Wood v. Synthetic stock?

[cbuchanan87]

I have always been a fan of the classic look of a nice wood stock, so this isn't a question of how a rifle looks, but rather a question of the advantages and disadvantages of both synthetic and wood stocks.

Can you more expericed gurus please help me out with characteristics of the different stocks? Which do you prefer as far as performance and why?

I am seriously considering a synthetic stock for a 30-06 for deer hunting. I like the idea of being able to beat it up without feeling guilty for ruining a beautiful wood finish. I am wondering if there is any noticeable diferences as far as performance is concerned. Can you give me some advice?

Thank you.

[aeonrevolution]

Aside from free floating your barrel a wood stock and a synthetic stock won't have much difference in terms of accuracy.

If I'm wrong please let me know, thats just what I've always heard.

Find something that is comfortable to you.

[LoneStarWings]

Synthetics tend to be lighter. They are also not prone as prone to expansion/contraction as a result of changing weather coditions. Synthetics are often less expensive too.

With that said, the difference between most wood and synthetic stocks is pobably less than 1 lb and some modern wood stocks are well treated to avoid expansion.

In the end I like both, but usually prefer fiberglass/synthetic because to me, it represents a technological advance over the wood stock.

[jmr40]

There is a huge difference between the quality of the synthetics. Most factory synthetic stocks are not any lighter. They are cheap and you will not feel as bad about scratching one up.

I prefer a good synthetic to wood beacuse they can be made significantly lighter. With a quality synthetic you never have to worry about your stock swelling in wet weather and causing the rifles point of impact to change.

Shop around, a good synthtic is not cheap. A lot of them are actually heavier than wood and are so poorly made that you are better off with wood.

[Waterengineer]

Call me a crmudgeon if you want but long arms stocks are made from wood. There is one exception, that would be the Remington Nylon 66 for the obvious reason. I know this does not answer the question but I needed to spout off.

I think the synthetic stock thing (at least for sporting arns) is Kool-aid being foisted on us by the gun industry. In the quantities they buy stocks they can really leverage down the price of synthetic stocks. They have consistently been "selling" us on the quality of synthetic stocks. One example is all the hunting shows on TV. Very consistantly, and almost always the TV "talent" has been given a synthetic stocked rifle to use. Rarely do you see a wood stocked rifle on one of those shows any more.

With synthetic stocks quality goes down of the overall arm (my opinion), the look goes down (almost everyone says a wood stocked gun looks better), less hand work (less talent) is needed by the manufacturers employee.

I am waiting for the day when "wood" is an upgrade option and we pay through the nose for it - that day is almost here.

I will not buy a synthetic stocked sporting rifle with the exception of the Nylon 66/77.

[kraigwy]

I am waiting for the day when "wood" is an upgrade option and we pay through the nose for it - that day is almost here.

I hope so, I sure would like to find a walnut stock for my AR.

[Vergeltung]

when looking for an AK, I insisted on wood stocks. just something about it. my Mausers, of course, only come in wood. ;)

[jmr40]

Waterengineer,

If you are refering to the majority of factory synthetic stocks, then I agree with you. They are just a way to reduce the cost of the gun and increase profits.

The synthetic stocks maded by Kimber, Brown Precision, McMillian and a few others are high quality, expensive to produce and do offer advantages over wood. Deciding whether those advantages are worth the cost and the better looks of wood is a personal decision.

[Maromero]

Laminated wood.

[cbuchanan87]

Waterengineer, I totally agree with you that a wood stock looks better, but i am not looking for another "purty" gun. I am simply looking for performance and durability. If I get a synthetic stock it will be because it reduces recoil or helps with accuracy or because it can just be beat up or something along these lines.

If there are no real advantages, then I guess I will just get whichever i can get the best deal on.

I already have some great looking guns. I am looking for just plain performance here.

[cbuchanan87]

jmr40,

You mentioned some real advantages to the higher end synthetics. Can you be more specific? Can you list some of the advantages and help me to decide whether one will be worthe the extra change?

Thanks!

[223 shooter]

What some companies refer to as a synthetic stock is simply an injection molded toy-like plastic stock that has the virtue of being cheap to produce. The Remington 700SPS and Savage 12FV come to mind. Yes they are synthetic and probably cost them about $20.

I like the idea of being able to beat it up without feeling guilty for ruining a beautiful wood finish.

In that case I would not go with the wood , no one is going to lose any sleep over banging up a plastic stock.

