Based off of the data I have collected statistically speaking the synthetics are marginally better. In the real world with the variability of wood the synthetics have an even greater edge.

Now I personally think the synthetics are ugly and as the data in my previous post indicates with a very good to exception blank are not as good as the walnut. Of particular interest is the poor impact load carrying capability of the synthetic. The forcing function imparted to the stock from the barreled action is an impact function. The data clearly indicates that notches are to be avoided like the plague with a synthetic, while walnut is three times less sensitive. The notch sensitivity of the synthetic material also explains the use by many synthetic stockers of the aluminum bedding block. As with all things engineered however, the notch sensitivity of the synthetic material can be designed around with great success.

Now having said all that I will continue to hand pick the blanks for my personal rifles and hunt with walnut on my guns! I can appreciate that some people prefer the near maintenance free life afforded by synthetic, but it simply is not my preference. The data clearly indicates that from a strength stand point and with the forcing function induced by the average hunting rifle cartridge (read 375 H7H or smaller) the two materials are a wash. If pushed to heavier calibers I would opt for walnut with straight grain nothing fancy as the fancy wood regardless of species is weak and too variable to be dependable in my opinion!

With regard to Bigsticks comment about chin ups with a synthetic stock. My chin up bar down in my basement is a 1.25" diameter black walnut dowel (left over from a furniture job) 3' long with supports dropped down from the floor joists 24" on centers. I routinely (several days a week) do 40 pull ups a day and have dones so for years, by the way, I weigh about 215 pounds and I do not do all 40 at once either usually it is 15 - 15 - 10. To date I haven't broken the dowel. Having said that it (the dowel) will most likely snap in half on my next pull up (ouch).

It was my sincerest wish that by posting the actual material properties of significance that we could end this pointless bickering. I mean honestly both materials work well one needing more skill and maintenance than the other so this argument is both pointless and senseless.

Todd E

BUT curiously enough,non of the naysayers have bothered to contact those in the know. Nobody can submit a single name of repute,that favors the inherent "strengths" of walnut,over a quality synthetic.

Why? Because the gents that build rugged duty rifles for a living,all use synthetic and McMillan is the landslide percentage. If walnut were superior,it would be the element used.

There are rifles and then there are RIFLES. Different men,have different levels of expectation. There are numerous rungs in the ladder to quality and durability. I'd not equate a Mossberg 30-06,to being on the same page as a NULA. Some might,but not me.

At the highest level of expectation and delivered performance,there are amazing consistencies. Synthetics are alone,at the upper echelon of accuracy and durability. That is hardly a well kept secret,despite so many guys,being in the dark.

I've no vested interest with any Manufacturer. I'm just a schmuck that's been around the block,a time or two. I am a nobody.

Rather than settle for second best,I'm happy to ante up,for the best of what's available. Today,this very second,McMillian is without peer. I've used the other high end glass stocks and only Rimrock comes close. If/when a superior product comes along,I'll have one. Not because I'm chasing the impossible,but because I'm serious enough about my activities,that eliminating equipment failure very much interests me.

I've broken stocks,it is no fun. The Hunt was over. It won't ever happen again.

Todd,your sense of humor is intact. Take your favorite walnut stock and drape it over the top of the dowel. Hold the butt in one hand,the fore end in the other. When you light on your ass,with a two piece stock,you'll begin to savvy the obvious.

I don't expect to be able to quantify the superiority of synthetics,to the naysayers. That of course despite,the facts being amazingly obvious.

There are legions of Tasco fans,that is their business. Some are convinced a high end aftermarket S/S barrel,is a giant waste of money. Hell,I've met guys that thought their Bushnell binoculars were as good as Zeiss(until they looked through mine). I've seen and heard it all.

If you can't discern the difference between a McMillan and a walnut stock,regarding functional utility and durability,I'd not mutter that too loud. It means you are blind,Hunt in an underground tunnel or are simply none too bright.

Personally,I'd not brag on any of that. But my thinking often deviates from the masses..............

I am obviously wasting time trying to explain to you how to engineer a stock. Synthetics are better only in that they provide a much smaller variation than walnut. McMillan stocks are nice, but the obsolute best is a metallic stock. Fiberglass doesn't hold up well on heavy recoling guns (like the 50 BMG). On those bad boys we use aluminum or magnesium often with synthetic attachments for fitting to the shooter.

Your suggestion of laying one of my walnut stocks over the dowel and do a pull up is interesting. I will try it I have an english walnut stock that has a small crack in the wrist caused by contact with the tang. You do realize though that a rifle stock under recoiling from the shot does not load a stock in bending like your "test" will.

I get the feeling that you do not like me. I truly do not understand why. I do not have anything against synthetics. I believe that you said that you have not broken a synthetic. I have broken two McMillan stocks from excessive recoil. You need to play with big guns my friend if you want to learn which stocks are better. As I said ealier with the heavy hitters use metal.

I will let you know how many pull ups I get with the old stock.

Todd E

OK, I have done the Bigstick test. The stock had a small crack in extending from the tang about 1.25" straight down the top of the wrist. Guess what did 12 pull ups (I pussied out tonight couldn't get 15) and the stock is just the same as it was before the "test". Bigstick does this mean I have a good stock?

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 01-03-2002).]

Interesting thread

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

An example was on the cover of Precision Shooting sometime last year. I believe it was a 458 and he mentioned that the laminate stood up to the recoil very well.

A synthetic stock(not the junk injection molded-plastic ones like Ray is refering to) is the best choice for the serious big game hunter. Here's why:
1. Stiffer and more stable = accuracy. How many benchrest shooters still use wood?
2. Lighter if you wish, there are several synthetic stocks which are light but still strong and accurate.
3. The finishes can be touched up easily whether its paint or gel-coat epoxy.
4. Extremely forgiving if you do the work yourself(pillar bedding, recoil pad,studs)with wood once its material is gone its gone!
5. Highly repairable if damaged. Miracles can happen if an accident occurs. This applies to wood but to a lessor degree.
6. Warp-free. This is a no brainer! Under equal conditions wood will always warp first!!!
7. Warranty. All the top synthetic stockmakers back up their products. Try that with the wood people.

I'm not anti-wood, I own both and have hunted hard on many backcountry hunts with both. I've seen wood fail far more times than a good synthetic on these hunts. Ask yourself: Do I want to leave anything to chance? Do I want to bring home trophys?

P.S Contrary to Ray's experiences I've seen more wood stocks broken at the pistol grip from horse falls, PU truck seats(stored behind the seat)and quad runner crashes. Alot of old stocks split from solvents and oils soaking in. How many farmer John shotguns do you see with taped up pistol grips?

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 12-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 12-19-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]

Some of what you list as advantages for snthetics are true these would be points 2, 3, 4, & 5.

The other points are incorrect.
Synthetics are not stiffer than the average piece of walnut. Young's modulus for walnut is higher; therefore, walnut is stiffer.

Synthetics can warp and they become weaken at temperature is increased. What this means is that as they get hotter they are less strong and less stiff. Wood on the other hand hardens with temperature, which can reduce its impact strength.

Warranty, that is a very subjective category. Many manufacturers of firearms will replace cracked stocks even after the warranty period is over. So I cannot see how anyone can make an effective argument with this category.

You guys are all now trying to argue with physics. News flash, it cannot be done. There is great variation with wood properties which is illustrated in the spread of strengths I posted earlier. This variation is greatly reduced with synthetics, as long as, the processing of those synthetics is tightly controlled.

Todd

That stock was simply cracked and didn't cost me a Hunt,because it never totally came unhinged...........

Second, one only has to search the archives of this excellent forum(A big thank you to Saeed!)to view numerous wood stock failures on the big bores. Why are wood stocks on the big bores always fitted with crossbolts behind the recoil lug? Because wood fails even with that crossbolt! And the owners switch to McMillans!

Third, I always order my McMillans with weatherby fill in the action and forearm, it does not cost a dime more! I always pillar bed using Ceiba Geigi laminating epoxy and Marine Tex. Never a failure! Not one!

In all fairness to wood, a wood stock can be improved by pillar bedding and sealing all internal exposed wood with Brownells acraglass. This will improve accuracy if done right and waterproofness as well. Contrary to one poster tru oil does seal fairly well if applied correctly, it is also easy to touch up. I've done this many times on factory guns 33 bore and under.

