Opinions, please, on No.5 wood

[splicenut]

I received my original No. 5 wood (sort of) from SARCO yesterday. A bit of a mixed bag, as the buttstock and butt plate are NOT original. The stock is one of those recently modified No. 4 jobs and the butt plate and pad are reproductions. The forestock and handguard are original, although there is a 1" crack in the front of the handguard. I'll have to call SARCO to get this sorted out on Monday.

My question is this: How unauthentic would it look to use the dark walnut SARCO front wood with the blonde buttstock that currently resides on my poor, bubba'd No. 5? I wouldn't think that military armorers would be too concerned about color coordinating wood when replacing parts. Still, I haven't seen a glaringly two-tone JC before.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

Armourers would try to match wood colour as best we could and we had a big tank of wood stain too. Don't be too concerned about the modified No4 butt because this was not unusual, even during the 60's to get these butts through the usual Ordnance system. Mind you, they were done properly and not bodged by some ham-fisted amateur butcher

[villiers]

Can´t see that there´d be much of a difference if the No 4 stock is re-cut into a No. 5. Wouldn´t like to do it myself without the jigs etc. used by a professional. The metal frame for the rubber insert is (as far as I can make out) exactly the same as the original. What is noticeable is when the incorrect butt plate screws are replaced with simple wood screws.The No. 5 butt stocks usually have a very nice grain and gain quite a bit from linseeding and polishing. I had the same problem with different coloured wood and ended up replacing the fore-end to make up a better match.

[Peter Laidler]

I have a funny feeling in the back of my memory banks that for some reason that I can't think of/remember why, that the converted No4 to No5 butts used normal No4 rifle sling swivel wood screws (not the larger butt plate screws) vertically instead of the usual No5 4BA long threaded bolt and headed nut. That was the only difference between the two apart from the patched in former sling loop recess. Apart from that, externally, you couldn't tell the difference

[splicenut]

I got on the phone with SARCO today. They instructed me to send back the replica bits so that they can replace with original. I hope that works out. My current blonde butstock is a bit scuffed, but servicable. No telling how light or dark the walnut front wood will turn out until I give it a good cleaning. Then I can consider staining. Any suggestions for gentle cleaners?

Two things I didn't mention. First, the forestock has an "Ishy" screw. I guess I'll dust off Peter's article on removing that. Second, The underside of the handguard seems to be coated with some type of black paint. I haven't heard of that before.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

I got on the phone with SARCO today. They instructed me to send back the replica bits so that they can replace with original. I hope that works out. My current blonde butstock is a bit scuffed, but servicable. No telling how light or dark the walnut front wood will turn out until I give it a good cleaning. Then I can consider staining. Any suggestions for gentle cleaners?

I have used Murphys Oil Soap with good results. Test on an inconspicious area to see how the finish reacts.