doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Which is less ugly, wood extension or spacer.

I would like opinions. I have read some people say they think that wood extensions to lengthen a LOP are always unsightly, others who feel that a plastic spacer and a recoil pad are ugly. I have a Webley Scott 700 16g with a 13" lop to wood. I added a black plastic spacer and an Olde English pad to bring the LOP to 14.5". I'm not a fan of recoil pads because I don't find them necessary but it would be a bit of work to replace the pad and spacer with walnut. I don't hate the pad but think wood looks slightly better and may balance better. I want to keep my options for an easy resale of the gun though if I ever decide to move it on. What is the preferred way to lengthen a lop?

Contact Mark Larson:

https://www.marklarsongunart.com/

I recommend Dennis Smith, "The Stock Doctor". He did two for me, one on a Boss and one on my Purdey 20 bore. You can not see the line where the extension meets the original stock.

Unless a wood extension is exceptionally well done, I prefer a spacer...but there's limits.

IMO, a 1" spacer plus a pad is about my limit.

This is OK, IMO:

A restock.

Best,
Ted

Wood extensions I have found that the more you pay the less ugly they become. The one extension up to 11/2" in my experience that does not shout at you is the black hard Vulcanised rubber sometimes called gutta-percha because they can be shaped and highly polished and tapered towards the stock edges while having the correct depth in the centre of the stock plate. As it is not possible for me to post pictures from my image hosting site. Thake a look at my posting on DIY gunsmithing "RE fitting a tradition gun case" in one of the pictures is a Webley & Scott 700 having a hard polished rubber 13/8"extension as the extension is tapered out at the sides it does not look as thick as it really is. You where able to purchase these hard rubber extensions in various thicknesses though they may now be to old school nowadays to find.

I am with Geoff on this one. I much prefer a nicely ground recoil pad and a spacer, to a wood extension where the wood grain doesn't match, and can't unless the stock was shortened from the original length and the piece was saved. Even then it takes an expert stockman to completely hide the joint line. Like them or not, and I do,
recoil pads look much more original than a joint line around the butt. Many thousands of vintage doubleguns were supplied (new) with recoil pads. I've never heard of one being shipped to the original consignor with a wood extension.

The only way I would consider a wood extension would be if Mark Larson did it.

At what'd likely be $3K+ for a good restock, I think that's going to be a distant 3rd on most folks' menus.

He said preferred.

I’m not wrong.

Best,
Ted

Ted's got a point, the OP was asking for our personal opinions on what we each prefer (what is the preferred?). Ted prefers a restock. He doesn't like recoil pads, original to the gun or not.

I prefer the right LOP in a way that is low cost and often reversible. A recoil pad can be removed and the original buttplate reinstalled (if no wood is cut). My preference is getting those requirements I want with the remaining $2940 in my pocket.