Polymer stocks were indeed a chance to drastically decrease the cost of production while maintaining the price. They do indeed cost orders of magnitude less than walnut. The Tikka stock, while better than a Savage 110 stock, is still a pretty cheap thing to make. And that is just fine.
A tremendous number of ice cream manufacturers provide 1/2 gallon-size containers, but don't but that much ice cream in them (they are labeled properly, with an accurate amount in there, which is less than 1/2 gallon). My point? Instead of raising prices, which would reduce consumption, they kept the price the same but offered less product. In this case, the consumer is fooled into paying more per ounce. In the case of polymer, it isn't all that far removed, in the view of Chuck, to put a $10 stock on a rifle and convince you that it is better/high tech/etc.
In my case, I just don't worry about that. I don't like polymer stocks on rifles. I just don't. And, I think it a shame that bottom end rifles in the 1960's, still had polished blue, iron sights, walnut stocks, hinged floorplates, and the like. Bottom end back then was more expensive, in real money, than today of course. Modern rifles such as the Mossberg 100ATR or even Tikka T3, are cheaper when everything is considered. Yet, bottom-end store brand from the 1960's that costs equivalent to the modern-day Tikka was a nicer-made rifle than a Tikka currently is.
There are nice options today, of course. They can cost alot, but they can also be pretty modest. The Savage 114 is an example. That rifle is made for guys like me who like wood and steel but don't want to spend a mint. There are others, of course, and they are in the affordable range. The laminate stocked 700BDL costs about the same as a Tikka, and I would certainly prefer it.
Whether Chuck is right or not, there are plenty of us who agree with him that there is a switcharoo done with plastic stocks, convincing the masses that they are so much greater when in reality they are so much cheaper to produce.
Ash