All of my serious hunting rifles have syhthetic stocks and are satinless except for one. I've got two model 70's a .375H&h and a .458 lott that are S/S and a searcy double in .470NE. It of course is wood and blue except for the reciever.

Now on the cheesy side.....

A client of mine owed my some $$$ and didn't have the cash so he gave me a rifle....It is an R-93 Blaser. One of those off road timbers. It's a synthetic that from about 12 feet away looks like a walnut stock. I've gotta tell you guys at first I paid it no mind and it sat in my safe for several month before I took it out and shot it. It's got a .300Weatherby barrel on it, it weighs like 6.5 lbs it's got a short overall length and it is an absolute tack driver. I've since killed two deer and an elk with it.

Speaking of a functuional tool. It's just so plasticey and wierd that I don't know if I'll ever truely bond with this rifle. Kind of reminds me of a Glock in some ways but I use them quite often as well.

So the question is were do you draw the line between function and nostalgics. I think function is the key in a working rifle no matter the looks. And these are the ones I invariably grab to hunt with never mind the weather as it has a tendancy to change especially when least expected.

That's a good question. I guess I draw the line at the point where nostalgia begins to interfere with durability and performance.

I might be odd, but I don't fine synthetic-stocked rifles to be ugly. If the metalwork is good and the stock shape is good, and the whole rifle flows together and looks like quality, the result is a handsome rifle. If I know the rifle I'm looking at is highly accurate, feeds perfectly, and never shifts zero, then it becomes a whole lot more handsome!

I'm amazed at the number of pretty rifles I've encountered over the years that were disfunctional.........

AD

This is what I want.



www.shootingsports.com/mcmillan/catalog/stocks.htm#fiber

'99,

They look good in the photo, dont they? I wonder how they are up close and personal though? Kind of sounds like a synthetic with wallpaper. If you get one be sure to let us know what you think..

There use to be wood used in cars when they were around for first 50 years.I use to look for the prettiest wood I could find.I now look for the best synthetic I can hold on to in the rain and snow.I Have both Ruger and remington synthetic guns and Weatherby I hunt with on regular basis.I like stainless also.I about ruined my wood stocked blued Ruger on my first Alaska 10 day hunt.After that I was totally converted.

That link is to a 1996 catalog! The Fibregrain has been discontinued as far as I know.

Heck, I used to have a plastic stocked Stevens shotgun that had grain in the material. That gun must have been made in the 1950's.

With all the technological advances today I don't see why I can't have a quality plastic stock with a nice look to it?

In many other threads on this forum I have seen people state that they think Winchester charges way too much for their custom shop guns. And I am wondering if Winchester made the exact same quality Rifle as Darcy Echols with these quality synthetic stocks, and charged the same amount for them (a bit over $xxxx arent' they) would people buy them, or would they claim Winchester was charging too much for their guns.

Blue

The reality is, for the price Winchester charges for their Custom Shop rifles, a superior product could had from an independent gunsmith for the same money. Or less money for that matter. That includes superior components and service.

I believe the Winchesters CS does a good job of making a D'Arcy Echols Legend look like a bargain!

Chuck

Wood stocks are better if you hunt out in the really cold weather. Wood will warm up in your hands, but sythetics stay cold.

I have just ordered a Remington 700 Titanuim as an everyday lightwieght that can get scratched up and not have me worry about it.

That said, I took my good old faithfull (wood/blued).375H&H to Canada last November, (-30) it has done African trips, I have the same rifle in Australia.

I've never actually experienced the problems that should be associated with woooden stocks, maybe because all my rifles are bedded.

One thing is for sure, a beat up wood stock sure is a whole lot uglier than a beat up plastic, which doesn't have much to loose in the first place.

Chuck

I guess I don't know because most of the time I am happy if I have "a rifle" when hunting season comes around (lots of actions but few completed rifles), but again, the question is, if Winchester was making the same product as Mr. Echols (same exact quality) or any factory for that matter, would people complain that the factory was charging too much as opposed to what a two man shop is charging?

Blue

I hunt with the best tool for the job. On rare occasions that is a wood stocked big bore for DG in Africa, but most often it is an Echols Legend. That rifle wears a 'glass stock an is w/o doubt the best feeling of any I have owned or handled. It is easily the most durable and will handle the widest diversity in weather conditions, as opposed to wood. For a serious rifle to be used anywhere and under all conditions I just can't see myself using anything but a fiberglass stock in the future.



