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 weight, 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

Personally I think it's a myth from a felt recoil standpoint. My synthetic stocked rifles weigh less than they did with wood stocks and consequently transfer more felt recoil. Recoil never bothered me and I like packing less weight around.

I would think that fiberglass and plastic is more flexible than the wood used for stocks.

Synthetic material such as Zytel Nylon , Fiberglass ... Graphite and other "plastic" materials that stocks are made from do flex more than wood. When was the last time you saw an Ugly Stick made from walnut ...Heres an experiment ... I,ve got this 458 lott and I have 2 different stocks for it .. One is the factory walnut stock the other is a fiberglass stock ..I,ll order the same recoil pad for the wood stock,so the test can be the same ... And the ammo...[ 500 gr bullets at 2300 fps]I,ll supply free of charge for the sake of better knowledge and understanding..... You do the shooting KB .... We,ll do a timed accuracy study ,,to see how long it takes you to get some sense knocked into your head....so you can make an accurate statement ,like.. Boy that fiberglass stock sure doesn,t transmit the same shock to me as that stupid stick of wood does..... What do ya think........Want to prove your statement.........

gumpoot458,

What is your point? What are you offering here? Prove what???

Have to ask this, gumball; Are you related to shootaway and rem416?

Dungbeetle

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

I'm not a true believer, and really don't care whether one kind of stock material kicks (ever so slightly) 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 threshold.

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.

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.

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

KB

I bought my first rifle with a laminated stock this year. I have taken quite a liking to the laminated stock. Felt recoil may be lessened because of the heft and density of the stock from the laminating manufacturing process.

Buliwyf

I spoke with Mr.Brown at Brown Precision. I was enquiring about a Kevlar pounder' for a lite mnt.rifle project.
He was prepared to sell me what ever I wanted, as they were all in stock. however, He made it clear that if I was not absolutely fanatical about weight reduction,that it would be wiser to go with a plainer glass stock cause recoil energy transfer was definitely less severe than what one would get with the more rigid Kevlar unit.He was prepared to go through his glass stock batch to find one that was very close to the Kevlar weight. He said the difference could come down to only 3-4oz,but the softer construction of the glass would certainly be more comfortable shoot for only a minor weight penalty.
Have you ever ridden an alluminium or steel bicycle and then ridden a Titanium one of the same or less weight?...the Ti is a softer ride, cause it has more give. Anything that flexes more, (gunstock or what ever) will mellow forces.
Try fishing with nylon, then spool up with some Spectra(near zero give) and feel the diff. in feedback through the rod.

If you understand how synthetic stocks are built you realize that the tough outer coat on fiberglass stocks is a hard, tough, relatively brittle gel coat that is not compressable to any degree. wooden stocks transmit their recoil through the grain lengthwise and also have litle ability to absorb shock. The only stocks that might offer a tiny bit of shock absorbtion are the "tupperware" plastic stocks and even at that it is minimal at best. Overall weight and stock design offer the only proven method of reducing felt recoil in my opinion.

KB since you said you want to know the facts on this subject ,,. Its kind of off to say later you just want the debate.....Lets prove the facts..... That a rifle stock of different materials but the same basic design and weight will or will not transmit the same force to your shoulder .Since the test rifle weighs 11 lbs its not any kind of a man killer in the recoil department with the wood stock..... But the fiberglass stock is much more comfortable to shoot..... But as you say I may be a true believer, so you should do a factual test so you can get the facts .......

I have a bunch of 416 rem mag rifles.I have Remington 700 with both HS stocks and kevelar stocks.They weigh about 1.5 to 2 pounds less than My 416 rem mag in a winchester model 70 .I can tell alot of difference in the recoil in the two.The Remingtons feel to kick way less with the same loads even though they weigh less.I have shot these around 150 times in a day from a standing bench with reduced practice loads.I put the fulled loaded 410 gr woodleigh bullets in at top speed and they really kick more than any other bullets I ever shot because of the long bearing surface I guess.The winchester with a wood stock pounded me and the remingtons were alot more bearable.I do like a 416 rem mag without a cheek piece better.

Look guys, if you want proof, you have to go back to Newton's Third Law of Motion. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. 458 Win is spot on with his remarks. If you're weight conscious, buy the plastic stocks. If you're recoil sensitive, install one of those mercury recoil devices in your firearm. Me, I love the practicality of the plastic with its imperviousness to moisture and not caring about dings. But for the intrinsic value I absolutely love the look of a classic premium grade walnut stock. Recoil is a state of mind. I've seen professional football players who take an unbelievable amount of physical pounding shy away from my Remington 700 in .270. Go figure.

I agree that the synthetic stock thing is a myth based on the physics along with having shot a nomber of them-expensive and cheap. The most unshootable gun I had was a 375 Browning with a factory synthetic stock. I sold it as some were impressed with it's very light weight. The "flexible" synthetic stocks don't seem to hold zero well for me from different positions. The rigid ones seem to kick as much as wood.
I have come to a conclusion that the fit of the stock to the shooter has more to do with the shootability than what the stock is made out of. After all, if you need a big gun, "recoil is your friend".
I also dislike muzzel brakes decause of the excessive noise. My ears are more important to me than my shoulder.

My preference is for pretty wood. At this point, the only synthetic stock in the gun cabinet is on my Son's 375. There is a blank lying around for it to be restocked, but it hasn't happened yet.
Paul