stock designs

[StevieK]

When I look at new guns on the market today, very few stock designs feature a monte carlo cheek piece anymore. I may be incorrect on this but it seems as though during the era of lets say the 70's to 2000, having a monte carlo stock design was a fairly common occurrence. Not that there weren't straight design stocks, but the monte carlo seemed more popular.
Is the digression of the monte carlo stock a product of consumers not liking this design, or is it purely a result of manufacturers wanting a "good looking" product. I admit that I like the clean lines of current production rifles, but for practical use a monte carlo stock actually "fits" and allows good cheek weld when sighting through a scope. Am I alone on this? Lets hear your thoughts as to what stock design you prefer.

 

[3macs1]

Just a guess saving money by using one common stock for both left and right hand guns as well as same stock on shot guns and rifles.
Take a small frame 870 wingmaster for example will also fit a 7600 rifle etc.

 

[Mike Webb]

Personally I think the classic styling makes for a better handling and less clubby rifle. The first big name rifle that received the classic treatment was the Ruger 77, it was designed by Len Brownell(I think), a custom stock maker of some renown. I think a proper stock should have no lines that are not a segment of a circle or a straight line. The monte carlo has a tendency to place the butt too far below the line of sight(also the line of recoil) causing the rifle to pivot upwards during recoil and whack the shooter in the cheek more than a classic styled stock. My 2 cents.

 

[Boomer]

Today's classic stock isn't. It is simply a straight line design which requires the use of a sight mounted fairly high above the bore; think AR-15. If you fire a rifle equipped with one of these canoe paddles, particularly one having any amount of serious recoil, and attempt to use iron sights, you will be rewarded with loose teeth. The true classic stock has enough drop to enable the use of irons or a low mounted scope, without producing uncontrollable muzzle climb. It might be encountered with or without a cheek piece.

There is more then one way to skin a cat though, and the Weatherby style Monte Carlo stock, some call it the California style, seems to align the eye better with an optic then does the modern classic. I have frequently been impressed when shouldering Weartherby rifles how the reticle is right where it needs to be without having to wiggle around in search of the correct eye relief or adjust the cheek contact on the comb to achieve the correct height. Despite that I am not a fan, and prefer the older classic design for aesthetics and practicality.

 

[mikeyb]

Like Boomer said, I've always gotten the best fit out of a Weatherby or Sako stock (other as well, 700BDL fits alright) over straight comb stocks. I prefer the looks of a straight stock, but my Vanguard definitely fits best.

 

[hunter5425]

I think stock fit is a function of body type. I'm built with thick neck and short arms ( think dwarf) and the straight line stocks fit me very well while the Monte Carlo stocks bang the crap out of me. Perhaps because of larger scopes like 30mm bodies and 50 mm objectives
the straight stocks have become more popular for those with normal physiques.

 

[Kevin M.]

I don't have a rageing hard on for monte carlo stocks. They just don't feel right when compared to a classic stocked gun.

 

[9.3mauser]

Monte Carlo stocks actually originated with shotguns used for the sport of live pigeon shooting in Monte Carlo. I can't recall seeing a pre-war rifle fitted with a monte carlo, and the first instance of one being used on a rifle might well be the Lee Enfield No. 4T sniper rifle, with the screwed-on cheekpiece.

The original intent when used on a rifle was to provide a compromise for the use of both iron and scope sights. Weatherby turned it into a fashion craze, and even the Brits started turning out rifles with monte carlo combs. Now the pendulum is swinging back the other way again, though modern stocks are too straight and too high of comb for the best use of iron sights.

I'm not a big fan of the monte carlo, (or of very straight stocks) but I could live with it if it's not too extreme and everything else about the rifle is right.

 

[Mike Webb]

Monte Carlo stocks actually originated with shotguns used for the sport of live pigeon shooting in Monte Carlo. I can't recall seeing a pre-war rifle fitted with a monte carlo, and the first instance of one being used on a rifle might well be the Lee Enfield No. 4T sniper rifle, with the screwed-on cheekpiece.

The original intent when used on a rifle was to provide a compromise for the use of both iron and scope sights. Weatherby turned it into a fashion craze, and even the Brits started turning out rifles with monte carlo combs. Now the pendulum is swinging back the other way again, though modern stocks are too straight and too high of comb for the best use of iron sights.

I'm not a big fan of the monte carlo, (or of very straight stocks) but I could live with it if it's not too extreme and everything else about the rifle is right.

Modern stocks ARE too straight for iron sights but a rifle can't be properly stocked for both irons and scope. The line of sight is almost 1.5 inches higher for most scopes above the line of sight for properly mounted iron sights. You really notice it on Rem 700 and Ruger 77 iron sights, they are a too high unsightly chunk on the barrel. The older Husqvarna bolt guns without a monte carlo was a good compromise, the sights were low and streamlined and a low mounted scope lined up pretty good.

 

[fuzzy]

Are there any modern camparisons to the configuration of the old huskies?

Thanks
Fuzzy