Ha...and the McMillan's and Manner's seem "cold" to me compared to say Hathcock's wood on his Winchester M70...It's all a matter of perspective...nothing is ever constant but change.

The chassis are more expensive, they've seen them on TV, etc. etc..

It is possible but unlikely that the guns with chassis stocks shoot better than graphite or glass.

The chassis are more expensive, they've seen them on TV, etc. etc..

It is possible but unlikely that the guns with chassis stocks shoot better than graphite or glass.

Chassis can cost the exact same money as a composite plus bottom metal. But, yes, can cost more.

Chassis stocked rifles do not shoot any better. Put the same barreled action in either stock and it will shoot the same, provided the action is equally locked in, and the barrel always remains free-floated in any position.

As long as it takes to get a Manners of McMillan I doubt they are, or ever will be hurting for business.

Chassis vs. composite is nothing more that personal preference. I prefer composite, but I have no ill will towards chassis.

I AGREE ON WOOD


REASON I BOUGHT MY SAKO M85 BAVARIAN CARBINE. LOVE TO SNUGGLE WITH IT

I AGREE ON WOOD...LOVE TO SNUGGLE WITH IT

I still cant decide on fiberglass vs chassis. If long range competition shooters are moving to chassis systems, that doesn't necessarily mean they are better.

IMO, a fine wood stock is to a rifle or shotgun, what a sexy dress is to an attractive women. It just makes it look so much better.

And likewise, a solid-colored, synthetic stock is like a woman in a plain dress with no makeup.

I've seen guys who would select a specific new rifle or shotgun of the same model just because of the grain and appearance of the wood in the stock.

Wood just gives a gun more balance, not to mention reducing recoil due to the added weight. I was handling a rifle with a synthetic stock a few weeks back at Academy and dang near dropped it when the guy working the counter handed it to. All the weight was heavily in the front.

I've seen guys who would select a specific new rifle or shotgun of the same model just because of the grain and appearance of the wood in the stock.

In addition to the modularity, they seem like they would be very adjustable to fit just about any size shooter. I would like to handle one and see for myself.

IMO, a fine wood stock is to a rifle or shotgun, what a sexy dress is to an attractive women. It just makes it look so much better.

And likewise, a solid-colored, synthetic stock is like a woman in a plain dress with no makeup.

I've seen guys who would select a specific new rifle or shotgun of the same model just because of the grain and appearance of the wood in the stock.

Wood just gives a gun more balance, not to mention reducing recoil due to the added weight. I was handling a rifle with a synthetic stock a few weeks back at Academy and dang near dropped it when the guy working the counter handed it to. All the weight was heavily in the front.

Well we're also talking fiberglass vs chassis stocks here. Synthetic/plastic stocks are a completely different animal and pretty much suck across the board.

I like my wood.