the stocks on SMLE'S and P14/17 are the way they are,,the design reasons,,,,the fashion reasons are mute,,,are they the same reasons as on the FAL???????????????????????

WHY,WHY NOT! derf

Why, I don't know. Why does anyone do what they do? The reason the FAL is made the way it is, is that is the basic layout of the modern assault rifle.

The SMLE, the P-14, the French MAS 36 and 49/56, well, why not? They work just fine for battle rifles, and work well enough if accurized. You don't need a full length stock, so why not do it another way.

Eric

Oddly enough, I came *very* close to going to school to get a Ph.D. in cultural technology. Why people apply different solutions to the same kinds of problems, and how many technological assumptions they make in the process.

I'm sure there is a good reason that rifles are built a certain way, but those reasons sometimes seem odd when viewed through a noncontemporary lens. I think if you would research the history of British and European rifle development, you could noodle it out for yourself.

I have a friend who is a tool engineer. He works for a well known tool company and one of the tools under his purview is a ball-pein hammer. I once asked him what the pein is for, and he was unable to tell me.

(So everyone knows, the pein is designed specifically to "pein" or form the shop heads of rivets.) It's use isn't limited to that, but after a while, people forget why they do things.

120mm
The French and the English make beautiful rifles for the civilian market. I think they used up all of their style and eye appeal on thier civilian arms and saved the ugly for their military arms, the SMLE and the Mas.
Jim

Strange, but I always thought I knew the answer. England and France, along with Japan, lacked the forests, i.e., the wood, in sufficint quantity to make full length stocks for military rifles hence the two-piece stock - in Japan's case a laminated three piece job.
Necessity = the mother of invention.

I dont mean why are they 2 pc. but the drop at comb,,goofy little tit they have for a gripknob.I once thought that the low comb was to make it easier for the WRONGHANDED to shoot a rifle made for the rightys,,I tried it,,useing left eye to sight,shooting from the right shoulder,,OUCH!!!!!!!,,then I thought the sevier drop was to fit the shoulder better in the prone position,,,that has SOME validity in practice,,tho just.I then thought about the psyc. part of tools.THE .303 is a medium power,,,tho adequate,,cart.,and as any one who has shot a m94 win. knows,,the drop in the stock make it SEEM as tho the 30/30 has alittle kick,,,,percieved power out of proportion to its actual energy,,tho this is not really noticed unless you shoot the 30/30 in a rifle with a modern stock design,,,as a m54 win. would offer.So my best guess is that the psyc. explanation is the one most logical, to instill confidence in the troops that they had a HIGH powered rifle,,,IF,, and it's a big if,,the brits. didn't have some other reason for it,,,,,,,,, more input welcomed

[ 10-23-2003, 00:45: Message edited by: MONTANAHILLBILLY ]

I think the P14/17's stock looks like the Lee-Enfield because the British government intended it to replace the latter and wanted it to look and feel familiar to the soldier. As for the why the Lee-Enfield looks as it does, I can only guess that it is simply a "modernized" semi-pistol grip version of earlier straight grip musket stocks. Maybe the lack of a comb prevented it from kicking into the shooters face.

A better question might be : "How the hell did the Russians come up with the Mosin-Nagant design?"

[ 10-30-2003, 03:59: Message edited by: Bobster ]

Well, Tincan, the part about the different sized stocks is certainly true (same with the bolt heads, at least for 4's and 5's), I don't know about the rest though. - Dan