Thread: Wood vs Synthetic Stock - Felt Recoil

Following as have Boyd's stock on the 223 at the moment and it may be going back into factory plastic

@Cigar for reduction in felt recoil definitely the laminated stock. My rifle is un braked and no suppressor so if either is fitted I would think it is a moot point as to which stock you use. The bare weight increased by adding the laminated stock but I don't mind the extra weight. If I was to put it back in the synthetic stock I would suppress it.

I like what John mentioned about a standing bench. Makes sense and probably saves a lot of hard knocks.

My brother's little Browning .308 is a timber stock but has a nasty little kick , a factor of being lighter I think.

the new WIFI symbol stocks look interesting ....built in shock absorbsion could be a improvement we will see more of..but then again super small cartridges seem to be the new normal....or have we gone past that and climbing back up again??? round n round it goes.

I think a lot of it comes down to PERCEIVED recoil also .
An example ....
A friend has a 338 edge , heavy barrel , heavy laminate wood stock with all the additions for long range competition shooting (bag runners etc) and a custom adjustable metal plate on rear of stock to raise the butt pad to level with bore and a muzzle brake . thing weighs a ton .
I have my Hardy 338 lap mag hunting rifle , carbon barrel (heavy contour) , carbon hunting stock , magnum suppressor and super lightweight neopod bipod . Has to weight almost half of the 338 edge .
so on paper his should be a pussycat compared to mine to shoot regarding felt recoil ....
I have shot both rifles side by side .
But mine is by far a much more pleasant rifle to shoot . It jumps more obviously due to the light weight .
But his muzzle brake sounds like a tank round going off and FEELS like it kicks harder than mine .
Now some of you may have noticed I like large calibre rifles .
But 2 rounds through his was more than enough for me , FELT like it was beating the hell out of my shoulder .
I proceeded to put another 20 odd rounds through my 338lm and could happily have kept going all afternoon .
My only explanation , as it seems to go against all the rules on paper , is firstly the muzzle brake blast - no fun at all !! And secondly the lack of muzzle rise due to the sheer weight of the thing and the high in-line butt pad directing ALL the recoil back towards the shoulder ... but I would have thought the sheer weight of the thing compared to mine would have mitigated a large chunk of that recoil ...

Apparently not . So from that experience I don't believe weight alone has as much recoil damping effect as people believe when you start playing with the more powerful calibres . I think stock design is a more pertinent factor , pushing the "in-line" stock straight back where mine tends to act more like a hinge and dissipates some of the recoil in another direction (up) rather than back . And I also think PERCEIVED recoil as opposed to ACTUAL recoil forces also play a large factor . The muzzle brake blasted all that pressure wave and half of the scenery right back at you and in itself was not a pleasant experience . Bumping up the PERCEIVED recoil by magnitudes when his should actually produce less FELT recoil than mine by what should be a measurable amount "on paper" .
So I think perceived recoil is something that also should to be taken into account when talking about recoil mitigation .

That's my thoughts anyway ....

Does anyone know of a difference in sound travel/vibrations though synthetic stock vs wood with the likes of bone conduction (hearing with the bones in your face https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_conduction) I remember reading about it somewhere relating it to rifle stocks but can't find it

In order of decending importance:

1. Design
2. Weight
3. Material