Now some of the higher end sythetics like the HS Precisions stocks advertised as a Kevlar/fiberglass combination laid up around a aluminum bedding block are used in a lot of varmint/tactical style rifles.

I've had great results with these stocks , the point of zero does not change regardless of temperature or humidity. I have fired groups weeks apart to confirm this and they remain remarkably consistent.

[Scorch]

First, let me qualify this statement by saying that I build rifles for a living (such as it is). That said, I love the look of a nicely figured piece of walnut, checkered and finished in a low-gloss or satin finish. But I prefer to stock the rifles I build in synthetic stocks. Laid-up fiberglass or Kevlar/graphite stocks, to be precise. For ease of typing, I will refer to these as "fiberglass stocks".

None of the other "synthetic" stocks on the market really offer the advantages of a fiberglass stock. Sure, you can get synthetic stocks with aluminum bedding blocks (really just an excuse for people who don't know how to properly bed a rifle), webbing and tactical finishes (again, just an excuse for people who don't know how to paint), Dragunov-style buttstock with adjustable cheekpieces (need I say more?), made out of whatever material is easiest to mold and turn out quickly. None of these are as durable, as rigid, or as stable as a fiberglass stock, and if you fall on your "synthetic" stock, you will be surprised at how easily they part at the wrist. I have seen fiberglass stocked rifles that had been fallen on by horses, and the main thing they needed was a new barrel and some paint. A barreled action properly bedded in a fiberglass stock is virtually impervious to heat, POI shift, movement within the stock, or pressure applied to the forend during firing. Plus, it cleans up with Windex or mineral spirits. There is no other stock material like a laid-up fiberglass stock.

If you want to know what the best shooters use, you will find a preponderance of fiberglass stocks at benchrest matches around the country, along with various laminated or metal stocks (and I might add absolutely no Ram-Line or Choate stocks). But as most of the better things in life, they do cost more, so it's a choice a lot of people avoid. For those folks, I recommend a nicely figured piece of walnut, checkered and finished in a low-gloss or satin finish.

[TDodge7]

kraigwy

Quote: I hope so, I sure would like to find a walnut stock for my AR.


then you're in luck
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b243/The_Bondo_Bandit/lm7basic6.jpg

that one has the 22 upper , but it will work just the same on any ar . no idea what they're asking for them , http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/walnut.html

[pilothunter]

Mr. Maromero has got the right idea, "laminate wood". A well made laminate wood stock is not only as impervious to the elements as a synthetic stock, but also stronger than most any synthetic stock on the market, if not ANY synthetic. They also hold up to abuse even better than a synthetic. Try to find a scratch or nick in a laminate stock. Now look at your synthetic after a tough hunt.

I own many walnut stocks, several laminates and a few synthetics.
If you like the look and feel of wood, then a laminate stock is definitely the way to go, if you are worried about weather or abuse or feel you need extra strength. If you enjoy the look and feel of a synthetic, then you are very lucky because the manufacturers have found a great way to save money by extolling the virtues of and selling synthetic stocks on their rifles.

Please read:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_stock.htm

[a7mmnut]

In defense of the plastics' cost: While most resins are less than $5/pound, total operational costs to get one stock made my be upwards of $50/hr., and the mold that makes a piece this big may run well over $300,000 (U.S. made). How many would you have to run and sell to recover those kind of costs? It's mind boggling. -7-

[jmr40]

Let's break this down:

Looks:

A nice piece of wood wins by a mile. The problem is that nice looking wood is pretty rare and a lot more expensive than it was 50 years ago. Manufacturers are using cheaper grades of wood or going to plastics. The plastic used on most factory stocks is a far cry from a real fiberglass stock. Just for reference I ordered a new stock from Ruger for a MK-2 last summer. Plastic was $85, walnut $250.

Weight:

Most factory walnut stocks weigh between 32-36 oz. The cheapo plastics weigh about the same and sometimes more. The cheaper synthetics such as Hogue, Bell and Carlson, and HS Precision can weigh a lot more, especially the ones with the aluminum bedding blocks. You can get a good fiberglass from Bansners, Brown Precision, or McMillian that will weigh between 24-26 oz. Some can be as light as 16 oz. The factory Kimber and Tikkas are very light as well. Laminated stocks as a rule are the heaviest.

To get this light weight you have to spend some serious money, or be willing to do some work yourself. To get the lightest versions of these stocks will set you back around $500. Bansners, and Brown Precision will sell you a stock blank for under $300, but you have to do some of the final fitting, painting and install your own recoil pad and swivels.

