Roach Belly Stock.

[Dick]

I have just picked up a Browning.....I'm guessing a B1. The serial number dates it to 1957. It is mechanically very good but the stock needs refinishing. The question is.....do I leave it as a roach belly or should I get it altered to a convensional shape?

[enfieldspares]

If it works leave it although both roach belly and on side by side Greener's "rational stock" look awful. Form follows function I do understand. But everything maybe needs a bit of elegance to it. The Colt 1911 .45 has both.

[Dick]

1911s are brilliant......have had a number of them in .455 and .45. A testimony to their design and funtionality is that they are still being made 111years later.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

53 minutes ago, **** said:

I have just picked up a Browning.....I'm guessing a B1. The serial number dates it to 1957. It is mechanically very good but the stock needs refinishing. The question is.....do I leave it as a roach belly or should I get it altered to a convensional shape?

Stay with the lovely Roach Belly, threads like these cry out for images.  

[Smokersmith]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Stay with the lovely Roach Belly,

This

[Gunman]

This was a standard Browning stock .Altering it for no real reason will only devalue the gun . When I worked customising B25's we had  quite a few game guns restocked with a roach hands .

[Fellside]

I personally think the roach belly has tonnes of personality - looks great like a classic car.  That’s just me, I suppose you will either like it or not. 

[Ferretlurcher1970]

My b25 Browning has a roach belly . Looks and shoots great

[Scully]

Personally I’m not a fan. A syndicate member has a straight hand stocked roach belly Browning ( I have no idea what model ) and it is a gorgeous bit of kit, but for the stock. Saying that I wouldn’t advise anyone to have the belly shaved off so to speak. 
Leave it original in my opinion. 

[enfieldspares]

It's all about what your eye prefers.

1) I don't like sideplated boxlocks.

2) I don't like sidelock side by side guns that aren't stocked up to the fences. Early Boss guns did it. Powell's did it. Horrible!

3) Or any gun with a "excrescence" on the top rib like a Westley Richards "doll's head" or Webley's equivalent. Or their "screw grip". Too many Powell guns had such God awful abominations! I'll tolerate a Greener type extension and a cross bolt or a hidden third bite.

4) And also on the "hate" list are part engraved guns. Either leave it totally plain like my father's Henry Clarke or do it fully and do it fully properly like my (now sold) Boss or my son's Gunmark Viscount. It suggests you can't afford to have the thing fully. It's why I prefer an AYA Yeoman Ejector to an AYA No4.

5) Also engraved panels behind the action and flat panels ditto with or without drop points on boxlock guns. 

6) And barrel selector safety catches like Browning use that move from one side of the other.

I'll go and have a lie down now.

Edited April 20, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Robden]

I've no idea what you're going on about.  Any photos please?

[London Best]

I think a roach belly stock is the only pretty part of a Browning O/U.

[JohnfromUK]

What was the supposed purpose of the roach belly stock?  It seems to me that other than 'looks', it serves no purpose because it is not where any part of the hand/body/face touches the gun.  Or am I missing something?

On looks alone, I have no 'strong opinion', and I can see no advantage -whereas I assume a disadvantage (if you see increased weight as such) would seem to be added weight.

I note @enfieldspares 'likes and dislikes' as above - I have a strong dislike of beavertail forends on a s/s.  They both look and feel 'clumsy' to me.  I don't know why not being 'stocked to the fences' was done?  I have a Powell not 'stocked to the fences' - and I don't really notice it at all.  Was it easier/cheaper to make than being 'stocked to the fences'?  I believe Powells later guns were 'stocked to the fences', but can't confirm that.  Mine is circa 1919, but I was told that they moved to 'stocked to the fences' after WW1.  I have never followed up on that to check.

[enfieldspares]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

What was the supposed purpose of the roach belly stock?  It seems to me that other than 'looks', it serves no purpose because it is not where any part of the hand/body/face touches the gun.  Or am I missing something?

On looks alone, I have no 'strong opinion', and I can see no advantage -whereas I assume a disadvantage (if you see increased weight as such) would seem to be added weight.

I note @enfieldspares 'likes and dislikes' as above - I have a strong dislike of beavertail forends on a s/s.  They both look and feel 'clumsy' to me.  I don't know why not being 'stocked to the fences' was done?  I have a Powell not 'stocked to the fences' - and I don't really notice it at all.  Was it easier/cheaper to make than being 'stocked to the fences'?  I believe Powells later guns were 'stocked to the fences', but can't confirm that.  Mine is circa 1919, but I was told that they moved to 'stocked to the fences' after WW1.  I have never followed up on that to check.

Riminhton-Wilosn who shot the famous "largest bag of grouse" used Boss guns and, yes, they weren't stocked to the fences either. So Boss also later adopted the style of being stocked to the fences. For sure as I understand it demands more of the stocker than does the earlier style.

[Fellside]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

What was the supposed purpose of the roach belly stock?  It seems to me that other than 'looks', it serves no purpose because it is not where any part of the hand/body/face touches the gun.  Or am I missing something?

On looks alone, I have no 'strong opinion', and I can see no advantage -whereas I assume a disadvantage (if you see increased weight as such) would seem to be added weight.

I note @enfieldspares 'likes and dislikes' as above - I have a strong dislike of beavertail forends on a s/s.  They both look and feel 'clumsy' to me.  I don't know why not being 'stocked to the fences' was done?  I have a Powell not 'stocked to the fences' - and I don't really notice it at all.  Was it easier/cheaper to make than being 'stocked to the fences'?  I believe Powells later guns were 'stocked to the fences', but can't confirm that.  Mine is circa 1919, but I was told that they moved to 'stocked to the fences' after WW1.  I have never followed up on that to check.

Yes there was / is a purpose. It provides a near parallel comb with out the need for a Monte Carlo stock and the downward sweep of the underside (roach belly) gives the stock its depth without needing a pistol grip. Hope that makes sense. 

As I’ve said above, I really like their classical style. They are of an era. I appreciate that not everybody will feel the same way. 

[JohnfromUK]

47 minutes ago, Fellside said:

It provides a near parallel comb with out the need for a Monte Carlo stock and the downward sweep of the underside (roach belly) gives the stock its depth without needing a pistol grip. Hope that makes sense.

Thank you.  I think it does make sense.  I assume that by "near parallel comb" you mean that the 'drop' is nearly the same at the comb, the face and the heel?  I note looking at my guns that typically there is about 3/4" more drop at the heel than at the comb.

[London Best]

I always thought “stocked to the fences” was a London trade ‘fashion’ for looks alone, later adopted by the Birmingham and provincial trade for their more expensive models.

[enfieldspares]

I think Purdey's started the trend? I am not sure. Certainly early Boss guns weren't "stocked to the fences" and it is said that the reason the best makers in London adopted the style is, yes, to set their guns apart from the lesser quality guns based on the Rogers' 1881 Patent action widely sold to the trade that weren't so made.

[JohnfromUK]

I have e mailed a Powell collector friend (in the USA) to see if he knows more about when Powell started to stock to the fences.

[enfieldspares]

I certainly owned a Powell that wasn't and didn't either have the awful doll's head fastener. Nor did Powell's 12/20 using the Lancaster (and later Grant) system. I suspect he'll reply that it is the factory Webley made actions that are the ones sold by Powell that aren't. William Evans was also a great user of Webley factory made complete guns as, indeed, Webley's records show.

Edited April 21, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Fellside]

2 hours ago, London Best said:

I always thought “stocked to the fences” was a London trade ‘fashion’ for looks alone, later adopted by the Birmingham and provincial trade for their more expensive models.

Don’t know anything about ‘stocked to fences’ LB - I’m just one of those O&U heathens….🙂

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Fellside said:

“stocked to the fences”

Actually .......... it's an old farming phrase - meaning "the field is full".  Anyone remember the old TV series "Call My Bluff"?

[Fellside]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Thank you.  I think it does make sense.  I assume that by "near parallel comb" you mean that the 'drop' is nearly the same at the comb, the face and the heel?  I note looking at my guns that typically there is about 3/4" more drop at the heel than at the comb.

Yes - just more shallow in drop from nose to come than the average. Not truly parallel. 

[enfieldspares]

This is Rimington-Wilson's Boss below. 

This, below, was my (now sold) Boss.

Edited April 21, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Fellside]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Actually .......... it's an old farming phrase - meaning "the field is full".  Anyone remember the old TV series "Call My Bluff"?

Ah OK. Well you learn something new every day as they say.