Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Schnabel advantage?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by twofifty, Mar 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. twofifty

    twofifty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,611
    What are the up and downsides of a Schnabel fore-end on a high power rifle?
     
  2. Float Pilot

    Float Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,149
    Location:
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Schnabel is German for beak, like a birds beak.

    Up side:

    1. Looks nice.

    2. Keeps the support hand from sliding forward off the stock with heavy recoiling and yet lightweight, rifles.

    3. Acts as a position marker while resting stock on a tree stump, backpack, fallen log, saddle and so on. Thus not allowing you to pull backwards enough that the barrel touches the supporting object and destroys the accuracy.

    4. The Schnabel fore-ends were usually used on thin light-weight stocks, thus the wood on the front of the fore-end tip would be very thin and likely to crack or be damaged in use. BUT, the extra thick beak (schnabel) area would stop that.

    Some stocks, such as on short Mannlicher style full stocked carbines and rifles have a second Schnabel further back as a support hand reference.
    Proper and consistent hand placement being very critical to accuracy with a lightweight rifle.
    Many old rifles in German museums have very short fore-end wood compared to modern rifles. Those I have seen with these short fore-ends always seemed to have a Schnabel.


    Down side:

    1. Pretty much only works on thin lightweight stocks. So they are often too light up front for target shooting.
    2. May hang-up in certain types of scabbards.
    3. Thin wood in the fore-arm could be damaged more easily.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2011
  3. Dr T

    Dr T Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,023
    Location:
    Colorado and West Texas
    BUT, it looks real nice.
     
  4. Elbert P . Suggins

    Elbert P . Suggins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Reubens, Idaho
    I have two rifles that are designed like that. The first one is a Newton 256 made somewhere around 1912 and the other is a bolt action .22 Savage of about the same era. Both I think really look nice built in that manner not even considering the advantages given by the first poster. Another reason is when you have 15 long guns in a safe and you are looking for one of these, they are pretty easy to spot real quick.
     
  5. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    FP, pretty well nailed it. I think the primary advantage is to retain hand placement during recoil (no. 2), other than that the difference is mostly aesthetic. Personally I could do without a schnabel on most rifles, but it does look appropriate for those of the late 19th/very early 20th century. Personally I prefer a schnabel that is a bit chunkier and has little curvature, like the following photo, to one that has a delicate, svelte appearance (like the one pictured beneath the first).

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    :)
     
  6. shootr

    shootr Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    621
    Location:
    MI
    Dang Mav, those are some puurrrty rifles!
     
  7. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    Thanks, shootr. :)
     
  8. Hanshi

    Hanshi Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    719
    Location:
    Virginia
    [​IMG]
    I view them as being aesthetically pleasing rather than of simple utilitarian use.
     
  9. Float Pilot

    Float Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,149
    Location:
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    I only have two left with Schnabels after I sold the last Sharps Rifle..
    But these are keepers.
    I do have some museum photos from Germany around here that show some real oldies.. I will look for those tonight.

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  10. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    10,091
    Location:
    Georgia
    I' ve never heard anyone else make this observation, but I think it may allow the stock to be a bit lighter while still offering a bit of rigidity to the end of the stock.

    During the 80's Winchester offered the model 70 Carbine and 70 Lightweight. They were essentially the same rifle as the Featherweight except with no Schnabel. The Carbine had a 20" barrel while the Lightweight had the standard 22" barrel. Those rifles were quite a bit lighter than even the Featherweight. The wood tapers down to a paper thin section right at the end of the stock and all of them I've owned and seen were quite flexible at the end of the stock. There was not enough wood to even consider free floating.

    Once again I've never heard of anyone else making that observation, so I could be completely wrong.

    I should ahve read the whole thread before posting. I see Float Pilot has already stated what I said.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  11. Float Pilot

    Float Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,149
    Location:
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    Sounds like another good reason to me..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page