You say you've hunted in the rain with your wooden stocked guns. I gotta ask cause o don't have much experience, have you ever had a point of impact change or anything related to that such as warping?
Wood vs. Synthetic
- Thread starter StefanGreybeard
- Start date
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
Spot on.
I've spent a lot of years in the bush with my wood stocked rifles and never had a problem. The ones that shot 1/2 inch 50 years ago still do, the ones that wouldn't shoot under an inch are long gone. Don't like synthetic because they just feel weird.
But hey I'm old and don't really give a .......
I have 2 winchester model 12's one was made in 1914 the blueing is pretty much gone, but the wood is fine.. The other is !917 build, the blueing is actually not bad and the wood is good. So not really seeing the need for synthetic.
My old 50cal is still 50cal lol
Nope. Never. The real question is: even if you do move a 100 or 200 yard rifle shot over 1/2", do you think the animal will be any less dead? And for shotgun hunting, it's just not a concern at all. Buy the gun you like and enjoy it. Take care of it and it'll put meat in the freezer for you for a lifetime. Good luck and have a great season this year!
I have always hunted with wood stocked shotguns and rifles in all sorts of weather with no issues.
I keep them waxed and don't leave them in the bottom of a leaky canoe or in the back of an open pick up truck however!
Cat
I keep them waxed and don't leave them in the bottom of a leaky canoe or in the back of an open pick up truck however!
Cat
the spank
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Planet Earth Wearing My Tinfoil Hat
I much prefer wood to synthetic but synthetic is much more wet weather friendly. My solution is simple. I stay home on wet days, lol. Wood however does offer much more recoil absorption over synthetic and add that to wood is much prettier to look at and feels much nicer in hand and it's an easy decision for me.
Wood stocked rifles are usually heavier which reduces recoil, but in situations where the synthetic stock weighs the same, I find that the flex in a synthetic stock can actually absorb some recoil. I will shoot skeet when there is a risk of showers, but the only time I actually plan on shooting in the rain, is on some waterfowl hunts, where we have a great field, and my hunting partners are only able to hunt on weekends. I no longer have an upland rain gun, I just wait another day, until it stops raining.
I definitely prefer wood over synthetic and still generally hunt when my schedule allows, so weather as a determining factor comes second, within reason that is, no point getting soaked grouse hunting in a slushy Nov/Dec downpour....
My first O/U a long time ago was a Beretta 686 White Onyx 12g that I used for everything.
I didn't realize when I bought it (new in store) that the stock was in fact laminated over with a plastic wood grain pattern veneer.
I was really disappointed when I found that out later at home.
Anyways I stuck with it and at some point because of shooting in wet conditions the, I suspect ultra-dry and untreated, wood underneath the veneer got wet, around where the stock meets the receiver, water must have soaked in between, and the stock swelled up such that when I opened the top lever it broke off a chunk of this plastic veneer and the wood beneath it.
Now I was even more disappointed!
Anyways Stoeger Canada is located close to where I live, and some of the people who worked there at that time also worked at my gun club (club secretary and president).
So I was able to drop the gun off in person and they put a brand new Silver Pigeon graded wood stock on the gun for me, a complete restock and with the real thing!
The grain wasn't as nice as the fake, but it was a bit nicer than average, and even better imo that it was real.
I have to say contrary to what I have read about Stoeger Canada on this forum that they have only ever provided great service for me, first correcting this issue and also a few great orders over the years, fast and cheap and great value....
So I say choose wood over synthetic, then synthetic over some combination of the two.
Artificially 'enhanced grain' gun stocks are a sticking point for me...I don't fully understand what they are, like what's the point?....plastic painted to look like wood over wood, or wood that has been stained or laser-etched to look like highly figured wood over wood that is plain....
It's similar to laser or machine engraving (and I have guns that have this), something is definitely lost, and is the end product actually worth it?
My first O/U a long time ago was a Beretta 686 White Onyx 12g that I used for everything.
I didn't realize when I bought it (new in store) that the stock was in fact laminated over with a plastic wood grain pattern veneer.
I was really disappointed when I found that out later at home.
Anyways I stuck with it and at some point because of shooting in wet conditions the, I suspect ultra-dry and untreated, wood underneath the veneer got wet, around where the stock meets the receiver, water must have soaked in between, and the stock swelled up such that when I opened the top lever it broke off a chunk of this plastic veneer and the wood beneath it.
Now I was even more disappointed!
Anyways Stoeger Canada is located close to where I live, and some of the people who worked there at that time also worked at my gun club (club secretary and president).
So I was able to drop the gun off in person and they put a brand new Silver Pigeon graded wood stock on the gun for me, a complete restock and with the real thing!
The grain wasn't as nice as the fake, but it was a bit nicer than average, and even better imo that it was real.
I have to say contrary to what I have read about Stoeger Canada on this forum that they have only ever provided great service for me, first correcting this issue and also a few great orders over the years, fast and cheap and great value....
So I say choose wood over synthetic, then synthetic over some combination of the two.
Artificially 'enhanced grain' gun stocks are a sticking point for me...I don't fully understand what they are, like what's the point?....plastic painted to look like wood over wood, or wood that has been stained or laser-etched to look like highly figured wood over wood that is plain....
It's similar to laser or machine engraving (and I have guns that have this), something is definitely lost, and is the end product actually worth it?
As an amateur historian, my mind is always partially focused on gunmaking in the past while thinking about the present. I do not own a synthetic-stocked gun, nor would I seek one. But I have to wonder if such things were available 160 years ago when cartridge-firing guns first appeared, would gunmakers and clients have taken to them?
The idea is not so far-fetched. Gunmaking has always been about business; the purpose of gunmakers was to make money, and their craft was the means to do it. It was not fame for the sake of fame, though some businesses built grand reputations, but reputation was for the purpose of earning clients and orders. It was a highly competitive business environment, and any given level of quality had an upper price limit, regardless of reputation. Discussions about price points and value-for-money were as common then as they are today. Inventions, or what we perceive today as the steady evolution of gun actions and designs, were about gaining new market share, to offer something the other guy doesn’t. Would 19th-century sporting gunmakers have offered screw-in chokes, made use of CNC machines, and chosen precision alloys if they could? I imagine the answer is a resounding yes, if it meant more clients, orders and profit.
Human nature remains largely unchanged, and people in the past were just as susceptible to marketing ploys as they are today (and the sporting gun business has always had a fair share of hucksterism at its core, always pushing something bigger and better). I can almost picture a Victorian gunmaker extolling the virtues of a synthetic-stocked gun to Lord So-And-So, claiming it to be superior for wet-weather shooting… But let’s be honest, it's just marketing hype. Wood can be easily weatherproofed, and centuries of using wood gunstocks in inclement weather attest to this. The only reason synthetic stocks exist is to cut costs for the maker/manufacturer. They are cheaper to source and produce, require fewer salaries to pay, are easily replaceable rather than repairable, and need no maintenance. It's a sound business decision. I’m only surprised synthetic gunstocks didn’t emerge shortly after 1907 when commercial laboratory plastics first appeared. But are they truly better than wood, especially in wet weather? I remain unconvinced.
The idea is not so far-fetched. Gunmaking has always been about business; the purpose of gunmakers was to make money, and their craft was the means to do it. It was not fame for the sake of fame, though some businesses built grand reputations, but reputation was for the purpose of earning clients and orders. It was a highly competitive business environment, and any given level of quality had an upper price limit, regardless of reputation. Discussions about price points and value-for-money were as common then as they are today. Inventions, or what we perceive today as the steady evolution of gun actions and designs, were about gaining new market share, to offer something the other guy doesn’t. Would 19th-century sporting gunmakers have offered screw-in chokes, made use of CNC machines, and chosen precision alloys if they could? I imagine the answer is a resounding yes, if it meant more clients, orders and profit.
Human nature remains largely unchanged, and people in the past were just as susceptible to marketing ploys as they are today (and the sporting gun business has always had a fair share of hucksterism at its core, always pushing something bigger and better). I can almost picture a Victorian gunmaker extolling the virtues of a synthetic-stocked gun to Lord So-And-So, claiming it to be superior for wet-weather shooting… But let’s be honest, it's just marketing hype. Wood can be easily weatherproofed, and centuries of using wood gunstocks in inclement weather attest to this. The only reason synthetic stocks exist is to cut costs for the maker/manufacturer. They are cheaper to source and produce, require fewer salaries to pay, are easily replaceable rather than repairable, and need no maintenance. It's a sound business decision. I’m only surprised synthetic gunstocks didn’t emerge shortly after 1907 when commercial laboratory plastics first appeared. But are they truly better than wood, especially in wet weather? I remain unconvinced.
