Gents:

Does/should it matter what a stock ultimately looks like (within reason) if it fits the shooter?

To some extent at least, I would say "Yes. It does matter".

If a person is comfortable with the looks of his gun, I see no problems and would think looks unimportant.

BUT, if the person feels uneasy with its appearance, I suspect it is bound to degrade his performance with the gun at least slightly, whether technically it fits right or not. One's attitude can often have an undue influence in how they perform at anything, including shooting.

I have a 7x57 that I built 15 years ago.I was in a hurry to get it ready for a hunt.I put 4 coats of tru-oil on it and ran out of time.
I also put 3 or 4 coats of wax on it inside and out.I have looked at it every year since I put it together and thought about taking it apart and re-finishing the stock.
Every time I do I can't bring myself to do it,it works so well and it is my go to working rifle when the weather is crappy.I have others with as much as 16 coats on thm and this one lookes just as good to me.I think it is because I don't have to worry about screwing it up when hunting.

i was thinking more in terms of the stock shape, design, etc.?

Guns are functional, but can also be works of art in it's fullest sense. I often take a gun out of the safe just to look at it, shoulder it etc. Maybe I'm just a pervert of some kind!
Peter.

Absolutely it matters. An ugly gun is no more worth carrying than an inaccurate one.

does it matter what you drive as long as you get there?
does it matter if your pants fit as long as you ass doesn't hang out?
does it matter it matter? auuuuuuuuugh!!!!!!!

Hey butchloc, you just wrote a country and western song!

I have seen some folks shooting some pretty darn ugly rifles in International long range matches. Mostly some kind of blond, dirty looking wooden stocks (beech maybe). Mostly European shooters though. Some of the British, all of the Kenyans, some Jamaicans are the most guilty partys. Generally most Americans shoot pretty nice rifles as do the Ausies and Canadians. Mine is highly figured black walnut. We have had our butts handed to us in the last few matches by those ugly British rifles, but we looked good going down!!

Not no but hell no. That being said, I use the same analogy as I do for dogs and girlfriends.
Function over form--ALWAYS! But if they can look good performing, that's even better.

I think I was a bit vague so I'll try again:

My question emanates from a conversation I had with another gentleman who does stock work. His position was essentially that a riflestock for a larger caliber (e.g. 375 +) should utilize a bit of negative pitch in the comb. I was looking at some of the pics submitted by members of rifles they had done and could not find any examples beyond the commercial offerings of Weatherby and Empire Rifles.

I then asked if whether, to a point, aesthetics be damned one should have a riflestock built to their measurements and forget how it looks.

I think the heart of the question regards the use of negative pitch (hope I'm saying this right) in the comb of a riflestock.

So, gunsmiths chime in: Negative pitch in the comb: your opinions and why or why not use it.

There. I feel better.

Negative pitch can be done subtly without showing that much. You're always going to have a slight humpbacked look but as long as you don't do some god-awful 1970's Weatherby style raised cheekpiece, it shouldn't be that bad to look at.

Saying that, none of the 375 H&H and larger guns that I have shot have had any negative pitch and I have never felt the need for it.

no.. negative pitch is usually ugly ...
i've shot all the way to 577 magnum and 585 nyati is low drop stocks .. works fine

since a 375 IS NOT A HARD KICKING RIFLE, the going in position appears to represent a bias of the speaker, and not factualy content.

Further, negative drop stocks are nearly impossible to use irons with, effetively .. that's a scope only proposition .... even some low drop stocks make that hard

if negative drop cured recoil, it would THE standard for all big bores .. its not, as bogbores and iron sights go together...

so, a negative drop ugly rifle is being uglier than a normal rifle AND not acheiving an offset in function ... though F(tionality) Ugly may be another backcronym for Fugly

btw, i routinely shoot 416/458/470/500/550 in standard shaped rfiles.. about 1" drop ... as NO negative drop rifle would fit me...

the person that says this is probably not a habitual bigbore shooter

as always jeffe, thanks for the straight info!

I agree with Jeff...more drop at the comb than at the heel is foolish.... ever saw a human being built like that? OK ok...maybe Quasimoto!

does someone have a copy of "Peter Capstick's Africa"? On the back of the dust cover is a photo of what I'm talking about in terms of design style. could someone scan the pic and upload it for discussion? i don't have a scanner.

I believe it looks like the rifle he had Continental Arms Co of NYC build for him. I could be wrong. At any rate, I am referring to the comb and also the pitch on the buttstock.

Thanks. Hopefully that will clear up my origninal question.