question about cheek weld

Is it better that cheek weld is made with the comb under the cheekbone, or with the comb under the upper jaw? I understand the goal is for the weld is to have the eye lined up with the sights or reticle. If the weld is made in the pocket of the jaw, then a lower comb can be used with a scope. If the weld is made under the cheekbone, then a lower comb can be used with sights, but a higher comb is needed for a scope. Can either anchor point be used, or is there a reason to favor one anchor point and make sure the comb results in a fit to that anchor point?

rbernie said:

The time-honored approach says that the weld should be against the bottom of the cheekbone; that's a fixed and easy to find reference point that ensures that the gun is always in the same plane relative to your eye (assuming that the gun is made to fit you).

There are a lot of folk that don't have a proper stock fit, usually because the manufacturer put a 'it'll maybe fit you if shot with the head relatively forward/down like you're shooting from a prone position' stock on a gun and that's not how it's being shot. In that instance, the comb is probably hitting somewhere along the jaw, and there's just no fixed point on the jaw that can act as a consistent reference regardless of how bladed the shooter's body is relative to the target or whether the shooter is looking up, down, or straight ahead. Offhand shooting requires a lot of drop at the butt and a higher comb, relative to bench/prone shooting. Most stocks just don't have that, and most folk just buy the rifle and shoot it as best that they can with what they got. The current fashion is to adjust to this misfit by craning the head forward/down while shooting offhand, which (IMO) is a far less repeatable motion than bringing the gun up into the natural pocket and having the comb naturally nestle snug just under the cheekbone.

Then again, most folk don't shoot offhand anymore, and even field positions are being replaced by steady rests on box stands. In that case, controlling recoil is probably a more important skill than getting a repeatable cheekweld.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of good information in this post.

The cheekbone is the intuitive choice, but very often results in a line of sight too low for the optics. I knew there has been an adaptation of stock shape since optics have become nearly ubiquitous, but I had not realized that the fit has also been adapted to shooting with a rest. Out of curiosity, I pulled out an old Model 70 from about 70 years ago and shouldered it. The open sights line right up and the butt is right in the shoulder pocket. Then I took out a modern Bell & Carlson stock with the popular nearly straight and level comb. If I put the butt in the shoulder pocket, I've really got to scrunch down to line up the sights. I have rings on that receiver too, so I can see it doesn't fit optics better because although they would require less scrunching to line up, there is no cheek weld unless I get the face down to the open sight level. Then I shouldered it to line up the sights in a natural off-hand position. What I found is that the toe fits into the shoulder pocket, but the heel ends up above the shoulder. Trying it in a bench rest position or prone, the butt fit better as it rested more on the top of my shoulder.

The 70-year-old stock obviously has more drop at the heel and toe that lets it shoulder better offhand, but when a cheekweld is made with the comb, my eyes are lined up at open sight level. The modern stock has about the same drop at the comb, but less drop at the heel and toe. So while it doesn't fit optics any better, it fits prone and bench positions better and not so much offhand. I hadn't realized the drop at the butt affected this so much. I only knew the more vertical grips were better for the bench.

I've got another modern bolt-action rifle with a raised (adjustable) comb. On this one I can get a good cheekweld and be lined up with the optic. But when I shoulder it offhand, again, it's the toe of the butt that's fitting in the shoulder pocket and the heel is high. Of course, it works fine on a bench.

I've got a lot more to think about the next time I try another rifle at the store.

I was reading some comments about the ill fit of stocks with optics. In the Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns by Jack O'Conner, he wrote about how the straight stock, that is one with the same drop at the heel as at the comb, that we see on most modern hunting rifles, solves the "scope problem" better than a Monte Carlo stock.

In a book The Modern Rifle, I read , "In truth, a Monte Carlo is not at all needed to get the eye up to scope height. The same results are achieved by simply elevating the nose of the comb and raising the drop at heel." I don't see how a raised heel can possibly fit properly unless the drop at the comb is even less, possibly even above the bore which could prevent the bolt coming back.

"A typical factory-issue Monte Carlo rifle stock will have a drop of around 1/2" at the nose of the comb, 1/2" at the crest of the Monte Carlo, and 1 1/2" at heel (measuring from the centerline of the bore). A well-designed non-Monte Carlo stock, on the other hand, will have about 1/2" drop at comb and at heel! This high, straight stock line gives the same eye/scope alignment advantage of a Monte Carlo but without the ugly humpbacked profile." I found this statement to be entirely true, but again it neglects the fact that the drop at the heel is insufficient for offhand shooting.

It seems the reason for little to no drop at the heel being fashionable is because it results in a straighter recoil impulse. "In other words, to justify a Monte Carlo comb on a hunting rifle it is necessary to have more drop at heel than desirable. This, in turn, causes more recoil punishment than necessary and cancels the much-touted 'recoils away from the face' feature of a Monte Carlo. Remember, the greater the drop at heel the greater the tendency to raise or buck upward into the shooter's face as it recoils. A non-Monte Carlo stock with about 1/2" drop at heel recoils more nearly straight to the rear and is less punishing. So, as it turns out, the Monte Carlo comb is only a stylistic venture which adds nothing to a hunting rifle in the way of shootability."

I wonder if shotgunners would agree that no more than 1/2" drop at the heel is the best for shootability.

I will say that in surveying modern guns with Monte Carlo styled stocks, I found only the kind that have no less drop at the comb than non-Monte Carlo stocks. It seems the only factory-offered Monte Carlo stocks that remain are the very kind that Jack O'Conner rightfully derided. That is ones with a purposeless ramp behind the ear and which have the same drop at the heel as the straight stocks. What I did not find are any stocks with a high comb and good drop at the heel. It seems that overwhelmingly, the convention has followed the reasoning of O'Conner's comments. Still, one writer lamented the dearth of stocks that fit optics and blames traditional aesthetics as the cause. https://www.rifleshootermagazine.co...it-important-to-get-rifle-fit-right-1-4778864 I am persuaded that the Monte Carlo is rejected because of its aesthetics that many besides O'Conner have ridiculed, but that the straight stocks that have become favored are not any more traditional, nor do they seem to be functional as they don't work well off-hand and neither do they fit optics as well as some promised they would.