Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger's New Synthetic Stocks

Has anyone tried one yet? How are they? Better than the paddle stock? They sure look nicer.

What, no one has seen or used one?

I have seen them on the Ruger website and at Davidson's. I hope they are better than the current design. They appear to have conventional sling mounts. I'm not a Ruger fan, but I am considering a stainless/syn in 30/06. Ruger is the only one that offers sights with that configuration. Hopefully I will be able to get one and tell you all about it.

cs-<BR>Just curious, (not meant to be malicious) Why are you not a ruger fan? Anything in particular you don't like about them?<P>I am asking because I am a BIG ruger fan. <P>No, I'm not gonna try to sway you or change you, just curious. Maybe you see something I don't!<P>thanks.

blammer-Finally got my hands on one of the new synthetic Rugers a few days ago. Looks good and feels great! The stock really fits me well and the recoil pad looks like a good one. I dry fired it a few times, the trigger was much better than I expected. My old MKI .270 might have a big brother one of these days- probably a .338 S/S MKII! I have liked Ruger rifles for a long time, I just could never bring myself to pay good money for that butt-ugly boat paddle stock....cowdoc...

Flashman: I am a big Ruger fan (Remingtons problems have really turned me off, except for their ammo which I still use). I own both a paddle stock rifle (.270) and one of the the new synthetics (.280). The new stock is well designed and very comfortable. Don't hesitate to get one. I'm in the minority, but I like the carrying qualities of the old paddle stock also. It takes a little getting used to as far as shooting, but once I did, I liked it. I don't think it's ugly either, but most do. You feel more recoil with the paddle, but in .270 type calibers it doesn't make any difference. I wouldn't buy a paddle stocked Ruger in any magnum caliber.

I'd be interested to see how these new stocks hold up after glass bedding. One of the big problems with some light/cheap synthetics is their cores are soft, or weak. As you shoot them, they compress. Then one's zero changes, and all sorts of interesting things happen. I feel myself coming down with a Ruger, perhaps a .22-250, or a .243 UltraLite. E

Blammer, I don't really have any substantial reason, I even have 2 Rugers. Their customer service is A+. I guess its that alot of my friends have Rugers and I just want to be different. My Dad is a Winchester man, and I never really got into Rugers. Buick vs. Pontiac I guess. If these new syn stocks turn out right, I just might be a convert.<BR>I am right about the new stocks having the regular sling mounts? I haven't had the chance to take a look at one yet in person.

CS: On the new Ruger stocks the swivel studs are in the stock so you have to buy the detachable swivels. They are so cheap that it's no big deal. With the old paddle stocks the swivels are already attached to the stock. Since the scope mounts are also included in the box, all you have to buy is the scope and sling, sight in, and you're in business.

P.S. I should have said scope rings.

I handled one a couple of weeks ago and the new stock is a BIG improvement over the old one. It looks better but the best thing was how much better it felt when I brought it up to my shoulder. I have a SS in 270 and even in 270 the thin comb of the old stocks really makes even the 270's mild recoil a lot more obvious. I'm with cowdoc my 270's about to get a big 338 caliber brother.

How are they in the noise area? When hitting or touching the stock is it loud, hollow sounding?

Hey There<BR> Tried one they are great (IMHO),I had tried the old boat paddle didn't care for them at all.I'm in in process of talking my buddy out of his stock in trade for a Richards I have on mine. <BR> Ruger won't sell them to the public yet,darn. [img]images/icons/mad.gif" border="0[/img] <BR> Ruttin

just bought a new Ruger 300 Mag and I love the new stock fells good, shoulders good and shoots like a charm under, 1 inch at100yds Fed Prem, and that is the best I can do

I have a stainless Ruger 77 Mk II with the post-paddle stock in .270. The stock is straight where the old paddle sloped away from the receiver and therefore tranmitted more recoil than it should. (I recently saw a .35 Whelen with that mis-designed old stock. Ouch!) <BR>It seems to be noisier than wood or laminate, but nowhere near as loud as some of the "drums" out there.<BR>I've been having a tough time making this rifle shoot consistently. My first break-in at the range was OK but subsequently it has failed to group. ( I cleaned between shots during break in and afterward got the crud out too.) <P>The scope is a new Leupold fixed 6x 42mm and it is tight in the rings and cranked down on the receiver, so its not likely to be the problem. It also has a new very crisp, Timney trigger set at 3 lbs. <P>I suspect the stock needs work. The barrel is in full contact with the stock at the fore-end. I am thinking of floating the barrel but first I'll tinker with the tightness of the front action screw. I have heard that MK IIs can be fruity if the front screw tension isn't just right. Keep you posted. 1b

I have nothing against Ruger Mark IIs except the lousy non adjustable trigger and the cast metal parts. Ruger is known for excellent customer service. I just see no reason whatsoever to buy a Ruger when the Winchester Classic model 70 is available. A much better rifle for a few dollars more.

As a fan of both the Rugers, and the Winchesters, I'll rise to Headhunter's comments. <BR> No arguement that their trigger is not the best. Hard to stone, and make creep free. Winchester's trigger cleans up like a dream. <BR> The Ruger action is significantly ligher. 42 vs. 48 ozs. <BR> I like the M70 safety better. Easier to reach, and use. <BR> I like the floorplate release set up on the Rugers much better. The release button is recessed.<BR> As far as "cast parts" goes, none other than Sako uses the same casting technique to make their fine bolts. I never met anyone who thought that Sako was anything but quality. E

Geez, I have two Sako 75s and I honestly didn't know that. Thanks for the information.<BR>I wonder if Sako is casting the internal parts like Ruger?