![]() |
|
![]() |
|
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:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|