Composite vs. Walnut Stock

hopeisnotastrategy · May 20, 2011, 05:47 PM

I am buying my first hunting rifle and I am needing education on the choice of stock.

I've read threads that mentioned advantages and disadvantages of both.

Here are my questions:

1. What impact does the type of stock have on recoil?
2. What impact does the type of stock have on accuracy?
3. Are there durability/longevity issues with wood? i.e. Will wood warp or distort over time?
4. My research has lead me to eliminate laminate and injection molded stocks as an option. Is that a mistake?

I am not interested in discussions about aesthetics. To me that is a secondary issue and I actually like the looks of different rifles with both kinds of stocks, so please limit feedback to the more technical merits of each option.

Thanks in advance!!!

PawPaw · May 20, 2011, 06:44 PM

For hunting, it doesn't matter. Man has been killing critters with wood-stocked rifles for several hundred years. The new composite stocks are great for some things. I own both and I use both, but when I'm heading to the woods, I've likely got a wood stocked rifle in the pickup.

Wood might warp or change properties when wet, or in high humidity. Composites are normally considered more stable, less prone to change in the weather. I'm not sure what you're calling injection molded, but most of the low-dollar rifles in the world are sold with inexpensive stocks, and many of those are injection molded. Laminates, on the other hand, are generally stable, but they're also generally heavier than the others. Some rifles come from the factory with a laminate stock and some folks like them.

Pick the one that suits you best. There are pros and cons to each of them.

DAVID NANCARROW · May 20, 2011, 07:14 PM

Agreed with PawPaw. The shape of the stock has more to do with recoil than the material, all else being equal. I would shy away from the cheap injected moulded stock as they tend to flex on firing, which doesnt help accuracy. I like the stability of the laid up synthetic stocks but I really like the feeling of laminated wood. Wood stocks, if properly cured and sealed dont shift around in the bedding. In the end, find a quality stock of whatever material you like which fits YOU, and you wont be sorry.

Jim243 · May 20, 2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

1. What impact does the type of stock have on recoil?

A lot.

Quote:

2. What impact does the type of stock have on accuracy?

Not as much as you may think.

Quote:

3. Are there durability/longevity issues with wood? i.e. Will wood warp or distort over time?

Yes there is and they do.

Quote:

4. My research has lead me to eliminate laminate and injection molded stocks as an option. Is that a mistake?

Yes it is a mistake.

Jim

So you don't like laminated stocks? That's too bad.

Wood is nice:

SRH78 · May 20, 2011, 07:38 PM

I am not sure why you would eliminate laminate stocks other than weight?

Personally, I like wood but other than appearance, there is really no advantage to it. I have seen wood stocks cause accuracy problems. That is not hard to fix, though. Composites are the more sensible choice but if you like wood, then, imo, it is worth it to get wood.

Buzzcook · May 20, 2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

1. What impact does the type of stock have on recoil?

Design, fit, and weight make bigger differences than material. The exception is that some synthetic stocks flex enough to reduce felt recoil.

Quote:

2. What impact does the type of stock have on accuracy?

How the stock and the barreled action fit together effect accuracy.

Quote:

3. Are there durability/longevity issues with wood? i.e. Will wood warp or distort over time?

Cheap synthetic stocks can crack or chip. Solid wood stock will warp over time if they are poorly cared for.

4. My research has lead me to eliminate laminate and injection molded stocks as an option. Is that a mistake?
I think so.

I also think you are wrong to dismiss the aesthetics involved.

I'd just like to add that there are other choices beyond walnut. Lots of different woods will work for gun stocks.

Doyle · May 20, 2011, 08:13 PM

I'll tell you the same thing I told another newbie on this forum less than a week ago. I've owned lots of rifles in my life and still own more than I use. However, if I had to start buying all over again I'd make sure at least one rifle was a true "field" gun. My definition of a "field" gun is one that I never have to worry about trying to keep pretty. It could be an old used one you get that is already scratched up and has worn blueing and/or rust spots. Or, it could be one of the relatively inexpensive new rifles that come from the factory with butt ugly but nail-tough composite stocks and stainless steel finishes. Either way, it is important to have access to a rifle that you can grab when you know you are going to be hunting in a place that is tough on rifles.

When I know I'm going to be sitting in a comfortable seat overlooking a field, I'll take one of my "pretty" rifles.

big al hunter · May 20, 2011, 09:37 PM

1 The type of stock does not matter as much as the shape and weight. The drop of the comb is the biggest factor in felt recoil followed closely by the weight. The heavier the gun is, the less recoil felt. The type of stock determines the overall weight of the gun. The heaviest, if the stocks compared are the same size and shape, will be laminate.

2 For accuracy the type of stock will matter less than the bedding of the action to the stock. However the injection molded may flex in the wrong areas and affect the accuracy. Laminate or synthetic will be the stiffest.

3 Solid wood can warp in high humidity or rain, affecting accuracy. Laminate will not warp as much if at all. The layers of wood resist such movement better than solid wood.

4 Read 1 thru 3 again. Laminate will hold up better than wood, not as well as synthetic. Yes avoid injection molded for the most part. If you get a great deal on an injection molded stock gun, buy a new stock for it in the material you like. You will likely end up with a better gun than some factory offerings.

nhsmoker · May 20, 2011, 10:50 PM

to me it is simple wood stocks are sexy composites not as much but whatever floats your boat.
I know I just bought my first hunting rifle (a t\c icon) and had my choice of composite hogue stock with weathershield finish or blued with a laminate stock for the same price and while the former may be better for any given weather condition I simply could not pick it over the latter choice just because it is beautiful.

hopeisnotastrategy · May 20, 2011, 10:58 PM

Thanks so much for all the feedback. This has been VERY helpful.

I stand corrected on the laminate stocks. I will definitely consider them. I had obviously misinterpreted some of the comments I read in other threads.

Let me confirm something I am hearing from all of you. As a total newbie I had been under the assumption that a wood stock was superior in more ways than simply the visual appeal of the rifle. What I hear everyone saying is that is NOT the case. Am I hearing that right?

jmr40 · May 21, 2011, 06:14 AM

A few thoughts:

Yes wood has been used succssfully for hundreds of years, but it has also been warping, cracking and splitting for hundreds of years. Shooters have been looking for something better for just as long and we now have it.

The fact that a stock is synthetic, does not have any effect on recoil. A stocks shape and weight do. Some synthetics weigh less than wood, but only when you get into the high end stocks costing $500+. The factory synthetics and most of the cheaper aftermarket synthetics weigh about the same as walnut and in many cased more, sometimes a lot more.

Synthetic stocks do not generally improve accuracy, and even the cheap synthetics stocks shoot just fine. The most accurate rifles I've ever shot were a Steyr Prohunter, Tikka T-3 and Remington VTR. All 3 were in cheap injection molded stocks. The synthetics will improve your rifles consistency. A wood stocked rifle may well be just as accurate, but as environmental conditions change, the wood will expand and contract slightly causing the point of impact to change. Most times the difference is so small it won't really hurt anything, other times it could be enough to cause major problems.

There are 3 reasons to consider synthetic over walnut.

Greater Strength
Better stability in changing environtmental conditions and altitude changes
Lighter weight.

The laminated wood stocks meet the first 2 criteria and if you are not concerned about your rifles weight are an excellent choice. They are the least expensive option as well as the heaviest.

The factory injection molded stocks also meet the 1st two criteria as well. They ain't nearly as bad as a lot of folks on the net claim. They don't look as nice as a piece of walnut, but they perform just fine. Most of them weigh about the same as walnut. If you eliminate injection molded stocks, you also eliminate virtually all factory synthetics. I'd buy the gun I liked in a factory synthetic and see what happens. You will probably find that it works just fine. You may change to a better aftermarket stock later.

If your goal is to lose weight you will need to put up the money for a good aftermarket stock. Just for reference some typical stock weights.

Factory walnut 30-36 oz
Factory synthetic 30-36 oz
Hogue 40-48 oz
B&C Medalist 36-40 oz
Laminated wood 40-48 oz
McMillan Edge 20-24 oz
High-Tech 20-22 oz
Brown precision 16-18 oz

Personally I prefer one of the last 3 options on my rifles. Almost all of my rifles are fitted with one of these. I've owned all of the above, but found the others did not do what I needed them to do.

