While discussing rifles, stocks, and recoil, my friend casually mentioned the recoil being less with synthetic stocks, compared to wood stocks, and especially laminated stocks. He mentioned this in passing, as though long ago it had somehow become an accepted fact.

Naturally I was not rude, and just said that I thought this notion is a myth. I believe that the recoil pad, the shape of the stock, cant, cast, pistol grip, cheek piece, comb, etc. all make a difference in felt recoil, but whether the stock is made injection molded, fiberglass, wood, or any other acceptable stock making material, makes little difference in recoil.

He thinks the synthetic stocks somehow absorb a perceptable amount of recoil just because of the material they are made from. I just don't understand how this is possible, and I think it is just another B.S. notion dreamed up by someone, and believed by some.

What is real, and what is merely belief? I suppose if one believes it enough, that recoil is deminished by his favorite synthetic stock, then perhaps that belief is enough so that it is then true for that fellow. The human mind is very capable of this, and it happens all the time - on many subjects, but in this forum, we'll limit the discussion to recoil.

But I want to know the facts on this subject. Perhaps I should call myth busters?

KB

Your friend is correct. Wood and injected molded stocks do not flex when pushed into the shoulder by recoil. Fiberglass stocks flex under the recoil, thereby reducing recoil effect. Kevlar/graphite stocks flex too, but they are somewhat stiffer to maintain strength/liightweight so they flex less than the fiberglass but more than wood or injection molded. The flexing is not noticed since it happens so quick, simliar to barrel whip(hormonics). I got this from a website that builds/sells composite stocks.

Kabluewy, I'm with you on this one as I have numerous synthetic stocked rifle and have switched wooden stocks and synthetic stocks on the same rifles and could not tell any difference.
Also, for what it is worth, I know numerous framing carpenters who swear that after a long day of swinging a framing hammer that wooden handles absorb much more shock than fiberglass handles.

I have shot identical rifles, most recently Blaser R 93's with wood and synthentic stocks side by side, I could not tell any difference in recoil.

458...in all fairness, hammer handles and rifle stocks are completely different and cannot be compared to each other in ANY way.

Woody

if the gun weighs the same, and the stock is the same shape, there's no difference.

Maybe the fiberglass stocks do flex a bit more than wood. Anyway, it is so little that I really can't perceive any difference at the shoulder. Mainly it is just a selling point for those pushing fiberglass stocks. Not significant. Mostly hype.

Yes, in the same way as fish ride bicycles.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
...... Anyway, it is so little that I really can't perceive any difference ..... Mainly it is just a selling point for those pushing ..... Not significant. Mostly hype.

Ron,
excellent!!! I can think of quite a few "tiny improvements" over the years that have been discessed here on AR that your (misquoted) quote covers!!

if'n i remember mr einstein right he stated something like for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. thus if the rifles weigh same the actual force is equal. however if one assumes that the plastic stock is lighter than wood, the recoil force would be greater. in fact however the prettier the walnut stock is the less is the perceived recoil

well i've shot both without noticing difference but wood sure is nicer to look

read woodjacks post on alaskan hunting forum

I am absolutely convinced a good syn such as a McMillan reduces felt recoil over a wood stock. I have restocked about 10 rifles with syn stocks over the years and noticed immediate reduction in recoil levels. This pertains to 30 caliber and above as that is the only experience I have. And in almost evrey case the syn was a few ounces lighter to boot. I cant explain it but it is true.

someone please create a synthetic stock that has removable weights in incriments of 4 ounces

the rifle could go from an easy on the shoulder 9lbs to a light packing 7lbs...the weights should be cheap and replaceable so that if you get tired of that weight on an extended stalk you could chuck them.

the weights could go in the front and back to try to maintain balance

please...

the only other alternative is a sealed stock that has a plug that you can fill with water or leadshot ect...

You should also consider synthetic stocks like the new Benelli R1, SBE, etc. or the Thompson Center products. Recoil reducing devices can be engineered into synthetic stocks to give theme an advantage over wood. That, plus how many synthetic stocks today come with ajustable comb, drop, and LOP? Synthetic has a distinct practical advantage in that department, but I'd still rather have XXX walnut!

Sure tupperware stocks reduce recoil...and as has been established here on AR, bottleneck cartridges kick and straight cases don't. Just build a 7 pound .500 3" Nitro Express bolt rifle with a tupperware stock, and it'll kick like a .22.

Methinks old Barnum underestimated how often suckers are born.
-------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Assuming the same weight, AND fit (to the shooter), the flexi-stock won't decrease the total recoil, but it may increase the time duration of the recoil. It's this increase in the duration of the recoil pulse that makes the recoil seem like it's been reduced.
BTW, this is the same reason (longer time duration) that a soft rubber pad reduces recoil over a steel butt plate, even though both have the same contact area with your shoulder.

