Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Remington synthetic stocks

I have noticed that several firerms manufacturers that once made their own synthetic stock are now switching to Remington. Ruger is probably the most well known for scrapping their cut away "ugly" stock. What do you guys think about these Remington stocks? I dont like how they look and have heard that they kick more than they should.

Cazador,<BR>I've been on record as a fan of the remington factory stocks before, so I don't mind doing it again. Put one on my 20 year old rem. 700bdl .300 win mag 2 years ago. The fit is great, and the look, compared to some synthetics, is a definite improvement, IMHO. The two best parts, though, is that my groups settled down, and recoil went way down (again, in my opinion). The price is pretty good too, at least for the remington actions. Its not the lightest, or prettiest, or most expensive synthetic, but it works great, and I'm sold.<P>John

It depends on which "Remington" stock your talking about. I like the ones that McMillian makes for them. Their Mt. Rifle stock is very light, 24 ozs., and very strong. Their H-S Precision stocks are very good too. I'm not thrilled with their injection moulded stocks. They are heavy, and flexible, at least the ones I've played with have been. Most people report good shooting results with them. A good thing, because apparently glass bedding does little good with them, in the long run. They are not prone to breaking at the pistol grip, as are wooden stocks, but, I personally like the McMillian, and H-S Precision stocks much better. E

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I too believe that the HS precision is one of the best out there. I am talking more specifically about the one one the Rugers and another... but I cant think of the name right now. It could be that I have just seen the bad ones. <P><BR>Thanks

Caz,<BR>The injection moulded stocks SUCK!!!!!<BR>H.S. stocks are OK if they get skimmed and ya don't mind a 2X4 for wrist dimensions and a low comb.<BR>Of course the McMillan stocks are worthy of any worship due lesser Celtic gods,no matter what's in them.<BR>Does that help???<BR>What are you fixing to do?<BR>Cheers!<BR>E4E

Well I have the cut-away Ruger and hear how horrible they are. I never really had a problem with them, but maybe I dont know what I am missing. Thinking of putting a new one on there and dont really like the new ones that Ruger is using. I dont know; what do you think?

I think you shouldn't fix what ain't broke. That stock allows a more muzzle heavy balance. That means you will probably be more inclined to hit something with it under less than ideal shooting conditions. It is harder to break than a wood stock. I know, they are ugly. Well, are you ready to spend $400 plus for a McMillian ? If you want a signicantly better synthetic, that's where you have to go. E

Well, you asked about the Remington synthetic stocks...so I'll comment.<BR> I own 2 of the 700's in the cheap, black, plastic / synthetic. An ADL in 7mmMag, and a BDL in .375HH ....and I must say I originally planned on changing over to McMillans. But I broke the rifles in, did some load development, and find them to fit me well.<BR> Oh, they also both shoot MOA out to 225yds.<BR>I'm happier than I thought I'd be....and the recoil is easier than a Ruger 77MkII boatpaddle in 30-06 I shot, or a few of the nasty kicking wooden stocked Winchesters in the 300Mag category (one WIN., one WBY).<BR> I'm NOT disssing Rugers and Winnies...my point is that the stock, no matter WHAT make, has to fit the shooter...period. <BR> I get a great fit from a couple cheap Remingtons....I'm blessed! Sparkman