Yess they do warp and swell and when they Break (like when a Horse falls on top of them) they are next to impossible to repair in Camp.

Unfortunately Syntetic Socks tend to be a bit loud but all considered they are the ones who get my vote. Merry Christmas and a happy new Yea......Carl

As to the gun in the aluminum case that was opened to reveal a broken stock...? My thoughts are...Definately an important piece to that puzzle has been omitted. It just can't be so. Either the case must have been heavily damaged, the gun fit into the case far too losely (not enough padding) AND the stock was already cracked/damaged (or an extremely poorly made "custom" stock), or something fishy is going on, like a rogue baggage handler?? Don't know, but it sounds fishy...was this first person accounting of the story or was this another repeated "urban legend"? I always wonder at these kinds of stories...

As to the silly retort about military using plastic stocks, (AR-15's), it is for one reason only. Cost. Mattel stocks are extremely cheap to mass produce. I know back in the Garand days, the walnut stock was more expensive to produce and finish than all the rest of the gun, even back then DoD was looking into syn stocks to cheapen the production. The AR stocks really did used to (don't know if they still do or not) be made by Mattel, the toy maker. Far and away cheaper than walnut. That, folks is the real reason. I turned my SP1 A1 AR into a single shot one day when I had to butt stroke a guy who stepped over the perimeter line. Snapped the butt right off the gun. It's true that it knocked the guy out cold, but the buffer spring went flying, and I had to pay $63 out of my own check to replace the stock. If it would have been a combat zone, I would have been in real trouble. Not so if it had been walnut. So maybe you shouldn't pray to the altar of plastic military guns...I know I don't.

Now I know HS and McMillan produce high quality stocks, that is not the issue for me and I don't dispute them being a good product. I just don't buy into all this wood bashing. With proper care a well made wood stock will outlast several generations, and that's with hunting as hard as anyone is able to. These are just my experiences from my own life and hunting trips I have been on.

Just because one can make a crappy wood stock doesn't mean that all wood stocks have problems. Just because some synthetics are made poorly doesn't mean all synthetics are poor.

To some of us, a rifle is more then just a tool. A wooden stock adds something that a plastic stock doesn't, can't, and won't ever. Before you dismiss traditions, you should fully grasp the benefits of old school. Even though I'm a youngin, there are many modern conveniences I do without, and find that doing so enriches my life.

Too many animals have been taken the world over by blued wood stocked rifles to dismiss them as unreliable.

It is a personal choice, but what it should really boil down to is, all rifleman will benefit from a good stock.

Two seasons ago, I went on a pack-in drop camp type trip in the Glacier Peak Wilderness of central WA state. The first four days was nothing but mist and fog. EVERYTHING was wet. On the fifth day (still dampish, intermittent rain) I put two bullets exactly where I wanted to put them from a rock rest at 200 yards. Both behind shoulder of deer, about three inches apart, but deer was quartering slightly towards me and I got one lung and liver with each. Rifle: (gasp) Rem. 700 in 280, blued, wood stock, (double gasp) oil finish.

Synthetic: ugly as sin. Often loud. Unnecessary, in my opinion. You cannot make a hollow plastic drum sound with a wood rifle in the woods.

Wiped it down every night with paper towel. Using pre-oiled patch (kept in pack in a ziploc) wiped down all steel parts. Takes two minutes. All for a quiet, muted-colored setup that doesn't look like a man waving a white stick in the woods.

This talk about synthetics only for hunting is pure bunk. Float your barrel, finish your channel, oil your steel, and go hunting. Both hunting rifles of mine are blued and wear wood. I hunt in western WA often, and my stuff doesn't rust or warp.

JMO, of course.

Synthetic has its perks but most wooden stocks will easily outlast their owner. What more do you want?

Like the fat person who can diet, a beat up old outdated wodden stock can be refinished into a work of art. An ugly drab gob of polywhatever will always be ugly! The rest is insignificant..

Synthetics are cheaply cloned looking stocks to me. You seen one youve seen them all, they make me think of things like spam and made in China. I wonder how well these modern unwarpable marvells would respond to extreme heat, like being too near to an atv exhaust or inside a closed vehicle on a hot day for long periods?

[This message has been edited by Wstrnhuntr (edited 12-29-2001).]

Production

Arms

Manufacturing

I rest my case.

I especially enjoyed the convincing butt stroke "test"(grin). That was a stretch. I suppose the walnut stocked M-14,is a superior butt stroking implement,than the same weapon wearing a McMillan stock? Please....

Argueing that the 2pc stock of the M-16 broke,has nothing to do with anything. If you want to make comparisons,add something of substance.

I'm of the utilitarian mindset. I like simplicity,durability and ruggedness,especially in my Hunting Rifles. A high end synthetic delivers that,in a manner that wood cannot.

Granted,a quality blank,seasoned and sealed properly,is less prone to adversity than the typical wood stock,from off the shelf. If you like wood,it can be made serviceable.

However,it will always be second fiddle,regarding utility,as compared to a quality synthetic. Simply put,a good synthetic will NEVER warp,wander or get "weird".

A stainless steel/synthetic stocked rifle,is your best bet,regarding the sound defeat of the elements. The importance of that,to each individual,will vary greatly. Most of that,due to locale.

Here in SE Alaska,a blued rifle will rust overnight,if left exposed(I've seen my own,do it). Faster,when exposed to salt-spray,while boating around. Bores will rapidly pit also. I don't like the idea of Hunting an even lightly-oiled bore,I much prefer the piece of mind of it being fouled,so there is no question regarding the POI of the first poke. Yes,I religously tape my muzzle,but water invariably finds it way where you don't want it. That has been the death of more than one blued barrel.

So if Hunting a rifle,that is extremely rugged,durable,weather resistant and of extreme accuracy,makes others believe it was the "Magic" of a GunWriter that swayed my choices? They have wildly missed their guess,despite the amusing entertainment value..................

Amusing indeed!

Tom A. Ive heard stories of mixing Jack Daniels, campfires and firearms.. Have you tried torching one of your synthetics yet?

Seriously though I think there is more than face value to beauty in a gun. I am of the mindset that a firearm is to be handled very carefully at all times and I believe that considering ones arm something like a work of art rather than just a tool enforces that idea. Again I agree that synthetic does have its upside, especially from a manufacturers point of view, its just not for me.

[This message has been edited by Wstrnhuntr (edited 12-31-2001).]

The crack you are describing is a the standard wrist crack you will get with a Ruger M77 if it has not been properly bedded! I seriously doubt that the rifle stock cracked in transit. It most likely was a recoil generated crack and was there (even if undetected) prior to shipping. For all you lovers of plastic. I have shot big guns most of my life. I have broken many wooden stocks. Lets face it even a very dull wedge will eventually split your firewood. When shooting the big guns I shoot that is just par for the course. That said I have a couple (oops one) friend that is an excellent stock maker (and I can carve then too if I am so disposed to) so that I can continue to get my fix. I like wood and will continue to use it. It must be properly inletted, bedded (crucial), cured (again crucial), and quartersawn (again crucial). I find that thin shelled and northern US eastern black walnut (Read NOT OREGON OR PNW BLACK WALNUT)perform the best. English obviously is the standard for a big bore anyway. Also, if anyone starts down the slamming of eastern black walnut one more time I will go insane. So many people of this website confuse eastern black with that soft and worthless pacific northwest claro. While the PNW wood is fine for lighter calibers (300 Mag, 7mm Mag, etc) it is wholely unacceptable for the big guns. It goes too fast is is too soft. It is possible to get crappy eastern black also. Examples would be wood from southern states and/or grown is a swamp. These specimens have the same issues as the PNW claro. Eastern black is the densest and hardest walnut on average and that statement is all inclusive of the world's walnuts.

All that said, I have used the synthetic stocks and knocked the crap out of them also. Of particular excitement is when the alunimum bedding block come undone from the platic stock and the barreled action rattles around a bit. I will give the synthetic the nod for idoit proofing though. Lets face it, if you are making stocks you will not need to cut, cure, and seal them correctly if they are made out of a synthetic material.

In the end if you want a cheap stock that will most likely provided very repeatable performance go synthetic. If however, you want beauty and functionality you must find someone who knows wood and stock carving. This is not an easy thing to do however. I am fortunate in that I know individuals with these capabilities.

Todd E

------------------
NRA Life member

If you dig wood,field it. I very much enjoy wood,but am not of the finances to have a stock with a beautiful blank,refinished after every Season. I find little charm in beautiful wqood,that is all beat up. I use my rifles,I don't talk about using them. Nor would I Hunt wood,when high end synthetics are available to me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is an immeasureable charm,to fielding a rifle that is essentially impervious,in regards to weather and time.

Here's my idea of form and function and will surely get the Purists SCREAMING...........

[This message has been edited by Big Stick (edited 12-31-2001).]

