Cheek pieces

[northmn]

When I look at this photo I see a couple of problems as to the cheek piece construction.  while I swear it looks a little better when holding it as if this photo has some distortion.  Be that as it may I think the curve on the buttplate side needs to be more curved and that that part could have been formed more toward the sideplate.  Like to see other examples and hear comments.

DP

[Don Getz]

It could be shorter in length, could also be moved "up" on the stock.   It also appears to be convex, rather than concave.
By that I mean it should be hollowed or dished out somewhat............Don

[northmn]

It is concave I did do a slight dishing, not a lot but it is not convex.

DP

[b bogart]

I am certainly no expert but will offer an opinion. It appears a bit too large for the butt. Don's suggestion of "moving it up" a bit seems right. Also it seems to me to be a bit "long" horizontally. It also appears to follow the toe line parallel, it should, as I understand it, have a taper front to back and not follow the toe line parallel, if that makes sense.
Others please correct me if I am wrong.

[northmn]

I would really like to see some more detailed pictures of others.

DP

[bgf]

In trying to understand the same question, I've almost convinced myself that the "standard" cheekpiece is  more or less centered vertically on the line of the wrist (or just a tiny bit lower), about a third of the length from beginning of wrist (straight secion) to butt, and tapered to a narrow width in front flaring out at the rear (in both width and height).  Of course, there's variation in one or all of these specifications on every real rifle . 

[JTR]

You'll find some here;

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?board=112.0

John

[Roger Fisher]

When I look at this photo I see a couple of problems as to the cheek piece construction.  while I swear it looks a little better when holding it as if this photo has some distortion.  Be that as it may I think the curve on the buttplate side needs to be more curved and that that part could have been formed more toward the sideplate.  Like to see other examples and hear comments.

DP

To my eye, the front curved taper could have been more tapered and not ended so suddenly.  The bottom line of the cheekpiece should not be parrallel (sp) with the toe line but tapered towards it (higher in back and lower in front)  Did the builder want that perch belly line in the toe line?

[BrownBear]

I agree that it looks oversize and I don't like the relation of the back to the butt plate.  From a practical standpoint, is there some cast-off in the stock?  I've got prominent cheekbones, but I've turned really "anti" about cheek pieces on muzzleloaders if there's no cast off.  I cant a rifle something terrible when trying to get my face lined up behind the sights if there's a cheek piece without any cast-off.  Call it "Okie" cast-off, but I've whittled away more than one cheek rest on guns without cast-off, just so I could get behind the sights.

[Mike Brooks]

Wrong side of gun.....

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

If you visit the Contemporary Blogspot, you'll see dozens of good examples of well done cheek pieces.

[northmn]

Wrong side of gun.....

Actually I find that at least 80% of the guns made have the cheek pieces on the wrong side.

DP

[chuck c.]

I'm no expert either, but I would have swept the butt end back more. To me it looks better if that line flows with the comb of the butt plate and the front flows with the top of the wrist. the bottom could come up more also.

[omark]

i certainly know less than many that have replied, but, here goes anyway.
i was under the impression the curve on the back of the cheekpiece, if extended, would intersect at the heel of the buttplate and comb. and at the same time, the front curve would intercept the toe of the comb. while the angle on the bottom would, if extended, go from about the center of the wrist to the buttplate more or less blending between the angles of the comb and underside of the stock. thought that looked pretty good on a couple ive built, but i may be prejudice.     mark

[Acer Saccharum]

In general, the cheekpiece looks best if it not parallel to the bottom line of the stock. The comb, the line of the cheeckpiece, the bottom line of the buttstock all converge somewhere in the lock area. Where depends on style, drop, region of gun, and more...

[Collector]

Who was the gentleman, who had a table at Dixons (at least the last time I was there,) that had a paperback publication, outlining the use of the Golden Mean, by noted gunsmiths of yore,  in laying out virtually all, if not all, of their stock architecture?   I'm not a longrifle builder (I have a checkbook,) but I found the diagrams and content, to be very informative.   Anybody remember his name?    Another small point or queston:  Are you being guided by any of the layout information available in published books/materials, like Dixon, Buechele, etc., on building longrifles?   Good luck with your project.   

[Acer Saccharum]

Oh, no! that fatal slip of the tongue! Not a means to an end, nor a means to gold, but a veritable mental quagmire opens before us, yet again.  Nay, it is the song of the Sirens luring the unlucky sailor to a certain demise upon the rocks....

Yeagh! I am running away as fast as my little pegs can carry me.... with my fingers in my ears.

Tom

[Bob Mac]

Acer, relax. You've weathered this situation before. I'm confident you can handle another go round.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Don't mean(s) nuttin..........

[JTR]

  I'm going to post this in small type, as not to upset some of the more fragile here. Hmmm, we don't seem to have a small font size available here, so just pretend that it is. 

So, a guy named Patrick Hallum, now long departed, wrote a little book about the wonders of the Golden Mean, so maybe that's your guy.

I tried it on some of my guns and it actually worked. On other guns, with a bit of fiddling I could make it work, sometimes. And on others, I had to use already known distances to find an origin point,,, so in essence, if you didn't know the distance you wouldn't know the origin point,,, so I'd say it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

Now re-reading the above paragraph, something doesn't sound quite right, so probably better just disregard everything I've said. 
Golden Mean??? What's a Golden Mean!

John

[Collector]

What??  What did I say...??       Thank goodness for modern psychology and reliable/predictable drug therapy , to help us overcome our meansphobia.      I'll not cause any further stresses, upon Acer, I promise.  (Loved your post, btw, Acer!  The wit and skillful repartee' makes for a fine read.)    

I'm going to go back to southern engineering problems, like trying to figure out how many dogs can live on a piece of property, given the size of the property, the size of the building, the degree of grade up to the front raised wooden porch and the number of abandoned large appliances and vehicles on it. 

[northmn]

The Golden mean is a perfect imperfection in that it is an irrational number in our base 10 system that can never be achived.  It can be carried out to an infinite number of decimal points.  Its application has been very loosely used in the past.  Enough said.
I fixed some of the little problems on the cheek piece and will post another picture when the finish dries.  I really need to learn more about photography.

DP

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Be gentle now, Mother Nature seems to like the Golden Mean
 

[northmn]

I am going to totally ignore the "Golden Mean"  theories, which is as gentle as I can get.  I just reviewed the ALR museum on Southern rilfes and can state that about the only thing I could find consistant in cheekpeices is that they are more dished than mine.  As to the comments of not being parallel to the bottom of the buttstock?  Some are, some are not dpending on the school.  My basic designs are those of the Lancaster schools where I was told all buttstock lines converge on the center of the cock.  When I look at Lancaster originals some do some don't.  There is a great deal of variation in the designs I reviewed in the museum.  However, for the triangular buttstocks I feel that the general advice given is good.  As stated the cheekpiece on the rifle I photographed was too bulky fo rthe stock.  It didn't seem to look that bad in hand but when I saw the photograph and looked closer I wondered how the H--l did I do that?   Shows one should not get in a hurry to finish a rifle because you are itching to shoot it.  Also since it was a poor boy intended for woods use I admit to being a little less attentive than I should have.   

DP

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Artists do what looks and feels right............ after the fact you can look for mathematical or theoretical priciples, but no two guns are exactly the same and no two peoples likes are EXACTLY the same so it stands to reason....you should build it the way YOU like to look at it.  What makes you feel good when you see it..... All the guidelines are just that, helpful for seeing how to get what you are looking for...or not.  Enjoy!!  Course you can be an engineer.......sometimes they make pretty things.......

My problem is getting my hands to do what i see in my mind........