View Full Version : How to shoot Part 1, 2
This thread is going to be part of a much larger series so please check back often for more updates.
I started a training thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=17487) to try and figure out why more shooters do not attend training. The majority of the reasons for why they were not taking classes was because of the cost.
I started to think about how I could help my fellow shooters learn more, but without any cost to them. Since I cannot come to them and teach basic carbine and pistol (like I do for free at my range) I came up with another way to help.
Before we start this thread, please read this:
There are MANY ways to do things. There is NO ONE WAY. I have seen people perform extremely well using all the worst grips, stances and gear. The purpose of this thread is to give people a BASIC foundation for which they can build off of.
Owning a gun store and teaching new shooters how to shoot, I see some crazy things. Most people that have never received any formal training, and learn to shoot from 3 sources (parent, friend or self taught). More often than not, TV and movies is where the parent, friend or you learned how to shoot (don't laugh it is true). So we are going to try and break some of those bad habits.
In the pics below you I will show you some of the common mistakes and also a correct way (or one of the more popular correct ways).
Carbine Stance
The goal with a carbine stance is to absorb the recoil of the weapon and allow you to put multiple rounds on target quickly. Since the AR has more recoil than the pistol, we are going to use a more "bladed" stance to help with this. Your weight should be on the balls of your feet with your front knee slightly bent. Your front foot should also be pointing in the general direction of the target.
Shooters legs are in "high power" position with their weight back.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Carbine_Stance_Incorrect2%20.jpg
Shooters in "square" stance with weight on heels and knees not bent.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Carbine_Stance_Incorrect.jpg
Proper stance
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Carbine_Stance_Correct.jpg
Cheek weld
A low cheek weld will limit your FOV/SA and cause balance issues while moving and shooting
Low cheek weld.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Carbine_Cheekweld_Incorrect.jpg
Proper cheek weld.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Carbine-Cheekweld_Correct.jpg
Thank You Grant!
I look forward to an informative series!
Magic Sauce
08-02-08, 22:07
I am excited to see what this becomes, great idea!
This is exactly what I need. Thanks for putting together this series.
MarshallDodge
08-02-08, 23:36
Good info! Thank you for posting.
Thanks, for doing this. It looks like it will be very informative.
Grant,
Those pants make your butt look saggy. :D
Detective_D
08-03-08, 15:08
Another thanks to you Grant. I will be watching this one close.
~D
Your weight should be on the balls of your feet with your front knee slightly bent. Your front foot should also be pointing in the general direction of the target.
if you are into martial arts, you will appreciate. I actually have both knees bent and both feet facing front like shown on the picture. One thing I didn't have to learn when taking my first gun class.
Grant,
Those pants make your butt look saggy. :D
LOL, well thanks, but that is not me in those pics. ;)
C4
Thank you Grant... look forward to anything you post!
If the staff wants, I'm happy to put something together. I'm rather limited in my ability to get pics on the range, though, since my normal range doesn't allow photos and my backyard doesn't allow guns (scares the neighbors, cops arrive, no one has a sense of humor, blah blah blah).
We shouldn't clutter up Grant's thread (and great idea) with the discussion, though.
So we have covered AR's (stance and cheek weld). Now its time to cover stance and grip for pistols.
Most people shoot an AR pretty well from day one as it is very easy to do. Pistol shooting on the other hand is another story. This is where we see FAR more mistakes (especially in the grip). For whatever reason people seem to like to hold the weapon very low.
Since there are so many different pistols out there, we chose one platform to keep things easy. The 1911 is one of my favorite handguns and is one of the more popular handguns made today.
Pistol Stance
There are many popular pistol stances, but I am going to stick with what Ken Hackathorn, Larry Vickers and Pat Rogers teach. I have found this to work well for me and many other shooters.
If you are a right handed shooter, your left foot will be ahead of your right foot, with both of them pointing at the target. As a general rule, your right foot toes will line up somewhere around your left heel. Your feet will be about shoulders width apart and with your knees slightly bent. Your weight will be on the balls of your feet.
Shooter is square with weight on heels.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Stance_Incorrect.jpg
Shooter's feet are offset with knees slightly bent
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Stance_Correct.jpg
Pistol Grip
The biggest mistake that 1911 shooters make is that they tend to put their thumb below the safety. Your thumb belongs on TOP of the safety. Fix this one issue, you and will be increase the controllability of the weapon considerably.
Shooter's Grip is too low
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Grip_Incorrect4.jpg
Shooter's left index finger is on the trigger guard (Martin Riggs "grip").
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Grip_Incorrect3.jpg
Shooter's left hand is holding his right wrist (TJ Hooker "grip").
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Grip_Incorrect2.jpg
Shooter's left hand is holding the magwell (Cup and saucer "grip")
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Grip_Incorrect.jpg
Shooter's right thumb is on top of the safety and has a high grasp of the pistol with his left hand.
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/M4C/Pistol_Grip_Correct.jpg
Special thanks to Nate of NVB Gear and Adam for assisting me with this.
Nathan_Bell
08-04-08, 12:37
Glad one of the pictures worked out. I take it the plastic pistol looked too much like a pop-gun to use :p
Jay Cunningham
08-04-08, 14:53
If the staff wants, I'm happy to put something together. I'm rather limited in my ability to get pics on the range, though, since my normal range doesn't allow photos and my backyard doesn't allow guns (scares the neighbors, cops arrive, no one has a sense of humor, blah blah blah).
We shouldn't clutter up Grant's thread (and great idea) with the discussion, though.
We can possibly work on this a little this weekend with my buddy Jack behind the camera.
Keep up the great thread Grant.
We can possibly work on this a little this weekend with my buddy Jack behind the camera.
Keep up the great thread Grant.
Thanks. Its not the most technical thread, but gives people a general idea. I have already had people tell me "oh I do that and didn't know it was wrong."
C4
Thanks. Its not the most technical thread, but gives people a general idea. I have already had people tell me "oh I do that and didn't know it was wrong."
C4
Grant, Thanks for the great thread. I ask this question as a student, not a carbine expert by any means:
When I received training on the proper stance for a carbine, the instructor demonstrated the "CORRECT" stance you have above, but he also demonstrated another stance that is less bladed, and in fact more like what pistol instructors call an isosoles. Facing the target with knees bent and weight on the balls of your feet. I found that by facing the target with a more squared off stance, I can get a proper cheek weld faster, shoot more accurately, and it gives me a better frontal field of view. When firing his automatic M16, it allowed me to control the recoil much easier (though that's not an issue for me outside of class). It's not hugely different than the more bladed stance that looks like what you have in your picture, but I preferred it. Do you, or any of the other experts, see a problem with that type of stance?
PRGGodfather
08-05-08, 03:07
DarrinD:
As Grant mentiond in the first post, there is NO ONE WAY. Truer words are rarely spoken. Still, what Grant has shared is tactically sound, based on the principles that drive tactics.
There are MANY ways, and it is important to understand the principles, which always drive such preferences.
Simply, as to stances, many work -- since in the end, the stances rarely look so pretty under fire. If we train to 140%, we hope to perform at about 85% when it really matters. THAT is one of the principles that drives the training conversation.
Many police trainers teach the isoceles format, because it is simple to explain and demonstrate, and FURTHER, the isoceles stance provides a full presentation of the officer's body armor to the suspect. If the officer stays static, that approach is important.
Personally, I find the isoceles method somewhat awkward -- having to relax/roll the shoulders and yet keep the neck up, but I think the principle driving this issue is a sound one. Perfect practice makes perfect, so I keep trying...
Conversely, bladed stances come more naturally to me and to many of us with martial arts backgrounds, as it is consistent with many fighting styles. Thus, the principle here would be consistency of stand-up fighting.
In the end, the student needs to put the prescribed number of hits under the prescribed about of time within the prescribed group size.
