AR Fighting Stance?

[BushmasterFanBoy]

As we've seen in the last few months, a lot of shooters, especially here at M4C, have begun to adopt a more aggressive bladed stance (not to be confused with a full blown Camp Perry bladed stance) with their carbines. This stance, to me at least, allows the shooter to control recoil better by shifting more weight against the gun, and allowing the secondary hand to be further out on the handguards, managing the recoil by getting more control at the muzzle.

However, when watching the Magpul Dynamics DVD, it seems that the squared up stance allows you to better move and shoot dynamically. It would seem to be easier to shoot targets from a variety of angles, with less footwork.

When is it recommended to use each technique? Is the bladed stance solely for 3 gun matches, or is it a viable method for most training classes and instructors? I like the bladed stance myself, feeling that the squared up stance was responsible for a lot of rearward VFG placement leading to poor recoil control. But at the same time, if the less comfortable squared up stance has advantages to engaging targets, then I'd like to use whichever allows me to take care of the targets faster.

[Failure2Stop]

I deal with armor and hard-plates when shooting, so what works for me might not work for you if you aren't in the same kit. It takes me a few rounds to feel comfortable if I am not wearing armor and I have to tweak my stance a little to be able to control the gun like I am used to.

Changing armor also effects the stance as the plates are the biggest problem to work around- if the plate is too high it makes it nigh impossible to have a good, solid mount, too low and your vitals are exposed. Different plates are "cut" differently and will have different amounts of leeway in butt placement, as individual build will also change the relationship between the shoulder, head, plate, and sights.

I do not view the rifle stance as two separate techniques- bladed versus squared, like Weaver vs Isosceles, but rather as extremes of technique where people will fall somewhere between the two depending on physical characteristics, gear, optics, and weapon.

Further, I think that the ability to properly employ the weapon is based heavily on the mount- the amount of straight rearward pressure the shooter is able to subconsciously apply more than a 4 or 5 degree difference in shoulder angle.

[Saginaw79]

Ive been taught the gammut from blading to squaring up

If Im doing rapid fire or wearing plates etc, I square up, Better protection for me and it allows hammers to be very accurate if needed, otherwise I adopt a stance somewhere in between bladed and squared up and tend t shoot at the range mostly in that position and I dont chicken wing at all

[The Archangel]

The majority of my stance is fairly squared up (with supporting / reaction foot slightly forward). However you can't be of an absolute mindset as situation will determine the course of action to remedy a problem, or threat. You have to have a well-rounded tool box (whether it be your hardware, or skills) - and be willing and able to employ any, or a combination of them... to "increase your odds" of surviving a conflict where firearms are involved.

[Steve in PA]

Squared up stance, the same used when shooting a handgun.

Controlling recoil? Never had a problem with the almost non-existent recoil in an AR rifle.

[QuickStrike]

Find the middle way.


I tried the squared off stance for a while and read somewhere that being slightly bladed is better, and that the squared off stance came about mainly because of subguns.

Made sense to me, and the more bladed stance is a natural tendency from my boxing/muay thai hobby.

I also read and felt that griping further forward on the handguards = better side2side control. This feels odd in the squared up stance.

So now I shoot with my torso and feet at about 45 degrees to the target.

Take that with a heaping scoop of salt.

[markm]

Over thinking stance is a waste of time.

[Alpha Sierra]

Over thinking stance is a waste of time.

+1

Try a few and develop what works for YOU. Same goes for pistols. I do not position my strong hand thumb on a handgun like almost everyone does. But guess what, after trying it my way and the textbook way, my way gives ME better control over the pistol and standardizes my grip between revolvers and semi-autos.

I could not care less if others think I am doing it wrong.

[Jay Cunningham]

+1

Try a few and develop what works for YOU. Same goes for pistols. I do not position my strong hand thumb on a handgun like almost everyone does. But guess what, after trying it my way and the textbook way, my way gives ME better control over the pistol and standardizes my grip between revolvers and semi-autos.

I could not care less if others think I am doing it wrong.

So why ever seek instruction, then?

[Matt Edwards]

Stand so you can hit, stand so you can move. For me, I have a slight blade. I still have more chest toward target then shoulder, however. For every good argument there is a very good counter. remember Lav and his ilk ALL, to a man, do not stand square with a carbine and they have no issues running a carbine. It may be safe to say that they are some of the best carbine shooters in the world. If the Magpul video impressed you, go train with Chris and Travis. They are great dudes and you'll learn alot. They didn't correct me on my stance. I can only assume it was 'cause I was doing alright. My point is don't adopt a training style because you watched a DVD. It is a start point. Go to the source.
We could all write a thesis on why to stand bladed or why to stand square with a carbine. As bad as I am and as slow as I am, the only aspects of shooting that aren't sometimes subjective are what the timer says and what the target says. If you worry about that instead of your stance, you are heading in the right direction.
Oh, and get professional training.
Thew