New gunstock wood?

"... up to 10 times the strength-to-weight ratio of steel, while also being up to six times lighter."

Six times lighter than steel would put its density around 1.3 g/cc, which is something like 40% heavier than natural woods. Not sure people would like the extra weight.

And, is inadequate strength really much of a problem with gunstocks?
 
Interesting read, I’d like to know what chemicals are used in the process as well and how well it machines, sands and takes stains or coatings.
That said, final stock weight comes down to design and with the abundance of CNC manufacturing processes, 3D CAD/CAM software and quantity of designers in the firearms community coming up with innovative designs that don’t have a weight penalty could be in the future.
Innovative materials with innovative styles appeal, and usually at a higher price point.
Considering this material offers all that and that it also has a traditional link (wood) I see no reason why it couldn’t find a niche market within the firearms community.
Or not, lol.
 
It is easy to compare performance of materials also in relation to their density, we used length of fibre hung in theory from the sky until it snaps under it's own weight if too long. For example carbon fibre has a number of 150-380km, HPPE 295km, Aramid 180-240km, steel max 30km. If serious they should supply numbers. Carbon fibre is also just a carbonised polymer fibre, at some point after umpteen chemical/ physical processes one should not call this new material wood anymore. We have carbon fibre already in rifle stocks at halfway reasonable prices.
There is more to it than just weight related numbers. The fibres I mentioned can all be cut with steel tools, steel that is ten times weaker.......
edi
 
What's the need? Factory wood on my rifles has never let me down, and those rifles rolled off the line in the mid 1950's. It's an interesting phenom today, with fewer and fewer really seasoned hunters out there has come a manifold increase in experimentation where there is little to no need. I chalk it up mostly to idle minds/hands. Plenty of the true legends settled early on one rifle in factory configuration and in some time-honored calbre, perhaps .30-06 or .375 H&H depending on their game and never gave these choices a second thought - they were too busy hunting to worry about fixing things that weren't broke. Today there seems to be far more focus on equipment minutiae than actual knowledge of game, hunting and the bush.
 
thewoodsrunner said:
What's the need? Factory wood on my rifles has never let me down, and those rifles rolled off the line in the mid 1950's. It's an interesting phenom today, with fewer and fewer really seasoned hunters out there has come a manifold increase in experimentation where there is little to no need. I chalk it up mostly to idle minds/hands. Plenty of the true legends settled early on one rifle in factory configuration and in some time-honored calbre, perhaps .30-06 or .375 H&H depending on their game and never gave these choices a second thought - they were too busy successfully hunting to worry about fixing things that weren't broke. Today there seems to be far more focus on equipment minutiae than actual knowledge of game, hunting and the bush. Most of this focus is just time-filler.
Click to expand...
 
Superwood currently costs more than regular wood, & is meant to replace steel in construction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom