Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 14th October 2018, 09:13 PM   #1
Jon MB
Member
 
Jon MB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahnjar1
#1 above is unlikely, as the barrel would be much heavier than the (added?)wooden pad.
#2 Why would a wooden pad be added to a wooden barrel to avoid contamination by sand? The folds of the skin covering (often seen on these butts) would be more likely to harbor sand than a plain wooden stock.
#3 If the gun ended up being used as a club, the existing stock would be more than sufficient to knock a person out.
Certainly the original reason for the butt "pads" remains a mystery but I do not believe that the reason is any of the above ideas. Most likely as has been said in above posts, the butt is designed to "soften" the recoil, or is just a matter of taste.
Stu
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.

Last edited by Jon MB; 14th October 2018 at 09:24 PM.
Jon MB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2018, 09:37 PM   #2
kahnjar1
Member
 
kahnjar1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 2,797
Default

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
kahnjar1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2018, 10:16 PM   #3
Jon MB
Member
 
Jon MB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
Default

Thank you Stu.
Jon MB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.