previous post next post  

A whatzis!

By The Armorer on March 12, 2009 | | Comments (23)
I'm too busy to do any serious blogging today.  Let's see who the gun geeks among you are.  Or the ones with mad Google skillz.


Try to give your answers without peeking at the others!

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

23 Comments

By LT Rusty, USNR on March 12, 2009 10:16 AM
Looks somewhat Berdan-ish to me...
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 10:30 AM
Right era, Rusty.
 
By AFSister on March 12, 2009 10:47 AM

It's a GUN!!!

You can give me my prize now....

 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 10:51 AM
Um, ask Keith about "This is my rifle, this is my gun..." AFSis. 

This is a rifle, not a gun.  Just like magazines aren't clips.  Clips feed magazines, magazines feed weapons. /pet peeve
 
By Oldloadr on March 12, 2009 11:27 AM
In the AF, I was trained to shoot the M-16 rifle and I maintained nad loaded the M-61A1 Gattling Gun, one was for shooting by me, on was for zipper suited sun gods to have fun (in peace-time) and save their a$$ on the way home in war time... Not quite the old basic training poem but it works for me.
 
By AFSister on March 12, 2009 12:51 PM

Hey- you're the one who called out the "gun geeks".... not me.

I figured it was a rifle, but I suppose it could be a REALLY old Dirty Harry style six-shooter.  Other than that, I got nuthin.

 
By Josh on March 12, 2009 2:19 PM
I think it's a tree branch.
 
By Kirk on March 12, 2009 2:52 PM
Kropatchek?
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 3:09 PM
Josh - it's possible that a component of it was at one time a branch, yes.  Probably not, but possible.

Kirk - Like Lieutenant Rusty,  you've got an eye for the era...
 
By Argent on March 12, 2009 4:14 PM
This annoys me.. the wood looks split.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 4:35 PM
That would be because... it is split.  Happens to certain kinds of wood if they aren't cared for properly over time.

This rifle is over 100 years old, and wasn't that well cared for.

Still serviceable though.
 
By Sigivald on March 12, 2009 5:07 PM
Those are screw or bolt heads. Obviously.
 
By MCart on March 12, 2009 6:47 PM
Boy, didn't give us much to work with.

Fusil Gras 1874, or less likely, Lebel?
 
By MCart on March 12, 2009 6:48 PM
Boy, didn't give us much to work with.

Fusil Gras 1874, or less likely, Lebel? Lebel had a two-piece stock, but the bolt looks right.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 7:09 PM

Shucks, MCart, I gave ya more'n usual!

I'd rethink that bolt looks like a Lebel thought.

Though, again, you're in the timeline...

 
By MCart on March 12, 2009 7:45 PM
Darn, and I liked it so much I posted it twice. I can't find any real clear pictures of one, but they both seemed to have that round, with 'coin-edge' like grooves appearance, but it does look like it sticks out more..

Unless those two large bolts are mounts for a volley sight or something, I can't think of a single rifle that had those... They look more structural than an attachment point.

Can't just pan back a tiny bit so we can see the top of the action?
 
By Terrapod on March 12, 2009 8:00 PM
Repair of gunstock split without use of adhesives?
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 8:03 PM
Can't just pan back a tiny bit so we can see the top of the action?

No, because it wouldn't be much of a challenge then.  Congrats, though - you did catch the red herring, in a sense.  One of the reasons I chose this view was because of the similarity to the SMLE.

I'll put up a picture of the other side tomorrow.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 12, 2009 8:08 PM
I should have considered Terrapod's point when I posted it. 

The whatzis is identify the rifle.  The split wood is simply incidental to age and storage. 

MCart is correct - the bolts are structural, not attachment points nor do they have anything to do with the split wood, at least not in a positive way.  Their relation to the wood is as a design flaw that contributed to the weakness of the stock in this area that abetted the splitting of the wood.
 
By Neffi on March 12, 2009 9:46 PM
 "One of the reasons I chose this view was because of the similarity to the SMLE."
Wot?! Well, sure- they're both wood n' metal... I grant you that.
Sheesh.
 
By Cannonshop on March 13, 2009 2:17 AM
A  Remington Lee, then?  James Paris Lee designed a bolt-action rifle that was a direct contributor to the Lee-Metford and Lee Enfield designs.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2009 5:16 AM
Nope, not a Remington-Lee.  Wish I had one, though.

Neffi- go take a look at the safety on your SMLE.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 13, 2009 6:16 AM
And, if you're late to the party, or skipping the rest of the blog (for shame!) the party has moved to a new venue...