What happened to hunting rifle stocks?

[YankeeFlyr]

When I was a kid, bolt action hunting rifles were essentially all stocked with hardwood, checkered (cut or pressed, but checkered either way), and had a nice finish applied.

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

From a technical point of view, there's nothing wrong with that; less maintenance and lower chance of POI variance from humidity, etc. My M1A has a fiberglass stock for just that reason. But, that's kind of not the point...it's not a traditional hunting rifle. Never saw a parkerized Model 70 on a deer hunt.

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

Are we cutting costs so much that even traditional wood stocks are "too costly" to even mass produce?

Are we just cheaping out as a society?

They're (sometimes) not even nicely contoured and finished stocks, either. I saw a shotgun a while back with a semi-skeletonized stock that looked injection molded, and may have been!

FWIW, I'm not a Fudd, I don't even own a hunting piece anymore...but when I lived in the Midwest, I owned a couple. Took them to the field with my dad; someday I'll have his circa 1975 1100 Magnum, and the 1925 LC Smith double that my grandfather gave him. Haven't hunted in years now, though.

So what happened? Is this along the same vein as stamped trigger group parts?!? And plastic, well, everything?

 

[Bill50]

I'm still somewhat young and prefer wood stocks. I try to buy only American made guns and have noticed that wood is usually only available on foreign guns.

You're probably right on the price issue. Polymer should be more consistent than wood. This means more labor costs on wood. Labor is much more expensive in the US, so companies using American labor might be forced to polymer to compete on price with foreign made guns.

 

[Snyper]

People seem to value accuracy and durability over aesthetics now.

Synthetics offer reduced weight, and are weather proof too.

They aren't as pretty as a nice piece of wood, but they are functional and long lasting.

 

[morcey2]

I can't remember looking at a synthetic-stocked rifle and thinking "Man, that's gorgeous!" A cheap plastic stock, I think is worse than a cheap wood stock in that it's nigh unto impossible to get them bedded and stable. A good synthetic is very utilitarian. It's not going to knock your socks off with its looks, but it will be stable in lots of different situations. I like laminated stocks and have them on several of my rifles. They're more dimensionally (sp?) stable than stocks carved out of a solid block of wood, but aren't nearly as nice looking. I know that they're heavier than most of the other two, but while I'm not recoil-shy, I enjoy shooting a heavier gun much better with all else being equal ... even if it means toting it around. Just gotta make sure that the wood stocks are sealed for weather.

Matt

 

[YankeeFlyr]

Snyper is right on the nuts about that, for sure.

And I have no problem with buying for those advantages, as of course each to his own, with his own bucks to spend.

What is dismaying is that so many, it appears, don't even care if they get even a checkered stock. (And yes, you can get a checkered stock in fiberglass and there is no reason it can't be molded, too...)

God.

Even my Ruger 10/22 has a NICE checkered real-wood stock on it!

 

[barnbwt]

If you want a nice wood stock, call up Boyd's and get one

For what most people use hunting rifles for (occasional outdoor use, often in poor conditions and care) a plastic stock is loads better than a wood one. Stable, tough, lightweight, and pre-uglied so you don't have to worry about getting it dirty or scratched quite so much.

TCB

 

[burrhead]

All the majors offer decent to very nice wood stocked rifles but you're not going to buy one for $400. Plastic (cheap) is what the market demands and successful businesses produce what people want. I use my very nice walnut Browning most of the time but there are times/places where plastic is more appropriate.

Choices are good.

 

[Aim1]

Back in 1999 I read an article called "The Stampede to Stainless" and it talked about the coming of stainless guns with synthetic stocks. And that was 1999.

 

[WhiteFoot]

I love the look of wood guns (especially rifles!) They can be gorgeous! However, I think that the plastic seems to hold up better for hunting conditions. Ever see a shotgun that has been hunted HARD over a few waterfowl seasons? That's why my shotguns are plastic (I'd love an 870 20 gauge with a wood stock to use for upland though.)

 

[Sergei Mosin]

I was in a store recently and saw a Winchester Model 70 Super Grade Maple for sale. Drop-dead gorgeous, maybe the prettiest piece of wood I've ever seen on a rifle. Worth every penny they were asking - as a work of art, anyway. But there is no way I would take a rifle like that out in the field to get scratched, dented, and otherwise marred.

Now maybe that's an extreme example. But synthetic stocks, ugly as they are, have it all over wood when it comes to function.

 

[Acera]

You think the stock issue is bad, try and find a nice looking scope.

None of the gun shops in my area have a quality high gloss rifle scope, they all went matte for the tactical look.

Got a beautiful wood and blued steel Weatherby in .300 Win Mag just sitting in a box because I refuse to put a flat black scope and mounts on it. Thought about purchasing one of the few Leopold scopes online that come in gloss, but really want to see it first. The mounts are hard to find in gloss also.

Used to be a lot of hunters desired a fine piece of wood, deep blue steel and a matching optic for their hunting rifles, not any more it seems.



.

 

[HetchHetchy]

When I was a kid, bolt action hunting rifles were essentially all stocked with hardwood, checkered (cut or pressed, but checkered either way), and had a nice finish applied.

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

From a technical point of view, there's nothing wrong with that; less maintenance and lower chance of POI variance from humidity, etc. My M1A has a fiberglass stock for just that reason. But, that's kind of not the point...it's not a traditional hunting rifle. Never saw a parkerized Model 70 on a deer hunt.

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

Are we cutting costs so much that even traditional wood stocks are "too costly" to even mass produce?

Are we just cheaping out as a society?

They're (sometimes) not even nicely contoured and finished stocks, either. I saw a shotgun a while back with a semi-skeletonized stock that looked injection molded, and may have been!

FWIW, I'm not a Fudd, I don't even own a hunting piece anymore...but when I lived in the Midwest, I owned a couple. Took them to the field with my dad; someday I'll have his circa 1975 1100 Magnum, and the 1925 LC Smith double that my grandfather gave him. Haven't hunted in years now, though.

So what happened? Is this along the same vein as stamped trigger group parts?!? And plastic, well, everything?

I live in California and hunt deer, elk and birds. Though I have a few nice hunting rifles (a Remington 700 in 30-06, a Weatherby MK V in 300 Weatherby and a Winchester 1885 high-wall in 45/70) I prefer an el cheapo Ruger American in .270 Winchester today.

It's an extremely well-engineered rifle. I like the accu-trigger (or whatever they call it.) It's light, it doesn't kick hard, it's accurate and it cost $299.95.

Polymer does not equate to "cheap." "What happened" you ask? Designs and materials continued to evolve to what we have today. Something better... Not fancier, but better...

 

[HetchHetchy]

I've been looking for quite some time for a sporter weight bolt action .22 repeater. I've looked at several vintage Remingtons and Winchesters but either they're beaters, expensive or both.

I finally looked at a Ruger (and I'm not huge Ruger fan) American .22LR rifle. It's a far better designed rifle than the vintage stuff I have been looking at. It has an adjustable stock, an accu-trigger, great fiber optic sights and it can use 10/22 rotary magazines. And it they are cheap...

 

[hdwhit]

Are we cutting costs so much that even traditional wood stocks are "too costly" to even mass produce?

Are we just cheaping out as a society?

The emoticons that followed each of these two statements seemed to indicate a value judgment on your part. It was as if not having a hand checkered wood stock from the United States made the gun less worthy. If comically checkered and stippled polymer stocks is the price I have to pay to keep gun manufacturers here in the United States, then so be it in my opinion.

 

[barnbwt]

Are we cutting costs so much that even traditional wood stocks are "too costly" to even mass produce?

Yes. Always have been. Wasn't walnut chosen because maple had gotten too expensive back in the late 1800's? And maple because the Civil War had used up so much of the Cherry supply? Heck, the only reason at all that we had full-length stocks way back when, was because it was expensive to make a long, light barrel of a high grade of steel that would not bend like a noodle, and the stock acted to stiffen it. Wood is more expensive than synthetic materials because it is not consistent. Lack of consistency in an industrial production setting equals scrapped parts and waste.

None of the gun shops in my area have a quality high gloss rifle scope, they all went matte for the tactical look.

To be fair, a gloss "anything" on a hunting rifle is somewhat counterproductive, though it does look nice to see a candy-coated Blaser/etc.

But 'tactical' is not the reason they went matte. Bead blasting or tumbling allows them to achieve a uniform (-ly poor) surface finish that obscures all tool marks from fabrication, and allows them to go straight to finish coatings without tedious polishing. Remington in particular is notorious for their extremely coarse blasted "express" finish that looks nearly like 60 grit sandpaper, which gets black-parked to form an ugly matte exterior with sponge like character (read: corrosion tendencies).

When not taken to Remington extremes, it does successfully provide a pleasing satin surface finish at a significant cost savings, which I would argue is a net positive.

 

[Jackal]

When youre sliding down a muddy slope elk hunting and your slung rifle decides to dislodge itself and goes clattering down the hill side, you really appreciate that plastic stock.

When you pull your rifle out of the safe to admire it, you really appreciate that AAAA walnut.

 

[HetchHetchy]

Yes. Always have been. Wasn't walnut chosen because maple had gotten too expensive back in the late 1800's? And maple because the Civil War had used up so much of the Cherry supply? Heck, the only reason at all that we had full-length stocks way back when, was because it was expensive to make a long, light barrel of a high grade of steel that would not bend like a noodle, and the stock acted to stiffen it. Wood is more expensive than synthetic materials because it is not consistent. Lack of consistency in an industrial production setting equals scrapped parts and waste.

To be fair, a gloss "anything" on a hunting rifle is somewhat counterproductive, though it does look nice to see a candy-coated Blaser/etc.

Not really, no. Wood becomes expensive not only because of its intrinsic cost, but also the expense to cure, machine and finish it. Polymer isn't cheap -- even when it's bought by the semi-load, but the processing time is very limited and there's very little finishing other than some flash removal.

 

[Horsemany]

Several reasons for this the way I see it. We've become much more tactical and militant. And 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.

 

[jmr40]

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

Walnut didn't become the wood of choice 200 years ago because it looked good. It was chosen because it was the cheapest acceptable option using the technology available at the time for mass production. I'm sure there were identical debates around campfires by hunters in the early 1800's about the deplorable cheap wood being used on rifles instead of the much nicer maple or cherry. But at the time walnut was cheaper and much easier to work with on machinery. Synthetics are just the next step in the evolution of firearms. Shooters have been looking for a better alternative for 200 years. We now have it, why not use it. All boats, canoes, kayaks, etc. used to be made from wood too. No one seems to complain about the much better synthetics used today.

I bought my 1st synthetic stock in 1983 and paid more for the stock than the rifle cost. I haven't hunted with a wood stocked bolt action since. If I feel the need for walnut/blue I carry one of my lever actions.

I've watched a 1/4" long crack in a wood stocked rifle at dawn turn into a 3" long crack at noon. I got tired of a rifle being perfectly zeroed in August shooting the same size groups 3" from the August zero in November. I've seen the same thing happen over a 24 hour period driving from GA to CO where there is a 50 degree temperature difference, 7000' altitude difference and 40% less humidity. And I've come to appreciate a rifle with a scope and mount weighing less than the same rifle with a wood stock and no optics.

Most of my go-to rifles are setting in McMillan Edge stocks that weigh 8-16oz less than wood and are far tougher. Retail cost is over $600, but I bought all used for closer to $400. I have a couple of beater rifles that are in factory synthetic and they function just as well as the high end stocks. They just don't look as good and are no lighter than wood. It isn't just about being cheap, they are a better stock

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a "Nice" stick of wood on a firearm as much as anyone. But 99.9% of the wood used on rifles and shotguns looks no better than the wood I burn in my wood stove every winter. From an aesthetics perspective even the cheap plastic looks every bit as good and are far, far more practical. To get a decent piece of wood on factory rifles you'd expect to pay $1000 minimum and closer to $2000 for the same rifles we buy for $700.

 

[redneck2]

CZ has walnut stocked rifles that are plenty accurate. Not made in the USA, but a viable alternative. I have two.

 

[kitsapshooter]

I have a plastic stock. I had to paint it it was so ugly. I prefer wood. Good Walnut. My uncle had a cherry wood 20 ga SXS that i spent 40 years trying to buy from him.
At the stuff said is true, but i love good shooting wood mounted guns.

 

[BlkHawk73]

Funny how ppl are bothered by the less "traditional" styles and materials yet are more than content not actually hunting in the traditional manner... You know, actually walking, and pursuing the game instead of sitting in a manufacturer tree stand/blind. :never:

As for the "cheaper" aspect being the reason... Well, regardless of the costs involved, unless the market and customers were actually buying them, they would;t be there. Who going for cheaper there, the manufacturer or the customer? :never: Oh and lets not forget the all important factor of anything plastic as being that much more "tactical" which we all know is an essential part of any firearm nowadays.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I think we have a generation who were not introduced to guns by hunting with Grandpa or Dad or Uncle Ed, but were introduced to guns by Uncle Sam in military service. Then, when 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: the AR platform, not the sporters based on Mausers and Springfields. Especially since nice wood stocks can be very high maintenance and easily marred in real life use.

 

[Laphroaig]

Just a couple of my thoughts:

The beauty of a wood stock soon becomes diminished on a gun used for serious hunting, such as still hunting or spot and stock. The first big scratch is traumatic, and will inevitably be followed by many more. Synthetic is a better choice for a hunting tool. Lighter and more stable. Just not very pretty.

As for wood species, I think that walnut is an excellent choice. A few previous posts mentioned Maple and cherry. I garnered this data from a table on wood properties. Walnut is lighter than Maple, with about the same strength. Walnut is significantly stronger than cherry, albeit a little heavier.

Laphroaig

 

[blue32]

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.