Are wood stocks ever functionally better than synthetic?

SuperCub said:
Here's two rifles I own and like as is. One's ugly and one's not. Both serve a purpose.

atwOwIdl.jpg


CPWxuPrl.jpg
Click to expand...

Paul i do not understand your photography technique but when you mentionned ugly and i looked down the second picture and i was wondering what is ugly with it?





i may add for some LOL ...
 
I have them all - but when it comes down to hunting in the most inclement of weather - it's the laminate one that comes with me. Laminate is not quite wood. Let's call it what it really is - PLYWOOD - but it is closer to having a soul than some kind of synthetic. My CZ 550 LUX is the one that really brings me comfort though ....
 
I'm not a fan of synthetic stocks. As someone noted above, they don't have soul -- an inner strength and character.

Is the typical synthetic stock a product of cost reduction efforts?
 
saskcop said:
I have them all - but when it comes down to hunting in the most inclement of weather - it's the laminate one that comes with me. Laminate is not quite wood. Let's call it what it really is - PLYWOOD - but it is closer to having a soul than some kind of synthetic. My CZ 550 LUX is the one that really brings me comfort though ....
Click to expand...

As a carpenter and cabinetmaker, if I could nitpik for a second...

Plywood and laminate are actually not the same thing, though the difference is the kind of thing that probably only woodworkers would care about.

Plywood and laminate differ in two ways.

First, the layers in plywood - the plies that give it its name - are almost universally thin - usually 1/8" or less. It would be very hard to find any plywood with thicker plies than that.

Laminate, on the other hand, is often made of layers that are thicker. When you get a "butcher block style" counter, for example, it is typically made up of staves around 1"-2" wide that have been laminated together, yet most people would just call that a "wood counter" . Similarly, let's say you by a nice harvest table made of solid oak. That table is 32" wide, yet there are no oak planks out there which are 32" wide! If you look carefully at that table, you'll notice it is made up of narrower oak planks - probably around 4"-5" wide each - laminated together. Yet that table would still be sold as "solid wood" . In any case, while the layers in plywood are almost always thin, the layers in laminate can be and usually are wider.

Second - and this is the more important one - the layers in plywood are always stacked perpendicular to eachother, while the layers in laminate are always aligned in parallel.

So when stacking the layers of plywood, on the first layer i'll orient the grain running left to right. On the second layer i'll orient it up-and-down. Then the third layer will be back to left-to-right, and so on. These cross grain layers give plywood its seasonal stability, since wood typically moves seasonally across the grain, but in plywood each layer will keep the neighbouring layers from moving. (This is also why plywood layers have to be kept thin - thicker layers would be strong enough to break the glue bond and move anyway).

Laminates are always layered with the grain direction aligned. That does still make the product more stable than a similar sized chunk of solid wood - but not as stable as plywood.

In the case of laminate rifle stocks, all the stocks i've seen have used thin layers of lamination - almost or as thin as typical plywood layers. This would increase stablity even farther, but it would also start to make it look a lot more like plywood. But, the fact that you can look down on a laminate stock and not see end grain every other layer is how you know you are looking at laminate wood, not plywood.

Ok, nitpik over.
 
Callee said:
As a carpenter and cabinetmaker, if I could nitpik for a second...

Plywood and laminate are actually not the same thing, though the difference is the kind of thing that probably only woodworkers would care about.

Plywood and laminate differ in two ways.

First, the layers in plywood - the plies that give it its name - are almost universally thin - usually 1/8" or less. It would be very hard to find any plywood with thicker plies than that.

Laminate, on the other hand, is often made of layers that are thicker. When you get a "butcher block style" counter, for example, it is typically made up of staves around 1"-2" wide that have been laminated together, yet most people would just call that a "wood counter" . Similarly, let's say you by a nice harvest table made of solid oak. That table is 32" wide, yet there are no oak planks out there which are 32" wide! If you look carefully at that table, you'll notice it is made up of narrower oak planks - probably around 4"-5" wide each - laminated together. Yet that table would still be sold as "solid wood" . In any case, while the layers in plywood are almost always thin, the layers in laminate can be and usually are wider.

Second - and this is the more important one - the layers in plywood are always stacked perpendicular to eachother, while the layers in laminate are always aligned in parallel.

So when stacking the layers of plywood, on the first layer i'll orient the grain running left to right. On the second layer i'll orient it up-and-down. Then the third layer will be back to left-to-right, and so on. These cross grain layers give plywood its seasonal stability, since wood typically moves seasonally across the grain, but in plywood each layer will keep the neighbouring layers from moving. (This is also why plywood layers have to be kept thin - thicker layers would be strong enough to break the glue bond and move anyway).

Laminates are always layered with the grain direction aligned. That does still make the product more stable than a similar sized chunk of solid wood - but not as stable as plywood.

In the case of laminate rifle stocks, all the stocks i've seen have used thin layers of lamination - almost or as thin as typical plywood layers. This would increase stablity even farther, but it would also start to make it look a lot more like plywood. But, the fact that you can look down on a laminate stock and not see end grain every other layer is how you know you are looking at laminate wood, not plywood.

Ok, nitpik over.
Click to expand...

The most important differential is the species of wood employed. Plywood, or what most people refer to as "plywood" is manufactured with softwood species, such as fir or Spruce. Most laminates employed as gunstocks are manufactured with hardwood species such as birch and ash, which are structurally much harder and stronger.
 
hoytcanon said:
The most important differential is the species of wood employed. Plywood, or what most people refer to as "plywood" is manufactured with softwood species, such as fir or Spruce. Most laminates employed as gunstocks are manufactured with hardwood species such as birch and ash, which are structurally much harder and stronger.
Click to expand...

Another great point.
 
I have wood, laminate and synthetic stocked rifles, and like others have already stated, each has its purpose, pros and cons. And I like them for what they are, and do. My favourites are the laminates, and the pretty wood grained stocks. (Only have 3 rifles with synthetic stocks, of which 1 (280 Rem) has a laminate and a synthetic stock, so that I can change to synthetic for really wet weather or nasty terrain hunts)

Where wood shines is in the look and feel department. It is warm to the touch, has grain you can feel and see (dependent upon finish), and character that warms the heart and soul. Many a man has spent time in front of a fire with their firearm admiring the wood and blued rifle, rubbing it with oil and remembering the hunts with family and friends that they have shared adventures with. THis doesn't usually happen with synthetic stocked rifles...

Laminates, while heavier can ether be ugly, or attractive (dependent upon one's taste), has the warmth of wood, and the stability of the synthetic. Best of both worlds.
But it chips and splinters when working on it, which most stockmakers/gunsmiths do not like. Personally, I like them and have several, in both the nutmeg and pepper versions.

Synthetics, in quality makes and models, are stable, and fairly light to very light. Wear well in weather and are easy to clean. But are easily broken in the wrist, when your saddle horse runs into a tree, or leans into one. Some are tupperware and are noisy when tapped or brushed against something on a stalk. Others are filled and/or made with better quality products and manufacturing processes. As with most things, you'll get what you pay for. They can also have inlays of softer, grippier materials that make normal hand placement warmer and easier to hang onto when wet and cold.
 
The Kurgan said:
In the winter, I find that wood absorbs the heat of your face and holds it longer. In short, much more pleasant to shoot.
Click to expand...

This could be achieved/bested with a small pad of fabric and 6mm of aerogel insulation too, modern materials are far and above what was even available 20 years ago. I love the look and feel of walnut but function outweighs form for >75% of people or whatever sale numbers they come up with
 
Fisherguy55 said:
This could be achieved/bested with a small pad of fabric and 6mm of aerogel insulation too, modern materials are far and above what was even available 20 years ago. I love the look and feel of walnut but function outweighs form for >75% of people or whatever sale numbers they come up with
Click to expand...

I think it would be more accurate to state that cheap outweighs quality...or any other consideration...for >75% of people. That's why the cheapest wood stocks look like "pallet wood", and the cheapest synthetics look and feel like Nerf guns, and both are vying for "cheapest of the cheap".

And yes, I'm certain that any of the "advantages" that we try to dream up for wood can be negated and bested by synthetics nowadays. But wood is still wood; even the cheapest wood is still a natural material that will never be duplicated in its appeal to the mind and the senses. You can incorporate all the "aerogel insulation" you want, but for some people it's still a poor substitute for a properly sliced-up tree.

If function were all...I would get rid of 90% of my guns. No more traditional muzzleloaders, no more real black powder, no plethora of near-identical-function cartridges, no single-shots or levers, just a few plastic-stocked stainless tools. Which is fine, if you are one of those folks to whom a firearm is just a tool.

There are still a few of us left who desire more than just a tool. :)
 
Wood all the way for me. WARMER, LESS RECOIL AND JUST PLAIN PRETTIER. Synthetic are tough and weather resistant but only a small minority really test their rifles to the max, abuse wise. Ardent showed some magnificent lumber in his post and no doubt cost a pretty penny but worth every cent to a guy who appreciates fine wood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom