Plastic POS

StevieK said:
Ok, so I know I'm going to ruffle a lot of feathers but I feel as though I have to rant about this.

All the firearms I have are passed down to me from my grandfather. They all have nice walnut stocks on them and feel like a gun should.

I was in the local gun shop yesterday and decided to kill some time looking at new guns. I asked to see a tikka hunter but the guy only had a t3 lite in stock. He handed it to me and I thought he had handed me a kids BB gun. What the $%*@ is wrong with you people that like those POS "synthetic" stocks?

Synthetic is just a glorified term that they have marketed that means light plastic. In my opinion cheap synthetic stocks have no place on a store shelf until toys R us gets a license to sell firearms. I also was dually unimpressed with the tikka action that I had heard people raving about but that is a whole other matter.

Anyone else feel the same way? or have you all been brainwashed into believing that a synthetic stock is far superior for it's weight and "weather resistance"?
Click to expand...

the problem is that you held the t3 LITE!!! many other synthetic stock firearms are much heavier than that i held one of those things once and it was the lightest firearm i have ever held!!! I have a ruger m77 mk II with a synthetic stock and it works great! its slightly lighter and i dont have to worry about roughing it up!!!
:ar15::runaway:
 
well I love my HS precision stock aluminun bedded accuracy matters to me a nice peice of wood with a good bedding job is fine but Browning uses a special process to stain there stocks to look like a beatifull marbled peice of wood and its not .
 
Ok, I realize that I wrote my original comment in haste and came across as a complete hater towards those that use synthetic stocks.

I realize that there can be benefits to lightweight stocks, but they just seem to be made with such a comprimise to quality. The gun companies just want to market synthetic because it's cheap and they are running out of quality wood.

I know that there are some nicer composite/fiberglass stocks available that are much stiffer and actually require more than a plastic injection moulder to make.

Customers decide what the manufacturers put out on the market. It just seems that we are all settling for more and more crap. Just look at the overall decline of stock firearms. By buying cheap plastic stocks and not demanding a higher quality type of synthetic stock then the manufacturer is just going to continue to supply it until that is all that is available. And then they will find a way to make it even cheaper to save an extra 35 cents.

I could understand having a cheap plastic...sorry "synthetic"...stock on a stevens 200 or other budget gun, but on a $1000 tikka I think that we should be demanding for higher quality stocks. They can make them, but they won't because as long as people settle for less there is no need for them to spend more money.

For all of you that enjoy the synthetic stocks, are you truly happy with the super flimsy plastic that is supplied on some, or would you not like a little more quality put into the stocks?
 
Hey there Don Doucette, I like your NO SMOKING sig line...37 days? KEEP UP the GREAT WORK!!
Oh ya...back on topic...I hate the Mattel toy-like t3 lite also...but I have a M700 Synthetic ADL that I use for coyotes with great results.
 
StevieK said:
...

For all of you that enjoy the synthetic stocks, are you truly happy with the super flimsy plastic that is supplied on some, or would you not like a little more quality put into the stocks?
Click to expand...

Could you please qualify that statement? On what basis to you deem synthetic stocks to be "flimsy"?
 
I had a T3 Lite and I really liked that stock. I'm sure you could have beaten someone to death with it just as easily as a wood stock. There was no flex or movement in it. A nice wood stock is OK, but try to find one on a new mass production rifle.
 
I like a synthetic stock. I can spray paint it and attach doo dads to it. Then sell it to a young lad as a custom for more money.
 
Last edited:
StevieK said:
Ok, I realize that I wrote my original comment in haste and came across as a complete hater towards those that use synthetic stocks.

I realize that there can be benefits to lightweight stocks, but they just seem to be made with such a comprimise to quality. The gun companies just want to market synthetic because it's cheap and they are running out of quality wood.

I know that there are some nicer composite/fiberglass stocks available that are much stiffer and actually require more than a plastic injection moulder to make.

Customers decide what the manufacturers put out on the market. It just seems that we are all settling for more and more crap. Just look at the overall decline of stock firearms. By buying cheap plastic stocks and not demanding a higher quality type of synthetic stock then the manufacturer is just going to continue to supply it until that is all that is available. And then they will find a way to make it even cheaper to save an extra 35 cents.

I could understand having a cheap plastic...sorry "synthetic"...stock on a stevens 200 or other budget gun, but on a $1000 tikka I think that we should be demanding for higher quality stocks. They can make them, but they won't because as long as people settle for less there is no need for them to spend more money.

For all of you that enjoy the synthetic stocks, are you truly happy with the super flimsy plastic that is supplied on some, or would you not like a little more quality put into the stocks?
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better or agree more.
 
On Saturday I went to compete with some of my buddies on a rifle course that involved plenty of fast paced moving and shooting in difficult conditions. I ran my XCR which is really more metal than plastic, but there were several other synthetic guns there, and we ran them hard.

The next day I went to the range with the same guys who brought out a few different guns; some wood some synthetic. At the end of that day we were packing up and I noticed that the newer wood guns looked more beat up than the older synthetic rifles, in fact, all of the synthetic guns seemed to be taking more abuse than the wood ones and coming out in much better shape.

I love the lightness, and the durablity/weather resistance of synthetic stocks... I guess if you're older than my BSA SMLE than you're probably set in your ways, but times change, and technology advances... DEAL WITH IT.
 
Heaven forbid we all like different things. Can you imagine what a boring place it would be if all the cars were red, homes were all white and two story, all suits were black.... well you get my point.
 
You lay your hard earned cash down on the counter next time I'm in the local gun shop and I will take what your buyin'. 'Til then, I'll buy what I like thank you very much.

:feedTroll:
 
ben hunchak said:
I do agree with the poster, most of those synthetic stocks look C-H-E-E-P and they are cheap, cheap to manufacture, the manufacturers will tell you that they are more weather proof, scratch proof, Yada yada, the bottom line is that they are cheap to produce, more profit margin. I don't however begrudge anyone else that has or likes synthetic stocks, maybe they just haven't been around enough beautifully stocked, AAA grade walnut stocks.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps Ben people really like the synthetic stocks because they ARE more weather proof, scratch proof, yada yada than wood. There is certainly no arguing that. I have a couple of wood stocked safe queens including a mint model 70 safari rifle in 375 h&h that is getting restocked for Africa next year. Yep it will wear a synthetic stock rather than risk damaging the pretty wood.
 
I too prefer decent wood over synth but the fact is decent wood is expensive, as is a good synthetic stock.

My dislike is the increasing plastic on the other parts of the rifles, like mags, bolt shrouds and other parts. I just don't think you will have those parts intact in 20 years. I have seen plastic parts come to pieces on Steyr-Mannlichers right down to a Rem 742 auto loader (plastic shroud type thing behind the bolt assembly).

I alos don't buy any of the sales pitches about 'space age' (what ever that means) toughness - do they actually know the chemistry behind this plastic, or being told that 'you can drive a full size truck over a Tikka mag and it wil never break!'. Don;t get me worng, I really like the Tikkas and I have a very plasticy Savage, but not for a second do I think those parts are as durable as a decent all metal set up! However it seems all-metal is not an option under a $1000 for a new rifle, with some exceptions.
 
my 2 cents worth -- like it or not, the price of firearms if they were built "like they used to be built" would be quite high. Most times too high for many to afford.

There will always be those who pay for what they want in a rifle. Be it wood or plastic or whatever. Those who buy off the "rack' look for value and the best quality that they can afford. Most people do.

The rifle manufacturer has to get to a price point and a quality point where the product sells to the most number of people and where the quality is such that the rifle does what is intended. That is a difficult decision to be made by the manufacturer.

If they decide wrong - they loose that investment and possibly go out of business.
 
Wood is the only stock choice :eek: I can rememeber walking to school in the blazin sun minus 40 out through 10 feet of snow up hill both ways and buying things for a nickel ! i think radial tires shouldnt be sold either all my vehicles had bias ply tires we used to enjoy changing them daily !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom