Savage Factory Synthetic Stock's Strength?

[Reblyell]

I realize that I'll most likely get laughed at here, but . . .
I like the ergonomics, handiness, and light weight of the 'cheap looking' synthetic stocks that Savage equips their Model 93 (and other) rifles with. However, I have yet to test its durability in field useage. I've seen many threads where fellow members have removed/replaced it (I'm guessing for aesthetic reasons or ?). I'd appreciate any input concerning issues you may have experienced with them. Best!

[jpdown]

I would not worry about the plastic stock strength on a model 93. I don't think stock twisting or forend flexing under recoil is the problem with these small caliber rifle stocks. It is more of a concern with the larger calibers, especially those with the cutout for a DBM and HFP. I believe the Accustock was developed to help address the many weaknesses of the former factory plastic stocks. With my 93 17HMR, I focused on bedding the action, recoil lug and the thin bottom metal plate. That is where I saw the potentail weak spots. I could see the bottom metal plate flex as I tightened the action bolt. I don't know if it helped it shoot any better, but I felt more confident about the accuracy potential of the rifle.

[Reblyell]

Hey, jpdown! Thanks for the reply! Sorry for my late response here... The one thing I have noticed with the synthetic stock on my 93 is the fore-end's flexibility when a bi-pod is attached. It's very noticeable while sighting through the scope. I use a Harris unit, which is a serious chunk of metal, and the best there is IMHO. Despite the flexibility, it hasn't affected the rifle's accuracy. I just hold the rifle tighter in the shoulder to stabilize it. Not sure if I'm going to bed the action just yet. The rifle is a tack driver in its present state, and I'd hate to 'disturb' it. Best!

[forger]

Mine has served well although I don't use an attached bipod.. I use bifurpods or a shooting stick..