Accuracy:

No real difference in the potential accuracy. But with wood the point of impact may very well change a little as the weather changes. I have fiberglass stocked rifles where the scope caps have not been removed in years. My wood stocked versions need a little fine tuning before hunting season.

Durability:

Synthetics win. Even the cheapest plastic stocks will take more abuse than walnut. I've sat and watched my walnut stock split while hunting in the rain. At daylight the crack was about 1/4" long and by noon had grown to 4". After years of use a walnut stock can look pretty well worn and a professional looking refinish can be expensive or require a lot of work yourself. With fiberglass a little bondo will fill in gouges and anyone can sand and paint with Krylon.

If you are not concerned about weight laminated wood is an option. They are probably the least expensive and have most of the other positive features of fiberglass. I have seen laminated stocks delaminate however. If the layers are not glued together properly this could be a problem, although rare and would be considered a manufacturers defect.

Truthfully, the best option if you want a light durable rifle is to just buy one. A Tikka in synthetic weighs 6.2 lbs and will cost around $600 in stainless. A Kimber weighs 5.2 lbs and will set you back around $1100. You cannot buy anything else and have it restocked to get those weights for that money.

[223 shooter]

Sure, you can get synthetic stocks with aluminum bedding blocks (really just an excuse for people who don't know how to properly bed a rifle)

Since there are few , if any , factory rifles out there that leave with a proper bedding job the bedding block system seems to work well for the mass produced rifles they are equipped on. For the deer hunting the original post mentions it would more than likely serve him well.

If you have rifle capable of shooting in the .1s @ 100 yards and are trying to make a weight class the $500+ fiberglass stock with a real bedding job makes sense.

[Art Eatman]

Weather isn't really a problem for a wood stock if the outer finish is decent, and the interior is waxed. I'm not talking about continually-rainy hunting country, but more like the occasional mist or drizzle that's usually the limit for most folks to go out and hunt. I've not had any trouble with any change in the bedding in my wood-stocked rifles; certainly not from mere changes in humidity.

I guess it's personal preference, really...

[paladin-34]

when i'm out on those cold days the synthetics seam to suck the heat out of my fingers faster than wood. on hot days in the sun it gets hotter than wod in the sun.

[Swampghost]

This has been pretty well covered but I figure to throw in my 2 cents as a lifelong woodworker/shooter and in composites for 42 yrs.

Wood will respond to atmospheric conditions. How it responds depends on many conditions, temperature and humidity being the primary factors, a composite stock will react to temperature changes but not to the magnitude that a wooden stock will.

[pilothunter]

Well, perhaps you should try a new laminate wood one now, after 42 years. I believe you'll be surprised. Simply a suggestion.

[kmullins]

Though this has nothing to do with contributing on which is "better", I much prefer wood/laminate over synthetic. Here is why:

1. I'm a classic kind of guy. I like classic cars, classic tunes and wood is classic to me. It makes a rifle look like an actual piece of art instead of some hunk of metal.

2. Wood furniture feels better to me. It allows me to get a better grip on the rifle and really connect with the firearm.

3. It ages better. Over time wood takes in oils and waxes and begins to look better and better, if well taken care of.

Just my opinion.

[jbrown]

I just picked up a laminated wood Boyds JRS stock for my charles daly 98 mauser.I wanted a wood stock for it since I got it a few years ago.Once I get it inletted completely,I will make sure its still subMOA and may or may not keep the butler creek synthetic it came with

[Ignition Override]

kmullins: "Roger that", reasons 1 and 2. The laminated stocks on my two MN 44s look really good.
The hard, light brown walnut/stainless on the Mini 30 also.

By contrast, a black gun with black polymer is cool in a certain way (maybe fashions can change?), but compared to the classic wood/blued metal look, to me they appear to resemble spare parts used in a foreign car or truck.

Most war movies feature combat rifles older looks in WW2 and Korea, even if in black and white.
And those guys appear to have fought with no fancy gear attached (other than a {100% business} bayonet), that I've ever seen in books or wartime films. Simple, basic rifles were good enough for my heroes and are good enough for me too. We visited the resting place of just a very tiny percentage, above Omaha Beach.

[longrifles, Inc]

Wood gun:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/nesikachad/GUN%20PICS/DSC_0049.jpg


Synthetic gun:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/nesikachad/GUN%20PICS/CharlesclarkpalmaNoNesika.jpg



You'd never tell them apart on paper at 1K so I think it matters little so long as they are built right.