S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,376
Posts544,025
Members14,391
|
Most Online1,258 Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
by Stanton Hillis |
Stanton Hillis |
I have a 32" barreled A grade Fox that had been restocked very well before I acquired it, with a semi-beavertail f/e and a straight grip with long tang. This gun just cries out for a long splinter f/e. How do I determine if the underside of the existing forend is fitted to the barrels well enough that, if "worked down" to a splinter, there wouldn't be unsightly gaps between the wood and the barrels along the upper edge? A good friend told me that I could put some children's Play-Doh under the f/e, then carefully put the f/e back on the gun, allowing the dough to slowly squeeze out, and it would show me how well it is fitted. But, I've never tried that, yet.
|
|
|
by keith |
keith |
I did reply to Stan both here and in a PM, because I simply didn't know if my post would actually appear, or if this Thread might just end up locked or otherwise censored. I still do not know if the reply I made last night will be posted, or not. If it is, then it will be apparent that I wasn't exactly happy with the response he made to me earlier. I regret any misunderstanding and my tone.
I have read what Stan has said here, and in his PM reply to me, and I wish to publicly state that I am also confused about exactly how and when a name appears in the yellow bar at the top of a post. Also that I accept his apology for the misunderstanding that ensued as a result. And I also apologize for my reaction, and my thought that he was just blowing me off without really bothering to read my earlier reply. His thoughtful replies, both here, and by PM, shows that he was quite willing to engage sincerely and without rancor, as he and I always have.
Stan has once again demonstrated just who he is. He will stand his ground to the bitter end when he knows he is right. And he has no problem standing up like a man and offering an apology if he is wrong or simply makes a mistake. I respect that very much, and it goes a long way toward explaining that, while we may not always agree on everything, there has never been an angry word exchanged between us.
There are a few people here who would do well to learn something from Stan's example. However, I'm quite sure that will never happen, because that would involve having some guts, integrity, and a spine.
I hope Stan and I can go on as we always have, learning, sharing what we have learned, committed to preserving the 2nd Amendment, and enjoying our double guns.
|
2 members like this |
|
|
by keith |
keith |
I understand completely Stan. I looked very closely at your pics, but it is hard to tell what walnut species you have on that Fox. The stock cheek provides the clearest look, and from that, I would say it is Black Walnut, but that is merely an educated guess. I have amassed a pretty good amount of walnut blanks and slabs in the Black, English, French, Claro, Circassian, and Bastogne varieties, and keep as many usable scrap pieces as possible for patching. And despite that, it is still often hard to find a close match when doing a repair. Doing it from pics on a computer monitor would be very difficult indeed.
I suppose you could always take Mama Bear and your forend on a little vacation to Las Vegas after harvest, and make a side trip to visit Cecil Fredi. Maybe you could write off the expense as "repairs to farm pest control equipment."
But even if you cut down your BTFE, and even if it currently has no stain, it may still be tough to match finish coloration. When I did my little test on wood glues several years ago, I tried well over half a dozen different stock finishes on my sample glue joints, and every one produced a different color and surface appearance. You may want to test your choice of finish on scraps you cut off to make sure you will be satisfied with how it matches the buttstock.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by Stanton Hillis |
Stanton Hillis |
That would have been quite evident if your post had originally included the QUOTE from eightbore. Unfortunately, this single sentence was the entirety of your post... until you edited it to include the comment from eightbore about his Super Fox. Not trying to hijack this thread, but was that BT factory? The entirety of his post, yes, but there was something else I noticed. At the top of it, in the highlighted yellow bar, it said that he was replying to eightbore (where the little "right turn arrow" is). Once the time limit for deleting a post has passed that indicator can't be changed. I noticed it said eightbore when you replied to him ........ only because I have goofed up so many times that I've learned to look to see who the poster is replying to. Easy mistake to make, for me, at least.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by Stanton Hillis |
Stanton Hillis |
Gr8Day was responding to eightbore, evidenced by the fact that above his post in the yellow bar it was showing that it was in reply to eightbore. I saw that all after he posted. "Eightbore" would not have appeared up there had Gr8Day not clicked on the box to reply to eightbore's post. The only way to get it there is to click on the middle box at the bottom right which says "Reply". When you do that the name of the poster you are replying to is shown in the yellow bar. There's no other way to get it there.
I've simply tried to point out the facts of the matter, but it seems true that, sometimes, no good deed goes unpunished. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Bye, y'all.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by Stanton Hillis |
Stanton Hillis |
In private communication with Keith he has pointed out to me that I may well be misunderstanding the mechanism by which the name of the person that one is replying to shows up in the yellow bar, and it is not always what one intends. I am apparently still confused about the process, and would like to offer an apology to Keith for maintaining that I knew, and understood, the process well. It was my understanding that if one does not click on the "Reply" box, under the post made by the other person, the name of the originator of the thread would appear. But, Keith has showed me examples where that is not always the case. So, I was wrong and remain confused about it, and reticent that I ever treaded where I shouldn't have.
And, I appreciate Keith's, and all others', posts in reply to the original topic of this thread. The entire thread, and all those who read it, would have been better served had I responded to Keith in private, in order to attempt to work out this confusion. My bad for not doing so.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
|