The M-16 story that you find amusing but no point to was in response to the earlier post about military using plastic stocks for everything now and how somehow that just proves that they are better. Now I know it's a long thread, but try to keep up. That is one field experience that I have with plastic stocks that I am not impressed with. I did not mention McMillan stock in the story, it was a plain jane Mattel stock. Like I said, try to keep up.

As to your rifles making me scream...get over yourself. If you like them, fine. I will certainly not envy you of them. To me they are ugly as sh*t, and I wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. But then that is only my personal tastes and opinions...others are probably drooling on their keyboards at them. To each their own. Any animal I shoot with mine will be just as dead as any animal you shoot with yours. And I will be able to hunt mine anywhere you hunt yours. That my friends is what it boils down to. Nuff said. This thread is getting too damn long.

The M-14 comparison I offered,was that of a 1pc walnut stock,as used by the Military. The same weapon wearing a McMillan(also used by the Military,on that weapon,due to it's superiority over walnut),is definately more rugged. Both in withstanding recoil impulse in the bedding areas and for butt-stroking(extreme durability),should such a need arise. Thus,it is a just comparison,that equally weighs the attributes of walnut vs. a high end synthetic.(Was that too fast for you?).

Wood has,can and will work. It's only virtue over a synthetic,is NOT a mechanical feature,it is simply in "looks". To weigh walnut and synthetic on an even balance,is inaccurate. The mechanical superiority,inherent in a high end synthetic,is far superior to the fanciest of woods.

I have "lookers" of fine wood,but my "users" are all of a high end synthetic,McMillan the best in my opinion...............

Sure, manufacturers love synthetic, they are dirt cheap and can be mass produced by the truck load for next to nothing compared to wood. Synthetics are fine for some, in fact I wish more would use them so the good wood stocks would be easier to come by.

Big Bores,
Go puke your heart out! As they say "Traditions die hard!"

sure-shot

You flatter yourself,to think I'd waste my time,TRYING to influence you. You made half-cocked remarks,that spewed as if they were fact. However,upon closer examination,you were tossing forth a feeble guess at best.

If you like Hot Pink,I have one of those too(grin)..........

You're the one trying to make me "puke", (read influence). As if. None of my remarks are NOT based in facts. I only talked of real world experiences that I have had with my own equipment. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your preconcieved ideas of how the world is supposed to be. "Feeble guess"? You wish. As I have said, it's all about taste and personal preference, shoot what you want. I'll guaranty my equipment will hunt any climate or environment that yours will. And like I said, that MY FRIEND, is the point that needs to be made. Now I have spent too much time with this rather silly thread and it now seems to be turning rather immature, I therefore choose to retire from it as this horse has been beaten to death.

Do what you want and shoot what you want. Just don't confuse personal preferences and personal opinions with facts, OK?

Further,you spout that walnut will never warp. Again,feeble at best.

Though I certainly know and understand the means employed,to combat that happening. Bottom line,a factory issued stock,will warp rather easily. Especially,in my neck of the woods. That is not marketing hype,just cold hard facts.

A thoroughly massaged walnut stock,is still inferior,to a direct comparison of a high end synthetic,in regards to fending the elements. I yacked at Kelly McMillan just yesterday and ordered another A-2 Tactical(in black/white swirl,to comfort you),for a heavy Lilja barreled 7-08. He didn't mention the Gun Rags as being his Dad's reason to go into business.

Though it is odd,his first design,was for the then Marine Sniper rifle(HTG/M40A1)and is a mainstay in their lineup today. I had to give a little more than your prescribed $63 for it to. I did well on it,for $300. That is inexpensive,as compared to a highly figured walnut blank,but infinitely superior in strength,durability and rigidity.

Then you state:" If you guys want to play with plastics,fine,but at least admit to yourselves and to us that you only do so because you bought into the gunwriters hype of all time. What a scam". That was an especially emotional tirade,I was nearly moved to tears(with laughter). Peruse the upper echelon of any rifle discipline and search for walnut. Call the builders of those rifles and quiz them on their being duped,by some Gun Rag Writer. Synthetics dominate,for a simplistic reason. They are without doubt,more stable and that is an asset. Purists tend to opt laminate,as a gentle compromise. It sacrifices attributes to the synthetic,but is more stable than wood.

Your most recent Post,says that all you mention has been based upon fact. The FACT is,I can't tell if your playing dumb,or if it just comes naturally?

Anyway,it is always amusing to hear someone so lavishly boast their ignorance. Marvelous work,please keep it up..............

