I know that the omission of the fore-end collar has been extensively discussed, but I still cannot understand the general theory, as there only seem to be three alternative possibilities:

(1) Either the furniture is minutely thicker than the collar so that torquing the front trigger guard screw applies exactly the correct amount of pressure to seat the action body. This would require greater precision that could be expected.
Or:
(2) The furniture is thicker than the length of the collar. Torquing the front trigger guard screw would then apply the same torque to the action body. The collar would then be superfluous.
Or:
(3) The furniture is thinner than the length of the collar. Torque would then apply pressure directly to the action body against the collar and the action body would sit proud over the wood.

The second alternative would appear to be the most common.

I accept that clever people have prescribed the collar and I thus regard its use as mandatory, but I would like to understand the general theory.
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.