Blue-

I don't think any factory could/would turn out a rifle to equal anything that Darcy builds. They don't have the skilled labor inhouse and wouldn't pay enough to get it. They also rely far too heavily on CNC machinery, which is a poor substitute for skilled handwork by a "real" craftsman.

As for price, of course the general buying public would declare it to be much too expensive. They say the same thing about an Echols Legend now. Perfection has never been cheap, readily available or appreciated by any but a small few.

John

Having owned a rolex watch and hasselblad and sinar cameras, I will certainly admit that perfection has never been cheap. But then the word perfection is a very very subjective term indeed.

I might agree that the fiberglass stock is the way to go (closest I ever came was a factory synthetic on a Model 70 .338 Stainless)due to the fact that it doesn't change with varying weather conditions, but I might also argue that a factory rifle that feeds perfectly (yes even with unloaded cases cycled upside down) that puts 3 shot well under an inch at 100 yards (about 10 inches smaller than I can shoot) might be "perfect".

Blue

Blue-
Feeding empty cases upside down and/or shooting sub moa groups are usually not done by factory rifles unless they've been considerably worked over by a skilled gunsmith. That said, anything is possible! BUT, doing those two things alone doesn't make a rifle perfect, not by a long shot. True perfection is indeed somewhat subjective and my ownership of a Legend rifle might bias my opinion of them but that is the end result of many years of trying about every other option in rifles. From factory customs to "beanfield" specials to O'Connor classics, none have have even remotely approached the overall package the Legend rifle is. Not in it's perfection of operation and function, reliability to maintain zero under any and all conditions, not in sub moa accuracy with ANY load I care to use in it, not just one "tune" loading. Not in the scope mounts' ability to retain zero with another pre-sighted scope. But again, perfection is usually in the eye of the beholder.

John

Well said. Touche

Blue

"Having owned a rolex watch and hasselblad and sinar cameras, I will certainly admit that perfection has never been cheap."





Having researched watches when I considered buying a high priced mechanical movement in the past,I would suggest that you check out the accuracy of the high dollar mechanical movements that rolex uses.Then compare that accuracy to that of a quartz movement costing 10% as much.You will discover that the quartz movements are more accurate in spite of being so much cheaper.When you buy a rolex you are paying much more to have one of the best "mechanical watches" not one of the most accurate timepieces.





"or shooting sub moa groups are usually not done by factory rifles unless they've been considerably worked over by a skilled gunsmith".





I have owned several totally stock factory rifles that would consistantly shoot sub moa with their favorite handloads.

Stubble, I would respectfully submit to you that the accuracy of a Quartz watch is exactly zero when the batteries run out. I think the thing about Rolex's is that they always work and always have a little snob value. I still wear quartz because Rolex doesn't make a calculator watch yet ......DJ

Never Mind

Chuck nelson posted



"I like how you only posted part of that quote Stubblejumper."





Well chuck I really couldn't care less what you like but for the record I only posted part of the quote because I was only responding to that part of the quote.I didn't feel that it was worth reponding to whether or not a rifle would feed upside down because I(like almost everyone here) have no intention of shooting it upside down.





"Stubble, I would respectfully submit to you that the accuracy of a Quartz watch is exactly zero when the batteries run out. I think the thing about Rolex's is that they always work and always have a little snob value"





Djpaintless-I don't need the snob value and I don't mind changing a battery every six years.I wear a luminox myself because if they were designed to be durable enough for the navy seals,I expect that they won't fail me.

Reguardless of what else was discussed in the post,I only have issue with the one statement that I chose to respond to.The fact that the poster thinks the legend is such a great rifle does not change the fact that contrary to the posters statement, many factory rifles will shoot sub moa groups right from the factory.The tikkas for example have to shoot moa or better before leaving the factory.

I prefer the look of wood on certain rifles & I appreciate beautiful timber but synthetic stocks are practical and on some guns are more suited than wood.

Horses for courses in some respects to....no one could say they could not appreciate some of the awsome timber that some rifles are stocked in...wether it's practical

stubblejumper-
While you might take issue with my statement, please notice I did say "usually" and that is what my own experience has been. I can usually get a varmint type rifle to shoot sub moa with several loads, but getting a typical sporter in a big game chambering to do so....hasn't happened very often for me. Maybe you have owned more factory rifles in the past 35yrs than I have, or been luckier than myself in getting that one in ? that will do as suggested.
My criteria for judging a rifle is not based solely on accuracy. I consider that one of the less important issues to be dealt with simply because getting good hunting accuracy from a rifle is not that difficult in most cases. Again, it's the whole package I'm after.

