Wood vs Synthetic Stock - Felt Recoil

Everything else being equal, is there any difference in felt recoil based on your experience?

Well I would have said everything else won't be equal, as the wood stocked rifle will be heavier therefore less felt recoil, but I just checked the weights of my Brno's and the fibreglass stocked one is only 70g lighter than the wood stocked one. The lighter one does have significantly more recoil, but that is because it's a 308 and the other one's a 243!

It's not so much the wood vs synthetic as I don't think there is a difference. It's more about the shape/design of the stock and the weight of the stock.

I've got a Remington Mohawk 600 with a poorly designed wooden stock that kicks hard. But I also have a better-designed synthetic stock in a Model 7 of the same caliber that has less felt recoil...

Foam filled synthetics kick less in my experience

all being equal they are the same...was on my .270 that is for sure..... its all about shape and recoil pad....suppressor changes the game even more.

Stock shape, especially comb, plus weight and recoil pad design/type are biggest factors from my experience. Wood is the original carbon fibre when you think about it.

Long answer: Assuming the stock shape tis the same and the OAL weight is the same, there is no difference. For felt recoil, itis the weight of the rifle that matters, and where that weight is, muzzle heavy barrel or in a heavy action. Also, an obvious thing would be wehther it has a recoil pad or a buttplate. A butplate in a heavy recoiling rifle will actually bruise you.

Peopl eoften say a straight stock is best for recoil, but I disagree, the best stock for reducing recoil is one of the older rifles that is set up for open sights with the lower comb to the buttstock. The rifle is encourage to rise up at the muzzle, and it dissipates recoil energy in moving the rifle up. A modern straight stock punches the recoil straight back into your shoulder and you get all of it.

If your rifle is recoiling more than you like, I have found a longer length of pull will help. I have a 9.3 Mauser that kicks like a massive gorilla picked up a VW and smacked you with it. The first six rounds literally bruised my shoulder yellow and purple. I tamed this fairy tale beast by putting a recoil pad on it, and increasing the length of pull to 14.5 inches, and now I shoot it like a .30/06. You know you've fired a rifle, but you are not thinking about it anymore.

Short answer: No.

Well wow, What John Duxbury says makes me rethink.

I've drawn the conclusion from what I've read and experienced timber density helps mitigate felt recoil.

Weight certainly helps.
Timber density aids weight.
Stock design changes the way recoil is directed and perceived.
Supressor s help , of you can have them.
Brakes help but are noisy.
Recoil pads help.
Synthetic stocks are not all made equal either.

I had as Ruger No1 .300wm with a relatively cheap Ramline stock. It had a soft recoil pad and was pleasent to shoot. A fella who had a 7mmRm walnut stock felt mine was more comfortable to shoot.
I know have a Tikka .300wm laminated stock with a good limbsaver pad. It's not bad and I believe Limbsaver are effective.
My 375H&H is fun, I get a kick out of it.
My .280ai Carbon Fibre stock is fine to shoot in my limited experience, but it does jump off target.

All things being equal it's hard to say unless you have to comparable rifles excepting the stock.

On the bench any rifle of substantial calibre can boot or have muzzle jump to take you off target.

Same rifle offhand shooting at game you don't notice the recoil, even with heavier projectiles or bigger bore.

Brakes and suppressors help. To answer the op the Synthetics can be equally enjoyable to shoot but are there any out there for a fair comparison?

Even if 2 Tikkas had the same stock shape I think the Synthetic version will be lighter and likely recoil more.

Manufacturers of aftermarket stocks will suggest their stocks, materials, design and ergonomics mitigate recoil. I think of you were to replicate the exact shape and design in a high density timber the timber will be heavier and produce less recoil measured or perceived.

Yes there is a difference, I had a synthetic stock on my 300wsm with a good quality limbsaver. Eventually I swapped it out for a Boyd's laminated stock. The difference wasn't noticeable when I was actually shooting game but target/sighting in the difference was like night and day.

I have just gone from a laminated tikka stock to a plastic stock there is a big difference.

I mentioned 'Foam Filled' earlier. The B&C stocks have a foam that absorbs recoil impact like polestyrene and the recoil pad bears on this foam, so effectively the whole butt stock is part of the recoil pad

The only relevant bit to the question really is that a heavier stock of the same design will reduce recoil. (Regardless of the material its made of.) Thats why people put lead weights into big elephant guns and suchlike.

A lot about felt recoil is in the mind. For example people often think they are getting kicked hard if the rifle jumps around a lot when its fired. So they place their off hand on top of the scope or on the foreend and think they are getting less of it. A lot of it is stance - sitting up straight at the bench with the rifle higher allows the body to move with the recoil - take the same rifle and shoot it prone, and you will feel like you got a straight right from Tyson. A louder rifle will often make people think they are being kicked to death. They cringe at the noise and think they are being hit harder.
For heavy kickers I will make a standing bench. You stand up and shoot with the same rests as when you are sitting at a bench - this help enormously with recoil. (Not my idea - thats what they used to do at English gumakers in the old days when they were regulating big double rifles. (Nowadays they use lead sleds))

@300wsm for life @bigbear
You say there is a difference, but not what was better. Laminated or synthetic?

Stock design certainly makes a difference. In the 80's I bought a Midland 308 and it booted like an angry stag. Yet my Ruger M77 270's felt recoil was way lighter. And; the 270 was using .5gr under max loads too.

#Cigar the laminated has less recoil. Same set up but synthetic stock and fluted barrel I noticed the difference straight away.
My 11 year old was happy to shot my rem mag. I have just put a limb saver on the synthetic so hope he is all good

Following as have Boyd's stock on the 223 at the moment and it may be going back into factory plastic

@Cigar for reduction in felt recoil definitely the laminated stock. My rifle is un braked and no suppressor so if either is fitted I would think it is a moot point as to which stock you use. The bare weight increased by adding the laminated stock but I don't mind the extra weight. If I was to put it back in the synthetic stock I would suppress it.

I like what John mentioned about a standing bench. Makes sense and probably saves a lot of hard knocks.

My brother's little Browning .308 is a timber stock but has a nasty little kick , a factor of being lighter I think.

the new WIFI symbol stocks look interesting ....built in shock absorbsion could be a improvement we will see more of..but then again super small cartridges seem to be the new normal....or have we gone past that and climbing back up again??? round n round it goes.

I think a lot of it comes down to PERCEIVED recoil also .
An example ....
A friend has a 338 edge , heavy barrel , heavy laminate wood stock with all the additions for long range competition shooting (bag runners etc) and a custom adjustable metal plate on rear of stock to raise the butt pad to level with bore and a muzzle brake . thing weighs a ton .
I have my Hardy 338 lap mag hunting rifle , carbon barrel (heavy contour) , carbon hunting stock , magnum suppressor and super lightweight neopod bipod . Has to weight almost half of the 338 edge .
so on paper his should be a pussycat compared to mine to shoot regarding felt recoil ....
I have shot both rifles side by side .
But mine is by far a much more pleasant rifle to shoot . It jumps more obviously due to the light weight .
But his muzzle brake sounds like a tank round going off and FEELS like it kicks harder than mine .
Now some of you may have noticed I like large calibre rifles .
But 2 rounds through his was more than enough for me , FELT like it was beating the hell out of my shoulder .
I proceeded to put another 20 odd rounds through my 338lm and could happily have kept going all afternoon .
My only explanation , as it seems to go against all the rules on paper , is firstly the muzzle brake blast - no fun at all !! And secondly the lack of muzzle rise due to the sheer weight of the thing and the high in-line butt pad directing ALL the recoil back towards the shoulder ... but I would have thought the sheer weight of the thing compared to mine would have mitigated a large chunk of that recoil ...

Apparently not . So from that experience I don't believe weight alone has as much recoil damping effect as people believe when you start playing with the more powerful calibres . I think stock design is a more pertinent factor , pushing the "in-line" stock straight back where mine tends to act more like a hinge and dissipates some of the recoil in another direction (up) rather than back . And I also think PERCEIVED recoil as opposed to ACTUAL recoil forces also play a large factor . The muzzle brake blasted all that pressure wave and half of the scenery right back at you and in itself was not a pleasant experience . Bumping up the PERCEIVED recoil by magnitudes when his should actually produce less FELT recoil than mine by what should be a measurable amount "on paper" .
So I think perceived recoil is something that also should to be taken into account when talking about recoil mitigation .

That's my thoughts anyway ....

Does anyone know of a difference in sound travel/vibrations though synthetic stock vs wood with the likes of bone conduction (hearing with the bones in your face https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_conduction) I remember reading about it somewhere relating it to rifle stocks but can't find it

In order of decending importance:

1. Design
2. Weight
3. Material