Just curious if every body in alaska is using stainless/synthetic in coastal areas. I am moving up to Wasilla in the summer and all of my guns are wood/blued. I just like the feel of wood stocks compared to syn. Anybody else?

Most every gun I use up here is S/S but there were generations before me that proved wood and blued will kill any critter in the state.

I lived there from 1989 - 1997 and hunted with a guy using a pre-64 Model 70 in 270.

Killed everything. He was anal about cleaning it every night. Marine, and all that....

I tend to use the stainless stuff quite often in summer. I am not as hard-core as I once was, however, and tend to use what I like including, sometimes, blued walnut, single shots - which seem to make less sense from a purely killing standpoint.

Polished blued steel seems to have less "traction" for rust to start. I will admit, though, that some of my blued steel rifles bear some nasty evidence of what saltwater exposure can do in a few hours. That doesn't remove them from their favored positions in my fold nor has it, probably, decreased their already quite-used monetary value.

Hhhmmm thats what I read.

Have both, use both. Running blue/walnut isn't a huge problem, but, I've got to ask...do you really NEED an excuse to buy a new rifle or two?

All of mine are wood/blued. I am having a custom made now that will be plastic/blued.

Nothing wrong with S/S if that your thing. they both work.

Both my guiding rifle have composite stocks (mpi & hp) but my hunting rifle all carry their original pre-64 timbers.

I use more blue than SS and have no synthetic stocked rifles in use. Have only a few SS rifles actually...

everything works, just depends what features are important to you,

I got turned off of stainless early in life cause I had an early Ruger Redhawk and I never could stone the trigger as smooth as I wanted. I blamed it on the stainless, though it was most likely the dumbazz with the stone.

I use to feel a guy that wouldn't take proper care of his firearms shouldn't have them and blue was the way to go. but I was younger then and oddly enough less lazy, I liked cleaning guns, almost as much as shooting them.

lets just say my philosophy has changed over the years.

the way I take care of my firearms borders upon abuse these days.

Blue will work fine if you use a good metal protectant. I've used RIG the most over the years, but I'm hearing good news about Corrosion-X. Plan to try it on the spring bear hunt.

Have used blued/walnut almost exclusive for years. I have 3 S/S rifles 2 with plastic and one with walnut, have only hunted with one on one hunt. Can't say I've ever had much problem with blued ones and most likely won't get another S/S. Although anything is possible. That said I carry a 629 S&W most everywhere I go and like S/S in handguns a lot. --- Mel

All of my rifles are wood/blue and they look great, it may be because I am anal about taking care of them. Have a blued Dan Wesson .44 and a SS S&W 460. Carry them about the same amount of time and both look like new. Just an ole fashioned guy that likes the blue/wood. My son on the other hand prefers SS and synthetic.

Or it be the fact that you live in a desert and I on the other hand live in a rain forest.

So the conditions of use might matter?

I'd not run across the GOA in an 18' Hewescraft, so yes they might....

I knew one of you guys from down "south" would pick up on that. Admittedly so, as does quality care.

There are times when NOTHING I own is dry........

I have been here two years and don't think we have had 4 inches of rain. Don't envy you for that. You have the best of hunting though. Stay dry, Dave

Everytime I tell someone that northern Alaska is a desert they just stare at me with a dumbfounded look, as if to say "ahh no it cant be its got snow".

I and everybody I know uses both. You just have to take care of certain guns better than others thats all.

We only had 32" in October. Wood/blue likes that about as much as I do......

Have rifles that have been wet all day everyday for weeks in saltwater environments and they do fine with just a little care.

I'd say you're stuck Mel, olstainless, just ain't got the same ring to it!

Have had stainless/fiberglass in like that did fine with no care.

I've managed to "camo finish" a blued gun or two in just a few hours of drizzle, sea spray, and duck blind duty. Then again, I deeply pitted a new stainless barrel (externally) after failing to wipe it down the same night we came in from a early AM marine jaunt through ice floes.

The "dinged up" guns I have come in both flavors: blued and stainless. I will say that synthetics do seem to have an advantage in not frosting up when cold like wood stocks do. I'm not sure if or why that matters...

Stainless Ruger #1s sure are ugly though IMO.

But what else are you going to do on those long dark nights? Might as well grab a rag and rub your gun, right?

Does it count as stainless with a dusting of Krylon?

I'd use a blued/wood combo if I could find a stock to fit my 375. Right now I only own 2 rifles, both are blued and sit in a synthetic stock, one has been treated with Black T and the other is going to CAS to be Creakoted. I will soon own my first SS rifle and use it this spring.

Good point, hadn't thought of that, I'm sure enough stuck in a rut!! Actually olblue was a blue and yellow Aeronca sedan I use to own. --- Mel

I hope so. Then I can count an old Rem 721 I have as stainless. The "cherry red" Krylon it was given on the receiver (before I got it) does prevent rust. Personally, I favor Rustoleum products, but Krylon is available locally.

I only use stainless. I've had wood/blue rifles in camp and it worked but the overall results was not good.

My 2005 hunt in the arctic was a fly-in, boat-out trip because of the floods. It rained for all but 12 hours of a 10 day hunt. Not exactly a desert.

