....also, it seems that laminated stocks command a little more money... not much mind you. Are they worth it in the long run?
Andy
Lam stocks command a little higher price because more people think they are prettier, which is subjective.
Stronger, partly because wood laminate is inherently stronger and lam stocks have that second crossbolt behind the trigger.
Solid arctic birch have been known to split in the grip area. Lam stocks are definitely stronger in the grip area, albeit they are narrower in cross section both in the grip and butt areas, thus giving the sensation of harder recoil.
Lam stocks are not lighter. I weighed a 52 Tula/ solid birch vs. a 54 Tula laminate and they weighed the same at 8.0 lbs with a 0.1 lb margin of error, according to my cheap digital bathroom scale. (I weighed myself with and without the SKSs, got the diff).
The lam did feel slightly lighter, but scales do not lie, cheap or not. On the other hand, wood is an organic material that varies in density...so weight will vary from stock to stock. Maybe I have a light solid and a heavy lam.
Lams worth it in the long run? If you mean would they appreciate more, that is quite probable, due to their relative scarcity. If you mean they will last longer as in more shots before splitting or cracking, I am sure the lams are more durable so will last longer.
Personally I prefer solid arctic birch, because they are the original design (even if forced matched), and the fatter grips feel better to my skinny hands. They also look meaner
If ever my solid stocks split, they can be glued back or replaced with Tapcos (not a desirable solution IMO).
