Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Accuracy: Wood vs Synthetic vs Laminate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="azsugarbear" data-source="post: 334786" data-attributes="member: 4809"><p>Good comments from prtaylor. Solid wood stocks can be the most beautiful piece of a rifle, but they absorb moisture and can be negatively impacted by weather. These subtle, but very real changes or swelling in the grain of the wood can put pressure on the action/barrel at different places and different times which can move your POI substantially in very little time.</p><p></p><p>Synthetic stocks cover a large range of man-made materials. The least expensive is plastic. While substantially better than wood in resisting weather, these stocks are not always "stiff" enough to become a reliable shooting platform. Just grab the front end of the stocks forearm and barrel and squeeze them together to see what I mean. Most entry-level rifles from Remington, Winchester, Ruger, etc. that have synthetic stocks are plastic. (Higher end rifles from these manufacturers will tend to have better composite stocks). On the other end of the synthetic scale we have the carbon fiber stocks. They are lightweight, completely resistant to weather and extremely stiff and strong. Very good shooting platforms, but also very expensive. Most carbon fiber stocks have 50%-90% carbon fiber in them. Composite stocks fall in between plastic and carbon and cover a large range of material, including fiberglass. Like the name says, most are a combination or "composite" of different materials. Good stuff - and nearly as rigid as carbon. For a shooting platform, I can't tell the difference - except in the weight and $$.</p><p></p><p>Wood laminates act a lot like composite stocks. They tend to be very resistant to changes in weather because of the resins and glues used in making them under pressure at the factory. Very stable shooting platforms. Again, they can weigh a little more than composites, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing when shooting the long-range magnums. More weight usually means less felt recoil.</p><p></p><p>To my mind, once you get away from the cheap plastic stocks, most synthetic stocks (including wood laminates) provide excellent stability and accuracy. In general, lighter weight components cost more. Some companies, like McMillan or Accuracy International (and there are many, many more), cost more because they have a proven stock design with workmanship of the highest quality.</p><p></p><p>Bedding the action has always been a must for me. It generally improves accuracy in the rifle. In fact, I can't think of a single instance or story where bedding the action of a rifle has degraded accuracy when done correctly (now watch - I will get a ton of them). There are lots of different materials that can be used in bedding actions. Most are epoxies of some kind and they work very well. Pillar bedding goes a step further by providing an additional base that "locks down" the action with your bedding material forming a support base around it. With extremely large bull barrels where the weight of the barrel greatly exceeds that of the action, the owner may opt to bed the first several inches of the barrel. I know Kirby Allen has built a couple this way.</p><p></p><p>Free-floating the barrel is generally a good idea that can improve accuracy in most rifles. However, I have found that very thin, lightweight hunting barrels (also known as pencil barrels) often do better when the entire barrel is bedded in the stock. I believe these barrels suffer from too much vibration due to a lack of steel and that bedding them dampens these vibrations and enhances accuracy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="azsugarbear, post: 334786, member: 4809"] Good comments from prtaylor. Solid wood stocks can be the most beautiful piece of a rifle, but they absorb moisture and can be negatively impacted by weather. These subtle, but very real changes or swelling in the grain of the wood can put pressure on the action/barrel at different places and different times which can move your POI substantially in very little time. Synthetic stocks cover a large range of man-made materials. The least expensive is plastic. While substantially better than wood in resisting weather, these stocks are not always "stiff" enough to become a reliable shooting platform. Just grab the front end of the stocks forearm and barrel and squeeze them together to see what I mean. Most entry-level rifles from Remington, Winchester, Ruger, etc. that have synthetic stocks are plastic. (Higher end rifles from these manufacturers will tend to have better composite stocks). On the other end of the synthetic scale we have the carbon fiber stocks. They are lightweight, completely resistant to weather and extremely stiff and strong. Very good shooting platforms, but also very expensive. Most carbon fiber stocks have 50%-90% carbon fiber in them. Composite stocks fall in between plastic and carbon and cover a large range of material, including fiberglass. Like the name says, most are a combination or "composite" of different materials. Good stuff - and nearly as rigid as carbon. For a shooting platform, I can't tell the difference - except in the weight and $$. Wood laminates act a lot like composite stocks. They tend to be very resistant to changes in weather because of the resins and glues used in making them under pressure at the factory. Very stable shooting platforms. Again, they can weigh a little more than composites, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing when shooting the long-range magnums. More weight usually means less felt recoil. To my mind, once you get away from the cheap plastic stocks, most synthetic stocks (including wood laminates) provide excellent stability and accuracy. In general, lighter weight components cost more. Some companies, like McMillan or Accuracy International (and there are many, many more), cost more because they have a proven stock design with workmanship of the highest quality. Bedding the action has always been a must for me. It generally improves accuracy in the rifle. In fact, I can't think of a single instance or story where bedding the action of a rifle has degraded accuracy when done correctly (now watch - I will get a ton of them). There are lots of different materials that can be used in bedding actions. Most are epoxies of some kind and they work very well. Pillar bedding goes a step further by providing an additional base that "locks down" the action with your bedding material forming a support base around it. With extremely large bull barrels where the weight of the barrel greatly exceeds that of the action, the owner may opt to bed the first several inches of the barrel. I know Kirby Allen has built a couple this way. Free-floating the barrel is generally a good idea that can improve accuracy in most rifles. However, I have found that very thin, lightweight hunting barrels (also known as pencil barrels) often do better when the entire barrel is bedded in the stock. I believe these barrels suffer from too much vibration due to a lack of steel and that bedding them dampens these vibrations and enhances accuracy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Accuracy: Wood vs Synthetic vs Laminate
Top