Wood Stocks

[jvs]

It wasn't all that long ago that Synthetic Stocks came out, and in the beginning you paid a little more for them.

Now it seems that Synthetic is all the rage, with some models being offered only in Synthetic.

How much longer do you think it will be before things turn 180 degrees and Wood Stocks become near extinct without paying more?

Hold on to your 'old wood', it may bring a premium in the future.  You'll be able to say.........."Yeah, but this has a Walnut Stock".

Sometimes I like progress.

[tscott]

I thinkyou're right! I got a MarkV in 1990. Has real nice wood. As much as I hunt, I couldn't take this rig out, until I bought a cheap Ramline, and dremeled the barrel channel. Best move I have made with a rifle. Shoots terrific. After deer season I take the plastic off, and admire the fine stock.
I wouldn't dream of taking that wood out!

[mountainview]

Well 1/2", some of the younger crowd seems to like the synthetic over the wood (my own son being one of them) so walnut and wood stocks may be overtaken and replaced in the future. Depends a lot on what the future shooters demand and are willing to pay for. I have to admit that I do like my synthetic stocked firearms (especially out in the field) but I also like good wood so I have a mix in my personal inventory. All in all I like having different selections to choose from when buying a new firearm so I sure hope that wood and synthetic are around for a long time.

[jvs]

Well 1/2", some of the younger crowd seems to like the synthetic over the wood (my own son being one of them) so walnut and wood stocks may be overtaken and replaced in the future. Depends a lot on what the future shooters demand and are willing to pay for. I have to admit that I do like my synthetic stocked firearms (especially out in the field) but I also like good wood so I have a mix in my personal inventory. All in all I like having different selections to choose from when buying a new firearm so I sure hope that wood and synthetic are around for a long time.

I have nothing against Synthetic Stocks, I have both types even though I prefer Walnut.  My point was that they originally charged more for Synthetic, now it is taken for granted and could be considered 'standard equipment' except for the more detailed ones.    If Synthetic isn't already cheaper to produce than wood, I think it is only a matter of time until wood is more expensive and the costs are passed down.

[Lawdog]

I bought one synthetic/stainless rifle and that was enough for me.  I couldn’t get rid of it soon enough.  Didn’t care for the "toy drum" sound every time it bumped against something.  Didn’t like the flashing of the shinny metal finish as I hunted(as reported by my fellow hunters that watched my progress along the hillside by watching the flash).  I have never had a problem with a firearm rusting or stock warping so if synthetic/stainless is progress then just call me old fashion.  Lawdog
 

[jvs]

Well.........

I purposely bought a Remington .30-06 with a Synthetic stock for bad weather hunting.   I even went so far as to put peeps on instead of a scope.  It is a wholey blackened ADL.   When I go out, it doesnt matter if it rains, freezing rain, sleets or snows all day long.....I'm out in it.   Sometimes I worry about having a wood stock if I sit there all of daylight in liquid, which is why I bought the Synthetic & blackened.

For me, having a Stainless rifle is a whole different story.  I do not own one nor do I intend to buy one.  One thing I have noticed at the range is that it appears like you could be walking through the woods with a florescent light in your hands.  Stainless may be ok for some people but not for me until they do something with the glow.  

Stainless has a place, I just haven't found it yet.

[old06]

Yep I like the look and feel of wood but do use synthetic stocks. It looks like the plastic stock had its birth in the early 1950's, so its not a spring chicken any more so to speak.

[mountainview]

I agree with you on the costs 1/2". When you consider the cycle time of molding a synthetic stock using modern molding techniques and advances in composite technology vs. the need for cutting each individual wood stock (even on a CNC machine), it is going to be a clear advantage for the synthetic in the future. I would venture that the initially higher cost of synthetics was due to:
1. marketing something new (folks are willing to pay more for something that is novel)
2. new tooling costs for molds and molding machines
3. lack of a knowledge base for manufacturing stocks in a new material
Over time though, prices came down same as they did with computers and for the same reasons.

Also I suspect that the demand for wood overseas is going to grow exponentially over time which will add to the cost pressure of wood vs synthetic. At the present many hardwood stocked models cost the same as the synthetic version but I am not optimistic that will continue indefinitely.

Safe shooting.

[Ramrod]

Good walnut is never going to get cheaper, and highly figured wood will always be scarce. But don't confuse cheap injection molded stocks (think Ram-line, or Rem ADL synthetic) with top of the line, hand layed fiberglass, graphite or kevlar composites (like H.S. Precision or Rem Varmint synthetic). These will always be right up there with wood in price, due to the low volume and amount skilled work needed. Those labor costs won't get cheaper over time.

[MGMorden]

Good walnut is never going to get cheaper, and highly figured wood will always be scarce.

While I completely agree with your post, laminate woods are a good way to "fake" figured wood.  They tend to hold their shape a bit better too and given that they are made from glorified plywood, I think that their production costs will likely drop below that of solid wood before long.  This I find a good thing, since I actually prefer the look of laminate over traditionally fancy walnut.

