Stock Question

[Matt K. 0]

I've noticed in the parts descriptions of the no-prefix guns that a lot of stocks are recorded as type 2, etc.

What is the difference between type 1(?), type 2, type 3 stocks?

Does this correspond the the numbers stamped on the forward face of the stock opposite the magazine?

Thanks.

[Brian Alpert 0]

I believe the type refers to the number stamped on the flat of the recess for the front butt stock screw. The meaning or significance of the letter and number stamped on the face opposite the rear of the magazine is not known, at least to me. In fact, I have personally noted 7 different letters and 6 different numbers (single digits) in my examination of original stocks. As far as I know, there is only one stock pattern and finish. Some had "cheeks" and some did not. Perhaps the "type number" refers to shift or machine on which produced or wood lot. As with many things in arms collecting, there are many more questions than answers.

[ArtR 0]

It is too bad that companies are not run with historians at the helm. Better documentation, record keeping, and safeguarding those records would be at the forefront of management. Unfortunately for us it is not.

Production logs may have only been kept for the first production run. Keeping a record of every serial numbered part may have been seen as very expensive and became totally unproductive when it looked like the sale of the guns to the NPC was not going to happen. I do not think the US Govt specified serial numbered parts record keeping. If it had, we would have seen it over the years on all guns produced.

Having worked for many years in a military manufacturing environment, and several of those years making production drawings, I can tell you revision level changes happened for many reasons. Often times the drawings changed because of production practice changes. Other times it was because of a change in a military specification dictated it. Other times it was because a product was modified to be used in another application. While we would note on the drawings some reason for the revision change, it was cryptic at best. Locating the production drawings would be intersting, to say the least.

We would assign part numbers for our customers orders, but in reality, if one part would fill several order requirements, our manufacturing drawings would reflect that also. For example, one miltary product family had a dimensional tolerance of .050 +/- .004 and another had the dimensional tolerance of .049 +/- .002, but other than dimensions and color, they were similar products. We changed our manufacturing practice to make one part. While the second part had tighter tolerances, by making it we could reduce material used, cut change overs, reduce scrap, and increase productivity. So we would supply two customer part number requirements by making one internal part drawing. In our facility it was not unusual to have in production parts that were similar except for their production revision level, the only distinguishing characteristic being who was buying what at the time.