What happened to hunting rifle stocks?

"...traditional wood stocks are "too costly"..." Pretty much. Cost of suitable high grade woods for anything has skyrocketed due to the relative high demand and low supply. Plus the assorted tree huggers have stopped logging all over.
An American black walnut stock blank alone can run a grand and up, depending on the figuration. Lower end stuff starts at $200ish. Plus the cost of machining it.
Little machining on a synthetic. Mostly just extruded and deflashed by assorted machines. No craftsmen necessary.
It's not 'cheaper'. It's less expensive.
We have a generation who were not introduced to firearms by either pop or the military. Not exactly a new thing though.

I don't care what anyone else chooses to hunt with, but I greatly prefer the look and especially the feel of a wood stock.

Yes, the wood will get scratched and dinged. You can refinish the stock as a project, or if you're like me, you actually like all the dings and scratches as they are, in a way, stories.

I'm sure synthetic stocked guns are more accurate than wood stocked guns when locked into a rest and fired from a bench, but fired off hand or from another quickly taken field position, both types of gun will be more accurate than I am.

Weight? I can see this being a concern for people who are constantly up and down mountains in search of elk and mule deer, but I'd venture most big hunting in the us is done from cushy blinds and tree stands looking out over food plots and corn feeders. What's the difference between a 10lb gun on your lap and 6 lb gun on your lap?

Finally, I can't help but wonder about the longevity of the current crop of mass market economy hunting rifles (though that has little to do with stock type). There are century old Winchester 94s, Mausers, and Enfields that while looking beat up and tarnished are just as functional and accurate as the day they were assembled. Will the same be true for that $300 Ruger American?

Mass produced, churn and burn, inexpensive products have always been the bread and butter of manufacturers. Improved quality and aesthetics has always been a more expensive niche market. Do I want to buy the Ruger American now, or the CZ in six months?

Years ago I hunted with a gang who had driven deer in the same area for 50 years.One of the young hunters had a record of missing alot.One day they put him on a stand for a doe hunt.He had a new "black" rifle.After he emptied out with no hits an older hunter asked to look at his rifle.He said the hot barrel had melted the plastic but he would give him $100 for it.LOL

Last year I was in South Carolina during that flood they had. I sat in that stand with plastic on my walnut and blue BAR thinking I should get a more weather proof rifle...I now have a Howa with synthetic stock and non blues finish just for those occasions.

I'm also a little curious to know the origin of the idea that the second a wood/blue gun goes outside in anything but sunny weather with perfect humidity, that it's going to swell up, split, and start spitting bullets in random directions.

People hunted successfully with wood/blue guns long before the stainless/synthetic craze was even an idea. A lot of those guns are still extant and in shooting condition today.

What burns me more now instead of synthetic stocks are plastic trigger guards and triggers! They are everywhere, even on walnut stock models. Now that's ALL about saving money. Bottom metal isn't even metal anymore.

It is cheaper, no two ways about it. Press it out and mount it, no human intervention required. Less weight saves in shipping cost too. So today an adequate synthetic can be provided in mass and cheaply.

But I too love deep blue and wood. I have a Steyr with figured wood and Colt Royal blue type bluing and it is pretty. Same for a Ruger #1 with a butt stock that, in the rough, cost $500. Hours and hours to get it fitted and finished but it looks so nice.

The really high end synthetic stocks rival and exceed the cost of a fine wood stock. McMillan's and so forth. And for sheer performance I imagine the high end synthetics with molded in bedding are probably superior to about any wood.

Honestly for hunting in nasty weather I'd much rather abuse my synthetic stainless than take one of my blue ones out. But for sheer classic looks to me anyway there is nothing that rivals deep blue steel and finely finished wood topped with a nice gloss black scope.

Good wood got expensive. Some wood used by manufacturers started looking pretty poor so consumers didn't really look at stocks as part of the appeal of rifle.

Then too when the M16 came along entire generations of GI's, many who had no earlier association with firearms, came to think synthetics were the way to go. Sad really but what can you do.

I think one of the last nails in fine wood stocks coffin was laminates. Some how the buying public was convinced that laminates were the way to go. The funny thing is, if you look at the history of laminated stocks you will find they appeared not on fine sporting rifles, but as a cheap wartime expedient on military rifles.

I have rifles that were stocked from the factory with amazing wood. None made later than 1955. When folks see them they always want to know who the custom stock maker is. They can't belief they came that way from the factory.

There are two other, what I consider minor reasons. One, a fine wood stock takes care synthetics not so much. And two, folks are much more cavalier in their handling of synthetics than fine wood. I've seen it result in sloppy gun handling, but there it is.

My heart breaks every time my beautiful wood stocked rifle gets a ding in it, so I've taken to using my synthetic stock rifle much of the time, especially in rough country.
That's why it was created.

I have 3 rifles and a shotgun wearing great wood; have 2 other rifles wearing synthetic stocks. I use all in the woods but find myself much more cautious when I am out with the wood stocks - hunt with a somewhat easier mind carrying the synthetics. I like and own both - the wood is just more susceptible to damage and weather - I am just more careful when carrying the wood.

Character-marks. That's all scratches and dings are. My firearms are "tools", nothing more, nothing less, and yes that includes Winchester M70 Super Grades, and Weatherby Deluxes. As I see life, I work hard, use my firearms hard, and clean them well. In the course of all that, to be certain, they will have "character marks".

JMHO,

Geno

blue32 said:

I have and do take my shiny blue and wood stocked rifle hunting. The wood has scratches. The bluing has scratches. It cost me $1,100. At the end of the day (or years at this point), it still looks better than the polymer stocked rifles with matte finishes and shoots as well. I dont understand the aversion to taking nice looking rifles in the woods.

Click to expand...

Spot on. I consider the scratches/dents on my wood stocks the scars of hard hunts and the great times I've had with them.
Yeah some of my carbon steel guns have rust pits from the times I've hunted a week in the rain with them. I look at them and say "yeah this is a Alaska gun".
And the whole wood stocks don't hold zero thing is baloney. I glass bed the action and the first inch of barrel and free float the rest. Even under the worst conditions they always shoot right where I sighted them in.

YankeeFlyr said:

These days, looking at the guns on the racks around here, it seems that polymer and fiberglass have taken over!

I can't help but think its because...wait for it...they're CHEAPER!

Click to expand...

What "mass-produced" fiberglass stocks actually cost less than "mass-produced" wood?

B&C Medalists are like, $280, and are factory OEM stocks on a handful of rifles. Compare that to any OEM production walnut from bigger companies, which might be what, $150? You say the rifles you saw as a kid wore all hardwood stocks, but I'm guessing the majority of them weren't wearing the same quality walnut as the stocks that rival the cost of fiberglass stocks today.

Just look at Remington. A stainless 700 Mountain rifle with the B&C has an MSRP of $1135. Their basic 700 BDL, with the high gloss walnut stock and blued steel, has an MSRP of $994. You can certainly pay more for the nicer walnut models.

Winchester's Model 70 is another example. The basic satin walnut/blued steel Model 70 MSRP is $940. The SS/Fiberglass model is $1270. If you want the better wood and glossy finish on the SuperGrade, it's a $1360 MSRP, which is still a negligible amount over the SS/Fiberglass model.

And Kimber... Their Classic with the A-Grade walnut stock has the same $1400 MSRP as their flagship Montana with a Kevlar/Fiberglass stock. The Walnut SuperAmerica, with a blued finish and AAA Walnut stock, is $2200, yet they still offer their Mountain Ascent with that Kevlar/Fiberglass stock for only $200 less at $2000. Again, a negligible amount of money more for their nicest wood and bluing compared to their nicest fiberglass/SS model.

Even Weatherby, who doesn't do a basic walnut stock, still prices their fiberglass/Cerakote Outfitter $100 higher than their blued/AA Walnut MarkV Deluxe.

Those are just MSRP's, but you see the point... Basic walnut is cheaper than fiberglass in almost every instance, if not the same. And walnut that errs towards collector grade isn't a heck of a lot more than fiberglass. Fiberglass stocks aren't cost-saving items. Synthetic, sure. Fiberglass, not quite.

Plastic is weatherproof and plastic is cheap. It's ugly, but very functional for a hunting rifle.

Now just market it as "tactical polymer" and you're set.

I have both, synthetic and hardwood. Remington 700 ADL '06 that goes back 50 years in the family and 30-40 elk and deer taken with it. Excellent rifle. Same goes for my Marlin Texan carbine in 30/30, which is also a 50 year old gun (made in 1967!) And my S&Ws wheelguns all wear wood (older guns to!)

But my Winchester 70 .270 WSM is synthetic as is my ARs. So are my Glocks.

Times change. We ain't in the flintlock era anymore. It IS the 21st century you know!

So for older "classics", I go wood and steel. Newer ones I lean towards polymer unless I want a classic look.

Deaf

Ive always preferred wood stock, and i REALY like fancy wood stock with fancy bluing. I dont own any fancy wood or blue besides my Win101, and thats not THAT nice.

Ive slowly been switching my injection molded stocks for wood. Tho i think when i rebarrel my savage 10, its getting a middle priced fiberglass stock.

I was at the local Sportsmans Warehouse the other day window shopping while waiting for some tires next door.

They had really nice wooden stocked rifles on the rack. They were considerably more expensive than the synthetic stocked rifles of the same model.

Though, like Inebriated said above, the rifles with the GOOD fiberglass/synthetic stocks were the same price or more that the models with the nice wood.

I remember they used to have Remington 700 ADL models with wood stocks a couple years ago. They were pretty much the same price as the 700 SPS models with their horrible synthetic stock.

they shop for guns in civilian life, they don't look for traditional pretty guns, they look for utilitarian, reliable and accurate guns, the heck with looks and prefer what they trained on:

Click to expand...

Perfect! Shows how much fashion matters to the rough & tough males of pack in the same way it does to women and they handbags. Fashion over function.

I have found one good thing about synthetic stocks. Two of the wood and steel rifles I mentioned earlier I picked up at very good prices.

These were from an estate, and the youngster selling them said he didn't like those "old fashioned" guns.

I used to hunt a lot, birds mostly. I would never buy another wood stock on a hunting rifle or shotgun. Way too much maintenance for me. Wiping a stock down and drying it out after a day of hunting in the rain is a PIA. The solution to that for awhile was these polymer finished wood stocks that had a mirror finish. That pretty much ruined the look of a good walnut stock. For me a walnut stock should be finished with linseed oil, not the best wood preservative but beautiful.

Having worked outside as a surveyor in some wet climates clued me in real fast to the shortfalls of wood anything. Wood tripods are a thing of the past because of maintenance issues. They had to be stripped once a year and refinished. Polymer tripods have zero maintenance. About the only problems come from people hitting them with vehicles.

The last 3 rifles I've purchased have had polymer stocks made out recycled water bottles I guess. Ugly as hell and totally functional. Form follows function.

This is why there are both chunky and creamy. I like taking proper care of wood and metal. It's relaxing, it's reflective. I remember good times and smile.

It's become more difficult and costly to fine good hardwood with nice grain. Most of those trees have been cut. You can make a lot of money if you have mature walnut or oak trees on your property.

These days the young seem to like tactical Tupperware.
Myself not so much. I loaned my dad a steyr model m with the full stock for a deer hunt. The wood was beautiful, I had hunted with it for 5 years without a blemish. Then dad dropped it, when he came to the realization that his "war bag" with his insulin and about $5000 in cash was left in the middle of the logging road we started off on. It really hurt my feelings when it happened, but now I wish dad was here to put some more memories on it.

I have some firearms with polymer, but still like good wood and bluing.
I have a Ruger MKII in .204 with very nice tiger stripping, and several others with very nicely configured wood.
When I decide to buy a rifle, I ask to see every one they have in stock, and look them over for the nicest. I check for wood grain, and fit. If I don't see what I like I will go to different store till I do.
STW

The wood is in the closet and the B&C Medalist is on the rifle.

We've become much more tactical and militant.

Click to expand...

When military-style bolt-action infantry rifles and derivatives took the hunting world by storm between WWI and WWII, there may have been those who thought the same thing.

The same could have been said decades earlier, when military-style lever-action infantry rifles and derivatives took the hunting and self-defense market by storm.

AR's are very good guns, strictly on their merits. Bolt-actions will still be around, though, because they offer more power in the same sized package, just as revolvers are still around for some of the same reasons. But thanks in part to developments in materials and manufacturing, mass-market bolt-action rifles are more accurate and more reliable than they have ever been, I think.

I believe there's a socioeconomic element at play. Many buying the cheaper stuff simply can't afford nicer. 60 years ago we owned fewer guns but of higher quality. It's become a more blue collar hobby imo.

Click to expand...

There have always been a mix of low-end guns and high-end guns on the market. It's just that a lot fewer of the low-end guns from 60+ years ago have survived to the present day, whereas the valued family heirlooms have been preserved and passed down.

The beautifully finished rifle with the wonderfully crafted stock from 60 years ago was as probably as above-average back in its day as it is now; it was a craftsman's rifle sold at a craftsman's price. Adjusted for inflation, some of those rifles would cost $2000 in today's dollars. The thing is, you can still get rifles with wooden stocks of that quality; you just have to pay craftsman's prices, rather than big-box-store prices. For many hunters, the aesthetics of a nice wooden stock are not worth the extra cost and upkeep required. You do see a lot of beautiful wood on trap and clays shotguns, though, which are rarely exposed to bad weather or dragged through the woods, and which are often owned by people willing to spend thousands of dollars for the craftsmanship.