Proper Length of pull for Pistol Grip Shotgun

[MCgunner]

Did you even read what I wrote? I said if I'm not thinking about the gun, I don't care.

Well, then, in that case, the gun FITS you.

Have another beer...on me.

 

[PoserHoser]

When it comes to shooting in a squared up stance, LOP is really more a factor of you reaching the forend. If you can reach and retract the forend comfortably, your LOP is fine. If you're stretching to reach or having to move your off-side shoulder back much to retract it, then you need to change it.

I don't really care what the LOP is as long as I am not thinking "gosh, I need a shorter/longer stock".

Thanks for the advice! That has been the problem I always felt so stretched out on the gun.

 

[PoserHoser]

I'm not really comprehending how shooting a human, moving or not, is harder than shooting a flying clay target or something with feathers or a running bunny for that matter.

I think it has to do with them trying to kill you and as a result the enormous ADRENALINE dump..........

 

[PoserHoser]

Probably why there's so many shotguns for combat shooting with electronic sights or rifle sights on 'em. They don't know how to properly fit and properly shoot a shotgun. They think they're suppose to have some sort of aiming device. For me, a rib helps, but even that is un-necessary on a good fitting shotgun. It'll shoot where I look.

Try shooting slugs like that.

 

[rbernie]

I'm not really comprehending how shooting a human, moving or not, is harder than shooting a flying clay target or something with feathers or a running bunny for that matter.

I think it has to do with them trying to kill you and as a result the enormous ADRENALINE dump..........

Excellent point, but one which then begs the question - do dangerous game hunters, who arguably see more adrenaline and more close-quarters danger than most tactical shotgun afficianados, find short LOP long guns with squared up stances and buttstocks on their chest to be advantageous?

Probably why there's so many shotguns for combat shooting with electronic sights or rifle sights on 'em. They don't know how to properly fit and properly shoot a shotgun. They think they're suppose to have some sort of aiming device. For me, a rib helps, but even that is un-necessary on a good fitting shotgun. It'll shoot where I look.

Try shooting slugs like that.

Done, and there is no doubt that a rib and bead is less accurate at 100 yards than an RDS. On the other hand, the RDS is a HUGE disadvantage for putting lead onto a close and fast-moving target. So the question really becomes whether to optimize the scattergun to act like a carbine for the 100yd slug use and reduce its utility for everything else, or do you suboptimize the scattergun for the long range slug use and optimize it for other purposes. The answer to this question, like all other things, depends on the types of things that you see most commonly needing a shotgun to do. There is no 'correct' answer - there is only the notion of what addresses the most needs and leaves the least needs uncovered.

 

[PoserHoser]

Excellent point, but one which then begs the question - do dangerous game hunters, who arguably see more adrenaline and more close-quarters danger than most tactical shotgun afficianados, find short LOP long guns with squared up stances and buttstocks on their chest to be advantageous?

Probably due to the fact that dangerous game isn't shooting back.

Done, and there is no doubt that a rib and bead is less accurate at 100 yards than an RDS. On the other hand, the RDS is a HUGE disadvantage for putting lead onto a close and fast-moving target. So the question really becomes whether to optimize the scattergun to act like a carbine for the 100yd slug use and reduce its utility for everything else, or do you suboptimize the scattergun for the long range slug use and optimize it for other purposes. The answer to this question, like all other things, depends on the types of things that you see most commonly needing a shotgun to do. There is no 'correct' answer - there is only the notion of what addresses the most needs and leaves the least needs uncovered.

Try shooting clays with 00 Buck. Buckshot spreads very little under 50 yards. That is why I have ghost ring sights. FYI the Benelli SNT has patented ghost ring sights that are very different from most. Handle one you'll see what I mean. I treat shotguns like rifles because accuracy trumps getting the first shot off. How do top competitors/instructors shoot rifles?! In a squared up stance.

 

[rbernie]

How do top competitors/instructors shoot rifles?! In a squared up stance.

And folk that get eaten/trampled at close quarters if they fail to defend themselves with their long guns do not. All that proves is that different folk have come to different solutions for problems with some similarity.

Try shooting clays with 00 Buck. Buckshot spreads very little under 50 yards.

I have, on a lark, and I found that it's no different than using #7 1/2 shot; target acquisition and tracking still requires a clear and unobstructed heads-up view of the world to be successful, and swinging with the arms will still cause more misses than swinging with the torso.

You seem compelled to trumpet 'the one TRUTH!' and I seem equally compelled to continue to point out the fallacy of accepting anything as 'the one TRUTH!'. All decisions in life are a compromise between competing forces. The compromise that you select is based upon your view of the forces involved and the risk/consequence for each. When I do the same, I quite possibly will arrive at a different conclusion because I will almost certainly view the risks and consequences differently in some regard.

I'm glad that you're certain in your beliefs, and I have no doubt that they are fairly derived and held. I've been down this path for quite some time, and after expending tens and tens of thousands of rounds and getting a taste or two of 'up close and personal' I also have derived a pretty fair set of beliefs. And ours differ. So be it.

 

[MCgunner]

I think it has to do with them trying to kill you and as a result the enormous ADRENALINE dump..

Jimmy Carter got attacked by a rabbit once.

 

[sharpcoolman]

well from what i have heard. good length of pull can be measured like this. put your finger on the trigger and rest the rifle or shotgun on the inside of your forearm. the rifle or shotgun's tt pad or plate should fit right in to knook of your elbow formed on your inner arm. give or take a few millimeters

 

[Inebriated]

Thanks for the advice! That has been the problem I always felt so stretched out on the gun.

Give the Mesa Urbino a try. It was initially made for the Benelli, to give people the same stock, but with a shorter LOP. Very good stock, and very comfortable. I personally prefer a 13" or so conventional stock, but the Mesa is far and away my favorite pistol grip stock.

 

[oneounceload]

Excellent point, but one which then begs the question - do dangerous game hunters, who arguably see more adrenaline and more close-quarters danger than most tactical shotgun afficianados, find short LOP long guns with squared up stances and buttstocks on their chest to be advantageous?

No, they do not

Probably due to the fact that dangerous game isn't shooting back.

True, it's only charging you at a rapid pace looking to stomp you to death

 

[rbernie]

In fairness, a two way range generally has a different set of circumstances (incoming bullets instead of horns/hooves), and that clearly changes the dynamics a bit.

The most obvious change (first order effect) is the desire to use protective gear/body armor on a two-way range to protect against incoming fire. Unfortunately, the use of body armor drives a second order effect, which is the need to change the shooting stance to a squared up position to ensure that the armor is positioned to catch inbound rounds instead of bypassing the armor via the arm holes. The second order effect of changing the shooter's stance creates a third order effect, which is the need to adapt the weapons and weapons employment techniques to the new 'squared up' body positioning. That is what drives the requirements for a shorter LOP and the buttstock being more centered on the body. And the 'tactical' reasoning for all of this is simple - while the second and third order effects may result in a reduction in overall INDIVIDUAL efficiency in employment of the long gun, it is more than compensated by the increased effectiveness of the body armor and the use of team-centered tactics that address the reduced mobility and reduced visibility of the individual.

This is the basis of my assertion that if body armor and team tactics are NOT part of the plan then all of the subordinate changes to shooting stance and weapon fitment requirements are undesirable because they reduce the efficiency of the individual actor. And, in that case, it might be wise to look at stances and fitments that are proven to be most efficient for individual actors maintaining control of as much ground as they can survey. On the other hand, if body armor and Fighting With Friends is assumed to be the engagement model, then one would be foolish to ignore the TTPs that best support that model.

And all of that has NOTHING to do with whether the stock has a pistol grip or not, and everything to do with how the shotgun is gonna be used.

 

[PoserHoser]

This is the basis of my assertion that if body armor and team tactics are NOT part of the plan then all of the subordinate changes to shooting stance and weapon fitment requirements are undesirable because they reduce the efficiency of the individual actor. And, in that case, it might be wise to look at stances and fitments that are proven to be most efficient for individual actors maintaining control of as much ground as they can survey. On the other hand, if body armor and Fighting With Friends is assumed to be the engagement model, then one would be foolish to ignore the TTPs that best support that model.

The whole point of a squared up stance is better control of the weapon. We're not talking about a 1 on 1 quick draw. I agree a traditional stance is the fastest if holding the weapon at one's side while flushing birds. This shotgun is for defensive use only. i'm not going to be worried about how fast it can shouldered. The whole idea is to be in a stance that eliminates the most movement and recoil. I don't have to find the bead if im already looking down the barrel through my sights. Your first shot might be quicker ,but my consecutive shots will be faster and more accurate due to having more control of the weapon.

And all of that has NOTHING to do with whether the stock has a pistol grip or not, and everything to do with how the shotgun is gonna be used.

That's exactly why i don't hunt pheasants with a pistol grip. People don't fly and they also can't run 35mph. A pistol grip gives better purchase on the weapon. It also has the added bonus of being easier to control with one hand.

 

[Inebriated]

It's also MUCH more difficult for a person to get it out of your hands if you've got a pistol grip. You've probably done something wrong if they can get close enough, but it's still a valid point.

 

[rbernie]

my consecutive shots will be faster and more accurate due to having more control of the weapon.

My own split times do not agree with that assessment, but if it works for you then obviously you need to keep on trucking with what you're doing. I suspect that the squared up stance is working for you in this regard not because its inherently better at managing recoil but because you're naturally adopting a 'chin-and shoulders-forward' stance when you shoulder the weapon. If you did that with a more traditional bladed stance, you'd probably find it even mo' better.

From a pure biomechanical perspective, a bladed stance will always be better for managing recoil than a squared up stance. Just look to the martial arts (or your experiences maintaining your balance standing on a ship deck or subway car) to see which body position is weaker than the other.

People don't fly and they also can't run 35mph.

No, but it's not uncommon in a SD/HD situation to have to defend multiple ingress/egress points simultaneously, or contend with rapid lateral movement by the Bad Bad People. That is closer to a wing-shooting problem than you might think.

It's also MUCH more difficult for a person to get it out of your hands if you've got a pistol grip. You've probably done something wrong if they can get close enough, but it's still a valid point.

It absolutely is. Most factory 'c' stocks (sporting style pistol grip, as opposed to a straight grip or true pistol grip) are made pretty thick in the wrist to provide a degree of robustness. This makes it harder to get a good thumb wrap around the wrist. True pistol grip stocks don't need to do that, and the pistol grip can be made more hand-friendly as a result. A true pistol grip also supports the notion of an elbow-down stance, and the sum of these factors absolutely puts the user in a better retention position.

I've played around with a 'buttstock trapped between strong side elbow and hip' shooting position, and it's both compact and excellent for retention - it seems useful for uber-close-quarters barricade use. Of course, it's also not terribly dynamic or good for fast moving targets, either.

 

[PoserHoser]

From a pure biomechanical perspective, a bladed stance will always be better for managing recoil than a squared up stance. Just look to the martial arts (or your experiences maintaining your balance standing on a ship deck or subway car) to see which body position is weaker than the other.

Maybe if your standing straight up. If your standing flatfooted with your weight on your toes leaning forward into the gun it will absorb more recoil than standing in a bladed stance that rotates your shoulder with every shot. As for "martial arts" standing in a bladed stance gives less balance when struck from the side. In MMA it's used to lure an opponent. A practical defensive posture is in a quarter squat keeping feet slightly wider than your shoulders. Squared up to your opponent/adversary. This promotes the ability to quickly move to the side of a "bladed" a stanced attacker striking them from the side knocking them off balance from their back.

 

[rbernie]

A squared up stance makes sense before committing, but I know of no fighter that thinks that a squared up stance is optimal for managing impact.

If your standing flatfooted with your weight on your toes leaning forward into the gun it will absorb more recoil than standing in a bladed stance that rotates your shoulder with every shot.

Assuming equal weight distribution and tension in the core muscles between the two stances, I disagree. I suspect that you presume that a bladed stance implies an erect posture, when I'm suggesting a chin/shoulder forward stance works bladed as well as squared.

 

[PoserHoser]

A squared up stance makes sense before committing, but I know of no fighter that thinks that a squared up stance is optimal for managing impact

That's where 360 blocking comes in. This isn't competition fighting i'm describing. It was developed for some pretty hardcore dudes.

Assuming equal weight distribution and tension in the core muscles between the two stances, I disagree. I suspect that you presume that a bladed stance implies an erect posture, when I'm suggesting a chin/shoulder forward stance works bladed as well as squared.

No, it seemed you were implying just the opposite. Have you personally shot both styles of stocks in both stances?

 

[rbernie]

That's where 360 blocking comes in. This isn't competition fighting i'm describing. It was developed for some pretty hardcore dudes.

The premise that you offered was that a squared up position provides better gun management (recoil management and faster shot-to-shot split times). I contend that it actually doesn't - it's your positioning of weight and your core tension that does. A squared up position (foot and shoulders) is weaker than a bladed position in reacting to frontal impacts, assuming equal core tension and weight distribution (stance). I'm frankly surprised that you're still trying to argue that point.

Had you said that a squared up position made for better lateral mobility (quick sidesteps), I would have concurred, and stated this to be a significant benefit. Had you said that a squared up position increased the effectiveness of your body armor, I would have agreed. But you're trying to make the squared up position better for shot speed and accuracy, and sadly I just don't think that dog is gonna hunt given my own experiences.

No, it seemed you were implying just the opposite.

As I said in Post #40:

I suspect that the squared up stance is working for you in this regard not because its inherently better at managing recoil but because you're naturally adopting a 'chin-and shoulders-forward' stance when you shoulder the weapon. If you did that with a more traditional bladed stance, you'd probably find it even mo' better.

Have you personally shot both styles of stocks in both stances?

Yes, with both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 rifles and 12ga shotguns, at various targets and ranges from contact to 100 yards. Heck, I've been hunting deer and hog on foot with pistol-gripped centerfire rifles since the dark days of the Clinton AWB ban years.

I assume that you have experience with both positions and stock types - what were the differences between your second shot splits and target transition times between these variables?

I can tell you that I found less and less to like about a squared up position the greater the distance between targets and/or the further away the targets got. Using a squared up position with either a traditional or pistol gripped long gun, I could maintain decent splits but my target transition times sucked - too slow to transition, and too many first round missed, both due to pushing the gun with the arms and due to losing cheekweld. I also found an aggressive bladed position to be faster to get into and out of. When I adopted a more aggressive bladed stance, in much the same vein as one might see in the DG hunting crowd, I found that my split times were good-to-better and my transitions were profoundly better both in speed and accuracy. The only thing that a bladed position didn't do better was accommodate a CoF that requires one ot two quick sidesteps.

As an aside to the positioning question, I also found that I prefer a conventional stock under most circumstances in which I find myself holding a long gun. I am simply faster and more consistent to the shoulder (critical in a shotgun) with a moderate amount of strong side elbow lift, and that favors a traditional sporting-style stock over a pistol grip.

 

[PoserHoser]

Had you said that a squared up position made for better lateral mobility (quick sidesteps), I would have concurred, and stated this to be a significant benefit.

