wooden vs synthetic

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scoped

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
121
I don't know how all of you feel, but nothing beats the feel and look of a classic wooden stock to me!

Which do you all prefere/have the most of?

Here is my collection of firearms with that gorgeous wooden furniture ;)

Note- disregard the sidearm and knife
 

Attachments

  • IMAG1308.jpg
    IMAG1308.jpg
    96.2 KB · Views: 91
Back when I used to hunt, synthetic was king. Now that I shoot at paper, I don't buy much synthetic stuff. I agree that they are like furniture.
 
I don't really care much for synthetic but it has its niches. It is fine for my Ar-15, didn't like it on my Savage FVT, or the Model 11. I replaced both stocks.

I have a ruger M77 Mk? with a paddle stock in .338, it is getting a Boyds Prairie hunter stock soon.

My Savage 10 FCP has a HS Precision stock on it along with logger head comb hardware that stockdoc installed. That one I am happy having in synthetic.

Laminates are fine with me also.
 
I'm all about wood. There's a beauty in wood that synthetic just doesn't capture.

That said, synthetic has its place, as well. Darned durable and, quite frankly, I could care less if a synthetic stock gets scratched up and such. It's plastic.
 
I love nice, high-end wood. That being said, I've actually taken far more game with my Benelli Nova than any other shotgun. Although, 2 or 3 more pheasant hunts with my Citori may eclipse that quickly. Different tools for different jobs.
 
Wood all the way on bolt guns lever guns and handgun grips. Wood on auto shotguns. Synthetic on auto rifles and pump shotguns.

Let a nice gun be a nice gun. Let a workhorse be a workhorse.
 
Nothing beats the looks of a great wooden stock.

Nothing beats the utility of a synthetic stock.

My hunting guns are all synthetic. They see rough use in the field and I would hate to ruin a beautiful wood stock by dragging it through briar patches, rubbing it on metal stands, getting mud and blood and water all over it.

The one hunting gun I have with a wooden stock is an 870 express 12 gauge. It was the first gun I ever bought, the first gun I ever killed anything with, and it's got as many scars as I do…that gun will stay wood.
 
Wood to look at. Synthetic to use. My levers are wood, but I just cannot get the consistent accuracy I want from a wood bolt rifle.
 
For a rifle I am going to use, synthetic trumps wood in weight, durability, repeatability, and utility.

For something to look at, well, wood is/can be better looking.
 
All of my rifles, except a couple of muzzleloaders, are wood. I have never had accuracy variations due to wood.
 
Been hunting with a Winchester M70 for about 25 years. That and all but one of my rifles are wood. I swore I'd never have a plastic rifle. That ended about a month ago when I got a Ruger American in .243. I'm looking forward to carrying that in the future but nothing will replace my 70. I love the looks of wood, weathered or not.

Jeff
 
Synthetic for anything I'm gonna use.Hunting can be rough on a rifle,and if I'm worried about scratching a pretty stock,I'm not focusing on what I'm doing.The roughest looking rifle I have is also the one I go get when I mean business.No doubt the beauty of wood is nice,but synthetics have a utilitarian beauty of their own.Something like a McMillan or B&C Medalist is just plain badass looking,IMO.
 
Strictly depends on the gun. I agree that all the rifles pictured in the OP should have wooden stocks. Yet an AR-15 would look odd with wooden furniture. Something like a Remington 700 would straddle the line. There, you could go equally with wooden or synthetic.
 
I love the look of wood and blued steel but there are good reasons to use a synthetic stock. And some of them look very good. And IMO a laminate stock should be a different category. They look like wood but they don't have some of the issues wood has. I've had beautiful wood stocks warp so bad they affected the accuracy of the rifle. That rifle has a synthetic stock now. Laminate won't ever warp and they are actually stronger and stiffer than wood or so I hear.
 
Wood has been used for rifle stocks for hundreds of years. I'm fairly certain quite a few of them have seen "rough" use. Rougher than the average American hunter. There have also been quite a few high grade, high dollar, beautifully stocked guns come out of London gunmakers and right to the field. So it seems rather silly to me to relegate wood stocks as only good for looking at. Especially on a rifle that on average, cost well under a thousand dollars. This is probably more of a justification for ugly synthetics than a valid indictment against wood. Personally, I wouldn't have a nice walnut or maple stocked rifle and NOT hunt with it. It's what they're for. :confused:
 
I'm vertically challenged, so I appreciate how easy it is to shorten the LOP with a wooden stocked rifle.

Stock material hasn't entered the equation for the rifles I've bought thus far, it's just not on the list of things I care about (which are normally fit, utility for the task at hand, and customer service). The only time I would care is if I was buying some super fancy heirloom, like a Blaser R8, then it would have to be wood all the way.
 
I like the look of wood on my rifles, but I am very seriously considering a McMillan 'McWoody' or 'Dark McWoody' for my Model 70.
 
I build my own wood stocks from blanks , so I like wood better.
But if I was going hunting in Alaska, or some humid jungle, I would opt for plastic or fiberglass.
Range Toys, or guns I loan to hunting buddies always get Plastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top