Lithgow LA101 Wood or Synthetic Stock?

[PB234]

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

[KCSO]

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.

[Texas by God]

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

[TemplarKnight]

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

[PB234]

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.

[PB234]

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