I am saving for my first Alaska hunt and can't comment on the blue/wood vs ss in Alaska. Thanks for asking the question, as the post are good to read.

I can comment on Eezox as a metal protectant. It goes on wet. Let set for a couple hours then wipe off. It dries with no filmy. Nothing sticks to it like oil. I learned about it through a post. This sutff is great. Read some of the comments on the Eezox website. From what I have observed, they are all true. I have confidence in this stuff.

Used to think SS was the way to go yrs back. Now am happy with a blued rifle and walnut. It is just maint. if you don't space out or get lazy you're firearm will survive.

Push comes to shove apply carnuba car wax and buff to a shine. wards off water like a champ.

Klik,
Could you explain this comment? I live where it gets plenty cold, and have seen synthetics completely covered with "hoar frost," but have never seen wood have a bit on it. Further, I've always found wood to be much warmer to the touch. Am I missing something?

I would like o thank all of you for your advice and suggestions. It is much apreciated. I have owned ss/syn in the past and still have a couple of them, but my favorites are my wood/blued guns. Something about them draws me like a moth to a flame. They just feel like a gun to me.

Aesthetics ain't a reason I pick a rifle for a goat hunt, ymmv...

Thats exactly the logic I have adopted. I remember the days of worrying about my rifle and worrying about cleaning it. Just dont do that anymore. Stainless on synthetic, stainless on fiberglass, it just gets flopped in the tent. I always keep some kind of dry cloth in a ziploc to take care of my optics but the gun better hold its own! Call me lazy, but after walking up an down the [bleep] mountains all day I just aint got it in me to babysit a blued rifle anymore.

I own both but when I go out hunting the stainless guns get taken. I just don't want to mess with the gun when I get back to camp. I would be a little mad if I dinged up my nice wood stock or scratched the bluing on a nice rifle, on a stainless/synthetic I don't care. Haven't had a single animal complain after I killed it cause my gun wasn't purty enough to shoot him with.

JD

I have rusty shovels. As long as the tool can do the job...

Wipe the glass, check the bore, let the outside rust.

Just remember that stainless means just that, it's stains less, but is not immune to corrosion. If you hunt the coast your gun will get sprayed with salt water, and it will rust if you don't maintain it.

I've used both and see merrits in both. Most factory stocks are garbage whether wood or plastic. Wood can be just as stable as a top of the line synthetic, but getting a custom wood stock costs more than synthetics, and most stock makers haven't a clue how to finish a stock to be stable in extreme environments.

A typical lower 48 deer rifle will kill anything in Alaska, just use good bullets and place them where they belong.

Which isn't to say a move to AK isn't an excellent reason to get more guns. Just to say you won't be hampered by using the guns you have, and your time and money is likely best spent being proficient with what you have, and spending the large sums of money required to access the game when living on the road system.

Not sure if it means anything. It's probably relates as much to an advantage as a disadvantage. I just know you bring a wood stock in from the cold sometimes and it'll frost up good. I suppose the synthetics do to. I just recall the contrast on the wood ones more but only when it's very cold.

Functionally, having a blued rifle rust in the bore is much more serious than any cosmetic damage to either.

Thanks for the explanation.

Most of my guns are blue/wood. Pain in the ass.

A couple have stainless barrels, one (blue) has a synthetic stock.

By the end of moose season, my somewhat customized blue/wood Ruger 77 has a stock that is about an eighth inch fatter than the recoil pad. Not to worry. It will shrink to fit by next season. But, being glass-bedded and free-floated, it will shoot just fine all season. Always has, anyway.

I need to re-barrel a couple rifles because the bores got a little too wet, a little too long, and no longer shoot well without being thoroughly fouled (I can and do hunt with them in that condition!)

Starting from scratch, I'll take stainless and synthetic, any day. It gives you just that little bit extra when things go just not quite right. You still need to exercise diligent care. Ef the "traditional" looks.

Wood/Blued for me. Always have, always will. Never had a problem, not once. Same with my father and grandfather.

I just bought my self a ruger M77MKII sporter in 338 win mag. It is stainless with a laminate stock and checkered grips. I liked the idea of a laminate stock because it still feels like wood but is more stable and stronger than most "plastic" stocks IMO. I am no gunsmith so I may be completely off here.

Laminate is my choice in wet Oregon, unless I want a superlight rifle. I like the sense of solidity it has. Plus, it's quiet and oderless; cheap plastic stocks can be very noisy (usually in the buttstock) and often smell like curing plastic...

I do like the stock on my Kimber Montana.

The Remington XCR rifles would seem to me to be a good choice in a wet, salty environment. At least, I can say that my XCR still looks brand new after 3 seasons. That coating (on the metal) is pretty impressive. Of course the bore is not coated (I don't think anyway) so you have to be aware that the most important part of the rifle ISN'T as well protected as the rest!

-jeff

I've been to AK a few times and used SS and plastic each time except the last time. On this last trip it rained each day and every night back in camp I wished I'd stuck to plastic/SS. My guides have all carried blued steel, wood stocked, big-bore stoppers in every case. Their rifles are cared for but have that used-tool look that tell me they value reliable function over good looks. Different strokes for different folks, you know ...