Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: How to shoot Part 1, 2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    288
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    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?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Occupied Territory
    Posts
    1,212
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by DarrinD View Post
    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?
    Battle Comp Enterprises, LLC
    World Class Tactical Compensators
    California Legal Compensators
    100% American Made
    www.battlecomp.com
    sales@battlecomp.com
    (650) 678-0778

    1 Samuel 17:49 / Romans 13: 1-4 / Isaiah 6:8 / Psalms 144:1 / Matthew 12:30

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DarrinD View Post
    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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    385
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Hating on the Martin Riggs grip! I am just glad I don't do the T.J Hooker thing. Thanks Grant.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    243
    Feedback Score
    0
    Totally awesome, like right on DUDE!!!
    thanks Grant it is always good to see as many techniques as possible.
    ACADEMI Firearms, Tactics and Driving Instructor
    VA Arms Co FFL/SOT part-time armorer
    certified HK/BUSHMASTER armorer
    “There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion."

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Palm Beach,Florida
    Posts
    337
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Grant, Question.......

    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?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,631
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vigilant2 View Post
    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

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    1,890
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Nice thread.
    Last edited by Submariner; 08-07-08 at 15:23. Reason: Question addressed on page 2.
    "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." Justice Robert Jackson, WV St. Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

    "I don’t care how many pull ups and sit ups you can do. I care that you can move yourself across the ground with a fighting load and engage the enemy." Max Velocity

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Leetonia, Ohio
    Posts
    1,803
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    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*

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,175
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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?
    Aimpoint M4S- Because your next Aimpoint battery hasn't been made yet.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •