Looking at the nice gun Lape has offered for sale, I see that it has a cheek piece.

Every time I see such I wonder if the Germans were wing shooters, as we typically define wing shooters. I have never been to Germany and know little about what and how they hunt, particularly 75 or a hundred years ago

The fact that they put cheek pieces on so many of their shotguns I wonder if the used them like a rifle, aiming at their game as I imagine one would do shooting boars or hares.

I wingshoot with my old relics with checkpieces, I find them an aid to a consistent cheek placement - hey I didn't know any better ?

Same here.

I thought that the cheekpieces were a way of making stocks lighter, making the entire stock, with the exception of the cheekpiece area thinner.
Steve

Assuming a conventional (without cheekpiece) stock tapers in plan (dorsal) view from grip to butt and includes the material at comb that constitutes the "jelly roll" of the cheekpiece, it seems to me that the only real thinning would by and large be below the cheekpiece shoulder or shadow line or whatever. The "entire" stock, as a result, would be of lighter weight but not necessarily thinner all over. I guess my real question is this: Does the cheekpiece being raised above the "ground"-- which is the stock face below the cheekpiece shoulder or shadow line--encourage the illusion that it also protrudes beyond the normative surface of a wingshooting" comb?

I've never noticed anemic proportioning or abrupt transitions on an old Fajen sporter stock on an 03. For example, a thinner grip might not fill the palm of Mr. Averageman. Perhaps the offside face of the stock is of flatter section but I've never noticed that either. To me it boils down to either the cheekpiece creates a fatter comb or it doesn't and that comb is cast or it isn't or for shooting IFOs you're either locking your cheekbone or you're leaning over the top of the thing. I realize this is just a quibble with language and thinking out loud. I've never sighted down the side of enuf cheekpiece stocks to really know whether they provide a true platform for the wingshooting backsight or not.

jack

Was it Bob Brister who said he preferred his wing shooting guns to have cheek pieces? Makes sense to me......

I have 4 or 5 doubles with cheek pieces and I personnaly like them. As mentioned, I find they help in cheek placement. But like anything, I suppose they don't work for some.

Maybe it was that they used the one gun that they owned for all types of hunting, birds, hares, boars.

Nice cheeks pieces are great on women but are ridiculous on a shotgun...

The Sempert Krieghoff 16 that was just knocked off on the sale area has lockplates engraved with deer left and fox right. No birds nor dogs. Also has the cheekpiece stock. But for that GP stockpot gun, you'd think rifle shotgun combo or drilling, wouldn't you?

jack

Good one Joseph- every now and then you come shining thru- and this one is a prima facia example of your sagacity-- I love the metallurgy and workmanship of German and Austrian guns, but their wood work vis a vis cheekpieces, schnabel ( beak) forearms on scatterguns- Nicht zer Gut!! The Linder Charles Day 10 bore circa 1922 I am lusting for has no cheek piece, very few Lindner shotguns did-

Heck, them Germans were wingshooters Big Time. Shot the wings off a lot of B-17s and B-24s! Didn't use cheekpieces either.

My Merkel drillings both have cheekpieces, and my Simson doesn't. When I'm shooting, I don't notice any difference.

I've got an old 12 bore Westley Richards BP percussion double and the stock has a cheekpiece.

I thought this odd, and wondered for a minute if it was a case of "mix 'n match" somewhere down the line, but of course, the stock is original to the total gun,as odd as it does seem.

As an aside, when did such a stock w/cheekpiece pick up the label "Monte Carlo" stock, and why?

I hunted a time or two in Germany when I lived there 1978-1980. The Germans hunted partridge, doves and pheasants, as well as rabbits, hare and foxes all on the same driven hunt. The German hunters used their normal SxS guns and drillings. Most had cheek pieces and all had slings, as slings were required by hunting regulations.

I gotta believe that bird hunting for sport was on the wing and meat hunting was 'target of opportunity' just like anywhere, including the U.S..

Yup-- Mae and I were in Washington D of C- July 1995 (dedication of the long-overdue Korean War memorial then) and the Enola Gay was also on display at my favorite place in our "Disneyland of the Potomac" The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum-- Was looking at a ME-109D with that nasty 20mm cannon in the prop hub- remember, in WW1 the Germans were the first to use a cam synchronizer to fire the Maxim MG's through the prop spin- A lady next to me was trying to figure out the German phrasing on the fuselage just behind the radiator- so I translated it for her- then felt a hand on my shoulder and a "doppelganger" for the late Kurt Jergens complimented me on my reasonably accurate German- he was a pilot in Jagstaffel 131-was shot down in the Channel and retrieved by the Brits- sent to POW camp in Canada, married a RCAF nurse after 1946, became a Canadian citizen- was visiting the "Smith" with his grandson Hans-

We had lunch together- schnitzel, saurebraten und schnapps- well Hans had a pepsi- age 12-- and he retold me the old joke about- "Ya, der Fokkers fluegenit Messerschmidts aud dem schrim"!! there is a brotherhood amongst the "Knights of the Skies" that us ground pounders can only stand back and admire- and the ME-109 was one damn fine fighter- ruled the European Continent's skies until we got the even better P-51 Mustang over there- IMO anyway!!

Pick up a cheek piece shot gun or drilling, and bring it up to shoot just like any shotgun, and you may think: "Gee, this feels okay."

It is the old case of "I don't like cheek pieces." Followed by "Well, did you ever shoot one?" Most likely the answer will be "Well, No, but I just don't like their looks." Okay. But, before you butcher a classic German shotgun........try it, who knows, Mikey; you might like it.

Sam Ogle, Lincoln, NE