I’d like to get some feedback on synthetic stocks, and whether or not accuracy is affected by them. The next rifle I acquire will either be chambered in .223 or .22-250 (Savage 11 FCNS), and with the light recoil of these two calibers, I’m not overly concerned about stock flex. Should I be though?

I find it curious that all of Savage’s .338 Win Mags and it’s only .375 H&H come with a synthetic stock. The rifles I’m referring to are the model 116 Weather Warriors. I’m surprised these heavier recoil rifles wouldn’t come with a laminate or wooden stock.
<O:p</O:p
Does anyone have a 116 Weather Warrior in .338 Win Mag or .375 H&H? If so, is there a lot of flex in the stock? Also, are these controlled feed or push feed actions?

Most factory rifle stocks are of the more economical styles/manufacturing and will have a lot of flex and hollow sound to them.

Nothing wrong with the better grade aftermarket stocks, especially those with the bedding frames incorporated into them.

Regardless of caliber, factory synthetics will usually have more flex than a wooden stock. If this is of concern, I'd opt for the factory laminated and go from there.

Any stock that allows the action to shift will affect accuracy regardless of what it's made of. Like everything else, it's all about price. HS Precision and McMillan make good stocks but they are more expensive.

Here is a link to one of the elcheapo Remington rifles, you can tell by the picture that the stock was made in a waffle iron. I don't remember who did the test but they took one of these little Remingtons and swaped it into an HS Precision stock and accuracy improved by 30% IIRC, with factory ammo. Since this one looks to be shootin fair already, a 30% improvement wouldn't be too bad for a factory tube and box ammo.
http://www.snipercentral.com/spstactical.htm

If there is a plus to any of these stocks, they are light so if you're willing to eat a little recoil and give up a little accuracy, they have their place.

With respect to a less expesive synthetic stock though, is it reasonable to assume that when fired (not from a bench rest or sand bag) a .22-250 will twist/shift less than a much higher caliber, such as a .375, due to significantly less recoil, and therefore affect shot placement less?

With respect to a less expesive synthetic stock though, is it reasonable to assume that when fired (not from a bench rest or sand bag) a .22-250 will twist/shift less than a much higher caliber, such as a .375, due to significantly less recoil, and therefore affect shot placement less?

For off hand shooting, I doubt you could ever tell the difference. People can get too hung up on small groups and that usually means a rest or bag is in use. I will agree with you about recoil forces. In theory, a smaller caliber will compress a stock at a much slower rate. I would say the utility of the rifle should be the primary concern. My hunting rifle has a synthetic waffle stock. It's light, not pretty and far from being the most accurate rilfe I own but it does what I want it to do. I wouldn't shoot it in competiton but I also don't drag my comp rifle through the woods. It's to heavy, costs too much and the level of accuracy it offers is worthless for an offhand shot. In between the two are varmint rifles. They will be shot from a rest so better accuracy potential can be used and weight doesn't matter. Does that make sense? I guess it kinda depends on what you use them for.

My Savage 11FNS 22-250 with the "sporter" weight barrel has the factory synthetic stock, it's the most accurate riffle I've ever owned!
Recoil is NOT what I would call "light" by ANY! standard, it may be the light weight barrel, don't know, wish now that I would have gotten the "heavy" barrel, I'd rate it as at least as hard as my Marlin 336 .35 Remington! and almost as bad as my Savage 110 GXP .270 Winchester!

Basically everyone has given you pretty good advice. Manufacturers wouldn't be selling rifles with these stocks if they didn't work. Are there better stocks on the market, sure, but the costs are much higher. Keep in mind that glassbedding doesn't work well on the injection molded stocks, their plastic doesn't get along well with epoxy materials. The stuff their made out of is more like a release agent than epoxy is.

Personally I'm a wood and blue steel kind of guy, but lots of folks are getting good service from the plastic stocked rifles. I like laminate better, but it's heavier. I like good wood even better, but suggest a good glassbed along with a piller bed for any wood stock to get the best from it. There's not any plastic stocked guns in my safe, but my old hunting partner has several and he's killed more elk and deer with them than I can count. I'm just getting him into varmint hunting and hopefully I'll be able to catch up.