Thus, many other trainers (and I) will teach at least these two standing styles for carbine, shotgun and pistol, especially when teaching NEW instructors. To teach well, an instructor should understand the OODA Loops that each style addresses.
Eventually, training is really about the student's performance, RATHER than the instructor's preference. Learning the student's natural athletic abilities, past athletic endeavors to promote understanding, and physiological differences come into play, etc.
The student's PRIMARY learning style (Auditory, Visual, Kinesthetic or Tactual) also play in developing such performance.
A good instructor will present material in a manner that touches on EACH of the major learning styles, depending on the number of students. More importantly, a good instructor is always learning -- and sometimes, insisting on just one method prevents such learning from occurring.
Of course, this is JMHO.
FWIW, I used modified Weaver when competing in IPSC with a 1911 in the early 80's. It was solid, and the isometric push-pull helped with accuracy.
When I went to the Police Academy, they forced a S&W 66 wheel gun and the FBI "Crouch" on me -- a one-handed isoceles technique that incorporated flexing the support-side arm verticaly in front of the heart, allegedly as impromptu armor. That was an ugly stance, to be sure.
When the PD converted to wondernines a few years later, we returned to a modified Weaver stance. The two-handed grip reduced malfunctions, helped the smaller and weaker officers, and again helped with accuracy.
Later, newly-minted instructors showed us some of the current styles, which include the combat isoceles and ambidextrous proficiency, decrying the use of the term, "weak" side. Now, we train at LEAST 50% of the time with the support side on ALL platforms -- one-handed and two-handed, on the move and at moving targets under low light, which makes a lot sense to me.
During recertification, the same trainer who certified me two decades ago reversed many of his previous techniques, as more data brought new approaches to outweigh the old concepts.
In time, I expect to use modern methods again with my trusty and venerable slabsides 1911, which is one of the few things that has truly stood the test of time -- and still endures...
In my limited experience, I have seen the cycle come around at least twice, and while some techniques were in vogue for a long time -- with individual preferences often dominating the conversation -- the principles really never changed. Improvise, adapt and overcome.
Heck, I am ashamed to say it took law enforcement 100 years to LISTEN/UNDERSTAND/ACKNOWLEDGE the auto PISTOL was a useful tool, and even longer to realize RIFLES had a place in the toolbox. That was AFTER the MP5 became de rigeur and screwed up a bunch of us operator-wise.
In a nutshell, preferences will always have their place in gun conversations, but in the end -- principles are what matter MOST. Even as we teach multiple methods -- under stress we WILL resort to the system in which we have the most confidence, and ultimately, each of us, as a student must PICK ONE of the them based on what the situation dictates.
A good craftsman has more than one tool in the toolbox, no?
I've seen more than one style win, and in real shootings, even the "FTD Florist" stance was successful. ;)
Personally, aggression remains as the most important part of the equation, as such a mindset increases the officer's survivability as much, if not more, than the marksmanship and gunhandling aspects of the Combat Triad.
Mindset is king, and the willingness (and humility) needed to learn is part of such an attitude.
So long as the hits are there in the right times, and the principles of speed to target, economy of motion, gross motor skills, recoil control and creating a solid shooting foundation are incorporated in the conversation, there is and will continue to be much room for further experimentation and choices. I like hearing all of them.
In the meantime, I would encourage everyone to pay CLOSE attention to what Grant is saying. It's solid.
Be safe,
Alan
Grant, Thanks for the great thread. I ask this question as a student, not a carbine expert by any means:
When I received training on the proper stance for a carbine, the instructor demonstrated the "CORRECT" stance you have above, but he also demonstrated another stance that is less bladed, and in fact more like what pistol instructors call an isosoles. Facing the target with knees bent and weight on the balls of your feet. I found that by facing the target with a more squared off stance, I can get a proper cheek weld faster, shoot more accurately, and it gives me a better frontal field of view. When firing his automatic M16, it allowed me to control the recoil much easier (though that's not an issue for me outside of class). It's not hugely different than the more bladed stance that looks like what you have in your picture, but I preferred it. Do you, or any of the other experts, see a problem with that type of stance?
Grant, Thanks for the great thread. I ask this question as a student, not a carbine expert by any means:
When I received training on the proper stance for a carbine, the instructor demonstrated the "CORRECT" stance you have above, but he also demonstrated another stance that is less bladed, and in fact more like what pistol instructors call an isosoles. Facing the target with knees bent and weight on the balls of your feet. I found that by facing the target with a more squared off stance, I can get a proper cheek weld faster, shoot more accurately, and it gives me a better frontal field of view. When firing his automatic M16, it allowed me to control the recoil much easier (though that's not an issue for me outside of class). It's not hugely different than the more bladed stance that looks like what you have in your picture, but I preferred it. Do you, or any of the other experts, see a problem with that type of stance?
Balance and controlling recoil for faster follow up shots. A long gun stance should be similar to a fighting stance. You do not fight with your feet square to the target.
C4
Hating on the Martin Riggs grip! I am just glad I don't do the T.J Hooker thing. Thanks Grant.:D
Totally awesome, like right on DUDE!!!
thanks Grant it is always good to see as many techniques as possible.
In the last picture of the correct 1911 grip, is the weakhand thumb resting on
the flat section of the slide stop? Is it touching the gun at all?
In the last picture of the correct 1911 grip, is the weakhand thumb resting on
the flat section of the slide stop? Is it touching the gun at all?
The person's hands in the pick are simply HUGE and it is entirely possible that he is touching the slide stop.
I personally have my left thumb touching the frame in front of the slide stop.
C4
Submariner
08-07-08, 15:21
Nice thread.
Nathan_Bell
08-07-08, 19:23
The person's hands in the pick are simply HUGE and it is entirely possible that he is touching the slide stop.
I personally have my left thumb touching the frame in front of the slide stop.
C4
I rest the pad of my left thumb on the pivot point of the slide stop. If I try to use the standard location like Grant, I will cause myself grief. Generally by not allowing the slide stop to do its thing.
I think Grant wanted the picture more for the location of my right hand and left hand. The thumb positioning, that is just a bonus for those out there with my sized hands.
*muttering* Hands are huge? You all are just dwarves*/muttering off*
BushmasterFanBoy
09-04-08, 16:28
Can we give this thread a bump?
Also, IIRC, there was a fairly large following of using a squared up stance with long guns as well as pistols, I'm somewhat curious as to why this changed, I remember being told that I needed to square up to the target, and move the stock inwards into the chest area.
Now I see that a somewhat bladed stance is OK, I'm kind of wondering why it was ever taught that a squared up stance is better? It's obvious that a bladed stance is better, it allows you to absorb and resist recoil, and allows for a more natural shouldering of the weapon. Also, I remember the reason I resisted moving my VFG forward for so long was due to the pressing need to consistently square to the target. (Now I still keep a VFG on my gun for use as a shooting rest, and as a grip for when the rail heats up too much, but in both of these capacities, it is placed far more forward) Finally, now that the bladed stance is accepted I can grip the gun comfortably, and my performance increases with this new found shootability.
To me the turning point of squared to bladed occurred when many people began to try a 3-gun grip on their AR, and consequently had to change their body position to accommodate it. In doing so, it seems they were able to grip the gun more easily, drive it better, reduce recoil, and adopt a more useful stance.
Which goes back to the question, since blading obviously has huge benefits in a rifle shooting position, why was the squared up stance ever taught? Was there a reason, or was it simply the result of a fad?
One of the big proponents of the squared up stance was the HK International Training Division. When I worked there that was the stance taught to control the tendency for full auto fire to climb high right (the path of least resistance on right handed shooters). It was described as feet, knees, hips, shoulders square to the target, with slight knee bend and forward weight transfer, IE: if you dropped a plum bomb from your chin it would hang in front of your knees. The toes of the strong side foot are about even with the heel of the support side foot and feet are about shoulder width apart.
It works well with a subgun, but for heavier recoiling weapons most shooters find it more efficient to open their stance, placing their support side foot further forward then the strong side foot. This change in foot position results in a more bladed stance.
I like a relatively squared up stance as it allow me better ability to move and traverse multiple targets. Having said that you do not want to be in a Sponge Bob stance (copyright LAV) with everything straight and square to the target standing upright as this will provide no recoil control.
The reality is that once the bullets start flying you won't be thinking about foot position. As long as your upper body is in an aggressive weight forward position you're on the right track.
I like a relatively squared up stance as it allow me better ability to move and traverse multiple targets. Having said that you do not want to be in a Sponge Bob stance (copyright LAV) with everything straight and square to the target standing upright as this will provide no recoil control.
The reality is that once the bullets start flying you won't be thinking about foot position. As long as your upper body is in an aggressive weight forward position you're on the right track.
This is basically the stance I was trained with for carbine, and over the years I have moved my strong foot slightly backwards, and it is more comfortable to me, I can control accuracy and shoot more accurately than a fully bladed stance, and it is the same stance I use for pistol. I can also easily transition to a "fighting stance." But as you mentioned, I/we all need to be able to shoot from multiple positions in the case of a realistic, dynamic firefight. Train hard, Do what works.
Robb Jensen
09-04-08, 20:32
For shotgun/rifle I like to get a high hold with my support hand as far forward as possible. For really close targets I have my support hand a little further back I also use a bladed stance. Like this an AR will move VERY little. I use this stance for competition and training. I learned it in competition.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/competition%20pics/RobbArea8rifle2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/robbmulticam.jpg
What's the prevailing consensus when it comes to support hand grip on an AR?
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3711/stance4ly1.th.jpg (http://img155.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stance4ly1.jpg)
Ride it forward, with thumb pointed forward.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7381/stancemx3.th.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=stancemx3.jpg)
Ride it forward, wrap thumb around top of handguard.
What's the prevailing consensus when it comes to support hand grip on an AR?
I've tried all the latest fads in support hand grip. Not one of these city slicker techniques makes an earth shattering difference to me.
I'm waiting for someone to come out and say you need to hold the flash hider for fast and accurate delivery of fire. :p
Robb Jensen
09-05-08, 12:42
I've tried all the latest fads in support hand grip. Not one of these city slicker techniques makes an earth shattering difference to me.
I'm waiting for someone to come out and say you need to hold the flash hider for fast and accurate delivery of fire. :p
How did you measure any differences in time and control?
What's the prevailing consensus when it comes to support hand grip on an AR?
.
There is none . . . . at leat none that I know of. I've heard different ideas from instructors. I've spoken with some LE trainers. And, probably what we should all train with, I've spoken with a couple soldeier who served in Iraq, and the response was something to the effect of "Wherever the #&%! I can get a #$%! grip and hold on that lets me get a good shot at that #%$!'er shooting at us!"
Personally, early on after trying to figure out the support hand thing for a while I decided to put a QR vert grip/light on. After slight adjustments fore and aft I have loved it ever since.
There is none . . . . at leat none that I know of. I've heard different ideas from instructors. I've spoken with some LE trainers. And, probably what we should all train with, I've spoken with a couple soldeier who served in Iraq, and the response was something to the effect of "Wherever the #&%! I can get a #$%! grip and hold on that lets me get a good shot at that #%$!'er shooting at us!"
Personally, early on after trying to figure out the support hand thing for a while I decided to put a QR vert grip/light on. After slight adjustments fore and aft I have loved it ever since.
Thanks. I think I'm going to put my support hand as far forward as possible and attempt to wrap my thumb around the handguards. Granted we'll see how well this works since I have fairly small hands.