Ok Sure You Betchya..........But KB is still attempting to sidestep the answer with his supposed dignity intact ..... The frameing hammer thing is totally different. The way a fiberglass handled frameing hammer displaces the shock of strikeing a solid object like a footing pin ....Is not necessarailly less but different.........Enough that If you use one or the other primarilly , when you switch you will know the difference immediatly.....But their force is going mostly cross grain where wood does have an amount of flex or deflection...I agree with Tailgunner about the time of the recoil pulse or kick.. Boom stick ,,,, Up here we would have to use anti freeze......could probably pack it around in a water bottle marked specially for giveing the stock a drink.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.So We should chock one up for rubber stocks ............I know I would be alot more interested in double rifles if I could buy one made from stainless steel ,lock and barrel and the stock made from Zytel nylon or fiberglass..........I know I couldn,t be happy till I had taken a file to some part of it and a can of spray paint....... gumboot out.......

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:
.....Enough that If you use one or the other primarilly , when you switch you will know the difference immediatly....

If you believe such fairey tales before you make the switch, then you'll find it. That doesn't change the fact that the difference is a figment of a hyperactive imagination.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:
Ok Sure You Betchya....But KB is still attempting to sidestep the answer with his supposed dignity intact.

Hummm ... side step the answer ... or engaging in the debate? Hummm ...

I think one would have to be a true believer, with a pre-conceived mind-set toward the expected outcome to feel any difference in recoil.

I really don't care whether one kind of stock material kicks less than another. I'm certainly not going to subject my neck, bones, and shoulder to some kind of recoil or rabid (no it's not misspelled) big-bore fire test that would prove nothing in the end. I already know that whether the recoil is 65 or 70 ft lbs, makes no difference to me, because either is over my tolerance level threshold.

Gummy... Your suggestion on the other thread for some kind of big bore test would be about the same if I let you whack me in the shoulder with a synthetic stock, (or baseball bat)then let you whack me again in the same place with a wood stock,(or bat) then expect me to tell you which one hurt less.

My point in this thread has been accomplished merely by starting the debate. I don't need to believe or prove anything. I'll let others enjoy the recoil of the 458 Lott. I'm satisfied with the debate.

It probably all depends on whether one is satisfied remaining within the question, or must have an answer. If there is a scientific answer, and the proof is objective, then I'll accept that, but until then I'll be satisfied not knowing for sure, and I'm certainly not going to draw any conclusions based on someone's subjectivity or opinion.

I have several synthetic stocks, and bought them for qualities other than recoil reduction, such as stability, weather resistance, etc. However, I do think the way a stock fits an individual does make some real difference in the thump to the shoulder, cheek, and body frame, etc.

I stay with rifles and calibers than I can handle, so I don't need to worry too much about recoil reducing contraptions, muzzle brakes, etc.

If I wanted a wood stock, I would buy it for whatever reason, just because I liked it, but it would be completely without consideration of the recoil absorbing characteristics of wood, compared to fiberglass or other materials, because I think that is completely imaginary.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
someone please create a synthetic stock that has removable weights in incriments of 4 ounces

the rifle could go from an easy on the shoulder 9lbs to a light packing 7lbs...the weights should be cheap and replaceable so that if you get tired of that weight on an extended stalk you could chuck them.

the weights could go in the front and back to try to maintain balance

please...

the only other alternative is a sealed stock that has a plug that you can fill with water or leadshot ect...

I'm assuming that balance plays little part in the ideal weight of your rifle, if adding and subtracting two pounds from the butt sounds like a good idea.

KB ,, well every one ,,,actually does a fancy new synthitic recoil pad like a KickEze magnum or pacmyer Decelarator,,, change the felt recoil of a rifle compared to a checkered skeleton butt plate , I would automatically assume everyone would know it does ,,, But I think some of you guys are smokeing those wavy ciggarrettes......So maybe to you guys it is the same........Since most companies don,t make stocks for people in the twilight zone where Bluewy must live... It would seem obvious a synthetic stock would follow along simular function.......Bluewy .is a bit of a bizzar fuddy duddy any way .. Doing things like sending rifles back and forth to gunsmiths with complaints of imaginaried problems ......... I don,t think he ever wore a gun out or even tried to........ Wood stocks transmit more recoil to the shooters shoulder than synthetic stocks......... Unless your wood stock is made from Baumagilliad or swamp cotton wood........ I,de be willing to bet Lignum Vitea or Iron Bark would be precievably different than walnut

Well, this is why I posted this topic - because I know neither of us are going to change our opinion about this, and I thought perhaps we/you would listen to others. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks there is no difference.

