Synthetic VS Wood?

I prefer synthetic most of the time.

It's all about personal taste. I've tried synthetic but couldn't get over how ugly they were. Plus they're light and that sucked on the large caliber, made recoil worse. Now I've got nothing but wood and love it.

Personal tast for me is wood. even on my muzzle loaders. I just never been a fan of plastic and dont mind a few scars on my rifles.

Wood looks nice but if the gun is going to get banged around synthetic is better.

Well ,since it is a .22, I am going to assume that it will be used for small game. Since squirrel hunting and Rabbit hunting generally suck in rain I will surmise that weather will not be a factor for your thought process. And also, since it is a .22, weight wont be a determining factor really either. So that leaves accuracy and personal preference in looks. As far as accuracy, they will both be pretty much equal. Looks, that is totally up to you.

If you asked me this question 5 years ago, I would have said synthetic. As i get older, I prefer the beauty of wood, so wood is my vote.

I'm all about synthetic/stainless right now. Thats my vote.

b

So the decision is essentially what ever I want. Haha well this gives me a good excuse to stare at rifles for an hour or so.

Click to expand...

You need an excuse beyond "because they are there..."?

I have always liked the wood. Something about it, and I mean old timey wood. The real classic look. Just like the character it gives a rifle. Course I still like my evil black AR just fine too.

I prefer wood for most rifles unless accuracy is paramount (benchrest, LR target, small-bore target), so in this case I would go with the model with wood furniture.

Now I just need to get my new toy, And head to the woods!

Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan; good luck with the new rifle.

Wood is the classic look that really shines. Usually the "older" guys like them (not trying to affend anyone). I lean towards synthetic, but like and respect the classic look of wood. Synthetic last longer and gives a gun a different demeanor.

Wood looks the best!

Synthetic is more durable! (and waterproof too)

So... do you want something to look pretty, or to work hard?

Some factory-provided synthetic stocks are just pieces of junk!

The synthetic stock that came with my .338 Win. Mag. Browning A-Bolt was of such cheap & cheesy quality that you could wiggle-wag the forend from side-to-side. I replaced this stock with a Bell & Carlson, which made a huge improvement.

If I got the wood stocked model instead, I know that I would not have had this problem, because it had a more substantial forend.

If you choose wood, the most important thing that you can do is disassemble the rifle and seal all of the bare wood, such as the action, barrel groove, under the butt-plate, etc., with something like Birchwood Casey Tru-Oil.

When the wood is all sealed up it will keep moisture and cleaning oils and other gunk from soaking into the wood, which is not desirable, as it can cause the wood to swell, thus making your rifle have inconsistent accuracy, or cause rust to form in the moist spots, or in the worst case, cause your stock to swell so much that it just completely ruins it.

I found a very easy solution, BOTH.

Synthetic last longer and gives a gun a different demeanor.

Click to expand...

If taken care of properly I do not think synthetic will have a longevity edge. Maybe over 300 years but I have a couple 100+ years old rifles and shotguns. They all have solid wood stocks and are all very nice looking. To be fair, I got them from my grandfather who got them from his father. Both of these men were about the most anal SOBs you are ever gonna see on taking care of their tools. They are in beautiful condition.

For practical application, I think synthetic has the advantage. It won't warp, rot or split the way wood can. A synthetic-stocked stainless gun may well be the ultimate outdoors guns, and they have an appeal all their own.

That said, personally I LOVE the wood stocks. Every long gun I own is wood-stocked. It has a warmth and timelessness synthetic has never held for me.

I'll eventually pick up a stainless/synthetic in .308 or .30-06 to deer hunt with, but other than that, I'll stick to my wood stocks.

KR

Wood "can" be as durable as synthetics with the exception of the high end fiberglass or carbon fiber stocks.

I have several 100+ yr old rifles with wood stocks that are as beautiful and strong as the day they were made...

I have rifles with all 3 different types, Fiberglass, polymer (the injection molded crap that is so prevalent these days) and wood.

On my wood stock hunting rifles I glass bed every one of them and seal the barrel channels. This eliminates the "accuracy" issues with wood stocks, stops the swelling and contracting associated with weather changes etc.

I have some wood stocked rifles that will never leave my inventory so long as I'm alive. I can't say that for any of the others...

Mfg's didn't go to synthetics because they're better, they did it to cut costs. Same with the bead blast finishes, it's cheaper.

The thing that once made Brownings so desirable was the attention to detail of the finish.... high polish blue, beautiful wood..... it also made them more expensive. Now a Browning is just a another bead blasted, cheap poly stock rifle like all the rest of them.... but kept the high price... I haven't bought a new Browning in the past 20yrs..

Sako.... see Browning above... high prices remain yet the rifles are now much same as any other.

The upside is that it's allowed companies like Marlin and Savage to offer some very functional and accurate way beyond their price point rifles for about what the other guys should be selling their stuff for.

Like I said I have some of each, but I love a nice piece of wood....