Mystery Enfield??????????

[Ridolpho]

From the pictures this would appear to me to be a test of a solution to the problem of recoil altering the angle between butt and barrel which is, of course, normally opposed by compression of the forend wood between the vicinity of the "king screw" and the (normally perfect?) butt/ wrist interface. In the pictured rifle it appears a slightly modified action body (no longer with wrists attached) sits on a very solid housing which is attached to the wrists. With the butt firmly attached this is an attempt to emulate a solid stock with its improved control over the angular deflection. My question would be, as a cost cutting measure why not chop off the wrists and revert to the original Remington-Lee one piece stock design? It has always fascinated me as to why the decision was made to go the two-piece stock route. I've seen references to "utilization of stocks of Martini-Henry stocks. Is that for real?

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.

[jmoore]

why not chop off the wrists and revert to the original Remington-Lee one piece stock design?

The Lee design has very small recoil absorbing features, so no improvement there! Also finding suitable wood that much longer is a bit more difficult and expensive. With the rear locking system, I think the correct decision was made when it was decided to use the butt socket design.

(I don't have yet a photo thread on the 1882 and 1885 Lees, But you may find the "1879" and "1899" model Remington Lee threads interesting.) Click on the links below:

1879 Remington Lee Photos, etc. (Warning! LOTS of big photos)

See Post #6 for action body and inletting photos.

1899 Remington Lee

See Posts #8,9, and 11 in the 1899 thread for action and inletting details, particularly Photo #11g.