I have two laminated stocks by Remington. They are thumb hole stocks on 40X's and the glue line is very thin and they are not heavy at all.

Plenty of M70's have been made with laminated stocks and the ones that were called "Win Tuff" or whatever were about the same size as the regular stocks. What do each of them weigh.

In any case the fact's are the facts and if some stock being laminated does weigh more then that's it.

Why do you feel that the Acrabond laminate is more stable than a Rutlands. I do not see any evidence or even common sense that would point me in that direction. Shot in the dark or just a SWAG?

The tests that Mel performed on his laminates as well as the Rutlands pretty well confirmed his theorys. One of which was putting samples of each through a dishwasher. After the first cycle, the Rutland fell to pieces. He subsequently ran the Acrabond sample through somewhere around 10+ times without the glue failing, and kept it on his desk as an example of the durabilty of his lamination process. An independent test was also done with Rifle Magazine on the same issues, and he came out with flying colors on that one.
Perhaps Rod could shed some more light on this one than I, but I'm convinced that the process is superior in many ways to the traditional Rutland laminate. Besides, when you buy a Rutland, you're buying laminated Burch. Not exactly my idea of quality wood, with or without the glue.

Matt, I have read of tests of the Rutlands laminate along with others where they were submerged for days and did not have any ill effects.



Rod runs his wood the same direction. A plywood runs the opposite layers at 90 degrees adding to the strength considerably. My idea of quality wood is far from any laminate of any kind.

I had a Miller Marksman with a Rutland laminate stock that started to delaminate after ONE wet snowstorm, and if you'd like a list of witness to that fact, I can surely supply them. One of my friends had the same trouble and sent his rifle back to Dave on FOUR different occasions for refinishing.

Part of the problem is likely the oil-type finish that Dave was using (at least at that time) which was a great dry-weather finish, but abysmal in wet weather. I don't know this for sure, but I believe Dave is using another type of laminate currently for the Marksman stock.

At the very least, I think laminated stocks like the Rutland need some sort of really tough, satin-type polyurathane finish if you want to use them in wet weather, and the stock needs to be sealed inside and out.

To be honest, laminates are neither fish nor foul in my experience. I don't care for them nearly as well as good old English walnut (at least natural walnut won't delaminate!), non do laminates perform under all conditions nearly was well as a good synthetic stock such as McMillan's.

No more of them for me!

AD

Allen, I am curious why they would build these with glues that are not water proof, or if did at one time and if they do now. They are the major builders of these and if it happened with any regularity they would be out of business and rightfully so. But they are not.



I can get plywood at a lumber store that will hold up better in wet conditions than what you are saying about these.

I kind of like the laminated stocks and lean toward the bluish hues (laugh if you like!)for my target rifles. There can be problem with the Rutland woods though and that is the tendency to split. From what I have seen these splits occur not right on the glue line but adjacent to it. In other words, the glue is not at fault. The poor quality veneer is. So I consider glass bedding to be mandatory and think crossbolts are a benefit. I also agree with Allen (!)that extra pains should be taken in the area of waterproofing.
These laminates are not in the same class as the old Fajen maple/walnut laminates or the walnut/walnut laminates IMO. I have worked with some maple/maple laminates which were dyed various colors and like them much better than the birch.
When it comes down to it I suppose Allen may be right again (sigh) in his contention that glass is best for a rough usage hunting rifle and I have little doubt that it is best for target rifles. I continue to use various woods just out of obstinence I suppose. Regards, Bill.