I suspect part of the problem with the "reproduction" woodwork is that it may well be made to dimensions taken from old specimens. If not of reasonably recent manufacture, there may be issues with shrinkage and other distortion.

The specification of the species of tree is critical. So is the nature of how the flitches (blanks) are cut from the basic "aged" log. How many manufacturers are likely to store finish-machined furniture in barrels of linseed oilicon for months or years? Unless the makers are actually fully aware of the final tech requirements of fitting and "treatment" of the tree-ware, they will not understand exactly what it is they are making to these "suspect" dimensions.

The ONLY way to get the numbers right is to use the correct timber, cut, cured and aged in the specified manner and made to the dimensions (and tolerances) on original drawings. "Non-critical" features like the provisions for the volley sights, may be "reverse-engineered", but NOT any bumps and lumps critical to bedding, and that especially includes the details for the fitting of the nose-cap..

The final catch is that the folks fitting this wonderful new furniture must be completely up-to-speed with the wood-to metal fit at each interface and whether there are additional "dynamics" at play, like all the fruit used to tune the barrel and fore-end of a No 1 Mk3" to Mk7 ammo.