I'm not a particullary big fan of synthetic stocks though.  I own only two guns which have the synthetic stocks, both of which are shotguns (a Charles Daly MaxiMag pump and a Remington 870 Express).  Both are duck blind beaters.  I doubt I'll ever own a rifle with a synthetic stock.

[Ramrod]

MGMorden, if you ever saw the groups I get from my .22-250 Remington Varmint Synthetic, you would own a rifle with a synthetic stock!  :grin: But the stock will cost you $300. That is a heavy bench and stationary long range varmint gun though. I'm a big fan of wood, almost all my guns wear it. I do think a laminate is a better choice on an all-weather big game rifle. Nothing feels better than wood, and the synthetics are too noisy in the brush.

[jvs]

I like Laminates too, but it all depends on the color and finish just like any other wooden stock.  The two tone brown or the gray and black would be the two color combos I would pick, staying away from the green and rust color combo.

A few weeks ago I checked out a Special run 700LS which had a gray and black laminated stock.  It would have worked for me except it had a very shiney epoxy finish.

On the Synthetic side, I notice that some have a 'rubbery' feel to them instead of the hard 'plastic drum'.  Then some have a nice Camo applied.

I never meant to suggest that all Synthetic stocks are cheaper to produce.  Obviously some compounds and other applications will cost more.    But generally speaking, if it didn't cost less to put certain models in Synthetic, it wouldn't be done.

Granted that it doesn't take a whole lot of wood to make a stock but running it on a lathe adds expense, compared to popping it out of a mould.

[FURocious]

As per Jim Carmichel:

"These three rifles stand together in my gun rack, like three old men telling hunting tales and sharing memories of days past, of shots well done and misses too, shots close and far, some quick and deadly and others just lucky. And when I trace my fingers along their scarred stocks and feel the cool steel of the barrels through which so many bullets have passed, I can hear the whisper of the sheep mountain and listen to the songs of places far away. And I dream of hunts to come."

I guess you can look at rifles in two ways, as a "functionalist" or as a "romanticist", the latter described above by Carmichel.  

I heard one guy refer to his synthetics as "Four-wheel drive rifles", a rifle he could take in any weather.  That is a very functionalist perspective.  (I laughed when I heard the term, for it rings true)

A romanticist adds an art to his hunting passion with his rifle.  The rifleman and rifle adventure together, a level of trust builds and eventually he attaches to it heavy sentimental value.  Like Carmichel, he remembers the hunts by the touch, feel, and scars on this extension of his body.  

The functionalist is damn glad he has an all weather synthetic rifle he doesn't have to pamper when quartering out a kill when he is cold, wet, hungary, and tired.  

The romanticist returns to the lodge, rifle in hand, to reminisce about the hunt and passes around the beauty that took the game.

The functionalist returns to camp and reminisces about how he took the game and the rifle is back in a case in the truck where it should be.   To the functionalist, passing a rifle around camp would compare to a mechanic passing around the wrench he used to rebuild an engine.

Now... I think most of us share a little of both these perspectives and find a happy medium.  Thus, the reason to have a synthetic for the 4X4 function, and the wood beauty for the aesthetic value.

[jvs]

I like your point FURocious but I'd like to add one.

A Romanticist  owns just one.

The Functionalist has not less than 10.

:grin:

[MGMorden]

I like your point FURocious but I'd like to add one.

A Romanticist  owns just one.

The Functionalist has not less than 10.

:grin:

I'd say almost the completely oppposite on that one.  Most of the "functionalist" people I know get a single rifle and are happy with it.  My father fits this category completely.  I can't buy a gun without him proclaiming that I'm wasting money because "you've already got too many guns".  To him the rifle is a deer getter; and that's all it is.  He's got 1 tired old .30-06 that he's had for 30 years or so.  It's the only centerfire rifle he owns.  It's beat up pretty bad and hasn't been cleaned since he bought it.  The scope zero hasn't been touched in at least 15 years.  As beat up and neglicted as it is though, it still kills what he shoots at (and he usually gets at least 10 deer per year).  As long as it brings deer back he'll never get another.  

Myself on the other hand, I will admit I kill far less deer than he does per year (because I don't get to go out as often), but I own several rifles.  I like to have multiples and will take out my guns when I clean them and admire the differences between them.  I love the form of the gun in addition to the function.

[FURocious]

Oh, I'm certain there are many variations, or "blends" of the two perspectives.   A "continuum" if you will.

Looking at the extreme end of the continuum between functionalism and romanticism might help to clarify.

Ol' MGMorden's Dad would exemplify the extreme functionalistic perspective, whereas a corporate executive "Re-born Cabelas" who pays thousands of dollars on a custom rifle, only to adorn it as a conversation piece, would exemplify the romantic end.

But, the majority of sportsmen are more one way than the other, but neither of the two extremes.  A perfect blend would be the guy who has both wood and synthetic and has a place for each.