|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,490
Posts562,012
Members14,584
|
Most Online9,918 Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 678 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 678 Likes: 15 |
Please forgive what may be a dumb question regarding the side panels on some early Mauser and Springfield sporters. Looking at such a stock from an end view, are the panel surfaces parallel to each other or are they inclined in toward the center of the stock,ie: if a caliper were applied to the top and bottom edges, spanning the stock, would the distance between the two top edges equal the the measurement between the bottom edges or would the bottom measurement be shorter?
Also do they serve a purpose other than aesthetics?
Thanks.
Last edited by Gary D.; 03/25/11 11:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Boxlock
|
Boxlock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12 |
Gary - I think this is an excellent question. Sadly, there is but a single example for measurements in my collection; an 1893/95 DWM factory sporting rifle in 7x57. The edges or "thickness" of these panels, from top to bottom, are parallel for all practical purposes. The sides do taper in thickness slightly from rear to the front; an approximate 45mm thickness just above the triggers to a 43mm dimension above the front action screw. This is not apparent (without using a caliper) while you are admiring the aesthetics of the stock design. I'll try to post a link showing photos of my rifle. http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=207108#Post207108
Last edited by Alkali; 03/25/11 03:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,429 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,429 Likes: 34 |
Schlegelmilch Mauser 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 246 Likes: 6
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 246 Likes: 6 |
On my Haenel Modell 1900, see photo, the panels are exactly parallel, but IMHO this was open to the taste of the individual stockmaker, as is the exact shape of the side panels. Yes, they served a practical purpose also: About 1900 German sporter stocks were very slim. So the stock sidewalls around the magazine cutout were thin also and prone to flexing under recoil, which led to stock splits. Side panels stiffened this area. On the other hand, they were a leftover stylistically from muzzleloader days, as is the wedge fastening of foreend to barrel. On many muzzleloaders a side panel provided space to inlet a flat lockplate. When such muzzleloaders were converted to early bolt-action needlefires, the now unused lock recess was often filled in with wood, leaving a side panel. This side-panel feature remained in use by the Suhl gunmakers well into the 20th century. 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 907
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 907 |
Not to change the question but I have had for some time a Mauser sporter same style as these with DST's etc but my PG is all checkered etc. But the forearm has never been checkered (and not wore off or sanded off.)??? Was this maybe a common thing with some or.?? Thanks Whitey
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 704
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 704 |
Lots have smooth for ends.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 246 Likes: 6
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 246 Likes: 6 |
The Suhl-type stocks discussed here, side-paneled, wedge -fastened "Schnabel" foreends, usually came with uncheckered foreends. If you see one with checkering, look closely. Most often the fore checkering differs slightly from that on the pistol grip, so it was applied later, probably in America. The original commercial B Mausers also came without foreend checkering as standard up to the late 1930s,though checkering on foreend was a factory option.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 907
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 907 |
Thanks for the info. Whitey
|
|
|
|
|
|