You have stated repeatedly that the synthetics are stronger than walnut. I can appreciate your opinion, but I cannot accept it as fact until I see a comparison of material mechanical properties. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable regarding the synthetics can you please tell me what the shear strength, compressive strength, and impact strength or notch sensitivity for the synthetic material that you stock is made of? Also, if you could post the shear and rupture strength of walnut also.

This will put an end to the argument once and for all. We will all be able to see the hard FACTS with regard to which material is stronger!

Todd E

Big Stick- Nice guns. Are the stocks made of marble or is that dyed Zebra hide glued over top of wood?

I can(and have for friends)taken a McMillan A-2 Tactical and laid it across a ceiling beam,in the middle of the stock. Then grabbing the butt in one hand,the forend in the other,done chin ups.

Sheer strength? Couldn't help you. Tensile strength? Couldn't help you. Rupture strength? Couldn't help you. Proof? Couldn't help you.

You seem computer literate,peruse the available resources,ask some questions for yourself. Visit the various Forums,quiz the gents in the know. Quiz the various builders of rugged duty rifles,perhaps they could give you Scientific data,that would put your mind at ease. Quiz some Military Armorers and get an opinion from them. Call Norm Chandler. Call Robbie Barkman. Call Kenny Jarret. Call Jim Borden. Call Dan Lilja. Of those you quiz,ask them how many deem walnut as the equal of a McMillan,in strength,durability,weatherproofness,tensile strength,blah,blah,blah. There are some rather amazing consistencies,that you'll find(though of course,you already know the answer).

I'm just a meat and taters guy. Scientific formulae,is not my long suit. I've seen wood fail,including laminate(my LSS 300Win,to be specific). I've yet to see one of my McMillan's even lose stride. Though they are without a doubt,infinately superior,I can't tell you the mechanical numbers to support that finding.

Be curious,to hear your findings(grin)..............

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd E:

This will put an end to the argument once and for all. We will all be able to see the hard FACTS with regard to which material is stronger!

Todd E[/B]

---

Todd E,
You are asking for technical data which I am sure is available if one is willing to search for it. If the military snipers are not using wood there is proof enough. Nobody is saying wood fails all the time just that it will fail before a good synthetic will. Bigstick owns and uses both in adverse environments, he knows what works and what does not period. Synthetic stocks are not a product of marketing hype, they were born out of need for a more rugged stock period. This is the year 2002, the age of superior materials and manufactoring methods has arrived. The old school is having a very hard time swallowing these facts, change is always tough I agree. sure-shot

Once again I call to you to pay attention. It seems you are either putting words in my mouth or just only reading what you want to read and overlooking the rest. I call to you to re read my ORIGINAL POST on the thread, as well as the second. You seem to be laboring under false pretenses. For your benifit alone I will re-hash (again!) what it is I have said. I will type slowly so you can keep up...

I said in my original post...I have never had a stock warp, crack or break...and...A properly inletted, and finished stock will last many lifetimes, and that's hunted hard in all weather too. I said that if you are breaking wood stocks it is because you have done something stupid with it (and I do count letting a horse fall on one as "stupid", get off the damn horse and take the rifle out in rough terrain, sling it acrossed your back and lead the horse over the rough spots). I also said that the "anti-wood" fad is a gunwriters fed hype, and I think I even said scam.

In my second post...If you guys have had trouble with wood, it is because either the wood was not properly cured, inletted, or finished...that is just my experience hunting in wet weather outside of AZ...My guns are mostly 20 years old and older and still wear the original stocks...

The whole m-16 thing was in response to another post where a guy is in love with synthetics because the military uses them (that was his reason for liking them). I relayed the FACT that the military only went to plastic (on the m-16, YOU mentioned the military sniper Mcmillans, I did not) for cost, and the FACT that I broke one. I DID NOT SAY that since I broke a m-16 stock that all synthetic stocks are crap.

At the end of the same post I even said HS and McMillan stocks were high quality, and that I don't dispute it.

Like I said, pay attention.

I never said that wood was better than synthetic. NEVER.

I NEVER SAID no one has EVER broken a wood stock or had one warp. I said I have never had it happen to me. I have also never seen it happen in ANY hunt camp I have ever been in. I also doubt that MOST people have EVER had a problem with wood ( I did not say no one had). I also didn't say ALL wood stocks are good. Truly there are some crappy wood stocks out there, most, however are not factory high grade walnut, OR high grade, properly done custom stocks.