Genghis Jon · May 25, 2011, 12:20 AM

Synthetic is superior in many ways that have previously been stated, but in fairness, under normal circumstances, wood will last a lifetime and more. In fact, I've seen some older rifles whose wood stocks look better than their respective barrels. But if aesthetics or sentiment are not factors, then synthetic is your answer. I'm just sticking up for traditional wood.

May 20, 2011, 05:47 PM	#1
hopeisnotastrategy Member Join Date: May 20, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 66	Composite vs. Walnut Stock I am buying my first hunting rifle and I am needing education on the choice of stock. I've read threads that mentioned advantages and disadvantages of both. Here are my questions: 1. What impact does the type of stock have on recoil? 2. What impact does the type of stock have on accuracy? 3. Are there durability/longevity issues with wood? i.e. Will wood warp or distort over time? 4. My research has lead me to eliminate laminate and injection molded stocks as an option. Is that a mistake? I am not interested in discussions about aesthetics. To me that is a secondary issue and I actually like the looks of different rifles with both kinds of stocks, so please limit feedback to the more technical merits of each option. Thanks in advance!!!

May 20, 2011, 06:44 PM	#2
PawPaw Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 2010 Location: Central Louisiana Posts: 3,137	For hunting, it doesn't matter. Man has been killing critters with wood-stocked rifles for several hundred years. The new composite stocks are great for some things. I own both and I use both, but when I'm heading to the woods, I've likely got a wood stocked rifle in the pickup. Wood might warp or change properties when wet, or in high humidity. Composites are normally considered more stable, less prone to change in the weather. I'm not sure what you're calling injection molded, but most of the low-dollar rifles in the world are sold with inexpensive stocks, and many of those are injection molded. Laminates, on the other hand, are generally stable, but they're also generally heavier than the others. Some rifles come from the factory with a laminate stock and some folks like them. Pick the one that suits you best. There are pros and cons to each of them. __________________ Dennis Dezendorf http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com

May 20, 2011, 09:37 PM	#8
big al hunter Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2011 Location: Washington state Posts: 1,558	1 The type of stock does not matter as much as the shape and weight. The drop of the comb is the biggest factor in felt recoil followed closely by the weight. The heavier the gun is, the less recoil felt. The type of stock determines the overall weight of the gun. The heaviest, if the stocks compared are the same size and shape, will be laminate. 2 For accuracy the type of stock will matter less than the bedding of the action to the stock. However the injection molded may flex in the wrong areas and affect the accuracy. Laminate or synthetic will be the stiffest. 3 Solid wood can warp in high humidity or rain, affecting accuracy. Laminate will not warp as much if at all. The layers of wood resist such movement better than solid wood. 4 Read 1 thru 3 again. Laminate will hold up better than wood, not as well as synthetic. Yes avoid injection molded for the most part. If you get a great deal on an injection molded stock gun, buy a new stock for it in the material you like. You will likely end up with a better gun than some factory offerings. __________________ You can't fix stupid....however ignorance can be cured through education!

May 20, 2011, 10:58 PM	#10
hopeisnotastrategy Member Join Date: May 20, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 66	I stand corrected... Thanks so much for all the feedback. This has been VERY helpful. I stand corrected on the laminate stocks. I will definitely consider them. I had obviously misinterpreted some of the comments I read in other threads. Let me confirm something I am hearing from all of you. As a total newbie I had been under the assumption that a wood stock was superior in more ways than simply the visual appeal of the rifle. What I hear everyone saying is that is NOT the case. Am I hearing that right?

May 20, 2011, 07:14 PM	#3
DAVID NANCARROW Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2000 Location: Wyoming Posts: 1,761	Agreed with PawPaw. The shape of the stock has more to do with recoil than the material, all else being equal. I would shy away from the cheap injected moulded stock as they tend to flex on firing, which doesnt help accuracy. I like the stability of the laid up synthetic stocks but I really like the feeling of laminated wood. Wood stocks, if properly cured and sealed dont shift around in the bedding. In the end, find a quality stock of whatever material you like which fits YOU, and you wont be sorry.

