What has happened to the days when a good rifle stock was made of quality wood?

All you see these days are composite stocks, and on the really rare case where you see wood its laminated?

Maybe im just getting old, but when I see a mini 14 stripped of its wood and stuck in cheap plastic im disappointed. Even the SKS had some nice wood, even when you could buy them all day long for $39.95...

They're still available; you have to pay a premium to get wood, though.

My opinion here, maybe it's fact, maybe not.

Shooters are able to have sub MOA rifles that they purchased at a decent price. "Back in the day" a rifle that could print 3 shots inside 1/2" was one that had a gunsmith get ahold of it. Now you can go buy a plain vanilla Savage, Remington, or Tikka that will shoot under an inch at 100.

Each piece of lumber is different, composite is more consistent. Making a fine wood stock shoot involves bedding it. (Yes I know composite stocks are bedded too). Maybe the "greener manufacturing" theory has something to do with not cutting down fine walnut trees as much as we used to.

Last, but not least, i suspect manufacturers have less cost in molding, and machining a composite stock as the do machining a wooden stock.

I love the look of a fine wood stock, but I love the performance of my expensive composite stocks better.

Almost none of the composite stocks they make today for Mini-14s or SKSs are worth the packaging they come in. I've owned both, and have a soft spot in my heart for Mini's, but it seems like the majority of the aftermarket for those two rifles is gun equivalent of the "cheap gimmicky chrome s&#$ you 3m tape onto your car" isle of pepboys.

That said, the same cannot be said for the majority of other rifles. HS Precision, B&C, Manners, Stockdale, McMillan, and many others make outstanding aftermarket fiberglass stocks. In my opinion they are far superior to any wood stock in terms of function.

Some rifles just demand a wood stock (700 CDL with a high gloss blue, almost any Model 70 etc). I think the Mini's and SKSs are just some of those rifles.

I would think that wood stocks would be far more green than composites. Composites have some really bad chemicals coming together.

I agree that the composites seem to be more accurate out of the box than the old wood guns, but Im not sure the stock is whats getting the sub moa. I would think that technogy has made it possible to mass produce actions and barrels quickly and to maintain tight tollerances.

Back when wood was the norm, mass producing actons and barrels was a compromise between tollerances and production speed.

Laminated stocks are more consistant that wood, But in the end the qualities that make a good wood stock truly beautiful is lost, and the laminates just dont have the grain of a good piece of wood. Laminates can be beautiful in their own way, but to me they look more assembly line than hand made.

But even Gunsmithing has changed a lot too, it used to be an art. A good gunsmith had tallents in everything from metal working to wood etc. More and more today a gunsmith is not much more than a mechanic that swaps out parts.

I see a day coming that gunsmithing will become just that a mechanic swapping parts...

Ease of manufacture and quality control. Composites have no knot holes or hidden checks. It takes a special eye to select and carve nice wood. We won't discuss how far QC has gone down hill. Look at the old Colt blue. Most finishes on guns are matte to eliminate polishing. Wood scratches and dents, plastic not nearly as easy.
To answer your question; it is all bottom line.

Absolutely technology has mad better actions and barrels. Composite stocks just seem to go with the build. In accurate rifle fire, consistency is the name of the game. Brass, primers, powder, bullets, the parts of the rifle are now more consistent, including the composite stock.

Agreed the gunsmith can turn into some mechanics a.k.a. parts changers. But the good ones have tolerances to .0005" and the machines and tooling will hold that tolerance in the hands of a good smith.

I concur...

It's simple- cost and durability. It costs much less to make a laminated or synthetic stock than a traditional wood stock. And a wood stock is not as durable. I've seen may wood stocks crack or break in certain key areas. Plus, if it is not bedded, the moisture can cause the wood to swell and change your point of impact.

I think a wood stock is very traditional, and pretty and all, but I go for durability. A wood stock on my hunting rifles would look like crap after a few seasons. I don't want to have to baby them to keep them looking good.

synthetic stocks are less than 1/3 the cost of a wood stock, its all about profits.

Chad;

My experience has been the opposite, I have several old wood stocks that has been hunted many years and the wood still looks good. One of them is an old Browning that I used for hunting most o my teenage years. There are a few scuff marks, but nothing that a good wipe down with Old English wouldnt clean up.

I have a Savage 111 LRH that I got second hand in Dec or Jan. Ive hunted with it maybe 20 sessions in the blind and the composite has a couple areas where it has some "flaking" that looks like a poor clear coat thats starting to peel.

It all comes down to the fact that 90% of hunters just want the cheapest rifle they can get away with.

Good wood itself is hard to come by as not all trees can produce the proper grain flow without inclusions or irregularities. Top that off with the fact that stock wood only comes from a certain part of a tree limiting what you can get, also its the hardest to obtain. Stocks come from 2ftish below ground level to 2ft above, nowhere else. Not everyone knows how to cut up a tree to give correct grain flow once its out of the ground. Proper stocks are quarter sawn, not slab sawn or any other method.

Next on the bucket list is wood species. I don't know the scientific term for them, but turkish walnut and english walnut are imo the highest quality wood for stock use for several reason, and no other type is up to that standard. Due to that those are the only types I like to use for building my guns.

Next up is the wood industry itself. Its too time consuming and labor intensive to go after stock wood when other timber industries produce more money. So very few people go after it raising the price per stock blank.

Not many people even know what quality stock wood looks like. They think that since its pretty it must be of high quality...not the case. I've seen $1,500 blanks that looked pretty but lacked the other attributes that make a good stock. On the other hand I'm going to be building a rifle using a $3,500 blank in a few weeks, its perfect in every way.

While I like Savage rifles there's a reason their non-Accustocks are called tupperware. They're flimsy and look cheap. An aftermarket stock such as Manners or McMillan would be like comparing an old Pacer to a new Corvette.

Also what the majority desire in a rifle have changed, as well as the type of hunting. First on the list is accuracy. People want thicker barrels, bigger optics, and synthetic stocks for hunting rifles. Stalk hunting while common in earlier years just isn't done too often today, Stand hunting is preffered which is the reason the rifle I mentioned above is popular.

What that rifle lacks is shootability. I can build a wood stocked rifle that will fit like a fine shotgun, point like a fine shotgun, and balance/handle like a fine shotgun. It may be a 1moa gun on the bench, but in the case of stalk hunting its more practical and under those shooting circumstances more accurate to shoot. I build my rifles so that with only a front iron sight you can mount the gun and pointing it like a shotgun, standing, put 3 shots in the vital area of a deer. I've yet to handle a synthetic stocked rifle that could allow me to do that. Hell most modern wood stocked rifles won't allow that. Its really only rifles produced in the early to mid 1900's prodominently by the english. On that list is modern customs.