I to am thinking about getting a SA standard M1A with synthetic stock(Lucifer's Hammer).  I was wondering what the recoil would be like with the synthetic stock as opposed to the wood(does it make a difference at all) and if the Israeli surplus ammo would be ok to use in these rifles?

A few notes on your post:

(1) In my view, synthetic stocks are the way to go.  SA offers a military wood stock, a target wood stock, and synthetics.  The only way to tell the two wood stocks apart is by examining them at point-of-sale (target stocks are a bit more robust near the mag well and heavier).  I would consider purchasing a synthetic stock from Fred's at:  http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/

Your wood stock becomes a backup.

(2) Synthetics are probably stronger than wood.  Synthetics do not require the liner used in the wood stocks to prevent breakage at stress points due to developing microscopic cracks in the wood.

(3) In general, synthetics fit better than wood, even in the wood's pristine state.  Should the wood get wet, then the fit will only degrade.

(4) IMHO, Israeli military ammo is as good as anything from NATO, and thus should be acceptable for those concerned with the NATO/commercial ammo controversy.  Some say that one should not use commercial ammo in military receivers.  SA states that their tolerances when the action is barreled will accommodate both.  Some say that Sellier & Bellot ammo has raised primers (more likely to blow when out of battery).  Some say that Federal primers are softer (and more likely to fire at bolt closing) than Winchester primers.  Some say that the original military specs included the civilian/commercial specs, and that the whole debate is BS.

What to do?  Look at the Fulton Armory Site Index FAQ at:  http://www.fulton-armory.com/

Look for the article called:  "What's the difference between .308 Winchester & 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition? Expanded!"

Take note of the headspace of your SA (should be included in the box), and make your own decision.

Sorry, got all caught up in the technical stuff.

Recoil for any given bullet depends on the weight of the launcher (in this case, a rifle).  Synthetics are slightly lighter than wood, in general, but the difference is negligible.  As synthetics generally offer a tighter fit, then the tradeoff becomes one of slightly better accuracy for slightly more recoil.

The synthetic stock supplied by SA is a used surplus synthetic stock that has been sprayed with crinkle pain, nothing more.
As far as ammo is concerned, I'd shy away from Cavim .308; I attempted to use it, but every single round of it would stick HARD in the chamber. Any other surplus worked fine in mine.

I don't notice any difference between wood and USGI synthetic.  They are both available for low cost.  I'd get the rifle with a nice wood stock, or otherwise buy a nice wood stock for it, just for good looks.  The M14 really does look nice with a good piece of wood.

For real working though, it's tough to beat the USGI synthetic.  They're strong as all hell, they don't warp, and they're so cheap you can buy a bunch of them and paint each one a different color.  

Israeli ammo should be fine.

Ross

Now,  Howz about a plain english method of how to take of and replace a wooden stock?

Thx for all the responses.  Appreciate it.

I gosta agree with Ross, wood is good. In my opinion, there is just no substitute for a rifle with a nicely grained piece of walnut for a stock. Fiberglass may be more water resistant and durable, but lacks the soul of wood.

One note on USGI fiberglass stocks vs walnut or birch stocks thoug, the forends of the forends on the USGI fiberglass stocks is kind of thing and will twist with strong sling pressure, which will negatively effect accuracy. Wood stocks don't have this problem, but then neither do McMillan fiberglass stocks. Nor are USGI stocks indestructable. They have been known to split along the forend where the two halves are joined from sling pressure.