People use a cheekweld at the jawline because the rifle doesn't fit. You can be pretty sure if the rifle doesn't have a raised comb, it won't fit when using a modern (large diameter) telescopic optic. They didn't fit decades ago when the scopes were smaller. Since then optics have grown. It used to be 25mm tubes and 50mm objectives were large. Then we went to 30mm tubes and 56mm objectives at the top-end, and now we see 36mm tubes and 60mm objectives, and the eyepieces have grown to double the diameter they were in the past. If that wasn't enough, we've also got all the AR's with tall rails.
One reason people might not mind the high scopes is because we've also seen drop at the heel in the stock disappear. I'm not sure exactly when it disappeared, but pretty much all the rifles before 1950 had it. Nowadays, we only see it in lever-action guns and it is universally absent in every other rifle. With a low optic on a straight-stock, a person could only mount the toe of the buttplate on their shoulder when they're standing. Do people still fire rifles standing?
I believe the drop at the heel disappeared and the straight-stock became prevalent with the widespread adoption of telescopic sights. The straight stock lowers the receiver and brings the axis of the scope into alignment with the eye, but it means there will be no cheekweld without a riser, only a jaw weld.
People disliked the Monte Carlo stocks that Weatherby promoted for use with scopes. They looked "funny." Consumers seem to prefer the straight stocks with no riser at the comb, but no drop at the heel. Apparently, that looks less odd to consumers and they accept it perhaps because it looks less different than traditional rifles. Of course, it works completely different than traditional (pre-optic) rifles. The modern straight stocks work better in prone positions or stretched out on a bench because there is less difference in height between the shoulder and the eye in those positions.
