New or Old style


June 2, 2011, 12:17 PM
Personally i pefer older looking guns. i dont particularly like synthetic stocks, fancy rails sticking out everywhere or lots of moving parts

my type of guns are bolt action rifles with wooden stocks, and side by side shotguns

what do you guys pefer in a gun, as far as looks and shootability, lets forget about price in this discussion

if you could completly build a gun, what characteristics/features would you throw on it

If you enjoyed reading about "New or Old style" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 2, 2011, 01:32 PM
Anything in a wood stock for me.
NOT a fan of synthetics... anyone know where I can get a wood buttstock for my AR-15? :D

June 2, 2011, 02:11 PM
I love them all honestly, rather its a wood stock on a old mil surplus, or a synthetics/aluminum chassis system for a heavy barrel R700 or Savage...

rocky branch
June 2, 2011, 03:00 PM
What looks funny to me are the cowboys and other costume guys who want their pieces to look 100 years old even though they are in period garb.

June 2, 2011, 03:03 PM
I buy my guns to shoot so practicality wins over appearance. For me a gun can be too "pretty" that I would be afraid to really use it. With that said, however, wood stocks definitely look better and if I had guns that I only took to the range, and not the field, I would go for the old simple wood stocks.

June 2, 2011, 03:59 PM
I'm right with ya on that. I prefer old style over the new any day. I own 1 synthetic stock, and that one was inherited. The old guns just look better and have much more collector value, to me.

What looks funny to me are the cowboys and other costume guys who want their pieces to look 100 years old even though they are in period garb
Thats so silly. Especially when you see the people at war re-enactments who have the Ubertis and replicas that are NIB. I probably own more of the real-deal Colts and Mil-surps than the people who try to re-enact historical event themselves.

Also when people pay more for the replica than a used, authentic piece. I guess I just could never see the point of doing that.

June 2, 2011, 04:04 PM
Both, but for different purposes.

Old for form.

New for function.

Hey tyeo098

June 2, 2011, 04:15 PM
It depends. I like synthetic buttstocks, but I do not like synthetic handguards, those can and will melt. If I had it one way or the other, no inbetween, wood would be preferable, but it all depends on the balancing of the gun

June 2, 2011, 04:19 PM
i absolutely loath plastic......i cant stand it, and i refuse to own a gun with it.....

not that theres anything wrong with plastics, they are light weight, strong, and weather resistant.......

But they have absolutely no character.........and it just fades when it gets old...

where as wood has beautiful grain, and each nick and ding has a story.....

June 2, 2011, 04:33 PM
if you could completly build a gun, what characteristics/features would you throw on it

THAT'S a loaded statement (pun intended)

While I like blue and stainless guns, I'll admit that here in Florida, guns like Glocks DO have their place

Completely building a gun - first and foremost is fit - whether rifle, shotgun or even handgun, the stock(s) would be custom fit to ME alone

Target shotgun would have 32" O/U barrels, perfect balance, light trigger, no safety, tapered rib

Hunting shotgun would have 30" SxS barrels, raised solid rib, DT, splinter and highly figured walnut that balanced perfectly between the hands with fixed chokes

Hunting rifle would be lightweight and short - think Model 7 or similar, bolt action. The other option would be a bespoke double from Peter Hofer or Philip Ollendorf

like this "Hummingbird", the lightest double gun ever at 1 kilo (2.2#) in 22 hornet

June 2, 2011, 04:37 PM
Anything in a wood stock for me.
NOT a fan of synthetics... anyone know where I can get a wood buttstock for my AR-15?

Brownells of course!

June 2, 2011, 08:44 PM
what do you guys pefer in a gun

Make mine wood and blue. I'm too old for tacticool. ;)

June 2, 2011, 09:13 PM
I do like metal stocks for looks but it is kind of bad in terms of recoil....

Ole Coot
June 2, 2011, 10:05 PM
Can't beat a nice grained walnut and blue steel everything else. I actually own one "plastic" Glock but don't advertise it. I have only firearms that aren't loaded with locks, safeties and other junk. I will depend on ME as always to stay safe. I guess a SSA or 1911 are about the only handguns that haven't gone down the tube. Way to old to hang a bunch of bells and whistles on any firearms at my tender age.

June 2, 2011, 11:19 PM
Tough choice .... depends very much on the gun.

A doublestack wonder nine? Unless it's black it feels off.
A Revolver? A dull working metal color does it for me.

I'm not a big fan about entirely too shiny guns because I get too finicky about them, though.

June 3, 2011, 05:31 AM
I'm old enough to remember when blue and wood was what everything was. There are reasons that is not the case today besides that wood costs more. Give me a finish that doesn't rust and stocks that are impervious to weather. I'm willing to make sure they don't melt.

Larry E
June 3, 2011, 06:49 PM
My preference in guns are that they go bang when they're supposed to, don't go bang when they're not supposed to, and are sufficiently accurate for their intended purpose. Very accurate for prairie dog rifles, minute of man for defensive handguns - not that I could shoot a handgun much better anyway. :D

June 3, 2011, 07:48 PM
I've decided to pontificate more. M16s came out all plastic in the 60s. But most guns were all steel and wood. There was of course a lot of effort being made to make guns more rust resistant. Which is what blueing was meant to do. The fact it looked nice was secondary and a lot of blueing did not look all that nice. People were taking blued guns and having various things done to them aftermarket. Parkerized, nickeled and things like that. Manufacturers followed the trend and we started to see stainless steel. None of this had the slightest thing to do with making cheaper guns. You paid extra for all this, sometimes quite a bit. Nor did it have anything to do with being tacticool. There is nothing tacticool about stainless or nickel.

Plastic stocks: With the exception of again the M16 which had the reputation of being fragile because the stock broke so easily guns were sold with wood stocks. The best wood was paid a premium for. Plastic did not really break into the stock market. It started to be chipped away by various different materials. It was a long time ago but I remember reading reviews of resin impregnated stocks and how wonderful it was in durability and function since it was impervious to weather. It was however expensive to add aftermarket. Cheaper alternatives began to emerge aftermarket even as manufacturers began to make guns with different stocks almost always behind what aftermarket was producing.

At some point a tipping point happened and manufacturers began to take the lead instead of following and we have what we have today. Guns that are extremely rust resistant with stocks that don't care about weather. As far as I'm concerned I don't miss trying to get rust off a gun without damaging the finish. Did that for too many years in the Army and before that with hunting shotguns. I was happy when stainless guns came out and even happier with tennifer or different equivalents.

June 3, 2011, 07:54 PM
The most important thing on a gun for me is accuracy and reliablitiy. In some cases we do not need extreme accuracy but reliability must be rock solid.
Any polymer, rails accessories should be there based on the needs for the specific purpose. I don't personaly care about looks over function as they provide options but I can appreciate some of the wood grains in shotguns and rifles. We should not compare them, they might be for different purposes and for different tastes and even collection purposes.

June 3, 2011, 07:54 PM
When I was young I got into those "Black" guns and have several both long and handguns. But now that I'm over 50, I find that I tend to appreciate the older guns like the Fox Sterlingworth that I own, the pre-64 Win Mod. 70 FW that I just pickup today and the several handguns in my safe that are made of metal instead of plastic.

Call me crazy but I like the feel and the weight of a all steel gun or the warmth of a wood stock press against my cheek.

June 3, 2011, 09:16 PM
Blued steel and wood will do it every time................chris3

June 3, 2011, 10:18 PM
I used to have all blued steel handguns. Whenever I was out in the weather I'd have to dry them out, clean and spritz them with oil. Fighting rust spots was an ongoing thing. Two years ago I got my first polymer pistol. I LIKE polymer guns. I have four, LCP, SR9, Taurus 740 and a Taurus 24/7 PRO DS .45. I like the lightness, thin grips and having the harder to clean places made of something that doesn't corrode. All of these guns have had plenty of exercize at our local club range. None of them have given me a bit of trouble, they have all been completely reliable and accurate. Nope, give me polymer and stainless steel every time. Now rifles I feel differently about for some reason and still prefer wood. I don't mind that they get a bit knicked and scratched but it's a lot nicer to put your cheek against a nice wood stock than a cold, hard plastic one.

June 4, 2011, 08:54 PM
For me it's the new style. I have 2 Glocks, a Benelli Super Nova all synthetic stock, and a S&W M&P 15. Guess I have a bad case of the "Black Gun Disease" LOL

Old krow
June 5, 2011, 02:45 AM
I'll go with the best of both. :) There's something in all of the categories that I like.

If I could build one gun for me and price wasn't an issue, I think that I would go with a double rifle from Peter Hofer or a Westley Richards (especially since price isn't an issue). I'd probably go with a 9.3 x 74R though instead of the Hummingbird, although it is a beautiful gun.

June 5, 2011, 09:30 AM
Old. Hands down.

"New things are no good."

--Ralph "Papa" Thorsen--

June 5, 2011, 10:50 AM
- Polymer doesn't have to be painted.
- Polymer doesn't split, shrink or expand with moisture.
- Polymer is several times lighter than wood
- Polymer is stronger than wood, aluminum and other alloys.

- Wood is beautiful.
- Wood is plentiful and easy to work with (for those with the skill).
- Wood brings up the character of the firearm.
- Wood is heavier and sometimes this could be a good thing in some systems.

If wood was better than polymer or carbon the top end MBRs, sniper systems and most popular tactical pistols would be using wood.
At the other end I cannot stop to appreciate the art and skill in the firearms that show beautiful wood work and finish.
Everything has its place that is why we cannot compare these two. It would be like comparing bicycles with motorcycles.

Wood is beautiful no doubt.

A polymer component doesn't have to be butt ugly neither...

June 5, 2011, 11:14 AM
I prefer to admire the old styles and use the new.
I can remember a hunting trip where I lost my footing and slid down a small embankment. Put a BIG NASTY SCRATCH down the butt of my Mom's 30-30 wood stock. Felt horrible about it. If it would have been one of these new fangled plastic stocks I would have felt that I put some character to it.

If you enjoyed reading about "New or Old style" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!