Read post #41 "This promotes the ability to quickly move to the side of a "bladed" stanced attacker striking them from the side knocking them off balance from their back. "

I can tell you that I found less and less to like about a squared up position the greater the distance between targets and/or the further away the targets got. Using a squared up position with either a traditional or pistol gripped long gun, I could maintain decent splits but my target transition times sucked - too slow to transition, and too many first round missed, both due to pushing the gun with the arms and due to losing cheekweld. I also found an aggressive bladed position to be faster to get into and out of. When I adopted a more aggressive bladed stance, in much the same vein as one might see in the DG hunting crowd, I found that my split times were good-to-better and my transitions were profoundly better both in speed and accuracy. The only thing that a bladed position didn't do better was accommodate a CoF that requires one ot two quick sidesteps.

You shouldn't be pushing the gun. If you pull the gun into your chest and lean into the stock with your cheek you wouldn't lose a cheekweld or a sight picture.

As an aside to the positioning question, I also found that I prefer a conventional stock under most circumstances in which I find myself holding a long gun. I am simply faster and more consistent to the shoulder (critical in a shotgun) with a moderate amount of strong side elbow lift, and that favors a traditional sporting-style stock over a pistol grip.

Obviously a traditional straight pistol grip will be faster to shoulder and get on target , in a hunting situation. I'm not talking about hunting. I will entertain your DG theory.
If being charged by a bear would you rather have one quick accurate shot or multiple quick accurate shots in rapid succession? A bladed stance will be faster to shoulder and fire. A squared up stance will be only slightly slower and more accurate with every succeding shot. A vertical pistol grip is easier to handle when opening a door or when lying on your back.

 

[rbernie]

If you pull the gun into your chest and lean into the stock with your cheek you wouldn't lose a cheekweld or a sight picture

You absolutely will, when quickly transitioning from one target to another separated by some distance (as you would do when switching from covering one door to another in a room with multiple entry points). You'll point with your arms and the cheek won't follow. It's simple human biomechanics.

I've said my peace here. Go and try different things and see what works for you. Debate is fine, but shooting thousands of rounds of practice under varying conditions at varying targets using varying stances and varying weapons configs is a far better teacher.

At some point, you just need to go shooting.

 

[PoserHoser]

You absolutely will, when quickly transitioning from one target to another separated by some distance (as you would do when switching from covering one door to another in a room with multiple entry points). You'll point with your arms and the cheek won't follow. It's simple human biomechanics.

Maybe try rotateing your torso instead of using just your arms.

I've said my peace here. Go and try different things and see what works for you. Debate is fine, but shooting thousands of rounds of practice under varying conditions at varying targets using varying stances and varying weapons configs is a far better teacher.

I found what works best for me for defensive shooting. My defensive stance for handgun,rifle,shotgun, and unarmed are all the same general stance. I treat hunting arms different from my defensive arms. Hunting and defensive shooting are very different.

At some point, you just need to go shooting.

I shoot a hundred rounds a month through my defensive shotgun. Quit infering you know anything about my experience or skill level.
Thank you.

 

[rbernie]

Maybe try rotateing your torso instead of using just your arms.

Exactly correct, but that's simply harder to do reliably when squared up. That's my point.

I found what works best for me for defensive shooting.

Anyone that's done learning or trying different things doesn't really know where they stand. Don't stop trying, is all I'm trying to suggest.

Quit infering you know anything about my experience or skill level.

Why? Your own posts here have made it public. I made no effort to be derogatory - just to acknowledge the fact that you have (by your own posts here) owned relatively few different types of shotguns for a limited period of time.

Rock on, dude. Just don't be afraid to try different things.

 

[PoserHoser]

Anyone that's done learning or trying different things doesn't really know where they stand. Don't stop trying, is all I'm trying to suggest.

Never said I was done trying only said I found the best one for me and until I find a better method I'll stick with it. Maybe you should give it another try.

just to acknowledge the fact that you have (by your own posts here) owned relatively few different types of shotguns for a limited period of time.

Please explain where you found what type of shotguns i have owned and use.
Just because something doesn't work well for you doesn't mean it doesn't work well for other people. Please have an open mind and realize many top defensive shooters use a squared up stance. Shooting isn't a "your way or the highway" situation.