Synthetic vs. Wood

DriftingOkie

DriftingOkie

New member
I am sure this has been discussed before but I was too lazy to search for it. I started looking for a new rifle chambered in .223. I had decided that I wanted to find one with a wood stock. I found a few that caught my eye. It looks to me that in another few years you will not be able to find one in a wood stock. I got to thinking are the synthetic stocks that much better? Or are they just as good and cheaper to make?
Then I got to thinking are the rifles made today better than the rifles made in the past(older than 20 years)?

My opinion is that they can make a synthetic stock that functions as well as a wood stock, and is cheaper to make. But I am not convinced that the stocks are what makes the guns shoot better. I understand that with the synthetic you dont have to worry about dinging it and scuffing it up. But are they better?
I guess i am just to much "old school". I love the look of a blue barrel and action with wood stock with good checkering on the grip and forestock.

Here is the rifle I am thinking about.
http://www.weatherby.com/product/rifles/vanguard_2/sporter

Would like to hear everyone's opinion on the subject.
 
Problem with most synthetic stocks is they are just cheap to build to a price point. These stocks can be bent and twisted easily in your bare hands. Savage rimfire and axis come to mind. In this case, wood stocks are better.

Some synthetic stocks on factory rifles are built a little better, such as tikka t3. These are firm and don't flex easily. There are also aftermarket synthetics that are well made and don't flex. These better made stocks are as good or better than wood.

Nothing more sexy than a nice piece of walnut though. Its far better than some cheapo plastic crap.
 
On new guns, buy wood. If you want synthetic on a new gun I would only buy a Kimber, and you'll get your money's worth. After market its up to you.
 
I prefer to look at a nice piece of lumber, but man I get a little peeved when I notice a new scratch or ding. I don't feel so bad when my synthetic stocks show their age. Both work for the purpose intended.
 
Quote: If you want synthetic on a new gun I would only buy a Kimber, and you'll get your money's worth.

True statement here. You could add a Forbes and a NULA to the list also, with a possible Cooper thrown in. I've probably missed a few factory synthetics, but those above come to mind. Granted they cost more, but Carbon Fiber isn't cheap.
 
I've got a Weatherby Vangaurd with Smith&wesson on the action. It's bedded with some sort if resin apoxy into a beautiful dark walnut stock. It shoots better than I ever will.. I've heard wood will swell and shrink depending on the environment thus applying pressure to the barrel . This can possibly effect accuracy . That being said I haven't seen it in my applications.. In theory makes sense . Everything being even a beautiful piece of walnut is pretty tough to beat!! Possibly the way this action was worked before putting it with the stock eleviates the problems with the swelling/shrinking of the stock??
 
They both have their place, wood is very sexy but transmits more rcoil to the shooter and requires more work to keep pretty.

In this area we have a lot of rain and snow with a few months of hot, "tupperware" is by far a better choice for hard use here and they absorb recoil better.

About the only cheapo flexing stocks anymore are on entry level rifles and if you are buying one of those you probably know that before you buy.
 
I grew up with blue steel and shiny walnut.
But I am hard on my stuff, so I like the durability of synthetic.

Also since I broke my back, weight of a rifle has become a big factor to me. So light weight synthetic looks better to me every day.

Shayne
 
Synthetics have their place, especially if a rifle is banged around or used in bad weather and/or rough country.

Synthetics just don't feel right to me. the balance is off and felt recoil is worse in my opinion. My neighbors syn stocked.270 kicks worse than my wood stocked 7 mag.

A few years ago when I was looking for a new deer rifle I looked at all the offerings in 3 or 4 shops under $1,000 and every one had synthetic stocks. I spotted a beauty with a wood stock setting on the used shelf and asked to see it and the first time I put it to my shoulder it just felt so much better balanced than the new ones. It was an old Parker Hale Mauser action made in the late 50's or early 60's that had been re barreled. I didn't really want something that large caliber wise, but it felt so good compared to the plastic Tikas, Brownings and Savages that it followed me home. Turned out to be an awesome shooter too! Bughole groups at 100 yards
thumbup.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bluealteredThey both have their place, wood is very sexy but transmits more rcoil to the shooter and requires more work to keep pretty.

In this area we have a lot of rain and snow with a few months of hot, "tupperware" is by far a better choice for hard use here and they absorb recoil better.

About the only cheapo flexing stocks anymore are on entry level rifles and if you are buying one of those you probably know that before you buy.

My thoughts also.
 
Originally Posted By: RadioSynthetics have their place, especially if a rifle is banged around or used in bad weather and/or rough country.

Synthetics just don't feel right to me. the balance is off and felt recoil is worse in my opinion. My neighbors syn stocked.270 kicks worse than my wood stocked 7 mag.

A few years ago when I was looking for a new deer rifle I looked at all the offerings in 3 or 4 shops under $1,000 and every one had synthetic stocks. I spotted a beauty with a wood stock setting on the used shelf and asked to see it and the first time I put it to my shoulder it just felt so much better balanced than the new ones. It was an old Parker Hale Mauser action made in the late 50's or early 60's that had been re barreled. I didn't really want something that large caliber wise, but it felt so good compared to the plastic Tikas, Brownings and Savages that it followed me home. Turned out to be an awesome shooter too! Bughole groups at 100 yards
thumbup.gif


I'd be curious to know if that .270 and 7 mag share the same stock design.

You just compared a Parker Hale from the 50's 60's era to a Tikka, a Browning, and a freakin' Salvage?


Travis
 
I have found stock design to affect handling, shouldering, and felt recoil.
i prefer wood but often want to try a higher end synthetic with recoil absorbing technology, especially a newer shotgun where synthetic is almost a requirement for me.
Love the wood rifles and they are quieter than many synthetics.
 
I prefer wood. These days most people are to stupid to know how to take care of a wood stock, especially in foul weather and so all the companies switched over to the plastic stocks because they are lighter, cheaper to make yet they darn near charge you what a wood stock would have cost.

If you want to complain about recoil, thats your own fault for picking the caliber you decided to go with.
 
Last edited:
Most of you have answered the big question. Cheap!! Make it cheaper, sell it for the same price, more dollars in their pockets and tell you its better. What a crock of Bull Shitski!
 
Last edited:


Write your reply...
Back
Top