Besides, being from the swamps, now residing in the twilight zone, and a fuddy duddy with imaginary problems, who can't wear out a rifle, and having partook way back in the 70's of the whacky weed,(but I didn't inhale) certainly invalidates any opinion I may have anyway.

KB

Gumboot:

You shouldn't drink so much so early in the day. Hard on the ol' liver.
-------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I am of the group that's convinced that when recoil absorption is engineered into a synthetic design it can be much softer shooting than a wood stock of the same shape.

Having said that, I bet the number of synthetic stocks engineered to reduce felt recoil can be counted on one finger; maybe two.

If anyone cares enough to hear the details, just call Mel Forbes at NULA and ask what it took for him to do it. It was an interesting tale and I simply can't remember enough of the nitty-gritty to do it justice or I would repeat it.

I can say with absolute certainty that of the 8-10 300 Win mags I've owned over the years, my Colt Light Rifle with a genuine NULA stock on it is the softest shooting 300 of the bunch and it weighs less than 7 lbs scoped and loaded.

Having a lot to learn, I am not familiar with the NULA stock. Please enlighten me, and perhaps others.

In my experience, the one thing that caused my 300 to recoil softer, was to have previously shot my 375 several times.

KB

I don,t drink..................Not and get on the puter..//./.,,./ May have a beer or glass of wine occasionally ..............Oughta see me when I relly get wound up.,..,..,.,.,..... NULA...= New Ultra Light Arms................Just prior to the line that said "mayby we should call myth busters" I think we should by the way........There was a line," I just want to know the facts.". ,.,. I think KB wrote.,...... What better way to find out the facts for himself than with a rifle that has an amount of recoil.????The 458 Lott.....It is a very popular round .. Many people could relate to the study....And no doubt benifit greatly from it......This is the Big Bore Forum...............I,m not posting on the medium bore or small bore forum.......,.,./.,/.,But its a free country .,.,. There are many other ways to explane how synthetic stocks absorb or delay the impulse time of recoil from a rifle. But since no one with the execption of 458 Win , who disagree with me . Has come up any explanation of how the 2 are identicle and the same and can not be different... I won,t waste the time typeing ........Which no doubt I suck at any way .......But then I don,t work in an office so computer operation isn,t something I need to be good at .......So unless someone can prove they don,t and I can prove they do ......I,m right ,Synthetic stocks absorb/alter the recoil impulse of a rifle or shot gun or hand gun. Like a 480 Ruger Alaskan.. Which no doubt is why Ruger so thotfully put a block of wood where the grip meets the web of the hand and the same with S&W with their X frame revolvers........NO they put a synthetic material there !!HUH I wonder why they did that ....... Mayby It absorbs more recoil than wood................

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Having a lot to learn, I am not familiar with the NULA stock. Please enlighten me, and perhaps others.

In my experience, the one thing that caused my 300 to recoil softer, was to have previously shot my 375 several times.

KB

Yeah, that works a lot better! But like I said, if you really care enough to find out, call NULA.

From an engineering point of view there is this: the specific stiffness (stiffness/weight) of timbers (along the grain) and most engineering metals is remarkably similar.

Fiberglass-reinforced composites are markedly lower in specific stiffness, as are materials like Nylon 66, and therefore will deflect more for a given load.

Adding Kevlar, or better still carbon fibre dramatically increases specific stiffness until it can, with the best grades of carbon-reinforced composites, well exceed the specific stiffness of steel or wood.

What does this mean? Well your fibreglass or injection moulded stock will, weight for weight, have lower stiffness, and thus deflect more under recoil, than timber. FWIW weight for weight a good grade of carbon fibre can be much more stiff, or alternatively much lighter for the same stiffness as the timber stock.

Kab,i read a 1000yd shooting article that said someplace that wood dampens recoil compared to fiberglass stocks.Wood will absorb the energy more than synthetic stocks.I have a few rifles in 300WM and the one that I got to watch out for most has a HS precision stock.All my other rifles have wood stocks.It is the most umfortable one with which to shoot,and the scopes eyepiece has touched my forehead a few times.It also has a thick barrel and my other rifles don't,so I may be wrong.

So if we would all just get some nice rubber stocks and commence blazeing away we would , knowingly or ignorantly enjoy the benifits of reduced recoil.. Wouldn,t that be nice!!!!!! Thank you Dan.... ...,.,., Now for shorter LOP on factory rifles.....

Well, gumboot, there'd be some downside with that approach. Leaving recoil aside, stiffness is a desirable quality in gunstocks.

Rubber also has some interesting properties though. For starters it is anelastic and dissipates strain energy (as heat), unlike the elastic materials such as steel, GRP, CFRP etc. While it wouldn't make a good stock you could perhaps use a layer of rubber - a pad if you will - at the end of the stock in contact with the shooter