Enfield Envoy in one piece stock

[Simon P]

Came across this Envoy in one piece stock. Bit like the Whitaker Special

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/126064...t-target-rifle

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.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

Here's another one-piece stock rifle from this seller. I wonder if the same person built both. Interesting things but not top quality work on either one from what I can see.

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/130480...import-c-and-r

[Peter Laidler]

I thought exactly the same thing too Steve. But a good method of reducing a reasonably competitive Enfield target rifle to a sack of worthless shi......., er.......... junk. Barrel is the only part wirth having as a (possible) spare for a needy L39 or 42

[Roger Payne]

Why do these people always know better than those who designed the rifles.....?

[Ridolpho]

Why do these people always know better than those who designed the rifles.....?

Roger: Like that old infidel James Paris Lee, himself! Just kidding, but I'm fascinated by the sudden switch from one piece to (rather unusual for bolt actions) two piece during the brief period between the final Remington-Lee's submitted and the initial Lee Metford production.

Ridolpho

[Roger Payne]

Touche Ridolpho! But yes, what I meant was the bods at Enfield. I can't remember now & am too lazy to get the books out but IIRC there were very real reasons that they modified Lee's original design to incorporate a butt socket.

[Peter Laidler]

Yep, you're right. The stock assembly was too fragile for service use and snapped across the butt socket area. Thereafter the Enfields had a butt socket and butt fixzed with a stout bolt as per the previous Martinis. The original rifle together with the (now repaired) broken stock are at Warminster

[Ridolpho]

One would think the stock could have been beefed up and made serviceable in the one-piece design. The Soviets had the same problem with the SVT 40 stocks and solved it by increasing the thickness of the stock at key points by a wee bit (I have the precise amounts filed somewhere that I've measured from examples in my collection). The finalized versions from '43 and later are noticeably thicker but still fit the hand nicely. Roger- the only significant reference I've been able to find regarding the change to two-piece is in the "Catalogue of tht Enfield Pattern Room" by Herb Woodend where he states it was primarily to make use of stores of Martini furniture. If you have any other useful references I'd love to know about them. Regards.

Ridolpho

[Surpmil]

...the only significant reference I've been able to find regarding the change to two-piece is in the "Catalogue of tht Enfield Pattern Room" by Herb Woodend where he states it was primarily to make use of stores of Martini furniture.... Regards.
Ridolpho

If that was a factor I would suggest it was more likely to make use of blanks that had been laid away for seasoning, which IIRC took 3 or 4 years and if these had already been cut for separate butts and forends, a two piece stock would have allowed them to be used for the Lee Metford instead of trying to find suitable wood that was already seasoned before production could begin.

[Roger Payne]

I'll have a look, but it's quite possible I might have been thinking of previous conversations with Peter when I've been down to Warminster. If I find anything I'll let you know.