I have four 416 rem mag rifles two with cheek pieces two without them.
I like the stocks better without cheek pieces better because I can
shoot faster without one .The worse cheek piece is on my Winchester
Model 70 that one is way too sharp on the back side .I keep wanting to
Replace that stock with a hs precision stock just have not done it yet .
I think being able to shoot a dangerous game rifle as quickly as possible and
As accurately as possible is very important .I guess shooting my Ruger 77 338 win mag
32 years Made me way more comfortable shooting quickly as possible without a cheek piece
Had alot to do with that .I also like thicker stocks thinner stocks have no
Place on heavy kicking guns.

Just a decoration..pretty but of no value on a hunting rifle IMO..and it adds weight and bulk..but its "the thing" these days as it was in the past, just like a contrasting forend tip....but hey I like a stock lean and mean, not thick stocks for me..

quote:

Originally posted by dgr416:
I have four 416 rem mag rifles two with cheek pieces two without them.
I like the stocks better without cheek pieces better because I can
shoot faster without one .The worse cheek piece is on my Winchester
Model 70 that one is way too sharp on the back side .I keep wanting to
Replace that stock with a hs precision stock just have not done it yet .
I think being able to shoot a dangerous game rifle as quickly as possible and
As accurately as possible is very important .I guess shooting my Ruger 77 338 win mag
32 years Made me way more comfortable shooting quickly as possible without a cheek piece
Had alot to do with that .I also like thicker stocks thinner stocks have no
Place on heavy kicking guns.

The trouble with a lot of cheek pieces is the stock is too straight.

If look at a Mark V Wby what you essentially have is a stock like and an old English open sighted gun but with cheek piece added because otherwise your head/face would be way off the stock with a scope mounted.

I prefer the Supergrade style stock and it comes up and feels right and fits instantly. I restocked my 375 with the SG stock and cheek piece. While the VX6 is probably at least one of the best eye boxes in the business, the moment it shoulders my eye is looking right in the center of it with both eyes open. With the custom NECG sights on it is pretty much the same with the open sights too. I have to scrunch the littlest bit but no real effort to get behind them either.

Does it matter? No not really. It is just what you feel comfortable with.

Are we talking about the shadow line cheek piece or the monte carlo type?
Bfly

Unless you intend to scope it, NO on a cheekpiece for an irons-only DGR.

I.had to put a set of kanes chaps on my Winchester model 70 416 because the cheek piece was so sharp.
The Ruger 77 stocks worked the best for me but they didn't have a 416 Ruger back in the day to fit it .
I think the Ruger 77 fits me like a double barrel shotgun.I can really get it to my shoulder quickly
Which is super important in shooting dangerous game .The cheek pieces cause me to have to place my head
To the left of my shooting line of site .That's also the reason plus the safety on the model 70
That I couldn't shoot my model 70s as fast as my old Ruger 77 tang safety .I have still got build a tang safety Ruger 77 in 416 Ruger so That I can shoot it as well as I do my
Old Ruger 77 338 .

I grew up shooting mod. 70s and Rem 721 &22, never noticed I needed a cheek piece or a high comb for that matter..guess I was blessed,I still don't need either, I do need a cross hair in my scope, that's about it.

If I am not mistaken none other than W. W. Greener wrote that a cheekpiece on a sporting rifle was an “excrescence”.
- Mike

A cheekpiece seems to be preferred by Fuddleys, despite having no clue why it's there in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Redstone:
If I am not mistaken none other than W. W. Greener wrote that a cheekpiece on a sporting rifle was an “excrescence”.

As in an unnecessary or superfluous 'abnormality,' ... which is totally correct.

In regard to rifles to be used with open sights, I'd say A.J. and Greener are pretty much right.

When it comes to big scopes, though, Monte Carlo combs make sense in getting your eye up high enough without propping your chin on the top. Weatherby's sloping comb might look a bit old-fashioned now but it does move away from your face under recoil, rather than smacking you in the chops. The most comfortable cheekpiece I've ever had was a leather-over-retread-rubber one I made to get my eye up from a low military comb. Tied on with leather bootlaces, it gave a bit under recoil.

