There's been lot's of threads regarding wood vs synthetics; stainless vs blued etc.
Personally I like and have them both.
Thought it might be interesting to see just what a few of you guys or ladies like to use.

How bout some pic's of what you USE. . . .

Posted for DWright..

I think beyond extreme conditions there is no reason that you cannot have both. Here is a link to pictures of my first custom.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...9411043/m/1061084241

If I was in a down pour or other harsh conditions, I probably would go for a syn. stock/stainless rifle...

I own just about every permutation: wood w/blued steel, wood w/stainless steel, synthetic w/blued steel, synthetic w/stainless, synthetic w/blude receiver and stainless barrel, blah, blah, blah.

Here are a few:

LH Win. M-70 .470 Capstick


LH Rem. 700 .243 Ackley Improved


LH Win. M-70 Custom Shop 7mmSTW Custom Sporting SharpShooter


George

The pic's DB posted for me are my Sako .338-06 AI and my little .375 Ruger.
Both have their place. . . . .


Heh Michael. . . .where's that fightin' rifle. . . ?
Ifn' I hadn't shot that thing, my .375 would probably still have the extra long 20" tube!

I recently shot a kudu, a zebra and an impala with it.

Very nice chunk of wood!

Asthetics vs Functionality = M98 or a well regulated doublerifle

Nitethawk, that's a good looking rig.

George, I really like that 7 STW. That is a great example of pure function AND great asthetics.

Nitehawk,

Is the end cap Ebony or Horn? What caliber?

RS

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
George, I really like that 7 STW. That is a great example of pure function AND great asthetics.

Thanks, and it shoots! It was built for the Custom Shop by H-S Precision; the test target was 0.1326", but I have not been able to shoot a group smaller than 0.220". Maybe I should get rid of it.

George

quote:

Originally posted by GeorgeS:

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
George, I really like that 7 STW. That is a great example of pure function AND great asthetics.

Thanks, and it shoots! It was built for the Custom Shop by H-S Precision; the test target was 0.1326", but I have not been able to shoot a group smaller than 0.220". Maybe I should get rid of it.

George

Ya, I would scrap it to with groups like that!
You should send it off to me, except that the bolts on the wrong side. . . .!
Seriously though, that is one fine using rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Ya, I would scrap it to with groups like that!
You should send it off to me, except that the bolts on the wrong side. . . .!
Seriously though, that is one fine using rifle.

I could flip the photo 180 degrees to accommodate you.

George

Here are some more:

From top to bottom:
LH Rem. 700 BDL .22-250 (in H-S Precision stock)
LH Rem. 700VS .223
Aforementioned LH Rem. 700 .243 Ackley Improved


From top to bottom:
LH Kimber of Oregon M-84 .17 Remington
LH Rem. 700FS .30-06
LH Rem. 700 "Sendero" .25-06


George

From one extreme to another.

Ed Plumber Custom Sako .243 Win. from back in the 50's-60's.




Ruger No.1 .375 H&H and Kimber 84 Montana in .260 Rem.




Marlin 1895 LTD V 45-70.



Right down to 1950 Marlin 336 in .35 Rem.

I really like the wood and blued rifle, but the rifle that has shot 89% (actual calculation) of my big game animals is a stainless synthetic.



I'm hoping to kick the habit of S/S here soon. Recently acquired a nice little Mauser that will go hunting in a wood stock when the stock is refinished. I'm also currently working on a "beater" stock for my 375 H&H. It was my first attempt at refinishing and I was originally going to just coat the whole thing with bed-liner. Started shaping the stock some more to trim it down and give it a nice shape and just can't bring myself to paint it. It wont be as pretty as the other stock, but it should be functional and I wont have to baby it.

You can get by without aesthetics - but not without functionality.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
You can get by without aesthetics - but not without functionality.

Give me the luxuries of life and I will gladly do without the necessities’- G.B.Shaw.

quote:

Originally posted by Gojoe:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
You can get by without aesthetics - but not without functionality.

Give me the luxuries of life and I will gladly do without the necessities’- G.B.Shaw.

Ya. . . . maybe. . . but in this case you could go hungry!

aparently not if you are a coilchunk critic .. there is no form over functionality, and you will be shouted down, should you not like them

dreck

Bring the Hate..... Yeah its ugly...6.8 puts a hurtin on pigs and deer though.

Pure functionality has a beauty that only those who have been there can appreciate

There are things that some people like on guns that I do not like. They see them as beauties, whereas I see them as superflous and reducing functionality.

1. Gold inlays and engravings that made a gun look like a painting that was done in colonial times. This is a detraction for me personally, over-done and some are down right ugly.

2. The original purpose of the bolt knob has been lost in most modern bolt-action rifles today by virtue of bolt knobs being made flat and with checkering on it. This means that the bolt must be worked with 2 fingers, namely the forefinger and the thumb, and so the bolt knob has been roughed up by the checkering to provide a non-slip grip. I prefer a round and smooth knob on bolt handle so I can cycle it with the palm of my hand - fast and powerful.

3. Any frills.

Warrior

To parse:Lao Tsu once said you can appreciate beauty only because there is ugliness in the world. They are like two sides of a coin.

If functionality is superior to esthetics then more of you guys would have married ugly women who can cook and keep a clean house over what you all thought was the most beautiful woman in the world.

Who is going to be the first to make that statement here?

Rich

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ...

Is a Blaser a beauty ... its form, shape and its line, with a plastic magazine and a wooden bolt knob? But you can get them with a grade 10 Walnut stock and pay a small ransom !

Guncote on a rifle - in dull black?

White linings between recoil pad and stock?

Exagerated stock designs?

An obnoxiously big scope on a sleek rifle?

The modern lever bolt handle on the Steyr Manlicher? A very expensive rifle.

Then I much rather prefer the traditional beauties of Rigby, WR and custom rifles along classical lines. No plastic, wood stock and smooth round bolt knob of the Mauser type - not these ligth hollow ones.

Warrior

There are times when asthetics become funtional.

The Ed Plumber Custom Sako which I posted the photo of is a good example. I bought it 12 or 13 years ago. At the time I thought it was the ugliest rifle I had seen.

I fully intended to re-stock it with some fancy walnut. That is until I took it out and shot it.

It is so well designed and shaped that it fits like it was moulded to me. In fact it fits so well and is so accurate, I decided to leave it alone, and live with it. Now, it doesn't seem that ugly anymore.

Ed Plumber was a local gun builder. He was a logger who lost his leg in a logging accident, and decided to build rifles. His guarantee was that if it didn't shoot under 1" at 100 yds. He would refund your money, and you could keep the rifle. He built several, on Sako and Mark X actions. I've never heard of him ever having to have refunded money to anyone.

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness . . . .

John Keats

Hmmmmm. . . . .



Heh 458Win. . . . where's that .458 mauser with the bondo? Now THAT is the best example of pure function I can think of. Been wanting one just like it since I saw it!

George, What is the scope on your Capstick?
Thanks, Bob

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Hmmmmm. . . . .



Heh 458Win. . . . where's that .458 mauser with the bondo? Now THAT is the best example of pure function I can think of. Been wanting one just like it since I saw it!

It is still working for a living

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:


If functionality is superior to esthetics then more of you guys would have married ugly women who can cook and keep a clean house over what you all thought was the most beautiful woman in the world.

Who is going to be the first to make that statement here?

Rich

So Rich, are you saying your beautiful wife can not hunt, field dress and butcher and then cook a great meal? Mine can

Sorry Rich, I don't buy in to your example.
Women, dogs and rifles. They MUST function first. If they can look good doing it, that's just a bonus and thing of pure joy.
A "trophy" rifle, dog of female that can't/won't function is a fool's folly. ALL of them will costs much more than you could ever imagine---and for what ?

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
If functionality is superior to esthetics then more of you guys would have married ugly women who can cook and keep a clean house over what you all thought was the most beautiful woman in the world.

Who is going to be the first to make that statement here?

Rich

Actually, Rich, ugly is an undimensioned referrent - I personally have found that the trend, if not the rule, is that the purtier she is, the more High Maint she is.

Apperance aint everything. I am NOT married to the "most beautiful" woman I know .. I am married to the best woman i know. there's an important difference ... Frankly, I can't stand to be within ballastic distance of the "most beautiful" woman i know .. caged rat crazy, she is, and mean as a rattlesnake in a bag, though she's a great cook and amazing at keeping a clean house.

quote:

ALL of them will costs much more than you could ever imagine---and for what ?

For the pure pleasure of looking at it. There are days that I would rather carry a nice looking classic and classy rifle on a walk in the woods, than kill anything. It soothes the soul, and takes me back to days gone-bye.

Away from 24 hour politics, computers, cell phones, and idiot drivers with cell phones. Away from the 21st Century...

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by DWright:
Hmmmmm. . . . .



Heh 458Win. . . . where's that .458 mauser with the bondo? Now THAT is the best example of pure function I can think of. Been wanting one just like it since I saw it!

It is still working for a living

Ya! That's it! Sweeeeet!

Can I have it?

Yea D B if you just want to look at it ok. If I have a woman, sure, I'd love to look at her, but she better be able to cook, clean and give me a hell of a hummer. A nice looking, strong, well mannered Lab is great to look at, but if it won't go get a bird w/ style and enthusiasm, it has betrayed both it's ancestors and owner. A rifle is a tool to use, if it does not function, it might as well be furniture, maybe pretty furniture, but still furniture.

The whole point is that you can have both. And if so, why not? Never seen an ugly rifle that shot any better just because it was ugly. I've seen and own a lot of nice looking rifles that shoot as good as they need to.

BTW, I don't see any comparison between women and guns. If a gun gives you grief, you can trade it off or sell it.

Oh CRAP! Lets be honest for just a second shall we! An ugly rifle is a Piece of Crap! A gorgeous rifle is a gorgeous rifle. Like pornography you know one when you see one. A good looking gun is worth the freight, a POS is well a POS! You might like your POS but its still a POS! Hondas Rule- NoT!~ Rob

My rifles are all "working" guns that must function and shoot perfectly while taking a beating from different environments, changing weather and extreme hunting conditions. Before the advent of SS and synthetic stocks I wore the bluing off quality rifles and handguns from scabbard and holster wear. I made the switch to the SS/synthetic rifles many years ago and have never looked back. I don't worry about their appearance, don't feel a need to be overly protective of them in the field, and count on them to perform at the moment of truth.

My new DR is blue/wood and I am already worried about it.