Hey Paul,
Agree 100% - anything that leads to more provable data about these rifles is a plus for future reference for all of us.
I doubt the TC smiths had any trouble with the laminated wood that was any different than with their other wood stocks as they would have been machine cut just like the others to use their stock furniture parts. The procedures TC's in house stockmakers used when they still made their stocks (up until the fire), was to do final stock dimensions prior to finish with the furniture installed (more or less). That's not conjecture on my part, but from Tim P. at TC years ago. No doubt they did some "fitting" along the process, especially if they had to make up for casting flaws, etc. But they must have been a pretty consistent stock crew, because parts have always been pretty much interchangeable on their rifles from a like rifle from a like era.
Serialization of the pre fire TC muzzies will always remain speculation because all of TC's records on them was destroyed in the fire. For many years I have worked on my data base in trying to reassemble an approximate year of manufacture list, model run years, etc. But the data is dependant on the source. IOW the modelserialization data I have from sources that still have their original sales receipt of new in the box rifles is all that approximates about when made. Mainly because there is no way of knowing how long any NIB rifle sat in stock at TC or a dealer before it was actually sold. From only this a pattern is developing though that certain serial number ranges do fall into a similar time period, but its far from exact and it will never be even close to complete in my lifetime. Memory is a fine thing when it comes to life's pleasures maybe, but most often its not worth squat when it comes to any data on the TC's. Some "from memory" when bought new serial numbers do fall close to those backed by receipts, but many are also so far off in the wrong direction that they are ridiculous. An example would be the gent who insisted over and over that he bought his TC Hawken new in 1965 even after being told that TC didn't open its doors until 1967 or offer their first Hawken until Aug 1970. So the best even my hard won data for serialization on the muzzies can do is a best guess approximately when one was made based on just its serial number.
Matching serialization on stocks themselves is something TC did do, but not always, not always in the same place and not on all models. A "K" was added (either before or after S# or to the breech plug) to designate the kit rifles. When push comes to shove there really is no 100% guaranty that even a rifle bought new in the box, let alone one bought used has all the original parts it started life with. And about the only clue on the standard Hawkens would be the stock and the lock, which did change with improvements during their run.
I have no idea what the "ul" is for - maybe the smith's initials that was building it, and I didn't know them if so. Hand engraved numbers on these laminate stock rifles would not surprise me at all as they were very few and only meant to be prototypes.
No need for the pictures since they probably just used stock parts, and your description says enough to speculate from.
And that's the bottom line... most of what we assume about the prefire traditional arms especially is just speculation with only specific points that have been confirmed to be fact by TC or other documented sources. Even so it's been fun trying to figure it out over the years, acquiring the old catalogs and sales flyer's, and I'll keep adding information to my data base that can be accepted as fact.
L.
