No matter the shape, what do you think about the Cheek piece? I had a similar talk at my school today on this topic and wanted to get some input from stock makers that are in the business of making stocks.

Vital and functional on some stocks, superfluous on others or just for show.

Mostly for show. If they aided in "natural" shooting we would see them on all shotguns.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Little:
Mostly for show. If they aided in "natural" shooting we would see them on all shotguns.

Apart from the fact that he posted the question
in Custom Built RIFLES which was what my post was mostly directed at.

Some shotgun styles are helped by having a cheekpiece and my comment applies to them as well.

thank you for the replies. I agree with Mr. Wiebe and that was my side of the coin in the debate at school. The rifle side of things that if the rifle had a cheek piece it would help in lining everything as the rifle was shouldered, like a kisser button on a bow string.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Remember seeing photos of the old stand up off hand shooters with the eloborate cheek pieces on singe shots? That's function to the Nth degree.

On a scoped rifle, takes up the void under the cheek bone for firmer more precise hold.

Shotguns, mostly snap shooting various angles, probably wouldn't help much, though some European shotguns use the feature.

So...bottom line.. 505G is spot on

Duane, the serious shotgun shooters I know are more anal about the stock fitting than virtually any sporting rifle shooter - except for those who might also need to make instinctive shots.

My vote goes that they are as much for show as anything ----- although the good ones do make a nice show

Re an earlier post...you did see a cheekpiece, of a sort, on shot guns. It was Greener's "Rational Stock". I'd say that the reason we don't see it to day is a) It looked plug ugly awful, b) It means that the shot gun is almost unusable by anyone else of different height or build so can't be passed on in a family where son is taller than father without a complete re-stock, c) You DO see cheekpieces or similar as a "raised comb" on some specialist trap shooting guns along with a raised rib.

Is a cheekpiece essential? Yes if you take a rifle stocked for iron sights and put a telescopic sight on it. Why else did we British put one on the No 4(T) sniper rifle?

But equally I have had rifles that were factory made, in large amount, where the maker realised that most would be shot with a 'scope such that the stock already has the rise built in so that it doesn't require a cheekpiece.

Most cheek pieces (or even thick stocks) don't work for me; they push my face too far from centerline and I have to lean my head over the top of the stock to see anything. Others vary.

I feel they are mostly cosmetic on classic style stocks. Rifle stocks that have little or no cast-off don't need a cheek piece. In fact, they could be detrimental, as Mike Scott attests. However, with significant cast-off, the additional thickness that a cheek piece provides may prove useful.

If you look at today's typical metallic silhouette stocks, you will see a cheekpiece which is functional on a stock meant for offhand shooting. It is quite difficult to make a truly functional cheekpiece which is not a little on the homely side. I think the closest one can come is with a well executed monte carlo comb. Even then, it is tough to get sufficient height to have the cheekpiece be truly functional. The recent trend toward the use of big scopes, mounted high, just makes matters that much worse. Regards, Bill.

Pre-WW II Rigby's are the ideal for many. I've fired a number of them and I do tend to agree - they are fantastic hunting rifles. None of them have a cheek piece and that sort-of convinced me that cheek pieces are 100% ornamental.

Having said that, a H&H style pancake cheek piece properly done surely is a thing of beauty.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
STRICTLTY ornamental?.....100%...? Gosh!

Love your work (absolutely) but let's agree to disagree on this one.

It's not black or white. On the function side of the issue, I could see some improvement on a scoped rifle because of the distance from the POA to the bore centerline. Seems to me that since the "average" shooter's face is tapered from the cheekbone toward the chin, albeit a marginal improvement, a cheek piece would offer a more level alignment of the eyes through the scope than a straight sided stock. I'm no specialist by any stretch. But, if there is any truth to the reason why some demand a perfectly level scope, then wouldn't level eye view through the scope be equally as important via a thicker stock toward the chin as in a cheek piece? If you have a tapered face (average)and demand the best then you probably want the bore centerline to be directly below the center of your crosshairs and the crosshairs to be perfectly level. As for style, I like the looks of a nicely crafted stock and one without a tastefully sculpted cheek piece looks naked to me. Sorry. Can't give 100% to either any more than I can choose a cup as half full or half empty. It all depends! Simply put, it's not that simple.

Stocks can be made with optics in mind. DAC, DAH, and Cast can all be talored with scope in mind, without needing a cheekpiece.

I may see where a broad shouldered individual with narrow face may need a cheepiece to align their eye horizontally(cast at face).

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Cast, pitch, drop, LOP is determined by the physical build of the shooter..nothing to do with scope choice.

Drop , comb thickness and CHEEKPIECE can be tuned witrh scope in mind

Duane, I might also add the shooter's technique is also a factor as some like to crawl the stock while other prefer to shoot with more of a heads up style.

Cast, pitch, drop, LOP is determined by the physical build of the shooter..nothing to do with scope choice.

Correct.

Changing the line of sight can alter the stock though, which was what I incorrectly was trying to convey.. Obviously a stock built for a scope only can have 1 1/2 DAC, and 2 1/2 DAH. As an iron sighted only gun can have the same measurements. The only thing that changed is where you took those measurements from.



I'll be sure to be more accurate in describing things.

I prefer a hunting rifle without a cheek piece, as it serves little "practical" hunting purpose IMO..Most experienced hunters that I know such as 458 Win and many others that I have contact with have little use for a cheek peice on a hunting rifle, and some others that can take them or leave them.

It may be a wonderful thing to some, but, I personally, have little luse for them, I do like a tad of cast off..

I have never noticed any difference in my off hand and field shooting or even off the bench and I have rifles with and without cheek peices. Some target shooters may find them useful. The old single shot competive shooter that had the bulky ugly cheekpieces also took a lot of time between shots, and hunters are not allowed that luxury, a snap shot sure isn't benificial with a cheek piece, but I doubt it hurts anything either, depending on its shape etc..I don't mind the egg cheek pieces, they are cute, and make a rifle look nice.

I sure don't like them in a saddle scabbard, and the edges seem to chip out on a rough use hunting gun, but hey I grew up with factory Mod. 70s and Rem 721 and 722s, mod. 94 winchesters and Savage 99s, I never knew better, and for that I am greatful...

But the best thing about this thread and being Americans is we all still have a choice...

With my high cheek bones, long neck and wide shoulders, a monte carlo cheek-piece is functional and a classic stock without the cheek-piece seems to be for style. I would guess that for a person with a short neck, fat cheeks and narrow shoulders, it might be the other way around.

I thought that cheek pieces were added because the stocks on heavier kicking rifles were made with some cast off.

IOWADON,

watch that kind of talk...