Lithgow LA101 Wood or Synthetic Stock?

Anyone have experience with the synthetic stock used by Lithgow on the LA101 and able to describe any flex in it as opposed tothe wood stock? I appreciate that wood is typically more rigid, but wonder how much flex there can be from a 22LR. The synthetic is a few pounds lighter and has spacers to adjust the length of pull both of which are an advantage to me, but losing accuracy from a stock that flexes is very undesirable.

I am thinking (hoping?) a good ridgid synthetic stock might be sufficient for a 22LR. I know it was not good in a Ruger 77/357, but think this is a better made stock and a lighter load.

Suggestions? Thanks

One of the best shooting 303's I ever put together for a customer had a synthetic stock. If they hold a 303 a 22 shoud work just fine. There was no cheaper stock made than the old Savage PLASTIC stock and those worked just fine for the 22 410 some for years and years.

Isn't the Lithgow la101 Australia's FAL? I'm confused, for sure.

The Australian and English FAL variants are L1A1, the Canadian (the first NATO country to officially adopt the FAL) is the C1.

The LA 101 is a fairly new rimfire offering from Lithgow said to offer excellent accuracy. Even better when used as the basis for a build. Comes in wood and synthetic stocks. As of this afternoon there were 20 synthetic stocked 22LR for sale in the US from the distributor. I don't know how many wood were left.

If you go to rimfirecentral.com and search for Lithgow you will see some remarkable groups shot from one that had a bit of work done to it. YouTube will also provide some videos. From what I can see it gives as good, maybe better, groups than an Annie or the new Vudoo for a lot less money.

Actually I expect that by now there are only 19 or less for sale at the distributor.