The most-decadent '60s style was probably the roll-over comb. It looked excessive but did provide a widely rounded top without adding a club-like width to the rest of the butt.

One style of stock I am not convinced about is the modern, so-called 'classic' stock with a straight comb but made wider to help get the cheek up for scope use. They may fit some people very well but I have watched a couple of experienced hunters mount them too high, not realising half the recoil pads were above their shoulders.

As a lefthander always ever shooting righthand rifles I have never had the pleasure or otherwise of shooting with a cheekpiece. I have rarely missed an animal in all the numbers and types I've shot including a good portion that were running shots so from my experience I would state that if you feel you need a cheekpiece to help your shooting you are clutching at straws

Depends on the rifle and shooter.

Dave

I have a couple rifles with cheek pieces. But I recently bought a Dakota 76 short action (LH) without the cheek piece - I like it better. I am having both a single shot and a big bore rifle built now and told both makers that I wanted no cheek piece.

Over the past 30 years I have done far more shotgunning than rifle shooting and I found that the key to pointing and hitting is gunfit and technique. So, to me, drop, length, cast and pitch are not negotiable. I find most factory stocks are too short and, further, do not believe that a cheek piece is necessary (except in extraordinary circumstances) to make a gun that FITS AND HANDLES instinctively. I guess we all get used to factory 'standard' stocks but they are certainly not optimal for any but a small number of shooters.

I found a great deal on Heym 88B 470NE about 15-20 years ago. Issue was it had no cheek piece?? I had never seen one w/O a cheekpiece but it fit nicely and had exhibition grade Turkish walnut.
I have never regretted acquiring it.

quote:

Originally posted by A.J. Hydell:

quote:

Originally posted by Redstone:
If I am not mistaken none other than W. W. Greener wrote that a cheekpiece on a sporting rifle was an “excrescence”.

As in an unnecessary or superfluous 'abnormality,' ... which is totally correct.

I agree ... On a dedicated DGR, cheekpieces are excessive crap, not to mention they add some amount of unnecessary stock weight.

Esthetically speaking, they detract from the otherwise smooth lines found on the Spartan-esq stocks of early 20th Century British Big Game rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by dgr416:
I.had to put a set of kanes chaps on my Winchester model 70 416 because the cheek piece was so sharp.
The Ruger 77 stocks worked the best for me but they didn't have a 416 Ruger back in the day to fit it .
I think the Ruger 77 fits me like a double barrel shotgun.I can really get it to my shoulder quickly
Which is super important in shooting dangerous game .The cheek pieces cause me to have to place my head
To the left of my shooting line of site .That's also the reason plus the safety on the model 70
That I couldn't shoot my model 70s as fast as my old Ruger 77 tang safety .I have still got build a tang safety Ruger 77 in 416 Ruger so That I can shoot it as well as I do my
Old Ruger 77 338 .

I shoot a tang safety 77 too. I have a 30-06, 338 and 458. If you look hard there were a few made in 416 Taylor. Or you could buy an extra and have a Taylor made up.

Funny to mention the Ruger. I have a laminated stock MK II which comes up better than anything.

The position of your face on the stock is really important in aiming and hitting things.You should be able to aim correctly without any discomfort.If there is an issue the stock has to be changed in some way to achieve this.

I have no real problem with a cheek piece or a rifle without one as long as the cheek piece doesn't interfere with my shooting ability..but I still consider them decoration along with Ebony forends which I kinda like btw..detail work on a custom rifle sells I know that for a fact and that includes cheek pieces and forend tips..you could actually include checkering if you must, it really only serves the imagination but I sure do like checkering..It all boils down to a matter of taste, if you like it then no harm is done..A closet queen should have it all, and you can still hunt with it..

A cabinet rasp can cure a lot of "woes is me's.."

I like a firm cheek weld on the stock, just under my cheek bone, even on hard-kickers.

I have found that a cheek piece helps with that, as it supports more of my face, including my cheek below. But with a properly designed stock, I have found that a cheek piece is by no means necessary.

What I don't like on a hard-kicking rifle's stock is a narrow or sharp comb. These are found especially on old fashioned rifles designed for use with iron sights, which includes most double rifles. The narrow comb, together with the greater drop at the comb nose and heel, can combine to cause a fair amount of pain to the face on firing, as the rifle rises and does not push straight back into the shoulder.

A straighter stock with the proper length of pull, and a higher comb that recoils more or less straight back is better, at least for my style of shooting. Especially on a hard-kicker.

And even better is a comb that is not only high and straight enough, but is also wider and more rounded where the stock meets my cheek. All in proportion, of course.

Those features are more important to me than a cheek piece, but as I said, I still like one.

What Mike said. Actually I've got a safe full on rifles and I've never seen that a cheek piece made any difference at all on a DG rifle or not.

Mark

All of my DGRs have cheek pieces. I like them. Different strokes for different folks.

Much ado about nothing!

Yes, indeed.

not

IMHO it is all about fit.

Whether it has cheek piece or not, the rifle that fits works well and if the fit is poor I can not be sure of my pointing, balance and trigger control.

One of my first center fire rifles was a Remington 243 Classic with low comb. With a scope on, I could not see the reticle with my cheek on the stock. I finally got a foam cheek pad used for shotguns and stuck it on to make the stock like a Montecarlo. Problem solved. I could shoot really well with the rifle.

The pitch of the comb seems to be a bigger issue for me with all rifles.

I shot my Ruger Lott's offhand max loads many times and aside from a bruised shoulder they never hurt me.My two CZ's were the opposite.Their stock bashes my face and I am scared to shoot them.I put both Ruger and CZ stocks side by side and could not see I difference aside from the Ruger's straight comb and the drop on the CZ comb.I recently starting clay pigeon shooting and my O/U hits me in the face just like my CZ's.I shoot a couple of boxes of shells and get so bruised up I can't shoot for at least another month.
All along I've been told that the the stock is too short thus the reason it hurts my cheek.I tell them the stocks on most of my heavy kickers are just as short but don't hurt me.
Lately I went to see a nearby smith originally from Belgium.He's been smithing for many years.
He takes my measures and tells me my stock is too short and that is why it's hurting me.I tell him I don't think so and the story about my Rugers.He says rifle are not like shotguns.
He replaces the recoil pad, extends the LOP and charges a couple of hundred.He hands me my shotgun and tells me it will never bruise my cheek again.I go to the range shoot a couple of boxes and same old story.
I re-examine the situation, do some research and notice that when I shoulder my gun in a natural position I am seeing too much of the rib.When I aim or align the front bead with the receiver, my cheek bone is forced down on the comb.I now have it back at his place and he is going to use steam to lower the comb so I can aim or point the shotgun comfortably without forcing my cheekbone on the stock.

Fit of any long gun equation, the variable is the shooter. Body and habits determine what the gun should look like. The rest is just what you like to look at.

Gun stock design has amounted to a lot of BS in the last century..Bottom line is if the shoe fits wear it..

For me todays custom stocks tend to be too straight and that takes ALL the recoil straight back into your shoulder, neck and back, to low a stock makes the rifle jump up into the cheek in some cases, and most all of the recoil straight up!

I learned to shoot with Win. 94,s and mod. 70,s low combed, scope were very unpopular in the day, so all my young years were low comb iron sights, then Jack O'Connor and Bill Weaver whom I guided as a kid for Mule deer and Coues, introduced me to the better custom rifles and the scope sight..I never did quite care for most of them, until as a stock maker many years ago, I decided to split the difference and allow some drop at the comb just enough to take half the recoil up and the other half back into the shoulder and would work with irons or low mounted scopes..Its worked for me forever and I can shoot irons or scope equally well with that design..Ive never met anyone who used or tried one of my guns that didn't like it although some didn't know what I did..It won't work in reverse however, Todays custom rifles just don't work well with irons/scopes unless you mount a overly high island rear sight and front sight ramp and sight..to me that's plumb ugly..I like everything low, scope sights and a modest comb with or without a cheek piece..Just my two bits. Wide butt stocks turn me off and the claim they take up recoil is folly..