I don't have any synthetic stocks and won't have any synthetic stocks. I hate marking a wooden stock but at some point I'm going to be too old to hunt and I'm going to treasure every scratch.

The one that aggravated me the most was a freak snow storm I got caught in. As I was trudging off the mountain I kept hearing something clicking but was too tired and cold to waste time figuring it out. When I finally got into camp, and got warm enough to care, I saw that my coattail had blown up over my cartridge belt. The grip on my stock was knocking against the head of a cartrige with every step. It put a pretty good set of new "checkering" on the stock, but it wasn't the end of the world.

The fact that the poster thinks the legend is such a great rifle does not change the fact that contrary to the posters statement, many factory rifles will shoot sub moa groups right from the factory.The tikkas for example have to shoot moa or better before leaving the factory.

Stubblejumper,

It is not just a case of what a rifle will do for its best group with its best load but rather how easy it does it all. An analogy I might use is driving a powerful V8 compared to a small 4 cyclinder car. Sure, in taffic and with speed limits there won't be too much difference in the time taken from A to B. However, the big V8 just does it so nice and easy.

Let me use the 270 as an example. I have had the 270 in about every configuration of rifle up to an including straight barrel bench style guns. Now in a Heavy varmint taper barrel (rifle will weigh about 13 pounds on a Rem 700)you will be doing well to average .5". Of course many groups will be an oval hole but .5" will be around the true number. Now I can absolutely assure that such a rifle will shit all over a factory 270 sporter where the claim is .75". The very accurate rifle just does it all much easier and over an extremely wide range of loads and wide range of barrel conditions.

In other words the owners of the Echols rifles that are saying it shoots .7" or whatever have rifles that simply do that so easily.

Lastly, I come from a strong bench rest background and my best shooting mate is just the opposite. Between us we have an agreement whereby when we report on accuracy results of a rifle he divides my reported grouping by 2 and I multiply his reported grouping by 2. In other words when I report that a Model 70 270 shot about 1.5" he reckons that is .75" with how he would test a rifle.

Mike

If that's the whole enchilada, then there would be no reason for anyone, anywhere to ever have a custom rifle built. Just go out and buy a Tikka and be done with it. Since it shoots good groups out of the box, what more you do need? After all, the only way to evaluate the quality, performance, and worth of a rifle is by evaluating the groups it makes on paper off the bench. What else is there, right? Why spend more? Who would ever need to?


AD

Allen said "what else is there, right"

Well, again, even when one doesn't own a Legend, there certainly is the "whole package" of the hunt. The pleasure of thinking about the hunt, the pleasure of planning for the hunt, the pleasure of going shopping to get stuff you need, the pleasure of actually hunting, and certainly the pleasure of being proud of what one has chosen for his or her equipment. Probably a lot like buying clothes or a car.
One could always wear jeans and one could drive an old beater, but sometimes there is just plain old pleasure and pride of ownership, and pleasure in being complemented for what you have by other people.

Even though I do not own any expensive rifles, I surely complement those who do own them, and I think of all of the fun they must have had in planning them and working with the maker in finally getting them done.

I think David Miller once said it best. These expesive custom rifles are "functional elegance", and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

Blue

Allen
It has become apparent to most gun manufacturers that most new gun buyers sole criteria is benchrest accuracy. I need a new snappy answer to people who are delighted about their new rifle's accuracy.

Show me the data where Tikka has a 1" standard for their rifles to leave the factory. Allen, et all, you are wasting your time in trying to explain things to some. How many times has it been said that accuracy is but one component( albeit an important one) that makes a great rifle? It is obvious that no matter how convincing your post is, they'll never admit to being wrong.

To them,if your rifle were to walk on water, they would say "yeah, that's because it can't swim." jorge

Jorge, you're right. "Let no man exceed their reach....."

AD

Synthetic - I worry too much about wooden stocks.
- mike

The simple facts of the matter are, I think, obvious. A Rolex watch, a D'Arcy Echols rifle, a Leica or Zeiss binocular, a fine custom knife or handmade boots are not for everyone; some of us use such equipment simply because it works better than anything else, under all field conditions and some do not use it due to factors of price, reverse snobbery or lack of motivation.

In my case, I wore a Rolex watch for many years working in forestry and I witnessed several of the high-tech electronic marvels disintegrate under bush conditions. Now, I don't wear mine because I have no need for a watch, being a retired gunaholic.

I have owned a lot of big game rifles over the past 40 years and I have sold guns for a living and noticed which ones returned to the shop for warrantee work and/or repair.

I think that, for a serious hunter, a "Legend" rifle is a very sound buy; I have NEVER heard a complaint from anyone who has ever used/owned one and that is not the case with any other custom riflemaker I know of.

I also am very sceptical about any claims for accuracy made by any contemporary gunmaker; my hands-on experience tends to show that there is a certain amount of inflation in their claims. I also agree with those posters that point out that small groups are not the sole, or even the most important aspect of a hunting rifle.

If, I were younger, I would buy a "Legend" in .338 as my one and only rifle, if D'Arcy could deliver more promptly, I would probably sell off most of what I now have and get one, anyway. If, I win a lottery, I will get a full set!

I certainly agree in regards to a rifles reliability being foremost. What I'm missing here is where the insinuation comes from that because a rifle has a wood stock it is unreliable? For me, I prefer wood. I like the look, feel, and uniqueness of a good walnut stock. I don't use my rifle to pound tent stakes or paddle a canoe. I have never found a situation where I felt handicapped with a well finished wood stock. A few dings, scratches, and dents along the way are badges of honor in my eyes that add charachter.

Jeff

Savage 99 posted:

But 99.4% of game is taken with factory rifles and 99.4% of hunters will never hear of a "Legend" gun and to be a realist for a moment like a tree falling in the forest there will be no sound because nobody heard it.

And 99.4% of people earn less than $250,000 per year but that does not mean that earning $250,000 is not better than earning $50000!!!! You can live Ok on less than $50,000 but would you rather live on $250,000

By the way Savage 99 I had one of those McMillan Fibregrain stocks on a 416 Wby...it came with the rifle when I took the rifle. For my personal tastes I thought they looked like shit as I prefer fibreglass stocks to look like fibreglass stocks. From a distance they do look liked wood.

Mike

I've owned both wood and synthetic stocked rifles. All in all, I feel that wood has worked just as well as long as one takes care of it before hand, and that they are properly bedded etc. When hunting season starts here in the fall, our stocks have been oiled regulary for several months. Starting to oil them a week in advance isn't enough. During the season, we continue to oil them, and have no problems. Many say that synthetic is on all their "serious" rifles, but than I have to wonder if they simpley havn't been "serious" about maintaining their wood stocks, and just find it easier with synthetic because they don't want to spend time oiling. (I'll probably be shot down now by those that think I'm acusing them of being lazy, and that I'm not a "serious" hunter... )



Wood has been used on rifles here in Norway "forever" without problems, and it seems to me that it usually rains (or snows) non-stop in the fall!



Wood is also MUCH warmer to hold when it's cold, which is a common problem here.



When it comes to scratches etc. I think that just proves the rifle is used as it should be, and adds character.

No more synthetic for me!



Erik D.



www.dunia.no

Jeff, unfortunately, I've had trouble with wood. I've had trouble with point-of-impact shifts, durability, and finishes. So have a lot of other guys I know. Wood is an unstable material compared to a quality synthetic and not nearly as strong, and the shift to synthetics in the target shooting, law enforcement, military, and big game hunting communities bears out those realities. And I'm not insinuating anything - I'm saying it straight-out.

Amoung other rifle advances, I consider good synthetic stocks to be one of the greatest and most worthwhile improvements to come along since I've been a shooter.

No, synthetics aren't as pretty as fine wood, but on most of my hunts I feel as though I have a good deal more on the line than cosmetic gratification.


AD

Are Synthetics better for hunters and wood stocks better for gun lovers?

The question of quality and what it is can drive you nuts (ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?). For a given set of attributes different people will find different attributes to be the most important. For some durability is more important than beauty and vice-versa. Sometimes funtional and inexpensive is a major virture. Thank God we don't all alike or we'd all have the same things and where's the fun in that.
A Honda Civic will get you somewhere just as easily as a Mercedes 600 but there is a difference in the quality of the trip but you can get their either way. A Remington 710 will kill a deer just as dead as a Holland and Holland bespoke rifle either way it's venison. I think that we should all enjoy what we can, not be jelous of what we can't afford, and have fun arguing about the rest........DJ

I wholeheartedly agree with Blue.



I cut the zips of my jacket and my pack has leather thonging, that's the extent of the sacrifice I make. I hunt deer 200 days of the year and I still get a thrill out of taking my custom 6.5x55 out of it's slip. With such generous seasons I will not pull it through a barbed wire fence for an ordinary deer but many's the time I've had to hose mud off it.



[url="http://www.hunt101.com/?p=69409&c=500&z=1"][/url]