Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jon MB
Stu, in response to your points, (I see you have no doubt handled such pieces)
Point 1. The sizes of these additions vary. Either way the centre of balance would be shifted, which may or may not have been desired by the tribal users.
Point 2. If you look at the base of the stocks with the additions, they are often quite worn. Many examples are not fur covered.
Point 3. If you say so. Hard to know at this point.
'Taste' would here be a question of cultural norms related to weapons.
Elgood mentions absorbsion of recoil but does not elaborate, but it would be interesting to hear explanations from the tribal users of these weapons, or their decendants.
|
Your points may well be right, and I am not saying that you are wrong. Simply that this issue is a discussion point, from which (hopefully) a valid reason for these butt extensions will appear.
Yes I have owned in the past a couple of these guns but stupidly sold them in a weak moment
In answer to your comments, I agree that the sizes do vary BUT they are only made of wood and weigh next to nothing in comparison to the barrel. Yes some are worn but then many old gunstocks show signs of wear. I would guess that these get rougher treatment than (for instance) a European gun. As far as use as a "club" goes I certainly would not like to have one aimed at my head. As you say it's hard to tell but I would not like to be on the receiving end!
Stu