15 replies [Last post]
expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Wood Stock or Synthetic Stock

I've tried both but tend to prefer wood. IMO scratches on wood look like seasoning, but scratches make synthetics look cheap -- like beat up kids toys.

I just bought a M70 featherweight in .325 WSM, and one big reason I went with the wood was for the extra half pound of weight vs synthetic. I just didn't like the thought of being on the receiving end of 3800 foot-lbs of energy with a 6-3/4 pound gun vs a 7-1/4 pound model.

tim
Offline
Location: north idaho
Joined: 06/11/2004
Posts: 601
Wood Stock or Synthetic Stock

spend a week in the rain and you willnever go back to wood. Who cares what it looks like it is a tool. I don't care for blueing for this reason either.

tim

Offline
Joined: 06/18/2004
Posts: 66
Wood or Synthetic

I prefer wood, while admitting the faults of wood listed above. It looks better. I feel happy sitting in the woods holding a beautiful piece of glistening walnut and blued metal in my hands. Does wood cause the aimpoint to drift over time? You betcha! Is wood vulnerable to rain? You betcha! I still prefer the look and feel. I have a back-up rifle in .30-06 with a synthetic stock that I can take out when rain is expected.

Some people may have no personal feelings about their rifles -- "it is just a tool" or "it is just a means to an end." That doesn't describe the way I feel about my rifles. I think of them with fondness and sentimentatility. I see them as things of beauty. I think it is possible to look at a hand drill -- the device with a chuck on one end, a hand-grip rotating knob at the other end, and a crank in the middle -- and prefer this aesthetically to the best Makita has to offer, even while conceding the greater efficiency of the Makita power drill.

I guess I'm not of the "it's just a tool" school. That makes hunting seem too much like a duty and a piece of work to complete, the quicker the better. I want to linger, reflect, enjoy the pleasure of being in the mountains or woods hunting . . . in addition to blasting a hole in my chosen prey. And the pleasure of holding a nice piece of walnut and blued metal is part of all that.

Note I'm not saying wood is better -- maybe just more beautiful. I agree synthetic is more stable and robust to the elements.

tim
Offline
Location: north idaho
Joined: 06/11/2004
Posts: 601
Wood Stock or Synthetic Stock

Some people may have no personal feelings about their rifles -- "it is just a tool"

your are right about that. to me it is about the hunt and the animal, not the weapon. But I also live in north idaho where it rains or snows everyday of the hunting season. I found a crack in my wood rifle when i was 14 and put on a synthetic stock back then. I am now 36. So i have been around synthetic stocks more than wood. On my last sheep hunt, i took a wood lamintate ruger with a stainless barrel. The gun performed in one shot but the stock took quite a beating climbing down trhe scree field in the dark. Definatly ain't as pretty as before. But i like the character. But i did by a new sheep gun with a syntheitc stock.
so it is all what you like, but to me in wilderness situations leave the pretty stuff behind. At home in the tree stand sure no problem.

tim

Offline
Location: CA
Joined: 01/09/2006
Posts: 19
What about LAMINATE vs wood, not the black synthetic stuff?

Just wondering.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
synthetic stock questionChuck-n-Alaska2711/19/2008 13:01 pm
New stock for a Ruger M77Yoter802/24/2006 11:39 am
Re-Stocking a model 70jigman208/14/2005 22:00 pm
new wood stock?PapaSzakal601/13/2013 08:06 am
new rifle stockclaycrusher210/24/2003 23:08 pm