I have a couple of English rifles that do not have a cheekpice and I like them just fine, I probably would like them more from an aesthetic standpoint, if they had a small pancake, but they handle and cheek just fine without. I got a call from my stockmaker the other day who, while turning the blank, found that due to the initial thinness of the blank, and a slight drying warpage that had occurred, if we use it, it will have to be a no cheekpiece stock. I have other blanks, but had specifically picked this blank a few years ago, from hundreds I looked at at Cecil Fredi's in Vegas. It is California English, honey brown with lateral smokey black mineral streaking and NO fiddleback. This rifle is a drop mag 09 mauser in .375 H&H built along the lines of the Heym "Martini". Did I mention how much I like this blank? I decided, in the interest of the tight timeline with my upcoming july PG hunt, to proceed with it and live without a cheekpiece. It does have express sights, but is a scoped rifle. I just wonder if this will come back to haunt me. This is the only commisioned, professional rifle I have ever had made, and will probably be the last. Kind of a dilema, what are your opinions?

If I'm not mistaken, Harry Selby's famous .416 Rigby does not have a cheeckpiece so I don't think the lack of one disqualifies your rifle from having "classic" lines.

As long as the stock fits your face and allows you to use the scope comfortably, go with it.

I have never understood the need for cheekpieces. Shot guns don't have them... In fact the British ones have cast off.

The height of the comb is what really positions the face. Cheekpieces seem like finned fenders to me. A stylistic addition that serves no real purpose, except to screw up an otherwise symetrical stock.

My vote is NO!

Cast off (or on) is not confined to British guns.

Cheek pieces are frequently found on shotguns

A well designed cheekpiece simply adds support to the lower part of the face.

Absolutely required...of course not

Duane, how often do you get a request for a "slick" stock?
In all my books on customs, I have not found an "Express" style rifle without one, but, maybe I will start a trend! And, Yes, Continental shotguns frequently have cheekpieces and sling swivels, guess thats why I love English doubles!

I like the look of a well designed cheekpiece. My two custom bolt rifles have them as do most of my british double rifles. When I had Paul Hodgins stock my Jeffery sidelock I wanted it done true to the original which didn't have a cheekpiece. The gun looks fantastic and I never notice any difference in shooting a rifle with one or without one.

The bottom line is, IMHO you can have a stock with or without a cheek piece, and both can fit you perfectly.

about half the time i make a stock for myself i do not put on a cheek piece, just a nice rounded comb of the right height. just four ounces or so of weight you may or may not want to carry about.

The only two purposes I can think of for a cheekpiece are to provide support lower on the cheek, the other reason to provide a difference in cast at the face relative to the heel/toe.

Otherwise, its asthetic. The lack of a cheek piece is growing on me.

Duane is correct--its not about the look--some faces need a cheek piece and some are better without--its about stock fit.

I.E. its not the stock its the face that determines.

SSR

At the risk of getting a fat lip I will venture that I recall you have a fat face and can probably live without a cheekpiece. As I recall the cheepiece on the A3 Springfield I did for you was fairly abbreviated and I believe it was a good fit.

I've seen British bolt action rifles - Purdey, Holland, Rigby et al with or without.

In fact its seems that Purdey and Holland preferred a cheekpiece and that you'll less often see a cheekpiece on a Rigby.

On a well laid oit stock, for IRON SIGHTS ONLY, I can't see as it is needed.

Most custom rifles have them for both looks and function, another way to differentiate your rifle... but I think having a custom without one if it is pleasing and functional to you is what makes a "custom" a custom!!!

Damn Tom! I have been called a lot of things, now "Fat Faced". I prefer " Fuller Featured" Thank you!

quote:

Originally posted by Woodhits:
If I'm not mistaken, Harry Selby's famous .416 Rigby does not have a cheeckpiece so I don't think the lack of one disqualifies your rifle from having "classic" lines.

As long as the stock fits your face and allows you to use the scope comfortably, go with it.

true, classic lines can still exist in absence of cheekpiece and for-end tip.
Nor does the absence of such features necessarily disqualify a rifle from being bespoke,best-grade.






Harry Selby with .275 Rigby of WMD.Bell:



the .275 Rigby of Jim Corbett:


Jeffery 6.5x54ms:

http://i530.photobucket.com/al...jeffery_boi09l-1.jpg
http://i530.photobucket.com/al...jeffery_boi05l-1.jpg
http://i530.photobucket.com/al...6_jeffery_boi06l.jpg
http://i530.photobucket.com/al...6_jeffery_boi03l.jpg

Trax, a picture(s), is indeed, worth a thousand words!

I prefer the function of a cheekpiece.

I much prefer the clean lines and fit of a stock with no cheek piece

Lee-I was only poking fun about the fat face, but the name is Mike not Tom.

I set up my rifles with similar LOP and trigger pulls. None of my synthetic travel rifles have cheekpieces, none of my wooden ones don't.

Does it make any difference to me- no.

its all about the fit--either a cheek piece helps or it doesn't.

Pay no attention to TRAX. All he does is copy pics-

SSR

...pics of neat custom rifles that AR members really enjoy seeing!
IF you don't like seeing them , your free to use the ignore button.