JMB1943 Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 After surveying the bolt-action (not semi-automatic) rifles of the Great War, it occurs to me that the British Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) was the only design to incorporate a two-piece wooden stock. Is this true ? If so, all other countries could readily produce a single-piece stock, so woodworking should not have been an issue. Was there a perceived or demonstrated advantage with the SMLE butt-stock and forend connected by a bolt at the wrist ? If so, why was this two-piece stock design not adopted by other manufacturers ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 The butt stock was made in different sizes (lengths) making it adjustable for different sized shooters. Why others didn't do so I have no idea, maybe they weren't as innovative, interesting in a way as the P14 returned to the one piece stock. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303man Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 French Lebel had 2 piece woodwork IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 French Lebel had 2 piece woodwork IIRC It does, as did the semi-auto RSC M1917. Also the Winchester M1915 (which is a lever action) used in fairly large numbers by the Russians had a two piece stock, as did the Remington Rolling block (used in small numbers by the UK in 7mm and much larger numbers in 8mm Lebel by the French) Conversely the Pattern 1913/14 rifle had a single piece. The Japanese Arisaka M1897 and M1905 both, for reasons I have never really understood, have stocks that could have been one piece (and look like they are) but were manufactured as two (the lower part and heel of the but being a separate piece of wood.) Many of the trial/experimental rifles examined during the development of the Enfield had single piece stocks and to be honest I am not sure precisely why a two piece was decided upon. The ability to produce buttstocks in varying lengths has been mentioned - but there is no obvious reason why this could not be done with one piece stocks too - I don't know if it was or not in other countries The preceding British rifle the Martini-Henry also had a two piece butt/stock of course so I suppose it could be a holdover. Interesting question. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1418 Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 Hi there are four pieces to a set of SMLE wood work if you count the top covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 Hi there are four pieces to a set of SMLE wood work if you count the top covers. Indeed and two or three to many others (inc Mausers etc) if one includes the handguards. I assumed the original post was referring to the butt stock/forend being on one or two pieces. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooper Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 Surely using a multi piece stock long term is better than a single piece stock, it offers different lengths as mentioned and individual pieces can be replaced rather than a full stock replacement if damage occurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 I agree, an interesting question. The Textbook of Small Arms 1929 sheds a little light at page 30: "The wood most often used is walnut. It must be thoroughly seasoned and dry when manufactured, or much trouble will be experienced from warping.The stocks of military rifles are usually made in one piece, but those of the British and French are in two pieces. A one-piece stock has many advantages. The butt cannot become loose and shaky; it is easier to take off the rifle; the body of the rifle can be made smaller, as it is not necessary to provide a bearing for the butt; the body, stock and trigger guard can be securely joined together by two screws; and lastly, no stock-bolt is required. On the other hand, a two-piece stock is economical, both in service and in manufacture, for if either part becomes unserviceable it can be replaced." The point about warping is very important when one considers the extremes of temperature and humidity in which the rifles saw service. The effect of warping will be minimised with a two-piece stock. The problems with a one-piece stock are not apparent when there are good supplies of seasoned walnut which was the position in Germany prior to the war. However, supplies of walnut began to run short. According to Dieter Storz in "Rifle & Carbine 98" p.93 in February 1916 a Prussian decree authorised the use of (red) beech and birch as ersatz wood for stocks. Not much birch was used but beech wood was plentiful and not infrequently used. Unfortunately, it was found to crack and fail to retain its shape. It reacted to damp by warping and swelling. It was necessary for a further decree to stipulate that rifles with beech or birch stocks may not be sent to the field until they had been tested for six weeks by replacement units at home. The effect of these problems would have been minimised had a two-piece stock been part of the design but I doubt whether Mauser would have altered his design with the benefit of hindsight. Regards, Michael. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 21 June , 2015 Share Posted 21 June , 2015 Surely using a multi piece stock long term is better than a single piece stock, it offers different lengths as mentioned and individual pieces can be replaced rather than a full stock replacement if damage occurs The ability to replace parts rather than a whole would seem to be an advantage (but clearly things could also come loose - which would be a disadvantage as Michael's excerpt above makes clear) but why could not various lengths be produced with a one-piece stock? All it would take would be adjustments in manufacturing behind the wrist/pistol grip to produce different lengths which would not seem to be very challenging technically (if it came to it the butt could also simply have been cut to length prior to fitting the butt-plate. (I do not know - was this done? are there deliberate variations in butt length on any WWI period rifles other than the SMLE?) While I have plenty of SMLEs to compare I only have single examples of other types and far less reference material. Was there any attempt by the Germans or the French (for example) to provide for soldiers of different stature or was an average length used for all? The stocking up of SMLEs is actually pretty complicated with various important pressure points on the barrel (upwards) and receiver which can significantly affect accuracy. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 22 June , 2015 Share Posted 22 June , 2015 You don't need such long pieces of shake-free timber for multi-part stocking, so you can use a lower - and cheaper - commercial quality, without any detriment to the product. You can also machine multiple parts concurrently - more difficult on a one-piece stock - and reduce elapsed production time. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Posted 22 June , 2015 Share Posted 22 June , 2015 Maybe the British Army's previous experiences with one-piece stocks, whatever they may have been, led them to believe that the two-piece was a better option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 22 June , 2015 Share Posted 22 June , 2015 Until the introduction of the Martini-Henry all stocks would have been on piece anyway. The weak point of any 'musket' style weapon was always at the wrist. There is also less waste if the butt is machined independently of the fore-end, as well as the considerable saving in timber selection and material size as has been mentioned. I suspect that it was glue technology that dictated when a laminated single piece stock first appeared, although I suspect appearance was also a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 23 June , 2015 Author Share Posted 23 June , 2015 Thanks to all for replies---I think that I now have a somewhat better idea of the issues. Chris---as you say, the holdover effect from the predecessor design very likely had a part in the new design (the loose butt problem having been resolved, see below). Khaki---I was not aware that the P14 rifle was of the one-piece stock design, so I had a look through "The LE Rifle " by Reynolds where he discusses the development of the P14. Some extracts below.... Design objectives 1) A one-piece stock fore-end was recommended as this appeared to be cheaper and more serviceable than having the stock in two pieces. Claimed Advantages 2) The stock, being in one piece, the possibility of loosened butts obviated. A further extract (from the development of the SMLE) discusses the issue of butt-stocks becoming loose. 3) A persistent trouble with most rifles and carbines in the British Service, especially to those troops operating in hot climates, was the working loose of butts. Consistently hot atmospheres caused the small forward end of the butt, which fitted into the body socket, to shrink. Securing bolts worked loose and, as they could only be reached by an armourer's long screwdriver, butts sometimes dropped off. Some fixes for this problem are then described. (3) seems to provide the rationale for (1) and (2). It seems that there is no consideration of warping, possibly because a shortage of well-seasoned walnut was not anticipated. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 as a related aside: One of the "fixes" for the loose buttstock on the SMLE was to make the stock bolt squared off at the end of the thread to engage with a stock bolt retaining plate in the fore-end. For this reason when removing a butt from an SMLE or tightening a loose one, the fore-end should be removed first, otherwise there is a very real danger of splitting the fore-end as you turn a square bolt in a square hole. I can post pictures if anyone is interested. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenchtrotter Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 Always interested Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 Here you go: You can see the damage on the right hand end one which is a pity as it is a very early foreend squared off tip of the stock bolt Showing protuberance of bolt into fore-end recess Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 as a related aside: One of the "fixes" for the loose buttstock on the SMLE was to make the stock bolt squared off at the end of the thread to engage with a stock bolt retaining plate in the fore-end. For this reason when removing a butt from an SMLE or tightening a loose one, the fore-end should be removed first, otherwise there is a very real danger of splitting the fore-end as you turn a square bolt in a square hole. I can post pictures if anyone is interested. Chris As far as I could see on the Mk.III* that I had, the stock bolt screwed into the receiver wrist. I made a screwdriver out of a piece of flat steel bar ground at the end to fit the slot in the bolt, and tightened it with a small adjustable spanner. I can't recall noticing any connection with the fore-end. I tightened it firmly - and I think it shot loose once during the time I had the rifle, and I had to do it again. I think I'd've felt it if it wasn't just steel elasticity giving resistance. (Afternote: Ah, yes I can see from your pictures. I think I wondered what that plate was for, as my stock bolt didn't protrude into it. I think the rifle was a bitsa, and later fore-end wood was probably fitted to an earlier Mk.III* action.) Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 As far as I could see on the Mk.III* that I had, the stock bolt screwed into the receiver wrist. I made a screwdriver out of a piece of flat steel bar ground at the end to fit the slot in the bolt, and tightened it with a small adjustable spanner. I can't recall noticing any connection with the fore-end. I tightened it firmly - and I think it shot loose once during the time I had the rifle, and I had to do it again. I think I'd've felt it if it wasn't just steel elasticity giving resistance. Regards, MikB Do the pics above help explain the concern? When/Where was your rifle made? Ishapore rifles made after about 1932 did not have the squared off end to the stock bolt because they were fitted with a flat sprung "anti-rattle" washer which became standard on the No4 rifles (which also did not have the keeper plate of course. Later (mid WWII on) Indian SMLEs also had a reinforcing plate across the back of the fore-end like the No4. So if your rifle had been through Indian service, had been fitted with an Indian fore-end or had the stock bolt replaced with an Indian style one it would not pose the risk of splitting. I use a similar tool to you to remove the butts and you can get a fair bit of leverage and I have seen stocks split right through by the unwary/unknowing who just thought it was a bit tight! Personally though I would never remove or tighten a butt without removing the fore-end unless I knew the status with that particular rifle. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikB Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 Do the pics above help explain the concern? When/Where was your rifle made? ... Chris Mine was Enfield, 1917 - or at least the receiver was. I think the woodwork was all much newer and from more than one source. Once I'd made an inner band screw and figured out how to fit it, it shot quite well, and looked good too. But it was always a bitsa. The pics were very clarifying, thanks. Regards, MikB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now