![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Hi Michael,
Thanks a lot for investigation and consequent revelations. Quote:
.Now, if you allow me the impertinence ... What if we don't (strictly) stick to terms ? Like if we are flexible to the extent that when we mention hook, this may as well be a figure of speech; after all, hooks have so many shapes ... i mean, what instead of mentioning hook, we just call it a 'device', comprehending hooks, lugs, stumps, when they all serve the same purpose?! If you allow me the correlation, i was reading about the appearance of the stock in portable firearms; the author reminds us that, after all, the stock is ( or also is) an implement to absorb the recoil. Is this 'reasoning' any 'reasonable' ? I know, in this case the human shoulder, or chest, plays the role of the wall. This is what happens when you pay attention to laymen .If you don't have any more patience, just send me to that part .Fernando |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Fernando,
I think that most reasoning is "reasonable". This is why I did not exclude the possibility of a real existence of wooden devices to reduce the recoil. Of course such existed as the lug of the Pilsen gun sure does, apart from being a rest, effect one more thing: it makes the gun heavier where this is most useful to keep the kick back low. I hope the two of us can happily meet under this compromise. Michael |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|