Silly question...

[logjam]

I hunt with a Remington 788 in wood, a Savage 99 in wood (obviously) a pre-64 model 70 in wood, a Browning Fusion Gold in wood, a Sterlingworth SxS in wood, a Winchester model 71 in wood, a Winchester model 94 in wood. I do have a little Savage 17 HMR in plastic, but generally I think plastic sucks. [can I say that?]

 

[MCgunner]

There is nothing that compares to a great walnut or rose wood stock. It gives a rifle/shotgun character and tells a story.

I hope you're not shooting a Sako. You'd have to use a Finnish translator to understand it's story.

I don't anthropomorphize inanimate objects. My guns don't have names, either. They're tools, folks, not linguists or poets. I'm a little more into 'em than my shovels or knives or what not, but they're still just tools. The better they work, the better I like it. Aesthetics are a personal thing, though. Me, I actually LIKE the cool look of stainless and polymer and it works so much better for me.

Yeah, that camo painted, synthetic stocked Mossberg 500 is a really tough, tough shotgun for salt marsh waterfowling and trips on the bay in a boat. It's still rust free and lookin' decent after 20 years of abuse and hard use.

 

[ChefJeff1]

Wood and blue for me. Ruger M77 .270. I bought it used and I could care less if it get's scratched, dinged, or dented. It shoots fine and that's all I care about. 3 deer and 1 elk and it looks like it. Jeff

 

[DammitBoy]

For me it's wood or nuthin'... I've never liked synthetic stocks.

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

The only plastic I have is the one I use to buy my wood/blue rifles.

Nothing against synthetic. And definitely nothing against stainless steel, especially that beautiful brushed-satin stainless they make now in many brands. I just come to this with an attachment of the traditional tool as much as I appreciate the functionality aspect, which can be improved upon with space-age materials.

My rifles have been in snow storms, blizzards, rain, sun, humidity, dryness--and as long as I take good care of them, they keep going. Any blemishes they have are my fault, not the rifles' material's.

There are some truly beautiful stainless synthetic rifles--I'm very partial to the Sako 75 Finnlight, for instance. And if the majority is right, they do outsell wood/blue rifles practically two-to-one.

But I guess I'm prejudiced towards the look and feel of wood and blue.

Tom

 

[Stinger]

Cost is certainly a factor for me, and you can usually (always) get a synthetic stock and matte finish much cheaper than fine wood and blue steel.

 

[MCgunner]

When I bought my Savage, the cheapest was hardwood and blued steel, not matte blued, either. Isn't a very deep or lustrous bluing, but blue. But, now days, they put these cheesy plastic stocks on 'em I don't care for. I didn't care for that hardwood (Birch, I think) stock, either, though, and much improved that gun's accuracy with a free floated Ramline stock. I sold the wood stock on ebay.

Yeah, if you want walnut, cut checkering, and ebony caps and such, well, you gotta pony up for that with a Remington BDL or something even more expensive. It don't shoot any better with all that fancy wood. In fact, in many cases, the polymer shoots better.

But, stainless/polymer ain't always cheap, either. You checked the MSRP of a stainless Remington M7 lately? The wood/blue is a hundred or so less money. So, well, wood ain't always the more expensive way to go depending on the gun you're lookin' at.

 

[MCgunner]

Two of my favorite rifles, one's blued and wood (ain't fancy, old Remington M722 short action), the other is polymer/stainless.