May 20, 2011, 07:38 PM	#5
SRH78 Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 517	I am not sure why you would eliminate laminate stocks other than weight? Personally, I like wood but other than appearance, there is really no advantage to it. I have seen wood stocks cause accuracy problems. That is not hard to fix, though. Composites are the more sensible choice but if you like wood, then, imo, it is worth it to get wood.

May 20, 2011, 08:13 PM	#7
Doyle Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2007 Location: Rainbow City, Alabama Posts: 7,167	I'll tell you the same thing I told another newbie on this forum less than a week ago. I've owned lots of rifles in my life and still own more than I use. However, if I had to start buying all over again I'd make sure at least one rifle was a true "field" gun. My definition of a "field" gun is one that I never have to worry about trying to keep pretty. It could be an old used one you get that is already scratched up and has worn blueing and/or rust spots. Or, it could be one of the relatively inexpensive new rifles that come from the factory with butt ugly but nail-tough composite stocks and stainless steel finishes. Either way, it is important to have access to a rifle that you can grab when you know you are going to be hunting in a place that is tough on rifles. When I know I'm going to be sitting in a comfortable seat overlooking a field, I'll take one of my "pretty" rifles.

May 20, 2011, 10:50 PM	#9
nhsmoker Member Join Date: October 3, 2009 Posts: 37	to me it is simple wood stocks are sexy composites not as much but whatever floats your boat. I know I just bought my first hunting rifle (a t\c icon) and had my choice of composite hogue stock with weathershield finish or blued with a laminate stock for the same price and while the former may be better for any given weather condition I simply could not pick it over the latter choice just because it is beautiful.

May 21, 2011, 06:14 AM	#11
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,809	A few thoughts: Yes wood has been used succssfully for hundreds of years, but it has also been warping, cracking and splitting for hundreds of years. Shooters have been looking for something better for just as long and we now have it. The fact that a stock is synthetic, does not have any effect on recoil. A stocks shape and weight do. Some synthetics weigh less than wood, but only when you get into the high end stocks costing $500+. The factory synthetics and most of the cheaper aftermarket synthetics weigh about the same as walnut and in many cased more, sometimes a lot more. Synthetic stocks do not generally improve accuracy, and even the cheap synthetics stocks shoot just fine. The most accurate rifles I've ever shot were a Steyr Prohunter, Tikka T-3 and Remington VTR. All 3 were in cheap injection molded stocks. The synthetics will improve your rifles consistency. A wood stocked rifle may well be just as accurate, but as environmental conditions change, the wood will expand and contract slightly causing the point of impact to change. Most times the difference is so small it won't really hurt anything, other times it could be enough to cause major problems. There are 3 reasons to consider synthetic over walnut. Greater Strength Better stability in changing environtmental conditions and altitude changes Lighter weight. The laminated wood stocks meet the first 2 criteria and if you are not concerned about your rifles weight are an excellent choice. They are the least expensive option as well as the heaviest. The factory injection molded stocks also meet the 1st two criteria as well. They ain't nearly as bad as a lot of folks on the net claim. They don't look as nice as a piece of walnut, but they perform just fine. Most of them weigh about the same as walnut. If you eliminate injection molded stocks, you also eliminate virtually all factory synthetics. I'd buy the gun I liked in a factory synthetic and see what happens. You will probably find that it works just fine. You may change to a better aftermarket stock later. If your goal is to lose weight you will need to put up the money for a good aftermarket stock. Just for reference some typical stock weights. Factory walnut 30-36 oz Factory synthetic 30-36 oz Hogue 40-48 oz B&C Medalist 36-40 oz Laminated wood 40-48 oz McMillan Edge 20-24 oz High-Tech 20-22 oz Brown precision 16-18 oz Personally I prefer one of the last 3 options on my rifles. Almost all of my rifles are fitted with one of these. I've owned all of the above, but found the others did not do what I needed them to do.

May 25, 2011, 12:20 AM	#12
Genghis Jon Junior Member Join Date: April 22, 2009 Location: Ohio Posts: 11	Synthetic is superior in many ways that have previously been stated, but in fairness, under normal circumstances, wood will last a lifetime and more. In fact, I've seen some older rifles whose wood stocks look better than their respective barrels. But if aesthetics or sentiment are not factors, then synthetic is your answer. I'm just sticking up for traditional wood.