What I did say is that all this wood bashing is bull, and that a PROPERLY made wood stock will last several lifetimes. I also said that I can hunt my wood stocked guns ANYWHERE you can hunt your synthetics. And I can. Now I am REALLY GETTING TIRED of the immature remarks, this thread is turning into a kindergarden, so I am through with it. OK? Were you able to retain what you read this time?? Stop reading only what you want to and stop claiming I said things that I did not. I hope I didn't lose you this time...

------------------
Howard
Moses Lake WA
hhomes@homesley.com

Like I said,I've got purty wood for gawking at,but it's synthetics for duty use. That is a subjective choice,based upon my personal level of expectation,from my rifles. If balsa is your preferred stock material,that is your business,just don't try to impress upon me it's superiority. It won't fly.

Why? Because I've yet to have a knife too sharp. Boots that were too dry. Binoculars that were too clear. A backpack that was too comfortable. A dog that was too good. A barrel that was too accurate. A stock that was too tough.

Conversely,I've experienced the flipside of all those positive things. The choice is easy,when an option is available and difference is more than noticeable.

I've only broken two stocks. One was walnut,the other the aforementioned laminate. I've never been close enough to a horse to ride one,so couldn't comment upon that.

I've suffered a warped fore-end and seen it several other times on pards rifles. The event that happened to me,cost me the biggest Mule Deer I'll ever likely see. Total POI shift,of a large magnitude,due to serious warping. I'd wish none of those events on anybody and they'll certainly not happen to me again. Life is full of lessons,I've learned several. Regarding the rifle,a sound stock is paramount to predictable results.

Walnut will be third fiddle in that department,behind both a great glass stock and a good laminate. If one is willing to knowingly make that sacrifice,that is his own business. To trump the lesser of the offerings,as being equal or better,is folly.

Sure you can Hunt your wood stocks ANYWHERE you choose. You can also sell your truck and walk. You can also sell your house and sleep in a cardboard box. You can go back to blackpowder. Etc. I'm just relating,that there is a better way and you dispute it.

My contention is simple and without deviation. There are superior materials for a rifle stock,than walnut. Not Rocket Science. Wood "bashing" permeates,for a sole reason. Wood,has,can and will continue to fail,in the most demanding of environments. A high end synthetic,will not. It is that simple. Wood stocks don't warp,because a guy reads of a similiar event,in a Gun Rag.

Don't feel slighted. I accurately read you,from start to finish. Though now your tune begins to change. I'm astute and miss very little.

Debate isn't one of my strengths,but I'll continue to try,if it helps you............

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Stick:

I can(and have for friends)taken a McMillan A-2 Tactical and laid it across a ceiling beam,in the middle of the stock. Then grabbing the butt in one hand,the forend in the other,done chin ups.
....

---

Exactly how do you do that without bumping your head?

Teh following information is lab collected data from various sources including, DuPont, US Forest Products, etc.

Walnut (all varieties)

Compressive strength parallel to grain (quartersawn blank): 7580 - 12100 psi (this is the crushing stength)

Toughness (Izod Impact notch sensitivity):
20 - 25 ft-lbs.

Fiberglass reinforced epoxy or polyester

Compressive strength: 9500 - 12000 psi

Toughness (Izod Impact notch sensitivity):
8 ft-lbs.

The data above is representative of materials that would be encountered in most gunstock materials. It is rather obvious that the walnut has a much greater degree of variation associated with it than the composite material. It is also obvious that the walnut has a greater impact strength that the composite. Now McMillan's standard stock is a fiberglass and epoxy laminate. They do manufacture a graphit reinforced composite, which will be stronger, but that is a special.

What this data says is. Is that an exceptional piece of walnut will easily beat a peice of plastic in the strength category. It also says that there will be many many more weaker walnut stocks than composite stocks due to the larger degree of variation in materials properties associated with walnut (and wood in general).

To boil it down somemore this is the deal. The composite material stocks will be much more consistant and cheaper to manufacture than the walnut stocks. They composites will also requuire less maintenance. Both of those are fairly major considerations for many hunters, as well as, militaries. That said an exceptional walnut stock is still stronger than the composite (exclusive of graphite) and properly cured and sealed should be just as stable. By definition, an exceptional walnut stock will be free of residual stresses which help create warpage.

Now these are facts not opinions. Can we put this argument to rest!

Todd E

A corvette has it all over a mini-van when all you do is look at statistics. Does that make it the superior vehicle?

------------------
Howard
Moses Lake WA
hhomes@homesley.com