Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Gunsmithing Cheekpiece is too big

I'm absolutely no stockmaker for sure. Again emphasizing For Sure! But I've collected Mausers for over half century with primary emphasis on Original Obendorf Sporters. I've seen a lot of variations in stocks and of course particularly in the "Suhl School" and other name gunsmiths of the early century-[ast era. I do consider myself a "sage" commenter regarding mauser sporting stocks.

First the notion of difference between "Classic" notions and of evolved modern concepts of sight pictures, recoil management and just plain 'fitment'. Such and early notions of "Classic" defined in wider vistas of individual "custom" in system where all were of such hand labour. Also in exigencies meaning 'making do' as adapting the stock pattern to available wood and purse.

My impression of O/P rich's stock is reasonably within notions of gunstocks in such as the first decade of the 20th Century. Master gunsmiths handed down their notions and many semi-master to talented amateurs as results of which offering up more of a kaleidoscope of "nuances" as the stock under consideration reflects.

Reference file pix below, as "offering of evidence". My Original Obie Sporter of 1909 which, by all visuals, is entirely original & unaltered. It's also rather unique as with a full tapered octagon, ribbed barrel. The entire presentation both of originality and the sort of Oberndorf as likely reflecting perhaps some Factory catering to individual taste. Certainly not a common "standard pattern".

It go me has some quite distinct flavour of the O/P's stock with one notable difference in the grip curvature and cap. My offering here isn't about saying "it's the same. Rather that it's within the era "spectrum" of variation more alike than not.

So! Point offered! I appreciate the stock for what it is!
My take!
Best!
John

I absolutely don't mean this to be critical - I think the OP is doing a swell job. Reducing the size of a pancake cheekpiece is no mean feat and he's pulling it off. That I know from having done it myself. What I would change if it were mine, and I'm strictly speaking from my own sense of aesthetics, is the angle of the bottom of the grip. I would keep the back of it positioned about where it is but raise the front maybe 1/4-3/8" to put the grip cap at a shallower angle almost horizontal, along with a wispy thin rounded over grip cap. That would give the whole stock a more svelte look. Like I said just an idea. Thoughts?

An ebony grip cap I did that illustrates what I'm talking about:



Even leaving the grip cap angle the same as it is but merely thinning/rounding over the cap itself goes a long way toward improving the aesthetic of the stock shape, as in this example. Again, ebony:

[img]

I would've followed my own advice on this one as it would've made the stock more graceful, but couldn't because then the lever would've extended past the grip and that would've looked dumb too.

I had a so called 90% stock when I started. Grip cap is far from done. There was no real room to sweep the grip back without making it very dainty.

You're right about sweeping it back. I was referring to altering only the angle of the bottom of the grip.

Personally, I would like that better. I kinda like that schnable as well- it's different, but maybe less functional (assuming there is "function")
than a more standard one. Adds character.

Anyone who has ever worked a "90% finished" stock quickly learns that 90% of the wood/shaping is done, leaving 90% of the work to be done.

new cheek.

Nice job. I always preferred those trim Oberndorf pancake style on a Mauser or prewar M70 SuperGrade.

'
Looks nice !
Now what about that 2nd schnabel on the schnabel ?

Nice work on the cheekpiece! I agree with Gnoahhh's points and am also curious about what the plan is for the double schnable. It looks to me out of place, like a huge double chin on an attractive woman.

IMO the last thing that you need to do is fix that schnabel forend. It looks to me that you have the wood available there to do a great job which would finish that stock nicely.

Looks like you’ve done a nice job with it…😊

Reshaped cheekpiece does look better, and appears proportional to the adjustments made to the forend.

Not familiar with the GAG semi inlets, but it seems like most available now are pretty bulky as they come from the maker. This despite claims that they are "100 percent shaped" and "ready for final sanding".

I'm presently working on a laminate form Richards in the old classic pattern. A lot of mass to these also, and finding it necessary to reduce in nearly every dimension in order to get to a trim sporter stock. Keeping all of the elements of the stock in good proportion when doing so does require some effort.

It appears to me that the original cheek piece was misplaced on the butt stock at about 1/2" inch low. It should have blended at the comb, not below the comb and the shadow line made it look even lower. So the the effect of the 1/4" removal of the lower area and shadow line at the bottom make the low cut cheek piece not near so noticeable,

You could just can the double snabble, it looks like a double chin.
By the way it is a military Mauser with military stepped barrel, looks like a 38 or 96.

When they were cheap, like $69, no one paid close attention to how well the cutting of stocks for them was done. That high narrow comb effect, can catch you right under the cheek bone, if you push up on the comb to see the sights or through a scope.

The grip cap was a good idea as the grip was bugger up on the front edge. Cutting it square and putting a cap on fixed that.

You could cut the upper tang at an angle, just a hair below the sear groove's bottom, then cut the stock wrist to match the angle. As below, a rough cut in process.

Nice work. I like the snabble as is. Hell I have a Mannlicher with a snabble that, to me, works.



Also, I do not believe the cheekpiece needs to run to the comb. My Walther Mauser Model B doesn't and looks fine to me.

Not fond of recurve grips on this style rifle. The grip on my stock is even a bit to tight.