Strange Australian SMLE buttstock shape

[BurtonP]

I got a new project SMLE to restore and was pleasantly surprised that it was a 1915 BSA, with a ton of Australian stamps. It had clearly had a long service life in Australia and seems to have been rebuilt at some point, with WA, and BA stamped parts. Also, the top rear handguard and the butt stock are a light wood (coachwood?) The question I have for the forum concerns the odd profile of the buttstock. When I bought it I assumed post service life reshaping, but now that I've stripped off the varnish I'm not so sure. I think the part nearest the wrist has lost some wood, but the convex "crest" has me stumped. Compare the stock with a more typical SMLE stock pictured.

Is this an aberration or some Australian quirk?

Cheers,
Burton

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.

[BurtonP]

On closer examination, the stock has been thinned, so I guess it must have been reshaped. Shame, I wanted to retain the classic Australian coachwood, but I guess I'll swap it out.

[BurtonP]

Well, the forestock has turned out to also be coachwood, so back to plan A and use the butt. At least the whole rifle will be the same wood now.

[Nigel]

This might prove to be a good match. Looks like Coachwood with Australian markings and made by Slazenger. For the bigger framed it is also a long butt.

[BurtonP]

Sure looks right. Is that a stock you might part with Nigel?

[BurtonP]

So, with a few more coats of BLO and perhaps some more dye, I think this one is done. All of the wood seems to be coachwood (except a bit I added to the buttstock to restore the profile). I didn't do my usual dark colour dye to cover repairs and mismatched wood, because I wanted the lighter colour to show somewhat. All the replacement parts except the magazine are from Australian factories, so I think I've got it as close as I can to it's pre-sporterization form.

.

Now to see if it's a decent shooter, but it seems to have a good bore on the 11/'44 replacement barrel.

Cheers,
Burton

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The wrist of that butt looks like it has bee "got-at".

It should be fuller in section and "overhang" the ferrule / socket on the body. There should also be a slight gap between the ferrule "ring" and the timber on the shoulder of the wrist. This is to prevent chipping of the butt in that area. The bulk of the recoil is supposed to be transmitted to the extreme front face of the butt after it has been compressed into place using a mechanical press and the big 7/16" screw wound to "white-knuckle" tight, with the squared end perfectly aligned to allow proper fitting of the fore-end.

I have a small box of over-sanded butts and a few wrecked fore-ends; badly damaged by people getting the disassembly sequence wrong. The advent of the spring washer in the butt fitting on the No4 was a masterstroke,

[BurtonP]

Yeah Bruce, it is far too thin, but I wanted to keep the original sandalwood until a suitable replacement is found. It's not perfect, but it'll do for now.
I cheated and replaced the square ended bolt with a later version and added a spring washer. I too have forgotten to take the forestock off first, and I didn't want to do it again.
I bet even damaged forestocks have value these days. I'd certainly take a crack at fixing them rather than buying a repro.

[Nigel]

If I could trade t for an English Walnut long butt I would.

[BurtonP]

Which I would also love to have. Sadly I don't.