This keeps popping up, so
 

I posted this on another forum also but I thought I would drop it in here also... the topic does interest me...

I thought I might want to discuss it a little bit....

Tupperware stocks... I really do not like that name but it seems to be a common name for Composite Stocks.

As with any stocks there are good ones and there are bad ones... but do they all deserve to be listed as tupperware?
At one time many years ago - I would have never thought about using a composite stock. Everything I had a wood stock, and even with them there are good ones and there are bad ones. Actually I do not even think there was such a thing as a composite stock many moons ago.

Why has the market gone that way, or even why has the market decided to free float barrels, it certainly is not the BEST way to achieve accuracy.

I believe it is all gone that way because of the almighty dollar, it is cheaper to produce a composite and it certainly is cheaper if you do not have to inlet each and every stock to the barreled action.

But, when you look at the $'s, it is probably our own fault. The average joe shooter probably is not willing to pay the price for a quality wood and bedded stock + the competition amoung manufacturers has become really cut throat for survival. But even then today you can get a rifle with a composite stock that will shoot just as well as a wood stock.

My reason for preferring the composite... I like it because I believe it to be a more durable stock for the conditions that I hunt in, those 'conditions' can be horrible or really pleasent. I feel the composite holds up better and is less effected by temperatures, weather, and rough conditions.

There is no argument about what looks better on my part - I really like the looks of a well done wood stock, they are great for showing off. Here is the rub, I consider my rifles tools, tools to get a job done - I really do not want to have to worry about nicks, bangs, and finish.

So for my part I will take a good composite on a hunting rifle all day and a good wood stock on a show gun.

I hope this makes some sense and makes for good conversation...

Well I know just what you mean... When I first started collecting rifles they had to have a wooden stock or were not considered. I once said to friends, I would not own one of them plastic stock rifles... How wrong I was. I own several now.

When I got my first one, it was a CVA Staghorn Magnum I believe, I was not impressed with it at all. The composite stock did not fit the hardware of the rifle well. But for $89.00 what does a person expect. After I shot the rifle for a while I have to admit they were starting to grow on me. After that, more and more of the rifles entering the collection had composite or laminated stocks. The rifle I was shooting today had a composite stock.

I guess I just learned to accept them. Like you, I do not baby my rifles. They get banged around, dropped, I even fall off small cliffs with them and land on them (that was a trip...) but the more I hunt with the composite and laminate the more I like them. I guess an old dog can learn new tricks.

cayugad

My first really bad experiance with a poor quality stock was also with CVA, first a Hunter Bolt and then a Fire Bolt, they were really bad for fit and flexibility. Have no idea who made them for CVA but they were terrible - but again when you buy a $200 cut throat gun - I guess you bet what you pay for. The CVA Fire Bolt did have a camo stock and it did look good but it was a really bad one.

I am not sure who made the stocks for Remington but they were really good and in those days of the first Rem 700ml's they were even inletted to the action - no barrel floating at all.

B&C composite stocks are also top line or have been for me.

I do believe that a good quality composite stock is superior to a good quality wood stock - they're tougher, weather proof, and more stable.

Still, every one of my long guns wear wood. Silly, huh? :s3: A stubborn old fart for sure. :p But I know what I like, and I like wood.

I agree with the "tool" philosophy and some of my stocks show it. I try to avoid scratches and dings, but they happen and I don't get overly upset about it. Heck, my body has its fair share of scratches and dings even though I have kept it well padded for many years.

I'll probably never own a composite stock rifle. But you never know. The reports on the Accura may get to me at a weak moment one day, even though it has what I consider to be one of the most unattractive stocks ever (though I admit - it's really nice at the shoulder).

The almighty $$$ does play a factor here. I love the look and feel of a wood stock. But cash has always been tight for me, so if I can save $50 or $100 by getting a composite, then that has often happened. I do like the durability of them as well. I guess for me it boils down to, what is the purpose of the rifle? If it is strictly a hunting tool, then why not get plastic? On the other hand, if you are buying a traditional rifle - for looks, for history, for a collection, then you have different priorities.

If I ever get to the point where I can start collecting rifles for "fun" as opposed to utility, then I'm sure I will invest in wood stocks. But until then.....

Obviously the whole thing is driven by profit. I think we all can agree about that.

However IMO the term "composite" is a misnomer.

The first "synthetic" stocks were made of Fiberglass. And were named as such. Then they started adding different fibers to the Fiberglass(like Kevlar) to make the stock stronger. Then they started adding the bedding blocks. But the higher quality "synthetic" stocks were made of Fiberglass and Kevlar. At this pinnacle the synthetic stocks were very good, and were bedded properly, and were worth the money.

So hunters started buying the better "synthetic" stock rifles because of their durability. And they were more durable. So less hunters wanted wood. In the mean time wood prices were going up. Supposedly because supply was dwindling, however I do not believe that . I believe "good wood" prices went up because the mfrs. standards went down. The gambit of wood prices out there is ridiculous. I have seen one mfr. want $2,000 for a piece of wood that is standard on another rifle. Rifles like Cooper at one time offered great rifles with great wood. Now they want $600-$1600 for upgraded wood that can be bought else where for $300-$400. But people will pay-so they will charge!!

Then the dreaded "composite" came along. They had to have a new name. They could not use Fiberglass, because they were injection molded plastic "Tupperware". Or IMO "JUNK". This was done for one thing only. "PROFIT". And by this time they had the hunters fooled by using a term like "composite". And made some money. If you notice you are now starting to see a slow switch back to better made stocks. But some of the cheap'os like CVA and Savage are going to be around because of pure price. However if you notice Savage is also upgrading their stocks(some). And their prices reflect it. Now Savages prices are approaching, and in some areas have overtaken Remington prices.

Personally I will never own a "Tupperware" stock rifle. And I will never buy an MZ made of any "synthetic", or "composite". I feel I have already lowered myself enough by owning 2 laminated MZ's.

Laminated stocks definitely are better than any "synthetic" or "composite"(that mfrs. offer) IMO. But they are heavier-so there is a trade off. Make mine Walnut.

Bottom line is the word "composite" is a word that was created and used by the industry to imply one thing, but actually offer and sell another. And the word "composite" can cover a wide variety of inexpensie "junk" materials. Instead of fiberglass or Kevlar. If it says Fiberglass then it better have fiberglass in the stock. And the mfrs. knew it didn't. Hence the name change----PROGRESS. Tom.

Yep, some of the plastic CVA stocks were flexible and pretty bad: So were the stocks on some other makes. The plastic stock on my TC Black Diamond is not very good either: Wish i could find a good replacement wood stock for that gun.

Never did like any kind of plastic type stock: This includes fiberglass and composite. Every one of my centerfire rifles have wood stocks. Wood stocks worked pretty well in those Mausers that the Germans carried into Russia. They also worked pretty for the Japanese army in the Pacific. Wood stocks have worked very well for we and i see no reason to change.

I think composite stocks are very smart for the reasons stated before. They are very serviceable and help a gun keep zero better! At least those are my thoughts on them.

Now that being said, I would never put a plastic stock on any sidelock. I feel it would be sacraligious to me.

My local toy store had one hanging on the wall for years. No one wanted it. Then I guess someone finally bought it, probably a democrat, because it's gone now. :confused0024:

worse stock i had was on a traditions evolution. Sighted it in one day and got a beautiful 1 1/2" group. Took it out the next day when it was hot and was lucky to get a 12" group. There was so much pressure at the nose of the stock that when it heated up, it just was horrible.

30 minutes of slow work with a file and then a couple pop can shims later, it went back to shooting perfect :happy0001:

I had to entirely reshape the front of the stock in order to get rid of all the pressure that was pushing up on the barrel.

X2:patriot: