Comments for A whatzis!

A whatzis!

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:14:56 -0600

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!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-13

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:16:53 -0600

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...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-13

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:16:15 -0600

Nope, not a Remington-Lee. Wish I had one, though.

Neffi- go take a look at the safety on your SMLE.

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-03-13

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:17:35 -0600

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.

Comment from Neffi on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:46:40 -0600

"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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:08:33 -0600

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:03:05 -0600

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.

Comment from Terrapod on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:00:58 -0600

Repair of gunstock split without use of adhesives?

Comment from MCart on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:45:12 -0600

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?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:09:51 -0600

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...

Comment from MCart on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:48:58 -0600

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.

Comment from MCart on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:47:59 -0600

Boy, didn't give us much to work with.

Fusil Gras 1874, or less likely, Lebel?

Comment from Sigivald on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:07:15 -0600

Those are screw or bolt heads. Obviously.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:35:11 -0600

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.

Comment from Argent on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:14:00 -0600

This annoys me.. the wood looks split.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:09:18 -0600

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...

Comment from Kirk on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:52:09 -0600

Kropatchek?

Comment from Josh on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:19:29 -0600

I think it's a tree branch.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:51:44 -0600

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.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:27:26 -0600

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:51:05 -0600

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

Comment from AFSister on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:47:00 -0600

It's a GUN!!!

You can give me my prize now....

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:30:25 -0600

Right era, Rusty.

Comment from LT Rusty, USNR on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:16:26 -0600

Looks somewhat Berdan-ish to me...