Wood Vs Synthetic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My buddy has the same problem with his X-Bolt. Browing quoted him some ridiculous turn around time to fix it so he’s just going to have it cerekoted after hunting season

PS. I should note that my Browning Gold 10ga also did this. The camo dip they put on it turned to goo. These coating don’t hold up to the common solvent used for gun cleaning. I also had my shotgun cerekoted

Neither do I and neither did my friend. Not sure what caused it to soften into a sticky mess, but I am pretty sure it wasn’t because you’re so smart and we are a couple of dumbasses

Browning is quoting an 8 month lead time on fixing the issue because there are so many people with the same problem. I’m happy for you that you aren’t one of them

Your the one that wrote "my Browning Gold 10ga also did this. The camo dip they put on it turned to goo. These coating don't hold up to the common solvent used for gun cleaning."
So now your saying oh I didn't mean what I wrote and you shouldn't take it that I did mean that, you should know what I really wanted to write that I didn't use gun cleaning solvent and it just fell apart .
 
Getting some solvent on the stock during the normal cleaning process vs. “slather it in solvent”, as you say, are two different things, but you’re just working harder than you need to at being a jerk.

Apologies to the OP for the derail.
 
Synthetic, for a couple good reasons.

First, I spend far too much time in the rain, humidity, and heat to be able to trust a
wood stock.

Second- a nice wood stock, with a beautiful grain, takes the gun hostage. I'm afraid of
damaging the fine wood finish, so the rifle stays in the safe. OTOH, dings and scratches
on synthetic just add character.
 
The camo dip they put on it turned to goo. These coating don’t hold up to the common solvent used for gun cleaning. I also had my shotgun cerekoted
The dip/film itself isn't the problem. The lacquer most hydrodipping companies use by default is crap. Clear epoxy-based lacquer is the key to durability and chemical resistance.
 
Nature Boy I have always enjoyed your posts and responses. I've no understanding on why some folks respond in the manner as.bearman. Why an axe to grind? I was pleased to have your education on synthetic issues. I do not have a synthetic stock and have seen wide swings in prices. I know some are so customized that they cost more than my AI's. Nothing good came from his response. If he continues I ask this post be locked or taken down. Sorry
 
Clear epoxy-based lacquer is the key to durability and chemical resistance.
Friend of mine does dips, and other finishes, and he said the same thing. Proper process, and top coat makes the finish, fail anywhere and it loses significant durability and or chemical resistance.


As to beating on pretty stocks, I honestly have no issue with it. Oil finish can be touched up to make scratches disappear, and even gouges fairly unobtrusive.
 
On paper, there is no question that the synthetic stocks are better. I used to prefer them for just that reason.

As it stands, I now prefer wood. It just looks and feels more like what I think a gun should look and feel like.
 
Nature Boy I have always enjoyed your posts and responses. I've no understanding on why some folks respond in the manner as.bearman. Why an axe to grind? I was pleased to have your education on synthetic issues. I do not have a synthetic stock and have seen wide swings in prices. I know some are so customized that they cost more than my AI's. Nothing good came from his response. If he continues I ask this post be locked or taken down. Sorry

Nature Boy is good people.
 
How bout me talking about wood for a minute. OK, here goes. I have a nice sporterized vintage 1927 1903 Springfield National Match rifle. Lyman 48 sight with pacific front. The stock is a high grade closely grained walnut. The figure is fiddle back. Recently the missing buttplate and grip cap have been replaced with checkered ebony. The complete sling hardware is commonly sold as Model 70 Supergrade swivels. The stock is incise carved with flawless checkering. Am I talking this rifle to the woods? Yep, right out the door with my Remington SPS 700 in the rack? Not in this lifetime. There's nothing on the Springfield that's easily replaced. On the flip side is the idea of a "beater" really sucks. You gotta take care of your gear....period.
 
