What makes rifles point shoot better?


Oleg Volk
December 30, 2002, 09:59 AM
I've been point shooting with Remington 522 (.22 pump) and an M48 Mauser (which has finally been restored to functioning shape). Both work well enough, I could hit squirrel-sized rocks out to 20-25m. I tried the same with an AR15 (with which I practiced as much) and got less impressive results. I am curious if the grip type/shape, balance, stock angle or something else is at work here. Does anyone know?

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes rifles point shoot better?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 30, 2002, 10:24 AM
Perhaps it has something to do with your trigger hand being closer to your eyes with the traditionally shaped stocks: you're almost pointing from your dominant eye to the target with your trigger finger with the traditionally stocked rifles (and not so much so with the AR).


December 30, 2002, 11:17 AM
Oleg, I think it may be all of the above, or maybe just one. Kind of hard to change on the AR, without some kind of adjustable stock. That's doable (easy on some versions, tough on others). Changing the stock on an AR is going to change the recoil characteristics, though, and that may be good or bad, depending.

Grip dimensions could be temporarily changed with tape, and permanently 'fixed' to individual desires later (With a new grip made to 'your' ideal specs).

Balance can be changed (temporarily) with tape and some weight.

In the end, you end up with a rifle that is best for Oleg
:cool: , but maybe not much good to anyone else other than a dimensional 'Oleg' clone.;)

Edited to fix tyslexia (New word, TYping dySLEXIA).

December 30, 2002, 11:43 AM
I think that it is much easier to snap shoot and point shoot with a semi-pistol grip than a full pistol grip. I can snap shoot much faster with one of my bolts or levers than I can with my AR. In my case, I attribute this to the fact that I have only been shooting ARs for 5 years, whereas I've been shooting the others for about 16 years.

In your case, I would say that perhaps the length of pull on the AR's stock is too great. This can make a significant difference while snap shooting, it may also make a difference while point shooting. The M48s that I've handled have a fairly short LOP so that might be giving you an advantage.

The weight of the gun may factor in as well. If the rifle is too light, you might overcorrect. If it is too heavy, you may undercorrect.

I haven't done too much point shooting so this is just mere speculation.

Oleg Volk
December 30, 2002, 11:53 AM
Rifle is a 20" HBAR with an A1 (short) stock. Maybe a matter of practice. I just noticed that I do better with AR whenusing sights but better with other ridles when using point shooting. That may be why "primitive" v-notch sights survived for so long: technique triumphed over technology. Were WW1/WW2 riflemen trained to point shoot?

Another issue may be that I use a "tactical" (hands-free) sling on the AR while the other rifles had conventional leather slings which I used for support. Will have to try point shooting AR!5 with conventional sling and see how that works.

December 30, 2002, 01:08 PM
Practice Grasshopper.

Really, that's about all I can say. Also, peep sights and point shooting don't mix, this is where buckhorn sights and practice with a shotgun pay off.

December 30, 2002, 01:25 PM


4.9 megs:

Art Eatman
December 30, 2002, 01:27 PM
I've never really delved into this issue, other than to note that if a conventional rifle's stock fits properly, hits via snap shots are easier. My opinion is that the angle of one's hand on a conventional stock is better for "hittability" than with a full pistol grip. Well, for me, anyhow.

I got into "combat" or IPSC pistol with a 1911, back in 1980. After a couple of years, I went out dove hunting. I'd never been much of a shotgunner, and I was astounded by how good I had accidentally become! Just guessing, the IPSC style would translate to quick hits with a rifle, as well.

When the fit is correct, the stock functions as the rear sight of the whole system. Insofar as a rough alignment, anyway. The sights themselves are thus the fine--and final--adjustment.

I guess...


December 30, 2002, 01:30 PM
Man I hate buckhorn sights. I've found carbine length rifles (16-18") point shoot better than heavy barrel 20" ers. Readily apparent with handgun caliber carbines at close range.

Snap shots with ghost rings, big V notch sights, Tru-Glo fire sights etc. are much easier than with peep, buckhorn, or target sights.

Shooting from the hip requires a level of hand-eye coordination I've yet to spend enough money on ammo to perfect.

But it's fun trying.


December 30, 2002, 06:47 PM
part of the "quick kill" method for the AR15 in the .pdf above
includes attaching a flat sight rail between the ARs handle and the front sight

December 30, 2002, 06:58 PM
"Point shooting" implies not using the sights, or using them like a shot gun, where you ignore the rear sight completely, to make a fast, up close but still accurate shot.

You are sort of looking "over" the sights rather than through them.

Maybe I grew up wierd but really never have liked peep sights of any kind, a good hi visibility bead-style front sight is essential for this kind of shooting, one you can "index" quickly.

Ever notice dangerous game rifles don't have peep sights, but rather 1/4 ribs and leaf sights?

Hip shooting is a different matter altogether, however it's fairly easy to learn with a handgun.

December 30, 2002, 07:35 PM
Good points above.

I'll add-- I think it has to with 'hand placement' in the sense as applies to shotguns. Fit important for anything, but notice hand 'alignment" for lack of better term (one above the other or in-line).

December 30, 2002, 11:37 PM

If you have a .410 shotgun available for use, take it and shoot #2 or #4 shells from it for practice, 9 shot or skeet loads makes it too easy. Just point shoot, no sights or, as Dr. Rob described above. Head out to a field somewhere and practice on city quail (meadowlarks). LOL Or, have a friend throw clay for you. I guarentee you will become very profencient in point shooting! :D

Marshall :)

December 31, 2002, 01:10 AM
A big part of this is balance. Most modern autoloading rifles do not balance as well as older designs. Part of this is due to the grip configuration, and part to the size of the magazine.

Two drastically different examples are the Browning Semi Auto .22 rifle and the Colt AR15 type rifle. The Browning design is easily handled with one hand, and anyone can easily learn to point shoot that gun well enough to hit a pop can at 20 yards. The Colt design is almost ludicrus to watch someone try to shoot with one hand. The barrel has no relationship to the pointing hand, and the balance puts all the weight above the point of control.

The British learned 200 years ago that point shooting a gun is a reflection of its balance. This is obvious in their shotgun designs, which (for pointablity) have yet to be bettered.

Early autoloading rifles followed conventional design and are much more ergonomic than many later designs.

Navy joe
December 31, 2002, 01:36 AM
Oleg, I think you're on to something with the grip shape. 3 guns that I have always been able to shoot fast accurately are an M-44 carbine, M-1 carbine, and Remmy 870. All have the conventional stock. I shoot and feel like I never saw the sights line up, but I look and the hits are there. I think with these my cheek actually tucks into my trigger hand its' just a very athletically natural position.

December 31, 2002, 10:24 AM
Oleg, I see that my pump gets a lot of use?? :D

There's no magic; it's very easy to explain. First, a pistol grip requires your wrist to cock, which gives you a slightly less sense of direction as far as your hands are concerned. Contrast that with a regular rifle grip, which forces your hand in what I call a "knife holding" wrist cock, which means you are pointing quite a bit more towards your target. Also, AR15's have high sight's with respect to bore axis (one of the reasons I don't like AR15's)

If you compare not so much aimed shooting, but instinctive shooting, an M1A vs. AR15, the M1A has quite the advantage you will find. It points better (again, with the rifle grip, you are like pointing a knife) and the lower sight axis to bore axis helps quite a bit.

You move your arms up quite a bit faster when you have your wrist forward rather then in a pistol grip. Try it empty handed, you will see what I mean. It's which muscles are tight and which aren't.

BTW, been meaning to ask, have you shot your mauser and mine side by side? Is there a big difference in accuracy and easy of handling?

December 31, 2002, 10:38 AM
A mannlicher stocked rifle like a 1950 Steyr- Mannlicher has that "pointability" for some reason. Also no pistol grip stocks like English bird guns andWinchester 94-92's point real good. That said my religion is "front sight" so I quess you guys mean "flash sight picture" ignoring rear sight in conscious focal plane. That will work, if you want to place your shots effectively.

Oleg Volk
December 31, 2002, 10:43 AM

I haven't fired your Mauser as I just put the new mag spring in it. It does have a much smoother bolt: please email me description of how you polished the lugs.

22 pump has been fired 250-400 rounds on every weekend when I've had a chance to use it. I like it except for the aspects: the take-show screw inside is frozen in place or overtightened (can't clean it, though it works fine even so) and topping off the magazine tube requires hand being too close to the muzzle. It points great, shoots fairly accurately with sights used and, in general, works more reliably than autoloaders and about as rapidly.

If you enjoyed reading about "What makes rifles point shoot better?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!