I'm definitely going to go with a grip at some point, but I figure that's the least of my worries at this point. :p
ROUTEMICHIGAN
11-27-11, 15:50
Learning a lot here. New to this forum, but not to shooting. One practical reason for a more squared stance- in my experience- is to have your plates facing forward towards the threat as much as possible. Being bladed exposes the weak spot of your plate carrier (even with the newer ballistic inserts). As mentioned by others- my fighting stance is with left foot slightly forward; little wider than shoulder width; weight balls of feet (like the trooper in the foreground pic below). I know most here do not have to deal with that sort of thing and it doesn't work for everyone--but it's worked for me.
10353
Can we give this thread a bump?
Also, IIRC, there was a fairly large following of using a squared up stance with long guns as well as pistols, I'm somewhat curious as to why this changed, I remember being told that I needed to square up to the target, and move the stock inwards into the chest area.
Now I see that a somewhat bladed stance is OK, I'm kind of wondering why it was ever taught that a squared up stance is better? It's obvious that a bladed stance is better, it allows you to absorb and resist recoil, and allows for a more natural shouldering of the weapon. Also, I remember the reason I resisted moving my VFG forward for so long was due to the pressing need to consistently square to the target. (Now I still keep a VFG on my gun for use as a shooting rest, and as a grip for when the rail heats up too much, but in both of these capacities, it is placed far more forward) Finally, now that the bladed stance is accepted I can grip the gun comfortably, and my performance increases with this new found shootability.
To me the turning point of squared to bladed occurred when many people began to try a 3-gun grip on their AR, and consequently had to change their body position to accommodate it. In doing so, it seems they were able to grip the gun more easily, drive it better, reduce recoil, and adopt a more useful stance.
Which goes back to the question, since blading obviously has huge benefits in a rifle shooting position, why was the squared up stance ever taught? Was there a reason, or was it simply the result of a fad?
Because alot of LE and Military wear body armor with hard plates, the idea is present your most armored parts to the badguy. I practice like this because when I am working I am wearing hard plates and am trying to protect vital organs, I give up a small amount of recoil control (very small amount) to gain added protection form my armor.
You look like some of my MARSOC/ 1st Force buddies - those pictures bring back some good memories of training while underway.
"Would you rather rely on your enemies ability to aim at your plate, or your ability to shoot him dead" ~Kyle Lamb
Quote as is written in my note book from a class with him.
Another interesting "present your plates to the enemy" thing to ponder. In reality, how often are you really going to be square to a threat? Also how often is the threat that shoots you squared to your front?
PJ
true, but I am sure that Mr Lamb knows that sometimes the badguy gets the first shot. Maybe not all the time in Delta force land, but in LE, SWAT and the rest of .mil land folks dont always get the first chance at a shot. you have to weigh out everything you do, risk vs gain. Every one is going to have a different threshold for where the risk outweighs the gain and vise versa.
I imagine that most folks like Lamb, Vickers and Hackathorn would be the first to tell you that they put their pants on in the same manner as every one else, and I will be the first to tell you that what works for Delta/SEAL types is not always the best way for every one else.
2theXtreme
11-27-11, 20:54
You guys do realize this thread is over 2 years old? Some of the stuff in here may be out of date...
Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
nevermind. sometimes its best to just let it go.
BushmasterFanBoy
11-28-11, 11:13
I think this is a helpful conversation to have, and my shooting style has changed even more.
As I've adopted a VFG-less grip on all my longguns, and taken to shortening the stock a tad, I've found that my recoil management goes up since I make my torso a more rigid abutment for the gun to recoil against, BUT, my stance also becomes more squared. :o
Stance is fluid, and situationally dependent, and should take into account variables such as the weapon you're firing, the target size/distance, the need for cover/concealment, time pressure, etc. It's just another variable in the equation to balance speed vs. accuracy, and in some cases, risk.
true, but I am sure that Mr Lamb knows that sometimes the badguy gets the first shot. Maybe not all the time in Delta force land, but in LE, SWAT and the rest of .mil land folks dont always get the first chance at a shot. you have to weigh out everything you do, risk vs gain. Every one is going to have a different threshold for where the risk outweighs the gain and vise versa.