I guess I mostly sing in the pro-wood choir, as I usually hunt with a wood stocked rifle like the David Miller creation shown here. For 40 years I've hunted with this rifle during sleet storms on the arctic tundra, non-stop rain on the Alaskan coast and bone-dry African deserts. I had it made to hunt with, come rain or shine, and there's never a reason to leave it home or in the tent. But I also hunt with the NULA (New Ultra Light Arms) .280 beside it, and am often happy to do so. Not just because of the weatherproof stock, but mainly because the complete rig weighs just 6 lbs...Does that mean I'm a crossover? DSC_0282.JPG .
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0276.JPG
    708.5 KB · Views: 1
  • DSC_0277.JPG
    720.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Oil finish can be touched up to make scratches disappear, and even gouges fairly unobtrusive.
Pretty much anything can be made to disappear from properly oil finished wood. Steaming out dents and gouges works like magic and after a slight touch-up it's literally good as new. The most severe cases, ie. the worst military surplus stocks have received a dishwasher treatment on a pot & pan cycle + some steam ironing and even they have come out spotless. Gotta love oiled wood.
 
I prefer the look of beat up wood to beat up plastic. I think its more of a $$$ thing for me. A $100 wood stocked gun looks like crap. A $100 plastic gun does too. A kevlar stocked custom stainless bolt? Just as cool as a walnut stockes mauser.

HB
 
Well, an AR would look kinda funny with a wood stock (though I'm sure someone makes them) and I do have a Savage 110 with a synthetic stock and an 870 with the same.

But I prefer wood when I can get it. Like some others I prefer the middle road of laminated stocks, and stainless steel if I can get it. Wood just looks better to me and doesn't have the "black gun" appearance that some in the greater "knows nothing about firearms" community look cross-eyed at.
 
I like the synthetic stock rifles like my wally world 700 and my RAR. I replace them with Boyd's laminated stocks, which are very durable and not too expensive- and also look good IMO.
 
Offhand's comments on rifles are appreciated. There is a real difference in synthetic stocks. I can steam away dents and deal with minor damage. How about a wooden stock broken through the wrist? How about a nice stock with checkering partially wiped out on one side. What about the aforementioned splits behind the bolt handle on in the wrist? Anyway you cut it maintenance on a synthetic stock is much easier. The synthetic stocks are tougher. You pick what you want to use. Any of us take the risk when we pick among our own firearms. I am at the point in life where risks are totally unwanted.
 
Dura-Touch: This :cuss: me off! Google Browning sticky stocks and see what you get. Evidently, this problem appears to have affected other Browning owners. The problems are not limited to X-Bolts. One citizen has taken the Dura-Touch finish issue to court. OK slathered solvent all over the stock!
 
Last edited:
Well, an AR would look kinda funny with a wood stock (though I'm sure someone makes them) and I do have a Savage 110 with a synthetic stock and an 870 with the same.

But I prefer wood when I can get it. Like some others I prefer the middle road of laminated stocks, and stainless steel if I can get it. Wood just looks better to me and doesn't have the "black gun" appearance that some in the greater "knows nothing about firearms" community look cross-eyed at.

My next AR build is going to be a 223 Wylde with a wood stock. I am slowly assembling the parts I want to use.
 
I was watching a gun show where they were discussing wood stocks. If I got it right, they basically said there were different grades of wood. from common to museum. I think the best I've seen is on shotguns. Anyway, as I walk through gun shops today it seems I see more synthetic stocks then wood. Buds guns is across the street from Smoky Mountain Knife. Both sold the 6.5cm. Bud's sold it for $50 more. I got Buds because the wood was fantabulous!!! Why do you choose which and why? .

I'm a bit of a traditional kind of guy; I like the wood stuff. Something about the craftsmanship and carrying something that those who came before me have carried for many generations. Precision engineered AND pretty. I pick something that I know is well made and that looks "right." I'm not here over analyzing the wood or anything; I don't think I've ever bought a gun where the wood was a major turnoff.

That being said, for a carry or home defense gun I may go with a lighter, synthetic material, just because it's more purpose built for that sort of thing and not really meant to be much of a looker.

As much as I like my AR, glock and synthetic 870 I just don't feel the same pride as I feel when I pick up a gun where aesthetics were also a consideration.

Superficial? Maybe, if looks are your primary concern. Personally, if I'm going to drop a lot of money on something I want it to appeal to my taste in aesthetics too. To each their own, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top