Military Rifle Technique question

[Redhat]

Stock Placement

Don't forget, firing with iron sights requires consistent eye relief, stock weld, sight alignment and so on...firing with the aimpoint does not. Red dot on target fire.

If you haven't fired this set up with M4 and body armor plus your gear it isn't like shooting the M16, A1 or A2 with irons and no IBA. Look at some old WWII film, I don't see those soldiers using Camp Perry competition standing techniques.

 

[taliv]

i don't think they're doing it for accuracy. I just mentioned the "competition standing technique" to dispute the silly notion that you can't hit anything with the stock on top of your shoulder instead of down in the pocket

 

[Maverick223]

silly notion that you can't hit anything with the stock on top of your shoulder instead of down in the pocket

I imagine it would make follow up shots a bit more difficult though.

 

[JWJacobVT]

With the M4 collapsable stock this is how you get a good check weld and sight picture for iron sights and some of the high tech sights, since on some M4s there is no carrying handle. Collapsable stock nice but I never remember collapsing it during my tour in the sand box. Wish I had a A1 stock for use with body armor.

 

[PandaBearBG]

Even though I have only used the M16A2 and not the M4 in combat, I agree with Delmar, and EatatJoes, scanning is a major component of today's military b/c of the SEVERE (and I think stupid) reprocussions of firing shots in that arm pit of the world. Optics being so much more prevalent on the average soilder/marine/troop, allows the user to use quick aquistion sights more accurately (bringing it closer to the eye, and subsequently higher on the shoulder) to scan for insurgents or enemy.
After my time, the 550 cord trick Delmar's boy mentioned makes sense, if the stock is basicly sitting tied to the flak, it isn't going anywhere, recoil or not.

As for match shooting nose on charging handle technique, which is probably very very effective and accurate, is completely non-practical in a combat zone. Fast and quick engagements, Cover, follow up shots, compensation for body armor (those plates REALLY changes your shooting style), sudden need to egress, along with keeping your weapon with close to your body basicly dictates your stock/shoulder/cheek weld. (Discounting the 550 trick and scanning). No disrespect to match shooters (who I am in awe of) LEO's (which I deeply respect) but single shot, homeland civilian situations allow for a more refined stabilized more accurate prep and shot, I don't really think you should compare them with the troops. (well maybe a sniper or sharpshooter)

 

[HorseSoldier]

Well all I know is the Army I was in didn't teach us to shoot with the butt plate on top of our shoulder! Looks like a lack of training to me more then anything else.

+1 what everyone else said -- new techniques to address shooting with body armor on and improve your situational awareness. "Bring the gun up to your eyes/head, not your head down to the gun" is a mantra you hear a lot from instructors these days.

Though I wasn't in back in 1971, as was mentioned, I'm old enough to have been around for the transition from old techniques to new and was kind of skeptical when first exposed to them also. It doesn't take much time in a training environment (or out in the real world) that stresses running and gunning at 0-100 meter targets to illustrate how much it makes sense, though.

 

[chauncey]

i've been shooting HP for years and have always put only the tip toe of the A2 service rifle stock on my shoulder. putting it high up means my head stays straighter

and reduces felt recoil. a police shotgun instructor taught me to shoot this way. I can shoot a shotgun as accurately with one hand as i can with both, with the bottom of the stock in the top of my shoulder.

i did a skeet shoot a few months ago and 2/3 of the way through 100 rounds everyone was complaining of a sore shoulder. several switched to the method of stock weld i was taught (in the USMC in 1995 and by the police instructor) and immediately noticed the difference.

I agree that the first picture is for reduced oal and compensated for by optics and the lack of recoil from a 5.56