I think it all boils down to how much you want to risk failure. I'm a trophy hunter mostly and hunt public land so I take equipment failure seriously. A good synthetic is for me! sure-shot

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 01-04-2002).]

I am not trying to prove that wood is better. I am simply stating the facts of the material properties of walnuts versus synthetics. Wood has a vary large variation in mechanical properties which can be problematic to the stock's durability. The synthetics do not possess this variability if properly processed. Walnut is a natural material, while the synthetic is an engineered material. It is easy to design a durable system when the properties of the material are well known and very predictable. Therefore, I would expect the average synthetic to perform satisfactorily.

The one thing that has been proved out by the lab data is that walnut has the potential to be superior to a synthetic. Statistically speaking I would consider this to be a fairly remote likelihood though. On avgerage the synthetics have a slight edge over walnut.

I am also glad to hear that you have had not problems with you McMillans. My 460 Weatherby Talon has some stock issues and ended up with wood. I like wood better anyway (that is my preference). I do not know how the McMillan stocks are today, although from the endorsments I have heard on this sight they must be good performers. The issue I have is with the guys that say wood is inferior when it isn't. Many blanks are but them many are not. It takes much more skill and knowledge to make a good wooden stock than a synthetic.

Regarding the 50 BMG. The effect of this rifles recoil on the stock is directly proportional to the area of engagement between the recoil lug and the stock material. I can design a 50 BMG that will be less punishing to a stock that say a M77 MkII 300 Win Mag. It is easy and not at all difficult to do. Actual any third year mechanical engineering student should find it a no brainer.

Todd E

Excellent reply, common sense point; I think you said it all...My opinion? Too many shooters!

Can�t add much to this debate that hasn�t been said. Neither is wrong, just personal criteria.

Would you rather travel by train, taking 4 days to cross the country but eating from tables covered by linen tablecloths and using real silverware as you get a close up view of the countryside? Or would you rather get on a sardine can with wings and get there as efficiently and inexpensively as possible?

Would you rather have a �68 Triumph Bonneville and put up with the finicky electrical system and oil on your garage floor, or a new Japanese crotch rocket that would leave a Bonneville in the exhaust smoke?

Do you find beauty only or mostly in form or do you find beauty in the pure functional efficiency of an object?

Neither is wrong, both will do the job, it�s just personal criteria.

Please, everyone, don't get hung up over someone else's criteria.

These wood strength number seem a little optomistic to me (from ToddE):

"Walnut (all varieties)

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

I checked my "Pocket reference" for the strength of common woods. The "Strength of wood beams" table did not have Walnut listed, but the HIGHEST parallel to grain dry compression strength of ANY wood listed was Pine (loblolly, shortleaf and slash tied at 1800 psi). The highest perpendicular to grain strength was only 800 psi, and the highest bending (horizontal shear) strength was 2185 psi. Is all Walnut 4-6 times stronger than the strongest pine?

Another thing to consider, when you make a stock out of wood, you had better pay very close attention to were the grain is running, it will only carry a substantial load with the grain.

Individual carbon fibers can have strengths to 180,000 psi, and carbon fiber composites can rival aircraft aluminum in strength - some to more than 30,000 psi in a given direction.

Most synthetic stocks are not solid (generally laid up over a foam core), thus the stregth is all at the surface of the stock and highly dependent of how many fibers are used at the surface, what the strength of the fibers are, and which way they are oriented (at least you have control over that, unlike wood). If you wanted to, you could build a solid composite stock as strong as aluminum! I guarantee that stock will be stronger than any stick you can find.

Another thought, if wood is stronger/better than fiberglass, how come most boat hulls manufactured today are fiberglass instead of wood?

That said, I like wood (almost all of my guns are stocked in wood), and I have not had any problems with any of them.

Bill

Pine is a soft wood. Walnut is stronger than pine. Anyone that has ever worked with the two materials already knows that. The range of values for the wlanut is a compilation of data obtained for several subspecies of walnut (claro, eastern black, english, turkish, etc). Douglas fir is better than pine too if I remember correctly. At least is holds nails better. I also wouldn't dream of using pine for a gunstock.

If you read my original posts I stated that the mechanical properties for the synthetics are only for epoxies and fiberglass. The properties are not inclusive of graphite (carbon) and/or kevlar reinforced resins. The latter two are stronger than fiberglass. Fiberglass by the way is what you get from McMillan unless you special order something different.

Your comments about wood grain flow are correct and that is one of the reasons that wooden stocks require greater knowledge than the synthetics. I do not mean to insult anyone here, but you simply cannot use soft wood data to describe the hardwoods. If you think walnut is tough, hickory ranges up quite a bit higher than walnut (9000 - 13900).

As to why boat hulls are made of glass. Because they are cheaper and easier to design. I guess my communication skills are lacking or something. When working with an engineered material like fiberglass I know that the compressive strength is 12000 psi; therefore, I can design a gunstock, boat hull, car fender based off of that with a minimal safety factor. If I am using a natural material (wood or stone) the compressive strength may vary from 7580 - 12100 (in the case of walnut) so I must design accordingly with a larger safety factor.

The other advantage of the synthetic is that is has a higher strength to weight ratio than wood. Therefore the synthetic gunstock or boat hull is lighter than a wooden one.

The weight issue is of a considerable consideration in the example of a boat hull as it allows for more ballast to be placed in appropriate locations; therefore, i ncreasing the stability of the boat in heavy waters.

Now I suppose several of you think I am a know it all don't you. Well I do know abit about physics and materials. That doesn't make me a know it all though. It might mean that some of you are ignorant however. I am only trying to enlighten those ignorant individuals so that they are no longer ignorant.

Todd

quote:

---

Originally posted by sure-shot:

Second, one only has to search the archives of this excellent forum(A big thank you to Saeed!)to view numerous wood stock failures on the big bores. Why are wood stocks on the big bores always fitted with crossbolts behind the recoil lug? Because wood fails even with that crossbolt! And the owners switch to McMillans!
]

---

The reason you read about wood stock failures on big bores is, the vast majority of big bores are built with wood stocks, and sadly many smiths and factories are clueless as to how to stock one.

Mitch had one or maybe it was two synthetic stocks fail on his 577 T-rex. I haven't heard that Saeed's stock has failed?

I go back to one of my previous posts, good stocks can be made from either material, and crappy stocks from either material. To say one material is poor because of a poor application is silly. It seems that if folks have a poor experience with one material, they'll damn it for life. Seems to equate to the guy that buys a trashed mil surp mauser, and declares that CRF's aren't reliable or accurate.

A good synthetic stock will be less exspensive then a good wood stock, that is a given. If one is looking for a relatively inexspensive solid stock, then by all means go synthetic. If one wants a finely crafted, beuatiful and functional stock, wood is the way to go. Quality is quality, plain and simple.

Jim,
I don't know if "weatherby-fill" is the same as "heavy- fill". Kelly McMillan or one of the girls could answer your question. I do know there is also a "solid-fill which is even heavier in weight, I would use that one on a bench gun or if weight was not a concern. All of the rifles I have spec'd with weatherby-fill turned out to be tac-drivers, if there was a problem I knew it was not due to lack of stock stiffness.

Paul,
Well said.

Todd,
I don't think anyone would fault you on your technical data. Don't feel bad about Big Stick's comments, he's not convinced my friend spotted a 23" black bear in his neck of the woods either but I still like him. (What my friend did bag were a 21" & a 21,10/16" B&C bears on two different trips, managed to bag them both, one in 99' and the other in 2001 and a self-guided non-res to boot! ) sure-shot

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 01-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 01-05-2002).]

I agree 100% with your last post. That is actually what I was trying to say all along with some additional technical background information. Some people seemed to misconstrue what I was trying to say, oh well. The one thing I hate is the BS that sales reps spew trying to sell their wares. I really was only trying to let everyone know that good wood is on par with synthetics for strength and stiffness, nothing more nothing less.

Sureshot,
Thanks you. For awhile I thought your were P'd off at me too. Nice to know you were not. I personally would opt for synthetic/SS set-up if I were going to hunt in an area which is very wet for an extended period of time. I am just too old and lazy to field strip and clean every night after a long day of hiking.

Todd