It has come to my attention, their may be strong veiws as to the stock of your chosen firearm, being synthetic, or natural wood of some sort. The arguements of synthetics, i feel have been somewhat subverted over time, like so many silicone breast implants that just didnt work out so well; The success of the kalashnikov, has been that, not only could the metal components be reverse engineered and stamped out of primitive forges, but the stock components could be quickly reproduced out of virtually any material. Its the usual argument, that the synthetic stock will be around long after the stainless steal has rusted to a relic, hundreds of years from now, but looking at the actual rubberised components of so many modern firearms, is that really the case? How many people will be using a glock, a hundred years from now? These materials havent been around long enough to state, "yes, it will last your lifetime, for sure". Plenty of insurance companies have said much the same thing. Ive no huge allegiance one way or another, but i do find it weird that synthetic stocks are produced in a fake wood grain, thats a bit of odd, methinks. Whats wrong with camo patterns, or plain original, why do the manufacturers bother to place a fake wood grain on these things?