Wood or polymer rifles?

[bladeracer]

I can certainly appreciate a beautiful firearm, but it's no good to me if I'm afraid to take it out in the rain, or fall into a creek with it, or bash it against a rock hidden in the grass

I definitely won't be afraid to take it out, but it will be my first rifle... so like anything new and exciting, I'll be cleaning it and treating it like a princess until I get over it and buy another one haha. Then the second one will become the princess

I understand that
My first rifle was a 10/22 back in '83, and it was indeed a beauty.

[on_one_wheel]

I'm a big fan of wooden rifle stocks.

Wood will scratch and dent but I like the feel, weight, rigidity and ballance of it.

I have one rifle in synthetic, a Remington 700 which is not exactly a cheap rifle and that stock is quite flimsy.

As mentioned earlier, plastic has it's advantages , it won't swell and change shape when wet or during times of high humidity which is good for maintaining accuracy.
It won't dent or scratch easily.

The lack of rigidity in a plastic stock is not a concern with .22 hunting rifles.

[bigfellascott]

If you think you are going to be bashing through the scrub or are hard on equipment then the plastic would be better suited, if you are like me and look after your kit and don't treat it like crap then timber is fine, never had an issue with any of my timber stocks in the 40yrs of shooting and owning them so can't see that changing all of a sudden, mind you I don't go hunting in pissing down rain conditions or other weather extremes for that matter, occasionally get out when it's snowing but not often as I'd rather stay warm and wait for the weather to clear before I venture out

I'm actually quite anal about all of my belongings, I like everything to be pristine... so the rifle I choose, be it plastic or wood, will get treated like a queen

I guess I'm steering more towards a plastic one is because have more of a "modern" look and feel. Opposed to wood being more classic. But thats just my opinion.

I have seen some extremely nice laminate ones too.

too right mate look after them no matter how much they cost or what they are made from

[bladeracer]

I'm a big fan of wooden rifle stocks.

Wood will scratch and dent but I like the feel, weight, rigidity and ballance of it.

I have one rifle in synthetic, a Remington 700 which is not exactly a cheap rifle and that stock is quite flimsy.

As mentioned earlier, plastic has it's advantages , it won't swell and change shape when wet or during times of high humidity which is good for maintaining accuracy.
It won't dent or scratch easily.

The lack of rigidity in a plastic stock is not a concern with .22 hunting rifles.

Definitely, I have two Ruger Americans and intend to get a lot more of them in almost all of the short-action calibers. They are generously floated but the stock is flexible enough to touch the barrel when a bipod is mounted at the sling swivel. I put an additional swivel in mine just ahead of the magazine for bipod use.

[Gwion]

I personally feel that any time a stock is flexible enough that the fore-end can possibly contact the barrel when using a rest or bi-pod, it is going to effect accuracy; no matter what chambering the rifle is in.

The key word to me, here, is quality. Quality doesn't always equal expense but often the two correlate, particularly with synthetic stocks. A rifle in a cheap, flexy stock is going to prove more difficult to get shooting well than a rifle in a cheap timber stock. As mentioned earlier, the timber stocks are easier to bed, easier to sand/scrape/cut away material where needed than a synthetic stock. I would buy a good quality synthetic stock of quality polymer or composite construction but i would never again buy a rifle with a cheap synthetic stock.

What ever their other possible faults may be, i thing the Lithgow CO101 stocks are good quality from what i have seen. Also the Browning t-bolt stocks are good and sturdy; if we are just talking rimfires to begin with.

[tony308]

my new howa 1500 308 has the plastic fantastic stock,and a s**t load of flex in the fore end when on the bipod,it grips your cloathing all the time,thats a pain,but I wouldn't go to a timber stock myself,ill take a fibre glass bell&carlson over both

[Bourt]

I'm a big fan of wooden rifle stocks.

Second

[happyhunter]

Not all synthetic stocks will flex like some people are stating. Cheap rifles like the Remington 700 SPS will have a flexy cheap stock where the Rem 40X fitted with the H-S precision stock is solid. It depends on the quality of the synthetic stock. McMillan make synthetic stocks and they are rigid. The CZ527 Varmint Kevlar is another example of a solidly built rifle/stock combo.