My Savage 11FNS 22-250 with the "sporter" weight barrel has the factory synthetic stock, it's the most accurate riffle I've ever owned!
Recoil is NOT what I would call "light" by ANY! standard, it may be the light weight barrel, don't know, wish now that I would have gotten the "heavy" barrel, I'd rate it as at least as hard as my Marlin 336 .35 Remington! and almost as bad as my Savage 110 GXP .270 Winchester!

Oh wow, I didn't realize it would kick that much. In your estimation, would the same model (Savage 11) with synthetic stock and sporter barrel chambered in .223 kick almost as much, or noticeably less?

I guess if the effect of recoil does not significantly compress the stock when the gun is fired off hand, accuracy would not be compromised, and therefore I would have nothing to worry about.

Thanks!

Recoil is directly related to weight Savage Hunter. Almost in all cases a lighter rifle will recoil more than a heavier rifle. That's why many folks don't buy some of the super light rifles or mountain rifles in bigger calibers, at least without putting muzzle brakes on them.

I realize overall weight will contribute to recoil, but so will case capacity. Since the .22-250 is a bit hotter than the .223, would we not find more recoil in the .22-250 if comparing two otherwise identical rifles (plastic stock, regular sporter barrel)?

Yup your right, more stuff that goes out the barrel, i.e. powder and bullet the more recoil given the same weight.

So in your experience or estimation, would a lightweight (6.5 lbs) .22-250 kick noticeably more than a lightweight (6.5 lbs) .223?

I imagine the .223 would kick less than the 22-250?, the only experience I have with the .223 is in a Colt AR15, and that was 20 years ago!
The guys at work have heavy barreled .223's and they say you can see the "hits" thrue the scope, AIN'T going to happen with the 22-250!

I’d like to get some feedback on synthetic stocks, and whether or not accuracy is affected by them. The next rifle I acquire will either be chambered in .223 or .22-250 (Savage 11 FCNS), and with the light recoil of these two calibers, I’m not overly concerned about stock flex. Should I be though?
I just got a new Stevens 200 in 22-250, weight about 6.5 lbs. I have only shot it once, (we have 2' of snow here) and after finding zero I shot a 3 round .6" group, and then a 5 shot 1.5' group, but the second group was shot in less than 2 minutes right close to the 3 round group and with different reloads. I have a feeling this rifle is really going to shoot, in stock condition.

The stock is piller bedded and the forearm is wiggly, but it is free floating so it works OK. I didn't notice much recoil, but than I was wearing a coat so I had a little padding. It seems to have much less recoil than either my BLR .308, or my Rem. 700 7mm-08.

After market stocks: my new Stevens has the center feed magazine, and from what I have read. this will soon be on all Savage rifles. So this will make it hard to find an after market stock to fit, at least in the short term.

I have about $450 total into this rifle: Simmons WTC scope and Ded-Nutz rings/mount included. If the scope doesn't work out I will up grade or put my Leupold on it.

One good thing with Savage/Stevens is the easy barrel swap, if you don't like the 22-250 I am sure a stock .223 barrel would be easy to come by, and these rifles are so easy to customize. It is like building a hotrod yourself, bolt on some goodies and smoke you buddies, cheap. :p

bentrod

One good thing with Savage/Stevens is the easy barrel swap, if you don't like the 22-250 I am sure a stock .223 barrel would be easy to come by, and these rifles are so easy to customize.This would be true if you were rebarreling to a a.243 or a .308, but if you try to swap in a .223 (or 222 or .17 Rem) barrel, you would also need to change out the bolthead, which I believe is also possible with a Savage, but obviously more complicated than simply replacing the barrel. Certainly switching between the .22-250 and the .243, .260 Rem, 7mm-08, .308 and .338 Federal would be a simple process. (Don't know for sure if the magazine would be long enough for the 6mm Rem, .257 Roberts, 6.5x55, 7x57 or 8mm Mauser)

Savage Hunter,

I am a Savage guy by preference. My 10FP has the cheap tupperware stock, but I have never notice an accuracy issue because of it. I had a package gun in 243, and have a 204 both in Savage factory syn stocks.

Both of the two latter DEFINITELY have problems related to the stock. My $.02 is to buy a Hogue Overmold for them. You can buy them for right at $100. Which is as cheap as almost any syn stock, and a great deal better quality than most. They cleaned up the group issue in the 243, but haven't done the 204 as she may be leaving soon.

As to your note on the heavy calibers by Savage, their sales numbers of them are relatively low, and on another board are purported to cost Savage around $12.