Are there any tactical benefits whatsoever to wood stocks, or are they completely obsolete?
>>29797627
Wood stocks are obsolete. Fiberglass composites are tougher in every way, can be lighter and of course you can throw lead in there if you want it to be heavier.
>>29797627
None that this anon can think of. Weight for bludgeoning as compared to normal polymer, maybe.
>>29797627
Tactical? No. Strategic? Possibly depending on available resources.
Have you tried buttstroking someone's dome with plastic? Wood males a faw better bat, but battlefield conditions favor material that doesn't rot or swell with the weather.
Wood is far easier to repair and can be tougher afterward where as plastic just gets weaker.
>>29797689
who buttstrokes these days? jabbing with the muzzle is much better.
Is that Diego Garcia in ops pic?
>>29797742
I've played enough Battlefield over the years to recognize Wake Island in any iteration
>>29797627
In an environment with limited infrastructure, wood stocks would be easier to produce in small workshops by hand or with limited tooling.
In very fine cuts of walnut, you get slightly better durability than standard polymer. An example would be high end clays guns, where round counts can be above 1 million for a professional shooter. Polymer doesn't even break, it just stretches.
In a tactical situation, polymer (especially fiberglass) would be better in every conceivable way.
>>29797799
so if polymer is better in every way, why is wood still allowed as a gun stock
>>29797973
Because it looks nice. It looks very nice.
Is that what you are wanting to hear?
>>29797973
Individuals have differing taste. It's the same reasoning behind offering different paint colors for cars, or different trims. Obviously, a police car isn't going to have a hand made, premium baby-seal leather interior with walrus ivory inlays. Same reason most military guns have polymer furniture these days.
>>29797990
I guess I don't understand why someone would tactically cripple themselves using inferior equipment on their weapons
>>29798001
Because for 99% of users, it makes no difference.
>>29798001
Came in to confirm bait, wasn't sure it was bait until this post.
Bait.
>>29798001
It's not inferior enough to make a huge difference to the average firearm owner. Think about it for a second. Are you going to be carrying your firearm on a 30-mile forced march in varying weather and temperatures? Of course not. The advantages that polymer brings to the table are only functionally valuable in tactical situations. For the average civilian, it really does not matter what material their stock is made out of, because the average civilian will never be in a situation where they are exposed to the kind of prolonged combat that a soldier would be.
>>29797627
>tactical
Mall ninja detected
>>29798001
>tactically cripple
What kind of scenario do you have in mind?
I mean, describe carefully a situation where wood furniture is going to "tactically cripple" the user?
This is actually to measure how childish your viewpoint may or may not be. So, go for it!
Wood stocks look better, and style is the most important part of fighting.
>>29797689
Buttstroking with the Steyr Aug is fine
PLASTIC IS CHEAPER AND WEATHERPROOF
WOOD IS ALSO REALLY STRONG TOO AND CLASSIC BUT YOU CAN'T INJECTION MOLD IT
STOP BEING AUTISTIC
It's useful for cold weather.
Wood is better in extreme colds
I've had plastic parts crack in the cold
>inb4 get plastics that don't break
That'd be great if the guns main parts weren't made out of the stuff
