• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Cheek piece purpose

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
95
Location
Central Washington
This may sound like a dumb question but lately I have been looking at lots of original pics of early flintlocks and although most are very pronounced, others were small or only slightly raised - was it just to compensate for cast off. :idunno:
 
I would say yes. Cast off puts the head and eyes more in line with the barrel, which is a plus for most, then the cheek rest replaces the support lost to the head in the cast off. Although not absolutely necessary, both increase comfort for most shooters. Even in modern rifles. I would think the logical reason butt stocks evolved to be less thick over time, was that it was realized that by slimming the butt stock, neither cast off, nor a check rest was a must, and it made production easier and faster. The trade off was increased felt recoil in large calibers with the slimmer butt stocks. Just my thoughts on this, with nothing to back them up. For me, a cheek rest even without cast off is a plus, but not a must.
 
A cheekpiece if properly shaped does help when aiming, as does castoff for the RHed shooter or cast on for the lefty.

The early LRs had very thick butts {2"-2-1/4"} and castoff certainly brought the eye into line of sight and the cheekpiece supplied a slight "shelf" for the face.

As the LR evolved into thinner wrists and butts, so did the cheekpiece....some cheekpieces protruded so little that they're mainly ornamental.

Many contemporary LRs have cheekpieces that protrude too much....my first few LRs had very prominent cheekpieces.......Fred
 
I've come to accept that cheekpieces aren't for everyone. I think for some, it is a matter of fit (like getting smacked in the cheek). But for others, I think it's more a matter of being accustomed to not having one. They grew up shooting lever actions, single shot .22's, and shotguns, so to them, a cheekpiece feels foreign and cumbersome. These are the folks who have admired my guns, but wrinkle their noses when they see the cheekpiece.

The first couple of rifles I built, the wood I used from a local hardwood supplier wasn't wide enough to add a decent cheekpiece. For some reason, these rifles smacked the heck out my upper cheek. After I started building with cheekpieces, that smacking went away :idunno: . May not be a direct correlation though, I may have just gotten the ergonomics more correct. Bill
 
Cheekpieces often act as reference points. You know your in the same exact spot as the last shot if touches you in the same exact spot... again.

Matamoro
 
I'm not enough of an historian about rifles to say for sure so what I say is just supposition on my part. I believe that the eastern style of stock was not as suitable for the heavier calibers such as was seen on the guns made by such people as the Hawken Brothers. The thinner stocks would most likely have been uncomfortable with the heavier loads. The cheekpiece most likely made the stock more comfortable on the shooter's cheek. I am sure it also is a desirable design feature for many people. Personally, I think they look pretty nice on the right style of rifle and an offensive feature on the wrong stock design.
 
Back
Top