good fit, it just required to made slightly deeper in concert with the other adjustments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

the tang slot on my Keystone was a good fit, it just required to made slightly deeper in concert with the other adjustments.

---

Do you recall what the contact was, before and after fitting, on the wings around the tang?