Re: Integral vs saddle vs thumbwheel cheekpiece
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SpenceDaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, so I'm looking at the McMillan A3 and the options with it are the Integral cheek-piece, the saddle cheek-piece, and the thumb-wheel cheek-piece. i was wondering if anyone had a better outcome of one over the other. I've heard a lot of bad about all of them, not a whole lot of good. please enlighten me
thank you for your help
Spence </div></div>
If you want an adjustable cheekpiece, I suggest the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"
KMW Loggerhead hardware"</span></span>. I am going to replace the non-adjustable-cheekpiece A5 on my Tac Ops X-Ray 51 with an A5 with the KMW adjustable cheekpiece hardware because from what I have seen, Loggerhead-equipped cheekpieces are more solid than the McMillan Thumbwheel and Integral cheekpieces. In addition to allowing for vertical adjustment the Loggerhead also has a lateral (side-to-side) adjustment, which allows for better eye alignment with the scope. The McMillan "Thumbwheel" and "Integral" cheekpieces are also laterally-adjustable.
I consider the "Loggerhead" superior to McMillan's "Thumbwheel" and "Integral" cheekpieces for two reasons: (a) The adjustments do not work themselves loose through recoil, which the McMillan adjustments can do. The main problem is that the knurled thumbscrews that "lock" the cheekpiece height shoot loose under recoil. Unfortunately, the same type of knurled thumbscrew is used on the "Saddle", "Thumbscrew", and "Integral" cheekpieces; and (b) The "Loggerhead"'s hardware is completely encapsulated within the stock and the adjustments are either flush or below the stock surface, keeping the buttstock smooth and snag-free. The only thing I dislike about the "Loggerhead" is the extra (two) holes drilled into the bottom of the stock. These holes are necessary access holes for the Loggerhead's lateral cheekpiece adjustment.
Each of McMillan's three adjustable cheekpiece options also have their own little quirks. Also, as I mentioned above all three types use the same type of tension screws to "lock" the cheekpiece in position, and unfortunately - the tension screws have a tendency for the tension screws to loosen under recoil.
<span style="font-style: italic">"Saddle" Cheekpiece</span>: This type of cheekpiece is the strongest because the rear of the stock is molded as a single section rather than two pieces as with the "Thumbwheel" and "Integral" cheekpiece stocks. The advantage here is that if the user somehow broke the saddle cheekpiece (highly unlikely) or lost it, the stock is still usable. The disadvantage is that the user must loosen the tension screws and manually lift or lower the cheekpiece, because without any tension on the screws the user must hold the cheekpiece at the desired height while tightening the screws. The Saddle Cheekpiece also does not have any provision for lateral (side-to-side) adjustment of the cheekpiece, and the added bulk, while slight, does move the shooter's face away from the scope's centerline.
<span style="font-style: italic">"Thumbwheel" Cheekpiece</span>: This type of cheekpiece is smooth to adjust because the cheekpiece's travel is controlled by turning the thumbwheel rather than the user loosening the tension screws and manually lifting or lowering the cheekpiece. The advantage here is that the user does not have to hold the cheekpiece at the desired height while tightening the tension screws. There is also a provision for lateral (side-to-side) adjustment, which allows for better eye alignment with the scope. The disadvantage is that the Thumbwheel is not as strong as the Saddle Cheekpiece or non-adjustable stocks that have the rear of the stock molded as a single section rather than two pieces as with the "Thumbwheel" and "Integral" cheekpiece stocks. I've seen the cheekpieces on on the Thumbwheel and Integral cheekpieces exhibit lateral (side-to-side) play <span style="font-style: italic">not related to their respective adjustments.</span>
<span style="font-style: italic">"Integral" Cheekpiece</span>: This type of cheekpiece is adjusted similarly to the Saddle Cheekpiece (the user must loosen the tension screws and manually lift or lower the cheekpiece, then hold the cheekpiece at the the desired height while tightening the tension screws). The advantage here over the Saddle Cheekpiece is that (a) the Integral Cheekpiece lacks the added bulk of the Saddle Cheekpiece, and (b) there is also a provision for lateral (side-to-side) adjustment, which allows for better eye alignment with the scope. The disadvantage is that the Integral is not as strong as the Saddle Cheekpiece or non-adjustable stocks that have the rear of the stock molded as a single section, rather than two pieces as with the "Thumbwheel" and "Integral" cheekpiece stocks. Again, I've seen the cheekpieces on on the Thumbwheel and Integral cheekpieces exhibit lateral (side-to-side) play <span style="font-style: italic">not related to their respective adjustments.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SpenceDaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">is that somthing on your own or somthing you send in to get done... i dont think i could cut on a 600$ stock </div></div>
You will have to order the stock from McMillan molded as a two-piece cheekpiece but without hardware. Then you can send the stock to Terry Cross (KMW Owner), and Terry can supply and install his Loggerhead hardware in your stock.
Keith
thank you for your help
