What is stonges and most recoilsafe (splitting) a quality laminated stock or a good quality walnut stock - dimensions the same ??

Ulrik,
My vote goes to a good laminate. I have one on my own .585 nyati and it works very fine, in spite of the heavy recoil of the .585.
A swedish gunsmith, Hans Englund, built mine on a CZ 550, and he did a master�s work.

// JG

I think the laminate is the most stable, but there is room in my heart (and gun cabinet) for both.

Have you thought about using a stock from Mel Smart at Acrabond laminates? It is a five piece laminate [I think he makes a three piece two if you want it] from walnut---your blank or his. The laminates are aligned so that the grain structure of each piece is [as near as possible] the opposite of the piece next to it. Thus, you get a stability affect from the off-setting laminates. Because it is only five pieces and if you use a quality walnut blank you actually end up with a very attractive stock. I just had one done for a small-ring HVA mauser and the stock looks fantastic. I am very pleased.

Jordan

Ulrik--

"Good" quartersawn Circassian is considerably stronger than a laminate in recoil.

Consider the British and Continental express rifles of the "between the wars" period. Most H&H, Rigby, Westley/Richards, etc stocks are LIGHTER than fiberglass, more stable than laminate, and stronger than either. I've never seen one with a secondary recoil lug and the only broken ones were oil soaked.

Laminates and plastic are very poor substitutes for good wood....but they are cheap, easy and plentiful.

Jack:
You are a top grade metal smith but when you come up wth off the wall statements like walnut gunstocks are lighter and more stable then fiberglass you way off base. To be sure the wood stocks are classic but the weight and strength factors simple are not true. Lets go by the facts and not personal feelings.

Hey Pete--
Easy now. Didn't mean to gore your ox!
The fact that good wood stocks don't lose their zero for many decades at a time means they are as stable as they *need* to be.
If you compare the weight of an original Holland and Holland magazine express rifle stock against any fiberglass stock, fitted and glassed, on the market, Holland wins by at least 2 ounces every time. Even an American made Hoffman 375 H&H stock is lighter than a factory Winchester Tupperware offering.
The very first 585 Nyati destroyed a hand laid glass stock (steel bedded and reinforced) in less than 50 (very hot) rounds. The English stock made by Davenport is still shooting 16 years later. That's only one of maybe a hundred examples.
The hype runs very deep in stock material. I would wager only one out of a hundred American shooter have ever seen a *good* piece of wood. I'm not referring to exhibition grade Circassian, either. I mean a solid piece of quarter sawn thin shell walnut grown in the desert and properly dried......just like is found on most pre-war British and Continental guns.
There is no better gunstock material on earth than *good* Juglans Regia. Everything else comes up short in one or more categories.

Expensive? Yes. probably a hundred bucks a blank. Rare? No, but you'll have to sort through a bunch of blanks to find good wood at that price.....but it's out there.

Jack:
Putting the oxs aside good $100 blanks for english or thin shell walnut or as scarce as hen's teeth.
The weight of a modern classic stock that I have cut from scrath (and I make them slim) averages about 32ozs. The H&H stocks that you refer to have a short splinter forend and a comb that is sharp enough to shave with. Bet you never see Customstox or any other good stockmaker build with those dinky forends or razor sharp combs.
Now remember wood--32ozs.
A standard Brown presision fiberglass stock comes in at 26ozs. A High Teck stock comes in at 20ozs.
A Brown Presision with kevlar weighs 16ozs. And Lobo has one at 14, yes 14ozs. That 1/2 the weight of a classic style wood stock.
Further, fiberglass never gathers moisture as all wood does no matter what you may say. To prove my point just feel the toe and the heel of your wood stock. It may not be right now but if you live say in Ariz. and spend a week or two in the Pacific N.W. you will see what I mean. Not so with glass.
As for strength the new B62 bomber is made from Glass and kevlar, not thin-shelled walnut and linseed oil.
I will not argue that glass is classier. But for weight, strength, and stablity it's no contest.
Pete

I have a laminate stock on a .35 Whelen. It was well bedded in Acra-glas gel. It split, after about of a years shooting, behind the recoil lug , behind the magazine and into the pistol grip. Fortunately, I was able to salvage the stock with cross-bolts and re-bedding.

Lets face it, these laminates are nothing but layers of inexpensive wood(birch in my case - it was a Remington surplus blank) held together with glue. They are strong in bending but not so good when the layers are forced apart as happens during recoil. The glue is stronger than the wood.

Also, they are heavier than a similarily shaped stong carved from black walnut.

Pete,
I just weighed the stock on my pre-war Husqvarna 9.3x62. 25 ounces with steel grip and plastic butt. The Hoffman 375 on a commercial Mauser is 30 ounces with a Silvers pad and trap grip. JP Sauer 35 Whelen re-bore is 21 ounces. The last H&H stock I weighed was 18 ounces.

You’re right. It’s small and sharp but extremely comfortable to shoot. Cast-off is something else Americans never became familiar with. It makes more difference than the make of the recoil pad.

Are your figures for bedded with pad stocks, or catalog weights? Kevlar is light. That’s why I specified fiberglass. Airplanes call for tension and torsion resistance. Stocks for compression.

You’re right. Wood will absorb some moisture when traveling between different climates…especially if it hasn’t been finished properly.

First off linseed oil is not anywhere near water proof. I never use it because there is so many better finishes. To see a well finished gunstock is extremely rare. It takes way too long for the factories to do it.

Second: So-what if it takes up a few grains of water….I’ve taken my Colorado built Whelen to Florida for a month and hunted in the winter rain with it with no shift in zero and no proud wood. It’s no big deal if it’s sealed right. I’m building a stock now for a Florida rifle in the desert of southern Idaho. It’ll probably change about one MOA in the first year. I’d expect it to be stable after that. Try it with glass and you’ll see the exact same thing.

If you want to see an example of “good” wood look at an old DWM, Steyr, or Orbendorf military Mauser. Most are very good quarter-sawn French walnut.

There is a LOT of that grade wood out there for a hundred dollar bill. The problem is that Americans don’t recognize the value and the dealers don’t handle it. Go to the cutter.

BTW---I was wrong. Most shooters *have* seen good wood but maybe didn’t know it at the time. All Brownings before 1968 had good wood. So did the first Ruger M77 458 Winchesters.

The advantage of plastic is the disposability of it. Horses still break 'em. People still run over them ....... the plastic will still break, but its cheaper to replace.....and it has no heritage and no soul, so you might not cry over it.

This may be off the point but I think a realistic point......most shooters don't have "access" to the kind of wooden stock you are referring to.....nopt because they can't find the wood, but because they can't afford the cost of getting it done right....and they are probably unwilling to take the wait for the few quality craftsmen out there to get around to it.....hell, many of them aren't even taking on any work at the present time. That leaves them (and me by the way) with going to a quality stock like McMillan or RimRock.

I believe the expression is " a bird in the hand....."

DB Bill--

You are correct when referring to new guns. My point is that there are thousands of very fine rifles on the market for less money than the new trash and they already HAVE good wood.

The four examples given above are good examples. The Sauer and the H&H were customer guns bought for less than $1000. The Husqvarna was $500 and the Hoffman was $850.

Take a look at almost ANY pre-war American rifle...even the cheapest of the cheap had *good* American walnut. Have you ever seen a split stock on a pre-war M70 375H&H? I haven't. They weren't glass bedded either. As long as some idiot doesn't oil soak the stock they WILL last. And they'll also shoot to the same POI year after year.

The difference is in the wood and how it was fitted.

Jack:
The good wood on the Sears M50 FN is split at the tang.
I could go on and rebut but do you remember that I told you I disliked about my mother-in-law? She always has to have the last word. So I quite, this time. Pete on a chemo trip.

I have a gun cabinet full of walnut stocks that have been around the world several times and hunted in every conceivable climate and they were 50 years old when I bought them....None of them have warped, cracked or split..

If you think laminate is better than good walnut then use it, but don't try and feed me that horse hockey...too many old Hollands and Westley Richards, Huskys, FN's around to play that game and lots of them are a 100 years old...

I can show you 3 broken fiberglass stocks in town right now and a piece of laminate warped all to hell..I have seen laminate come apart...

yeah I have a lamitnate stock on one of my guns and I have built a number of them...but the crap going around on wood is just that crap, and it is because it wasnt cured and dried before the factories made stocks out of them...

Good dry Turkish is still the best medium for a rifle stock. Always will be.