Whether you agree with them or not (I do), a couple of old time gun writers had a few things to say about Monte Carlo stocks: Jack O'Connor, in his book
Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns, had this to say:
"...The scope problem has been tackled by two different means. One is by the refinement of the classic stock. That is, by giving it a thicker comb that is high enough so that the bolt can just be withdrawn, and by making the buttstock straight-with the same amount of drop at heel as at comb.
"The other method makes use of the Monte Carlo comb. In some cases, this comb is straight from front to rear, dropping off to give the butt an inch or two more drop at heel. A variation of this is the comb that slopes up toward the rear...
"A Monte Carlo comb supports the face to give steadier aim with scope sights; however, the Monte Carlo that comes straight back doesn't provide any better support than the perfectly straight stock. If the shooter is a stock-crawler who gets right up to the point of the comb, the Monte Carlo that slopes up toward the rear gives him no more support than no comb at all.
"The only part of a Monte Carlo that serves any function is the part that supports the face. But many designers bring the Monte Carlo back so far that the buttstock looks like the working end of a canoe paddle. It is a matter of taste, no doubt, but to me such stocks are fearfully ugly..."
"...For my part, I think Monte Carlo combs are something less than beautiful..."
In his book,
The Hunting Rifle, Mr. O'Connor further disparaged the looks of the Monte Carlo by saying, "...The worst examples of the Monte Carlo would frighten an alligator."
Another well-respected gun writer and shooter, Jim Carmichael, had this to say about the Monte Carlo stock in his book,
The Modern Rifle: "...it represents a detour from the logical evolution of rifle-stock design...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. 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. 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."
O'Connor and Carmichel were pretty much talking about "hunting" rifles. A bench or varmint rifle that the op has in mind might be a different kettle of fish altogether when it comes to choosing a stock with a Monte Carlo configuration or not. I guess I'm not much help for you, ohihunter2014; maybe muddying the water even further, except to say that if it's more of a varmint rifle as opposed to a strictly bench rifle, I'd opt for a stock sans the Monte Carlo. If it's a bench rifle you settle on, well, you're on your own as far as I'm concerned. Good luck!