I imagine that most folks like Lamb, Vickers and Hackathorn would be the first to tell you that they put their pants on in the same manner as every one else, and I will be the first to tell you that what works for Delta/SEAL types is not always the best way for every one else.
Sure, they go into a fight knowing they are going to dominate the shit out of anyone they come up against.
LE seems to be much more worried they might get shot. There tends not the be that same aggressiveness that you see in units like the above mentioned.
For people without the mindset, and willingness to burn everyone down... it makes perfect sense to worry about getting shot. I've seen plenty of SWAT cops shoot... and they should be worried, plenty of them aren't anything special with a gun. If you are worried that you might not get the first shot off, you need to improve your skills or rethink your tactics.
Lamb's quote nailed it. You need to worry about how to be as lethal as possible... not how to handicap yourself around an assumption on the other guys position and marksmanship.
In the ar stance section, i noticed the buttpad location. I keep the stock under my collar bone as if I dont, it bruises the shit out of it. Is this too low? I have neither time or money for proffesional training right now, as I'm in college, but it will be one of the first things after graduation. Just wondering what to practice next time at the range.
Where to you guys shoulder the weapon? I try to keep it as much into my chest as possible to keep the recoil from pushing the sights to the right(im a r-h shooter). should I move it more out to my shoulder?
In the ar stance section, i noticed the buttpad location. I keep the stock under my collar bone as if I dont, it bruises the shit out of it. Is this too low? I have neither time or money for proffesional training right now, as I'm in college, but it will be one of the first things after graduation. Just wondering what to practice next time at the range.
Where to you guys shoulder the weapon? I try to keep it as much into my chest as possible to keep the recoil from pushing the sights to the right(im a r-h shooter). should I move it more out to my shoulder?
Get it in your shoulder pocket, not on your chest.
In the ar stance section, i noticed the buttpad location. I keep the stock under my collar bone as if I dont, it bruises the shit out of it. Is this too low? I have neither time or money for proffesional training right now, as I'm in college, but it will be one of the first things after graduation. Just wondering what to practice next time at the range.
Where to you guys shoulder the weapon? I try to keep it as much into my chest as possible to keep the recoil from pushing the sights to the right(im a r-h shooter). should I move it more out to my shoulder?
I would say completely under the collar bone is too low, but it is personal preference to a degree. Major downside to such a low stock weld is that you have to bring your head to the gun a lot more and frankly, I prefer bringing my gun to my head. I keep my stock weld high enough so that as long as I roll my shoulders forward, I have 100% contact with the it. This is higher than many people like it but it is comfortable for me and the placement works with and without hard armor.
As for the bruising, you have two options. Get a padded buttstock such as an lmt sopmod or just man-up; you'll callous soon enough and it won't be an issue. But the padded buttstock may be a better option for you, especially if you have a low pain tolerance. People don't learn or apply fundamentals well when the level of discomfort or pain is greater than their personal threshold allows (at which point mindset also goes to hell). In your case, you are choosing an incredibly low stock position to reduce the pain. There are cheaper options other than the lmt sopmod and the knowledgeable folks here should be able to get you sorted out.
ok thanks for the replies. I never thought about it much until I saw the pics and noticed I hold it low. The way I held it the edge of the stock rested right on my collar bone. My friends moe does not do this due to the thinner profile. Ill change it up next time im out at the range and see what happens. I think i was hunched too much.
SWATcop556
12-23-11, 04:13
LE goes in worried they might get shot.
Pretty bold, all encompassing statement there.
I don't disagree with Mr. Lamb's comment but I've gone into some shit with guys ready to remove bad guys from the oxygen consuming and they were just lowly street cops.
Pretty bold, all encompassing statement there.
I don't disagree with Mr. Lamb's comment but I've gone into some shit with guys ready to remove bad guys from the oxygen consuming and they were just lowly street cops.
You're right, that didn't come out quite how I wanted it to. Thanks for pointing that out, I will edit it now.
Sure, they go into a fight knowing they are going to dominate the shit out of anyone they come up against.
LE seems to be much more worried they might get shot. There tends not the be that same aggressiveness that you see in units like the above mentioned.
For people without the mindset, and willingness to burn everyone down... it makes perfect sense to worry about getting shot. I've seen plenty of SWAT cops shoot... and they should be worried, plenty of them aren't anything special with a gun. If you are worried that you might not get the first shot off, you need to improve your skills or rethink your tactics.
Lamb's quote nailed it. You need to worry about how to be as lethal as possible... not how to handicap yourself around an assumption on the other guys position and marksmanship.
Jim, most LE can't operate under the "burn every one down" mindset - American citizens have rights, enemy combatants pretty much dont. I agree with what I believe the sentiment of your argument is, that we have to absolutely dominate our realm. But at the end of the day we have to uphold those rights, and sometimes that is just dangerous. The last two guys from my dept that were killed were both shot through a wall while making entry, there are somethings that you just can't control.
Jim, most LE can't operate under the "burn every one down" mindset - American citizens have rights, enemy combatants pretty much dont.
Sure, I'm not about violating anyone's rights... but I'm also not about going in when it's not absolutely necessary.
I agree with what I believe the sentiment of your argument is, that we have to absolutely dominate our realm. But at the end of the day we have to uphold those rights, and sometimes that is just dangerous. The last two guys from my dept that were killed were both shot through a wall while making entry, there are somethings that you just can't control.
Not to take away from your peers who made the ultimate sacrifice, but was it absolutely necessary for them to make the entries they lost their lives on?
Paul Howe wrote an excellent article IMO, on the over-reliance on hostage rescue type entries when lives were not on the line.
It's administrators and decision makers telling SWAT to go into a house over a drug bust, or to get someone they want. IMO, a drug conviction isn't worth dying for. If lives weren't on the line (hostage situation, bomb about to explode, intel vital to a large scale terrorist attack that is about to commence, etc) then I hate to see good officers being ordered into the BG's castle. The idea that you're going to beat them to their gun is a loosing bet against anyone willing to fight it out (the ones you need to be worried about). When the decide to shoot back, good men end up paying the price.
I wish we didn't see the volume (and in my opinion, misuse) of entries that we see today... but when it really is time to hit a house, you hit it knowing your the most BAMF'ers ever, and that you're there to win.
I have a number of friends on a few different tactical teams in the area. I've seen a bunch of their helmet cam footage... you can't breach and enter fast enough to prevent someone in a back room from loading up and waiting with a rifle. With all their gear, you just see a bunch of dudes in helmets and soft armor lumbering through hallways and doorways, making as much noise as a herd of elephants, hoping there isn't a muzzle pointed at them on the other side of a door.
Sorry for the rant/ tangent...
Its not just about SWAT high speed low drag big profile cases. There are also welfare checks, domestic violence assaults and warrants where either one party has allowed you in, or you are required to go in to check on some one - I know when I signed up for the job that some one told me that sometimes its just dangerous. The idea is that you protect yourself as best you can in every situation - no you probably wont be wearing a plate carrier for a welfare check, but the public has a certain expectation that you be willing to live with some level of risk doing this job, other wise why would a cop even go to work? Why have a SWAT team if your department or agency is never going to engage in anything high risk? It is just part of the territory. Do some places do it to often? yes, probably. But every one is a big boy and knows the risk.
Also there is a big difference between a hostage rescue entry and one that you would use (at least that we would use) for say a high risk warrant. HRT is by nature fast, violent and fluid - and it is about the only time you should be fast, violent and fluid. In most other cases entry and clearings should be slow, methodical and controlled, utilizing every asset you have - mirrors, shields, cameras, helmers, hard plate armor etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.