You get what you pay for in synthetic stocked rifles.

[bladeracer]

I personally feel that any time a stock is flexible enough that the fore-end can possibly contact the barrel when using a rest or bi-pod, it is going to effect accuracy; no matter what chambering the rifle is in.

The key word to me, here, is quality. Quality doesn't always equal expense but often the two correlate, particularly with synthetic stocks. A rifle in a cheap, flexy stock is going to prove more difficult to get shooting well than a rifle in a cheap timber stock. As mentioned earlier, the timber stocks are easier to bed, easier to sand/scrape/cut away material where needed than a synthetic stock. I would buy a good quality synthetic stock of quality polymer or composite construction but i would never again buy a rifle with a cheap synthetic stock.

What ever their other possible faults may be, i thing the Lithgow CO101 stocks are good quality from what i have seen. Also the Browning t-bolt stocks are good and sturdy; if we are just talking rimfires to begin with.

The Ruger Americans are generously floated, but are flexible enough to touch the barrel when supported by bipod at the front of the forend. Shooting over rests though I haven't seen this so I assume it's only a problem due to the leverage exerted by the bipod. For range shooting it's unlikely to be a problem, but for hunting you either need to keep it in mind or mount the bipod closer to the magazine to reduce the leverage.

My .204 and 7mm-08 will both shoot five rounds consistently around 0.5MoA at 100 and 200 yards from a rest so I don't believe the stocks are a weakness despite their flex. Subsonic loads in the .204 start to open up a bit but are still way better than a .22. I haven't fired any factory ammo through the .204 and only seven factory rounds through the 7mm-08 so I can't comment there really, but those seven Federal 150's (the first rounds I put through it) went into less than one-inch at 100 yards. The impressive out-of-the-box accuracy is why I want to get a bunch of Americans in all calibers, with the bonus of interchangeability of parts, including the magazines.

[tony308]

composite layup stocks,ie glass and Kevlar are not in the plastic injection moulded basket,there stiff as

[GLS_1956]

Of the dozen plus long guns I have three have synthetic stocks, Ruger SR-556, Marlin Model 60, and a Remington 700 BDL Varmint Special that I restocked with an injection molded stock nearly 35 years ago. The Marlin is my most frequently shot gun the Remington my least shot..

I love the looks and feel of wood, even the plain as homemade soap wood on the No4k1 and the M-1 Garand have a feel that is warmer than the synthetic stocks give. While the wood on the higher priced guns give an added elegance to them. who does not appreciate the look of a piece of well figured walnut?

I'm thinking that in the future I would like to check out a laminated stock. The heft and feel of wood but with the stability associated with synthetics.

[oldmateadz]

who does not appreciate the look of a piece of well figured walnut?

I'm thinking that in the future I would like to check out a laminated stock. The heft and feel of wood but with the stability associated with synthetics.

Funny you mentioned walnut, it's my favourite wood. I've decided to get a synthetic .22 (Ruger American) as my plinker to start, then when I eventually get a centrefire it'll be wood (walnut!).

[wrenchman]

i like wood but it is one of the ways they can keep prices down and the synthetic are lighter i hunt from a blind so weight is not a issue.

[Gamerancher]

Call me old fashioned, but I've never seen a "plastic" stock that I liked. As for the "more stable" argument, a quality timber stock, finished properly and with the action bedded correctly and barrel floated will be as stable as any other stock material. If you are inclined to bash your rifle around and use it as a walking stick or shock absorber when you get around the bush, by all means get a piece of plastic. No sense wasting a good piece of walnut on someone who don't appreciate it.
You won't find plastic that looks this good

[MalleeFarmer]

I do like high grade walnut. But I prefer standard stuff that I can scratch without getting teary.

[oldmateadz]

I do like high grade walnut. But I prefer standard stuff that I can scratch without getting teary.

That's my main concern haha.