synthetic stock question #2

hadjii

What is the general consensus on the ruger synthetic stocks that come on the 77 hawkeye? Decent or junk? Thanks

cpermd

Not very stiff.
Perfectly adequate for hunting though.

CP

wpage

Not a foul weather hunter so I prefer wood stocks...

Walley19

Being from the old school all synthetic stocks are junk in my book. If a long gun doesn't have a wood stock it has no place in my gun cabinet. To me a gun should look like a gun not a dime store pile of crap.

hadjii

Well Walley, I'm from old school too, however, this is the 21st Century, and it's time to start thinking like it's the 21st Century. If you don't have experience with the ruger stock other than the fact that you don't like synthetic stocks, then do us all a favor and don't bother answering. Also, I have no control on what stock Ruger puts on their rifles. I bought a stainless steel rifle, and the standard stock is the synthetic stock, and not having any experience with that particular stock, prompted me to ask the question I asked. If it's not any good, then fine, I will replace it, or put up with it as it is, but too say that all synthetic stocks are junk is definitely inaccurate.

ern98

The way I evaluate a synthetic stock is by dismounting the barreled action out of it and then take the pistol grip in one hand and the forestock in the other and twist the two with increasing force. If I get any real amount of real deflection with a reasonable amount of force then I consider the stock to be junk. I have never tried this with a Ruger stock. Most non blindbox type injection molded stocks, that I have tried this with, failed the test. Blindbox mag type stocks are just a stronger design, as are laid up glass type stocks.

hadjii

ern98, would it be theoretically possible to somehow reinforce the fore-end part of the stock with fiberglass, or would it be a waste of time and effort, and be just be better to get an after market stock, such as a mcmillan or brown?

tsr1965

Hadjii,

The current run of Ruger Synthetic stocks are JUNK. They are injection molded just like the rest of them, and are hollow. The first run of synthetisc from Ruger, were the skeleton style, and had some reinforcement, and were better, but still not like a Brown, HS, or McMillan.

Take it a little easier on the new members too...you were(and still are somewhat) new once. I do realize sometimes that there is non-value added things that takes up a 10 post maximum thread, but you have posted 3 times too, instead of editing your original post.

Best

EDIT1:

Hadjii,

Learn how to use the edit feature! The count is now 4 times you posted! that little piece of paper with the pencil emblem...click on that to EDIT your post like you see on mine.

By the time you drill the holes to add two planes of stability, you will have increased your cost dramatically...almost to the point ofwhere you would be better off with(at least monetarily), a new stock by a decent maker. I don't mind a little flexability in the front end of a stock, as long as the action bedding is solid, and the barrel is not interfeared with. A bedding block with bedding is the way to go!


The whole idea is to have a rock solid, stress free launching platform. You need adjoining bottom and top metal to do that most of the time. A bedding block will help too, but remember that the action needs to be bedded to the bedding block for a 100% contact fit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like any flex in the stock, including the forend. It does not aid to good shooting if things are moving around at all. For short to mid range(300 yards or so), I can deal sith a very little of forearm flex, but in general ALL of the injection molded stocks today are JUNK.

hadjii

advice taken tsr1965. My apologies Walley. Lesson learned

tsr if the stock is hollow in the fore-end, is it possible that I could drill a series of holes, say in the barrel channel, and inject some sort of epoxy into the holes to fill up the fore-end and make it stiffer, or is that not possible?

vdms55, that was a pretty ingenious idea. If I can get my 300 RCM to come close to what your 300 Win Mag is doing, then I will be equally satisfied. Right now, the gun is at the gunsmith's getting a new trigger and new crown before I even shoot it. Thanks for the insight.

I guess I'll have to see how it shoots when I get home. Perhaps i will put one of them laminated stocks on it from Stocky's. They're reasonably priced, and while that probably isn't the best option, it is an option. My plan in buying this SS rifle was to be able to keep it behind the seat of the P/U without worrying about the traditional problems of rust and such. Yes, I know SS can rust as well, but it's still more maintenence free than blued. Besides that, I normally take a trip down to the swamps of Louisianna and hunt every year, and the weather down there isn't always so kind.

vdms55

i believe the reason for the hollow forearm is to lighten up the load (less weight) i have a stainless mark 11 m77 in.300 win mag that i bedded the action and floated the barrel using a shaved down solid rubber motor mount for the majority of the filler. i then used a casey's bed rock kit to glue the rubber in and bedded the action as one would do in a wooden stock. with hand loaded 150 gr. speer btsp bullets 71.3 grs. of h4350 powder the old girl spits 'em out at 3032 fps and holds less than a .750 4 shot group at 100 yrds. off sand bags. i'm satisfied. if the forearm twists as previously described i don't think i could care less, but i'll try.