View Full Version : synthetic stock or wood stock?

vince weng
February 5, 2000, 09:12 AM
I plan to purchase a remington 700 rifle. I like to know pros and cons between synthetic and wood stock. Can someone tell me based on what you know and what you have experienced.


February 5, 2000, 09:33 AM
Wood - Pro - Looks great (relative). Heavy (relative) helps reduce recoil.
Con - Changes (swells) depending on Humidity "Could" effect POI. Heavy (relative) for carrying, Fragile (relative).

Syn - Pro - Stable (no swelling), Light weight (relative) for carrying. Strong (relative)
Con - Light (relative) increased recoil, Ugly (relative).

GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

February 5, 2000, 10:09 AM
If you want a rifle for great accuracy over long distance I'd suggest the synthetic. The wood is more vulnerable to changes in the environment than the synthetic materials are. It's also harder to damage a synthetic stock as far as apearance goes. Wood gets dinged up just moving the rifle in and out of the safe sometimes. Also some of the newer synthetic stocks are in my opinion attractive. I especially like the ones used on the VS and Sendero models.

February 5, 2000, 10:30 AM
Schmit has about said it all. That's why he's makin the big bucks. I personally don't like the synthetic because of the ugly factor, but like he stated that's relative. I like the character that a wood stock has. Synthetics basically all look the same. But having said that, for a strictly bench gun then synthetic is the way to go.

bullet placement is gun control

Paul B.
February 5, 2000, 11:39 AM
Vince. Back in 1986, I set up a Remington 700 BDL in an H&S Precision synthetic stock. I sighted this 30-06 rifle in with 180 gr. Winchester Silvertips. Groups averaged 1.25 inches 3 inches high, just as I wanted them to be.
I checked the sighting for the rifle last October for use as a back up rifle on my elk hunt. It shot a 1.25 inch group, exactly 3 inches high. This rifle has done this continuously ever since I set it up, back in 1986. I have neber had to redjust the settings on the scope. Nuff said?
I have several custom rifles with pretty wood and all the bells and whistles. They make for nice brag at the range. But, when I go hunting, I use a rifle with a "plastic" stock. Beauty is as beauty does. Synthetic works.
Paul B.

February 5, 2000, 02:35 PM
I am moving to the synthetics. However, I have a customized Sako with the factory wooden stock. It hasn't "lost zero" since the day the rifle was made five or six years ago and it shoots under one minute of angle. Obviously, there are countless rifles around that have performed well with wood for many years. I am not replacing my wooden stocks, but rifles of new manufacture are all going to be synthetic for the reasons mentioned above.

February 5, 2000, 03:52 PM
I'm all in favor of synthetic stocks, don't get me wrong. But there are some guns that just have to have a wood stock IMO.

Can you see a Shiloh or C Sharps with a synthetic? No.. didn't think so. ;) :D

GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[This message has been edited by Schmit (edited February 05, 2000).]

Art Eatman
February 5, 2000, 05:36 PM
So what are some recommendations for a synthetic stock for a 1970-vintage Sako Forester?

The rifle (a 19" barrel, .243) weighs about seven pounds with scope, ammo and sling. About what weight-reduction could I expect? Guesstimating, of course. (I haven't weighed the Sako stock.)

Thanx, Art

February 6, 2000, 12:40 AM

McMillan makes several Sako stocks, including a replacement with the same lines as the original. Bell and Carlson was closing out Sako stocks without checkering a month ago.


Or a Mannlicher Schoenaur, pre-64 model 70 Super Grade, Cooper, Dakota M-10, anything Dale Goens ever touched, and the list goes on. Truely fine rifles all deserve great wood. How about this, a Butch Searcy double rifle in .470 Nitro Express with a camoflage injection molded plastic stock.

[This message has been edited by Ankeny (edited February 06, 2000).]

February 6, 2000, 03:06 PM
I will agree with the point that synthetic wins for over all use. Although wood looks much better, if you hunt or shoot alot in varied weather than synthetic is for you.

February 6, 2000, 10:32 PM
Well ... synthetics for the bench but wood for hunting. Why? I'll 'splain.

Synthetics are nuetral to most conditions = better all 'round stability.

But, I like wood for hunting as the synthetics make a really strange noise if you make contact with brush, etc. It's not at all any sort of natural noise. I do most of my hunting in dark timber & "bad" noise is a no-no. Too, If a wooden stock is properly sealed, there shouldn't be much of a problem with moisture causing stock warpage. & yes, my rifles have been covered with snow here in CO it doesn't seem to matter.

A good free-float does away with much of the bbl cant due to stock pressure.

I've hunted with wood from South Fl to Co & it doesn't seem to matter for hunting conditions.

Although I've a HS on my .22-250 (because the BDL stock warped & caused horrible groupings - it came from FL to CO as a gift & trashed itself within a month), I've never had a problem with wood - other than that.

Quite the contradiction, huh? BTW, the .22-250 stock wasn't properly sealed after the wood removal for free-float. I think it just dried out & was hosed.

February 7, 2000, 01:05 PM
You might want to consider a laminated stock. I have a winchester with a laminated stock, which I have shot in almost all possible humidities for New Brunswick, and it has never shown any signs of shot movement. I have unfortunately hit it on truck doors, and dropped it one day when I got caught in some hidden barbed wire, and it has not dented or scratched it noticeably. I like the stock also because it has a very nice look to it compared to a synthetic or some normal wooden stocks. Just thought I would put mt 2 cents worth in.