I’m trying to understand the relationship between cast-off and cheekpieces, so I’m looking for input. I’m building a stock for a bolt action rifle that will primarily be used with open sights (peep on the rear, blade on the front), but it will sometimes be used with a scope. I’m building it in the style of this Minar rifle:
http://www.finegunmaking.com/page32/page46/page46.htmlI have a pretty good understanding of how comb height and eye alignment differ between open sights and scopes, so the stock will be shaped with a nod towards open sights. I’m inclined to include some amount of cast-off in the buttstock. I’ve read that cast-off works in tandem with a cheekpiece (the Minar rifle has a cheekpiece), but I also see a lot of shotguns with cast-off and no cheekpiece. So my question is this: for a rifle stock that will be used primarily with open sights, and occasionally a scope, would cast-off be wise, and if so, should the cast-off be accompanied by a cheekpiece? I welcome input and opinions on this. Thank you!
I don’t have a good answer for your question. Sorry. But, you might cross post your question on the rifle/custom gun categories here. There are seriously qualified rifle stock makers who poke in there, regularly, who seldom post here in the shotgun section.
Good luck, by the way.
Best,
Ted
Good question. It''s always seemed to me that cast off and the cheekpiece were working at cross purposes. Looking forward to comments.
Good question. It''s always seemed to me that cast off and the cheekpiece were working at cross purposes. Looking forward to comments.
Not really though. The cheek piece keeps your face where it needs to be with respect to the rib and the bead or the rifle sights as the case may be. The cast off, while allowing for that, puts the buttplate where it needs to be on your shoulder. Sometimes we make do with a sort of average cast off on an uncheeked stock that is a tradeoff between those two demands. But the cheek piece allows greater independence in these two things.
This is just personal opinion, no more. I am not a rifle stockmaker, though I have made them, and am mostly just a rifle and shotgun shooter. But, it seems to me that many classic rifle stockers want(ed) to include a cheekpiece. When a cheekpiece is included on a stock it offsets the eye. The only way to get the eye back to the bore line/sight line is to build in cast off. It works, as you said, in tandem with a cheekpiece, because one offsets the other. I don't really understand the purpose of a cheekpiece, myself, except for aesthetics. I have rifles that work perfectly with open sights that have no cheekpiece, or cast.
As long as my eye aligns with the sights, without physical contortions, I don't care if the stock has a cheek piece or not. I really believe cheekpieces are mostly about aesthetics. But, that's just my opinion.
I don’t own a rifle with a cheek piece. Maybe it helps with cheek weld to the stock on bigger recoiling guns?
Don’t know for sure.
Best,
Ted
Ideally for the line of sight, in regards to stock design, the stock will need to be designed for either open sights or scope use. A compromise will detract from the optimal use of either design. An example would be using a low comb for open sights and a higher comb for a good cheek weld with a scope. You can't have both, one or the other.
Modern adjustable combs can provide versatility, but that's not applicable for your build. Good luck.
I have prewar custom rifles with cheekpieces and they are so comfortable that I want a shotgun similarly equipped. However, they somehow conflict with quick mounting in the use of a shotgun. I have not found a solution to the "iron sights/optical sights" problem. I only know that a stock has to be low enough to use the iron sights, and the shooter has to adjust to the scope. A talented stockmaker could probably make a stock that has a point on the comb area that would allow a tight fit with the cheek to use the scope, and still allow use of the iron sights.
A “point on the comb” can be a mixed blessing with any degree of recoil.
I had a Manton of Calcutta .500 BPE BLNE that had been quite tidily restocked in India.
The front end of the comb had been neatly finished with a pronounced corner, fluted on each side.It bit!
As it was not the original stock I had no qualms about getting it re-shaped to a less aggressive contour.
I have noticed that almost all guns with a cheek piece would have too much castoff if you removed the cheek piece.
These comments are super helpful. I appreciate all the responses. I purchased an economy grade stock from Richards Microfit, and I will use it, along with Bondo, to experiment with shaping and geometry. When I have it where I want it, I will send it off to be duplicated in a nice piece of walnut. The comments here help me know how to proceed.