I kinda got blasted a bit on another forum concerning my comments on wood stocks. Another member basically told me that synthetic stocks were more accurate than wooden stocks.

Now I'm no genius here, but with that kind of response I would assume that no matter what kind of shot I am, if I went to a synthetic stock, my accuracy would improve.

So the question is, IS there that much of a difference in synthetics and wood stocks when it comes to accuracy?

I always figured it was the "nut behind the butt" that factored in most of the accuracy.

PH

I'd love to read the blasts you got. I'd sure take issue.

The biggest difference is that wood is not quite as stable as synthetics. It is affected by humidity, but only slightly affected by temperature. Synthetics are affected by heat and are mostly impervious to humidity. I've had both move under those conditions. At least with wood proper sealing and finishing can avoid the effects on it. I'm uncertain what could be done to a moving synthetic stock.

I've had factory wood stocks move dramatically on two occasions, one a pre 64 M70 that just wasn't sealed (as most factory stocks,) the other a Parker-Hale. After resealing both they have been stable and accurate for 45 years and 32 years respectively.

A Brown Precision kevlar stock was apparently affected by temperature within 6 months of it being installed. Not other explanation, but stresses in the fore end caused it to bind on the barrel taking it from 60 degree weather into extreme cold. An aberration? Maybe. I've heard other similar reports.

The odds are that synthetics will be more stable, particularly for those not having the time, desire or expertise to seal a wooden stock, but the edge is very slight in favor of the synthetics.

Considering conditions, like moisture, heat, and humidity, and what it can do to a wood stock, and the fact that a syn/composite-stock isn't effected by those same conditions, is the way one can make the blanket statement that syn is better than wood.

In the field as a hunter, you'd never see the differnce in a properly inletted, bedded, wood stock vs. that synthetic stock rifle.

PH,

Firstly there are two types of synthetic stock. One is the "rubber" type stock on Rem 700s, Model 70s and the other is fiberglass.

My testing of very accurate larger calibers has been that the barreled action will give its best accuracy in the "rubber" type stocks, then wood and then fiberglass. However we are not talking about big differences. The majority of my testing has been on the Rem 700 actions and hence their factory "rubber" stock.

I think the "rubber" type stocks are not as critical with their bedding as are fiberglass and wood.

By the way I am probably the only person on the forums that thinks the "rubber" type stocks are the best.

Bench rest rifles are different because competition involves limits on rifle weight in different classes.

Bench guns use a hollow fiberglass stock which is extremely light. So for a given rifle weight, the hollow fiberglass stock allows a heavier barrel to be used.

I mention bench guns because some people say fiberglass must be better since it is used on benchrest rifles. But it is a weight factor.

The bench gun type of stock is not practical for the hunting rifle as being hollow the barreled action has to be glued to the stock.

Mike

My thinking is, it takes more work and skill, hence expense to make a good wood stock vs a good synthetic stock.

I think this also applies to why certain actions are chosen over others.

I wonder where one weighs in on laminates? I believe many/most small bore and international high power rifles are stocked with lamintated wood.

Paul,

My only exprerience with laminated is those grey and white stocks Remington had on some of their stainless.

They compress very easily, especially with the very small area of the from of the Rem floor plate.

As to accuracy, I did not find them equal to wood or the rubber stocks.

My testing was a Rem 700, with number 5 barrel in 358 STA and Jewell trigger set at 2 ounces.

Wood stock was from a Remington 700 in 416 Remington.

Those "rubber" stocks sure are good which is why the Remington agent brings the in.

Mike

I haven't done a lot of testing, but I sure like the looks of wood over synthetics. I believe ALL rifle stocks move around with expansion and contraction due to heat and cold. Wood does have the dis-advantage of moisture also. The highly figured stocks are most likely to twist in all cases. Way back in the 1930's, guys at Camp Perry, Ohio were shooting .22 rimfire at 200 yards with wooden stocks and the groups they shot then are just about the same as the top groups being shot today. They used only straight grain walnut stocks, with an oil finish. My 700 Remington Stainless Synthetic shoots extremely accurate. But so does my Remington 7 mag. with a wood stock. Pillar bedding, glass bedding, free floated barrels, barrels that are free floated except with a pressure point a couple of inches from the end, and on and on goes the list of things to try. When you find the right combination, seal the wood, even the screw holes. If you go for the pretty, highly figured walnut stock, and it doesn't shoot perfect, at least you can show it off to your friends. Don't worry, they will all envy you. Those synthetic stocks change around some, too. But they don't look nearly as nice.

According to Darrel Holland, well known accurate rifle builder, in order to gain the utmost accuracy out of a matchgrade barrel it's action must be properly pillar-bedded in a stiff stock. Stiffness = accuracy. I can vouch for that theory as I have bedded and spec'd several rifles as he does and they have been tac-drivers indeed.

The Remington factory plastic stocks are an abortion of a stock if you are seeking the max potential out of your rifle. They lack stiffness, too hollow in the forearm in my opinion. They don't take to bedding well either.

The Browns fall somewhere in the middle. I hear good and bad things so I stay away from em.

For me I favor the McMillans with weatherby fill in the action and forearm. It's a proven combo, I'm a little suprised no one else has mentioned it on this forum. As I posted on this forum before on a bench gun I would spec' it with solid fill which I believe makes for the stiffest stock McMillan offers. McMillans are the choice of stock in the benchrest community in my opinion. For a hunting rifle stock they are hard to put down also.

As for wood I think the laminates are the way to go for accuracy. Their only drawback is their weight which is a personal preference issue really. Accurate rifles can be built on laminates. My thoughts on the subject. sure-shot

Sure-shot, what exactly is "weatherby fill"? Just wondering. - Dan

Dan,
It's a fiberglass mixture with coarser chopped strands. It is stronger than the regular fill used in McMillan stocks. I believe it absorbs and bonds with bedding compounds better. It might also be termed "magnum fill" also. It does add a small amount of weight to the stock, a few ounces in most. sure-shot

[This message has been edited by sure-shot (edited 01-06-2002).]

Sure-shot, thank you. - Dan