Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska who uses wood/blued in AK

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 ...