fillae

I'm getting ready to purchase my first rifle and was hoping to get some opinions about whether to get a synthetic or wood stock. I'm looking at the Browning A-Bolt (either the Hunter or the Stalker) in 7mm. I like the look of wood a lot, but if there is a compelling reason to go with synthetic I wouldn't be adverse to doing so. I know the synthetic will stand up to more abuse (weather, etc), but is there any performance issues I should be aware of? I was told sythentic helped to reduce recoil, not sure if this is a farse or not.

Thanks!

wolf6151

Wood stocks are more traditional, they generally look better, and are usually heavier than synthetics, thus they will absorb slightly more recoil. Synthetics are lighter than wood so there easier to carry and they're tougher than wood. It really doesn't matter if you scratch it cause it's not pretty to begin with. The first big scratch on that pretty wood stock realy hurts, a synthetic stock you just hunt, you don't have to be careful about every tree or rock as your walking so that you don't hurt the stock. Sythetic stocks are an inert material that will not absorb moisture so you don't have to worry like a wood stock that can absorb moisture and thus warp slightly and change your point of impact. Go with the synthetic stock it's much more functional and easier to take care of and performs better. Remember a pretty stock never killed anything, rifles are functional so hunt hard. You might also get a stainless rifle, they're easier to take care of than blued steel, especially if you hunt in a wet or humid enviroment.

340WBYMAG

I agree with Wolf6151, wood stocks look nice but they're like a car, you don't own it until you get the first scratch or dent. If that's a worry buy a stainless with a synthetic stock. They take a beating no matter what the weather.

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

eldeguello

I much prefer wood stocks, but must agree with Wolf6151 that the synthetics are far more stable and suitable for a practical hunting rifle. However, I am old fashioned, and like to see both wood and steel, rather than polymer and plastic!!

Larry

scrapehunter

Call me crazy but wood just seems to feel better in my hands than synthetic.

Ruger-Redhawk

fillae welcome to the board, We all agree that Wood stocks are allot nicer to look at. The synthetic and Stainless Steel IMO are better for hard hunting. Weather does not effect the synthetic stock like it does wood.The wood will swell ,absorb moisture. Cold weather will effect it.Synthetic remains the same.Stainless steel needs to be cared for like any other gun. It's more forgiving then a blued rifle.The wood may absorb recoil a little better but theres not that much difference. Ruger Redhawk

Tikka 300

Good luck making that decision. No matter which way you go, you'll always wonder if it was the correct choice. However, you really need to ask yourself how well you treat your gun. I hunt with one guy who wipes his gun down and oils it every night, I also hunt with a guy who cleans his gun every couple years. Needless to say, wood works for the one guy, ss/synthetic works for the other!

338UltraMag

Yeah, synthetic is definitely the way to go. The way that a stainless steel with a synthetic stocks looks is completely incomparable. In my vast experience I have had many rifles with both wood and synthetic stocks and I tell you now that I don't own a hunting rifle that doesn't have a synthetic on it. They absorb way more recoil than wood, are stonger for the most part, and less apt to get scratched. Also, no warping from weather. Go with Synthetic every time.

stubblejumper

Synthetic stocks do have a little give and do tend to transmit less felt recoil to the shooter.