Body position for rifle shooting

[KurtM]

Well this has come up a few times as of late, so I thought I would offer this up for discussion. NOTE and I even NOTE it in the diatrib THIS IS MY OPINION AND MINE ONLY

For the last 15 years or so gear has started to dictate how the Military and L.E. shoot, not the other way around. Big plates and holders chest rigs, etc. In my opinion...NOTE: ONLY MY OPINION...it hasn't done anything good for actually hitting anything, or controlling recoil...even from a fairly mild recoiling system like the M-4. Gun on pec is only good for standing toe to toe, face to face with your target and letting your armor take hits if necessary. The minute it becomes dynamic, or the target is off of your "center" the rear of the firearm is now in a fairly unsupported area, so we are now kind of "area shooting" which is all well and good if we are close....CQB! but the ranges are starting to extend and we are finding that we aren't getting the hits we did when we were close. Being comfortable and supporting the back of the rifle in the shoulder pocket offers a much better hit probability than being "robo-cop" and I can't see much difference in plate exposure if we take just a half step forward where the ball of your strong side foot is even with the heal of your support side foot. Now we are in a good support position we are comfortable we can shoulder the rifle propperly and we are much more mobile, when we have to move off center line.

The other problem with this square type stance is that it almost demands the support hand be far back on the rifle/shotgun which is the worst place for it to be for rapid target transsisions. Grabing the Magazine well is one of the WORST thing you can do for muzzle control and being able to drive the rifle target to target. The biggest problem I have seen is that so many of the training courses offered for "urban"/"tactical" carbine are usually conducted at ranges of 50 yards and in, which is fairly forgiving for how the rifle is held AND how the trigger is pressed. As soon as it extends to 75-100 yards or so the people doing this, start markedly slowing down and their hits start to scatter out!

Anyway there you are. Tell me what you think and if you are a square shooter tell me why it is better. Once again this is a discussion and I really don't care if you hate what I say as long as you can back up why. Thanks guys. KurtM

 

[grwd]

Kurt, Im pickin up what youre putting down.

I do think with the shooting being in a dynamic environment, you never really can tell from what position youll be shooting from, and while I would never support a rifle from the magwell if I can help it, I could see some instances where it would be the "right thing to do at the right time". Shooting out of a vehicle, shooting from positions where you can barely move, and any place you can get a support hand on the rifle, the better.

I almost wonder if instead of position and stance instruction, we should teach physics and ergonomics and let them program that in to their head.

-throw em a cane pole instead of a trout, so to speak.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is where I think 3-gun excels (or a straight up rifle match patterned after 3-gun). It forces you to shoot from a wide variety of positions, not all of which allow for perfect form.

I learned to shoot rifle in the field hunting. I've taken some oddball shots and all that really mattered to me was putting game on the table. I formally learned to shoot in the traditional marksmanship positions, courtesty of the USMC. That helped my accuracy considerably, but didn't do anything for shooting in improvised field positions.

Until you've actually shot from a poor position and had your targets scored, you really have no idea what works and what doesn't. I've seen shooters blaze away like they knew what they were doing, only to have marginal hits at best on target. I've also seen shooters hit a position and desperately fiddle around for an eternity on the clock before finding a firing solution. What they thought they could do, didn't work. At least they got the hits though.

Even taking instruction from someone like Kurt is only going to give you the tools. You actually have to get in the positions and fire the shots before you can figure out if it works for you or not. Half the time, I think people miss with the rifle because they don't have it correctly zeroed and don't understand the path the bullet takes over a long course.

In the end, only fast hits matter. How you get them isn't nearly as important as getting them at all.

 

[Lance Jensen]

I use both techniques... the situation will dictate our actions to solve the problem. Squaring up works well for close static targets, but opening your stance allows for more accurate shots at greater distances. I'm not completely opposed to holding the magazine well either, however I don't recommended it. At times I'll hang on after a reload to shorten down time between shot to shot, but the distance and number of targets will dectate that. I see a lot of instructors that get hung up on doing things one way. I see the simplicity in that, but I feel it greatly limits the shooter's ability to solve the problem efficiently.

I guess the main thing is having all the tools in the tool box to get the job done.

Throw them the cane pole LOL!!!

 

[KurtM]

GLocktoGo has some very good points, and that is why when I do a class it is small and VERY dynamic, you WILL shoot from all those poor/weird positions, and you WILL be scored and TIMED!

Lance has some very good points also, It is very good to be flexable, but as I recall when I first met Lance he always held the mag well...so see progress is being made (note: I am just teasing my friend Lance here)

 

[Lance Jensen]

GLocktoGo has some very good points, and that is why when I do a class it is small and VERY dynamic, you WILL shoot from all those poor/weird positions, and you WILL be scored and TIMED!

Lance has some very good points also, It is very good to be flexable, but as I recall when I first met Lance he always held the mag well...so see progress is being made (note: I am just teasing my friend Lance here)

That's because I was still young and dumb... I've learned a great deal over the past few years training with TDSA, Kurt and Shannon Jordan.

 

[Glocktogo]

GLocktoGo has some very good points, and that is why when I do a class it is small and VERY dynamic, you WILL shoot from all those poor/weird positions, and you WILL be scored and TIMED!

Lance has some very good points also, It is very good to be flexable, but as I recall when I first met Lance he always held the mag well...so see progress is being made (note: I am just teasing my friend Lance here)

HAHA! That's why I specifically said "instruction" and not class. Dynamic shooting is one area of instruction where the hands on approach to learning is requisite. You can be a visual or audible learner and get half of the shooting equation, but it takes practical application with some good coaching to get the full effect.

Ultimately, I think the best money you can spend on training is bringing along a partner. When two or more people who practice together take a class, they will absorb more information as a whole than each could individually. They can then go to the range together and coach each other on the material learned. An objective pair of eyes at each practice session is worth its weight in gold!

 

[Michael Brown]

I think much is in the definition of "squared up".

If we mean the shoulders, I think it's pretty tough to shoot a rifle well that way i.e. the old HK Subgun method.

If we mean the hips, then I'd say that's how humans move so I guess I could be considered squared up.

I think much depends on the situation an individual finds themselves in and how dedicated to the cause of training the individual is.

I do not advocate holding the magwell on a carbine. I run my support hand as far out on the gun as I can to control the muzzle and speed up driving the gun from target to target.

I run a carbine in a similar fashion to Chris Costa i.e. more square when close and less square at greater distances.

Michael Brown

 

[henschman]

One general truth is that the less muscle input you have, the more stable, consistent, and accurate you will be, but the less "dynamic" the position will be. The traditional field positions, as practiced by the USMC and High Power shooters, minimize muscle input and emphasize stability and consistency. The various "tactical" or CQB techniques generally tend to involve a lot of muscle input, which sacrifices accuracy for speed and dynamism.

I think the best teaching method is to start with the traditional field positions, which provide for maximum stability. It is easier to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship this way, and shooters will learn the elements of a solid position. Then introduce dynamism, gear, and force the shooters to adapt what they learned to non-ideal positions, movement, significant time presure, large target shifts, etc.

The main idea is to be able to be able to build as stable a position as possible under the given circumstances. You need to realize what you are giving up and what you are gaining by taking a certain position. You should not be dogmatic about positions and insist that there is only one right way to do it.

For instance, you should realize that the ideal standing position is with the support hand open and relaxed, with the elbow under the rifle, either resting the back of the arm against the rib cage or using a sling so as to relax the arm as much as possible, facing almost 90 degrees away from the target, with the trigger elbow "chicken winging" out to open up the pocket, with the rifle stock high in your pocket so your head doesn't have to hunch down to get proper cheek weld. You may use this position when you have some time to assume proper position, and the target is small or distant.

However, you may be in a situation in which you have to move and engage targets rapidly at closer range, and which are presenting in more than one place. Here, you might grab the forearm as far forward as you can so you can "muscle" the barrel onto target for target transitions (the exact opposite of what you would do for more precision-oriented shooting), and you might keep the rifle lower in your pocket with your head hunched down and your trigger elbow tucked down tight, so as to be more natural while moving, and so as to present a lower profile.

I tend to be skeptical of positions which sacrifice stability and accuracy for more protection against incoming fire, which includes the "squared up" standing position taught by the Army, as well as the "flat" prone position with the legs out straight, the belly/diaphragm flat on the ground, and the elbows out on either side of the rifle while monopoding, in order to get a lower profile. This is taking a defensive attitude, as opposed to an aggressive and offensive one. I tend to think along the lines of Jeff Cooper... hits count. And the quickest way to end a gunfight is to finish first, which means getting your hits before the enemy gets his. Taking a position that sacrifices your ability to make hits, and hoping that the enemy misses or that your armor saves you, is not a winning strategy, IMO. If you are returning fire, you should take a position so as to make that fire as effective as possible. So get that elbow under the rifle, pull that trigger side knee up tight, get that diaphragm off the ground, and make hits! Naturally, under stress, you will have the urge to hide from enemy fire, but that's where it becomes important to train so that proper field positions become muscle memory.

 

[ripnbst]

I think that the word "tactical" and each persons definition of it has a lot to do with the interpretation of how you should be standing. When someone says Tactical or Urban (More so Urban) I think going door to door house to house room to room type maneuvering and as such, very seldom is a room 75-100yds.

This is why I think the "squared up" showing as much armor as possible is taught. I suppose one may be shooting down a street or series of alleyways that may be longer distances but for the most part I think the reason for the grabbing of the magwell is because of the reasons already mentioned. When in an Urban setting you are constantly in tight spaces and going through doorways so its easier to swing your elbow down from a magwell grip and still have about the same control vs. holding the forearm and having your elbow down. That to me is much more awkward and moving of the elbow requires change of grip where a magwell grip does not.

Its difficult to articulate in words but simulate it and it might be easier to see what I mean. I'm not an operator or ever had tactical training, this is just my opinion and thoughts based on hypothetical situations and what makes sense to me.