Plastic POS

After seeing a Browning stock that had to be opened up with a hunting knife while on an Alaska hunt, syn is a good choice. And if I want to hunt with a syn then you my friend, can live with it or hunt with others.
 
I'll take synthetic over wood any day. I expect my synthetic stocks to be in far better shape for my grandchildren than my wood stocks will be for my own child.
 
StevieK said:
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...

Brainwashed?

As others have said the fact is wood rots and gets beaten to crap, no brainwashing about it. :rolleyes:

Bring your Wood and blued steel out here to the Wet Westcoast and we will see what a season does to it. :D
 
I don't regret buying my T3 lite Stainless rifle. Looks aside, it does just what its supposed to do, was reasonably priced (esp 2 years ago), and is low maintenance. I needed a rifle that was light to carry and didn't get marred up from use. Its function over form, and that's all I wanted from it.
 
First I'll admit I own a tikka t3 light with stainless barrel. Second its a good rant, I like the part about toys r us. Cannot say I agree but good rant. Third walnut stocks are nice if you can get it in the rifle you want.
 
I never liked synthetic stocks much, but last spring i bought a new Ruger ultralight stainless in 30-06. I had originally planned on changing to a wood stock, but i found I like the feel of the plastic stock so much that I am keeping it.
 
The main issue is that there is rubbish synthetic and rubbish wood -neither are great.

One cannot argue with the durability of good synthetic. However having said that there are many old rifles with quality walnut that have been abused to hell and are still fine after decades of hard use.

Boddington wrote some years back about how many people have been led to believe that wood stocks will warp, get water logged, swell, break, chip etc and always inferior to anything synthetic, which is not true. However a good quality, properly dried and treated piece of walnut can be a lot more stable than a piece of limp noodle plastic that many factory guns have on them.

However you pay umpteen times more for good wood of course.

And of course you pay umpteen more time more for good synth than for cheap plastic.

I think its more about comparing quality than materials. Comparing a top of line McMillan to a piece of random wood on a Norinco is a pointless excercise, just as comparing top quality walnut to a Stevens 200 synthetic is...
 
I have a dog that pisses upon rifles when they are left standing against a tree in camp. I take a synthetic/stainless when the dog is in camp.
 
Last edited:
I love wood. I don't live in a rainforest though. I have a synthetic and it is a better one not injection molded. Though not the best either. I have no safe queens and a few scratches from use on wood looks good. I think one needs both to be truly happy.
 
I figure a fellow should buy whatever he jolly well likes. All of my old Winchesters have been used a lot over the past hundred years or so, and the walnut stocks still look good, even though they do show some 'history'. That being said, if I was in the military and had to sleep and live with my weapon 24-7, I'd take a synthetic any day.
 
I suppose if the Tikka stock were in fact "plastic POS" I might be inclined to agree with the OP. But since it isn't (or at least, imho, given my experience with several of them), I'll respectfully disagree. Ditto for the action.
 
I like wood on a lever gun.....

Everything else is synthetic. My rifles get banged up on quads, horses, boats etc....no sense in me owning a wood stock.

But I have seen some beautiful wood stocks tho.........nice for me to look at but not practical for me to own.
 
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...


Your opinion seems to be based on what you perceive to be a "cheap plastic stock". You refer only to the cheap stocks as well. Some makers like Savage provide a cheap plastic stock for several reasons. First, it works and it works better than wood. For those who disagree, I suggest doing a little research. Wood stocks are dead, synthetic is a huge leap forward in consistent shape, weight and performance of firearm stocks. Second, a cheap stock keeps the price down which keeps sales up. For the guy who #####es about price, the cheap stock is more than adequate. For the rest who understand that quality isn't cheap. The factory cheap stock will be the first thing removed and replaced with a quality synthetic stock. Form follows function, a nice wood stock does nothing to improve the rifles performance of the shooters.

TDC
 
I love a good looking wood and blued gun, but when it comes down to the field I like both. If I am in a place that is hard on a gun, I like to use synthetic, it can take a beating and still be good. I don't like putting nicks, sctraches or dings in my wood guns, that is why i run both.
 
I too love the look of a deep blue finish wrapped in an oil finished french walnut stock. But in the field give me stainless, phosphate, and plastic.

And maybe someone can clue me in here but is not all plastic molded at least initially? I can see milling it afterward but the first step is molding. So then it comes down to the quality of the base material. And while some of it is cheap the stuff they use with micro-foam in it to make it lighter is actually very tough although at first blush it may feel cheap.

Anyway. My two cents. Love wood and blue but give me modern when it is going to be wet, rocky, muddy, sandy or there will be dogs pissing on the thing.

_______________________

Yeeeeeeehaaaahhhhh!
 
You are basically saying aesthetics trumps performance, which it does not.

My marlin papoose is the only synthetic stock I own, of about 7 firearms, and it is tough, light, well made, and will never shrink, swell, warp, or crack. My lightly used CZ 452 American has some dings, and I feel like I have to baby it.
I would switch all but my marlin 30-30 to synthetic if I could, and maybe my old cooey single 12g.
 
I have a couple rifles with nice wood stocks and then I have the ones with UGLY POS plastic stocks that end up with the lions share of the work because im not worried about scratching/denting them....nice and light to carry too. I find a good Laminated stock is a good compromise in between the two just heavier than Synth but tougher thougher than wood (from my experience).
 
Win 38-55 said:
I figure a fellow should buy whatever he jolly well likes. All of my old Winchesters have been used a lot over the past hundred years or so, and the walnut stocks still look good, even though they do show some 'history'. That being said, if I was in the military and had to sleep and live with my weapon 24-7, I'd take a synthetic any day.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct and I agree:). For me and in my use or application, my #1 preference is still bright blue metal work and nicely figured wood. I buy to use, not to collect or to sit, as someone put it, as a safe queen. If I don't use it and shoot it, it's history.

As I made mention of previously, as a tool if I was a guide, LEO or in the military, I to would go synthetic and stainless.

I've hunted for a few years, many of which have been here on the sometimes thick and 'wet' coast of Vancouver Island. There are a few small marks on some of my firearms that show use but not abuse. With a little care, keeping 'them' in decent condition isn't an impossibility, or at least I haven't found it to be so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom