Rifle/carbine stance?

[Dr.Rob]

I was advised recently while shooting an AR offhand to present to the target like I'm pistol shooting. IE shoulders more or less square to the target and crouched.

I get that this is the 'new' way of doing things but it seemed really awkward to me, though it works while shooting on the move directly at or away from a target.

Standing still, I always learned left foot forward, right foot perpendicular to left--almost a bullseye stance, which is very stable.

This 'new way' makes it awkward to grip the handguard (my cyber augmented titanuium collarbone plate no doubt adds to this) and forces me to grab my AR by the mag well with my off hand, and renders my shooting sling useless.

This is for tactical rifle matches/3 gun I'm no professional.

Any input?

 

[gaijin6423]

The explanation that I have heard for this is that it's carryover from the current trend in military training, which teaches people to square themselves to the target, in order to present the majority of the surface area of their body armor to the threat. At least, that's what they told me at work in the Marines, anyway. It does allow me to move forward, backward and laterally much easier, and I do practice shooting with body armor on.

Truth be told, though, I shoot both ways, depending on the situation. Or rather, I adapt my position/stance to the situation I'm in. I've shot plenty of standard known distance qualification ranges and military service rifle competitions using the offhand/standing position you've described (mostly, anyway), and I've shot plenty of 3-gun using the squared 'modern' standing position. I've also just leaned out from behind a mud wall, with my weak hand, just to get a shot off in time, if you catch my drift.

I tend to do what works for me, in a given situation, regardless of what I 'should' be doing.

I recommend you do what lets you engage your target effectively and as consistently as possible.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't advocate one over the other, because each has it's uses and you really should know how to use each one. The thing to understand is what each is based on.

The Modern squared technique, besides offering better utilization of body armor, allows faster/smoother movement, in any direction, because it is a more balanced stance...your weight should be balance between your two feet with centering on the balls of your feet, the knees should be bent. The further forward you grasp the handguard with the support hand, the more that foot will come forward...but you'll drive the gun, during target transitions, faster.

The Classic bladed stance has it's origin in archery (to align the hands and the head) and continued in military formations for concentrated fields of fire (less room between shooters when standing in line). The compensation for the recoil vector being offset of the body's mid-line was to rise the strong arm in the classic chicken wing (they don't teach that in the squared stance)

The perceived stability of the perpendicular rear foot is based on a use of hard force (control) rather than soft force (management) to absorb recoil...one is easier to teach, one is more effective

 

[gavelwacker]

My general philosophy is to present the smallest, fastest moving, laterally & rearward, target that I possibly can. While presenting the most armor possible towards the target may increase the likelihood of a hit on the armor, there is a lot of ammo out there that will defeat the armor, as well as possibly knocking you off balance or knocking you down, both of which place you at a distinct disadvantage.
I will do everything possible to be the hardest to hit target that he has ever seen.
David.

 

[gaijin6423]

Although I had heard the massed fire reference before, I had neither heard, nor considered the classic offhand position as a derivative of archery. But I must say that it makes sense.

That's also a good point about the possibility of an impact knocking you off balance or down, but again I think it comes down to situation. Going toe-to-toe, gunfighter style with an actual threat is, IMO, not the ideal scenario. Movement, angles, use of cover, and sheer underhandedness always play a part.

(I was tempted to say overwhelming force, but my days of using air support are over.)

 

[9mmepiphany]

My general philosophy is to present the smallest, fastest moving, laterally & rearward, target that I possibly can.

Smallest and fastest moving...both laterally and rearward are the two conflicting choices. Unless your intention was to mean, while taking your weapon off your target

The Classic rifleman's stance has a design that leans heavily toward accurate fire, as opposed to the ability to incorparate movement

 

[9mmepiphany]

I had neither heard, nor considered the classic offhand position as a derivative of archery. But I must say that it makes sense.

You can also see it's roots in slingers...which is still seen in cricket bowling

 

[JShirley]

I shot bladed. Until I went into the infantry.

Now, I shoot squared-up. And I hold the magwell.

Works great at close-intermediate range. If I had the time, and didn't need the immediate mobility to engage or break contact, I would always take a knee.

J

 

[SentinelStrategic]

There is some legitimacy for squaring to present the most armor surface, but it's not the only reason. A significant reason is for transitioning. Transitioning between targets needs to be as fast and efficient as possible, both for competition and real world use. If you square off, you can engage all targets in the front 180 degree half. If you are bladed, you are in a "NW to SE" zone, and to engage targets out to your reaction side, a shift in stance is necessary. If you are squared, you will not need to shift your stance or change direction while moving.

A squared stance also has the effect of facilitating a secondary weapon transition. If your rifle goes down, you will already be in the right position for when you draw your sidearm.

Another advantage is with the grip and "driving" the rifle. You will have the most stability on the rifle, which can assist in enhancing your ability to manage recoil and increase the speed of follow-up shots.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I play roller derby so I'm used to the stance and staying balanced, it's just 'odd' feeling as a shooting position with a rifle, esp. with my augmented left shoulder.

When shooting at game I almost always take a knee if I can. Some of the shooting positions in 3 gun/tactical are set by the course of fire rather than by my preference.

Appreciate the input from everyone, just wondered if I was odd man out in feeling this way.

 

[Nushif]

The explanation that I have heard for this is that it's carryover from the current trend in military training, which teaches people to square themselves to the target, in order to present the majority of the surface area of their body armor to the threat.

That's what they told me, too.

 

[taliv]

Dr. Rob, it should not feel awkward and there's no reason you should have to grab the magwell instead of the forearm closer to the muzzle.

what is awkward about it?

 

[WNTFW]

Also full auto or burst works better squared off and not bladed. That is part of what drove the methodology into use along with the body armor.

 

[Uteridge]

The modern squared stance is better for movement and controlling recoil. Like WNTFW said, on full auto you want to be squared rather than bladed. If you get the opportunity you should try and shoot an MP-5 sometime bladed like a rifleman stance and then squared and you will see the difference in the stances and the ability to control recoil during rapid fire. The main reason you see so much modern squared stance nowadays is because most tactical rifle training, and combat, happens within 200m which does not require a great deal of precision accuracy but leans heavily on mobility, ability to switch from one target to another quickly, and volume of fire. The classic bladed rifleman stance is still more accurate but accuracy is not what is most important in the type of urban warfare that people seem to want to train for right now.

I shoot squared most of the time because that is the way that I will almost always shoot offhand. If I am shooting far enough away that I need to take the time to get in a rifleman's stance and go for precision accuracy then I will drop to the sitting, to a knee, or get in some type of a supported standing/kneeling instead. I still practice some in the classic rifleman's stance for hunting but for fighting I either am working on CQB/immediate action or for longer ranges I go by the words of the wise man "if you can shoot slower, shoot slower. If you can get lower, get lower."

 

[Dr.Rob]

Taliv:

I shattered my left collarbone last year and have a pretty substantial set of screws and a titanium plate in there. Even with a lot of physical therapy, holding my left arm forward (no problem while bladed) while square to the target is just not as stable as pulling it in to the magwell.

I've done so many 'micro muscle' exercises to build that area back up I'm about sick of it, but I continue to do them.

1. Hold your left arm extended in front of you palm up in the center of your chest (like you are shooting a rifle squared up) and have someone push down on it. 2. Hold your left arm palm up like you are shooting 'rifleman' and have them push down again. Most people show a dramatic degree of deflection in 1 compared to 2. I've been working on building strength back in that area for months and I'm no slouch, it still feels awkward.

 

[WNTFW]

Uteridge,
A UMP in .45 will convince a person even quicker than the MP5 that bladed wont work as well!! I'm not as good at FA compared to a friend of mine. The guy can do a mag dump and keep all rounds fairly well centered.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I'm not LEO or a solider. I also don't wear a bullet resistent vest. I've see lots of talks about different stances. For me, I personally stand in a martial arts fighting stance. I started martial arts abiut 30 years ago and I'm most comfortable with this general stance. It seems to work well for me for pistol, rifle, shotgun.

 

[walking arsenal]

I'm with the OP and Sheepdog.

If I stand squared I can't reach the forearm on my rifles, either my AR-15 20" or my AK-47.

I also don't wear body armor so I use the bladed stance. The squared stance is awkward for me.

 

[1911 guy]

I grew up shooting with the classic "rifleman" stance, very bladed to the target. For precision work, it still reigns supreme.

What convinced me to learn to use both was joinging the military and instead of shooting moving targets, I was shooting moving targets while moving myself. That's where the "squared" stance really shines. The fact that it places the frontal area of body armor to the threat is immaterial to most people, including me right now (100% civilian since the mid nineties)

If you feel uncomfortable gripping the magwell, maybe try a bolt-on foreward pistol grip. That changes the angle your shoulder rotates to when grasping the front of the rifle and allows for firm muzzle control.

 

[WNTFW]

part of the squared off stance involves the butt of the rifle being almost centered up on your body. That does feel weird in some instances. I don't run around with body armor & full auto either. It is just part of what drives the method. Training is like comedy in that "If you buy the premise, you buy the bit".

Like with most instruction I try to get as much out of it as I can. That is why I always like to know the reasoning behind a choice if at all possible.

It does make a person that never liked VFGs or the Magpul grip reconsider them in this context.

 

[1stmarine]

In the end a 100% squared stance is rarely used in a combat situation other than CQ and even then you have to negotiate corners, stairs, doors, etc... In combat normally you are down, crouching, kneeling, sitting, prone or bending or even shooting over your head but good conditioning in shooting position is best. Don't grab the carbine too tight, let it 'float' a little.
Lots of practice should be done with offhand shooting and while moving where allowed. For this drill you want in fact to be squared but not so much that becomes unnatural so one of your shoulders is going to be more advanced than the other. Also a tad tilted forward allows for easy pivoting on your hips that helps balance your body, specially useful when you shoot full auto. There is a technique that I use derived from Aikido weapons training where you stop your sword right by your hips. This feeling of balance and stability is what you want. Both eyes open, tilt your head forward and up to do a good acquisition and then down to your sights to nail the target.
You want to condition your feet to walk straight with good footing whether you work yourself forward, sideways or backwards in order to avoid tripping and falling. And the most important thing do defensive shooting every week. It is a perishable skill.

I found this... It is hard to explain with words how this applies to firearms training balance but somehow it makes sense to me. You need to do it to be able to understand it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G54hHUfnbK8&playnext=1&list=PLBBA588EFF95AAEC8

Cheers,
E.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I found this... It is hard to explain with words how this applies to firearms training balance but somehow it makes sense to me. You need to do it to be able to understand it...

That was very interesting...I understand it, but then I'm relating it to Shi Yi. Both are much older (based on older understandings of movement and power)...but more advanced...than the more usual Japanese bladed hard stances

 

[crazysccrmd]

Basically saying what everyone else in here has. The modern square to your target stance is taught by the military for several reasons. Quick target acquisition, largest frontal area of body armor, quick weapon transitions, ease of movement, balanced position, etc etc. It works out well but is certainly awkward to learn and practice enough to put into use. When it boils right down though we use whatever works to put rounds on target the fastest.

there is a lot of ammo out there that will defeat the armor, as well as possibly knocking you off balance or knocking you down.

The newest armor we have is rated to defeat 7.62AP NATO rounds, thats some pretty heavy stuff. I'd rather take a hit in the chest and land on my ass than take it through a shoulder where there is no armor.

 

[1911 guy]

Also, consider modifying the technique to suit your own needs. For example, I pretty much square up enough to make transitions easier, but blade just enough to make my handgun shooting something of a bastard child of Jeff Cooper and iso.

 

[JShirley]

Sheepdog, that squared-up stance is a martial arts stance, as well.

And you may have heard of boxing, the most effective extant unarmed Western fighting art? Similar stance.