The Mauser bolt (left) has its left locking lug bisected for passage of the ejector. The Ruger (center) does not and is a better solution. At right is a Remington 700 bolt, which completely encircles the case rim but is incompatible with controlled-round feeding.

Borrowing from Jeff Foxworthy's schtick about "knowing you're a redneck when…," I say, "You know you're a rifle crank when you can't look at a gun without wanting to change something about it." That's about as succinct a definition as I can come up with, and believe me, no one can better recognize or relate to this affliction than I. I'm the worst.

I cannot remember a time when, after examining a rifle, I didn't mentally redesign some feature in some fashion. From the most subtle alteration in the bend of a bolt handle to a major reshaping of the stock, nothing is sacred. No bottom metal unit, magazine system, bolt release, follower, trigger, safety, extractor, ejector, barrel contour or stock design is out of bounds.

When I say "redesign," I don't mean actually re-designing a component. No, what I mean is mentally taking a component from one gun and incorporating it into another--a composite rifle, if you will. I'd think, I like this rifle, but I wish it had the bolt handle of a Model 70 Winchester, the tang safety of the original Ruger 77, etc. That's the kind of redesign I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not presumptuous enough to think that every feature I like would represent a qualitative improvement. Hell, many of the changes I'd wish for would be purely subjective, things I'd change simply because I prefer the way this component works over that one, how this cosmetic feature looks compared to that one.

Injection-molded stocks are inexpensive and can duplicate every line and contour of the finest hand-crafted wood stock, but they're not as stiff as ones of laid-up fiberglass.

Stocks
So what would my hybrid rifle look like? Well, let's start with the most subjective component, the stock. Regardless of what stock style you prefer--straight-comb classic, Monte Carlo, thumbhole or whatever--there are elegant and ugly examples of each out there. Say what you will about beauty being in the eye of the beholder; I doubt most of us would have to be told which is which when shown an example of each.

Me, I like the straight-comb classic stock on a general-purpose hunting rifle. There are many elegant examples of this style to be found, but some real standouts, to my mind, are those of Remington's African Plains Rifle and Lazzeroni's Short Action Magnum. Both of these stocks have cheekpieces, which I prefer. Though really not that functional, a cheekpiece lends interest and depth through asymmetry; otherwise, a stock would look the same from both sides (boring).

In real-world terms, barrel flutes are far more cosmetic than functional, but the author likes them anyway and would have one on his dream rifle.

Some other excellent examples, stock-wise, found on production rifles are Remington's new Model 700 SPS and the Winchester Model 70 Shadow. I could do without the rubberized grip panels in both cases, preferring a traditional point pattern be molded into the stock in their place, but the lines, contours and dimensions of these stocks are nigh-on perfect to these eyes.

OK, so I know how I want my stock to look, but what about its composition: walnut, synthetic or wood laminate? As much as I appreciate fine walnut, to me it belongs on presentation-grade guns, not hunting rifles. I base that solely on functional practicality: A chunk of walnut is not as stable as a laminate or synthetic; therefore, it doesn't make as good a gunstock, period.