Tactical Shooting Stances

[Cosmoline]

I'm checking out Magpul's "Art of the Carbine" DVD right now and I was surprised by the odd stances they're advocating. Off hand is almost flat to the target, supporting hand way way out in front, stock collapsed down and nose practically touching the receiver. Meanwhile the shooter is haunched over the carbine scrunched down with the neck at a very odd angle.

I've been practicing a bit with it, trying to keep an open mind, but I see no way to keep that position stable or consistent. It's too much muscle, not enough bone, and it's under a lot of tension. It feels much better for me to keep a head-up, carbine up, stock extended, angled-to-the-target traditional stance. Heaven forbid, I also like to keep my elbow out to make sure the firearm is in the pocket nicely.

The question I have is, is this just my own prior training conflicting with the new and better way? Or are these tactical stances simply not designed to give very good accuracy?

Further, if I can move and shoot dynamically with the old way, why switch?

They also use that safety way more than I ever have, though I can kind of see the merit to it if you're flipping your firearm around so much. I try to ignore it as much as possible unless I'm toting it C&L for some reason.

 

[taliv]

not sure about magpul, but most carbine classes I've taken teach body square to target, not angled, elbow down not out, stock collapsed not extended, and the stock is inboard under the chin and not in the shoulder pocket, etc

however, the head is up, not at any odd angle (which is the point of the position) and the shooter is leaning into it a bit aggressively, but not "haunched"

I'd say the hand position varies, but many prefer farther out.

this position is better for rapidly engaging multiple targets, particularly while moving. it is not better for bullseye shooting

i think the excessive safety usage is to create muscle memory for their students who are in mil/leo orgs that require safety be used a particular way. it's usually helpful for 3gun too

 

[Sam1911]

There has indeed been a huge shift to using a much more "squared-up" fighter's stance for dynamic "practical" shooting. The traditional rifleman's stance is good for stability. The squared-up stance is better for flexibility, movement, and balance.

Similarly with the earlier development of the isosceles pistol stance, the focus is on making the upper body a "tank turret" that can swivel through the widest possible range of motion, can raise and lower, and can adopt various field-expedient positions -- as independently as possible from what the lower body is doing. In other words, when done right, the shooter could walk forward, squat, stand, swivel, retreat, go to rollover prone, etc. -- while continually firing -- all without changing his/her engagement with the gun (grip, cheek weld, sight picture, and so forth).

It does seem to produce favorable results in dynamic shooting situations, but you won't see the AMU using it on the line at Perry any time soon. Totally different technique and purpose.

Now, I haven't watched the vid you're talking about and they may be up to something even more screwy yet! But that's what your description suggests to me.

Your experiences with it may not be favorable, especially as you're an accomplished shooter accustomed to certain techniques that work well for you. You also may not be needing to engage targets at close range and in these ways so the benefits may not be of value to you.

On the other hand, I have a game warden pal who's personal "duty" gun is a short Benneli 12 ga. He's had the stock modified to a 12" LOP and he shoots it totally "squared up". You HAVE to. If you're of average-large size and empty a tube of slugs using a traditional stance with that gun, it will physically injure you! But squared up it is fast and effective.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well I'll try to keep an open mind on it. My biggest issue is with my neck getting strained trying to scrunch down to that collapsed stock. I think I'm just too big to do it that way. It's like trying to shoot a Red Ryder. Also it puts my eye relief way off from what I'm used to and cocks my head at a weird angle in order to fit in the little tiny space. If I can extend the stock and move the carbine to my head more than the other way around I feel much better about the world.

I can see the benefit to using big muscles if you're coping with big recoil. But the 5.56, near as I can feel, has no recoil at all. I could shoot it off my teeth. So their concerns about making sure the body absorbs the recoil seem odd--maybe designed for full auto or very rapid fire?

I'll give it some field tries at the range tomorrow.

 

[basicblur]

The squared-up stance is better for flexibility, movement, and balance.

Are not some folks advocating the squared up stance in order for best protection with body armor?

 

[taliv]

cosmo, i'm 6'5" and shoot AR15s with most stocks almost completely collapsed (1 notch out from collapsed) and find it quite comfortable not scrunched. just don't put it in your shoulder. keep your head up and move the carbine to your head, with the toe of the stock under your chin on your collar bone

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The stance they are teaching goes back to the 1960s at least and was popular for subguns in the 1980s. The idea is to provide a stance that lets you shoot over the widest area while moving and offers good recoil control. If you are plinking at silhouette targets, it offers enough stability to make hits at 300yds; but it won't be showing up on the High Power line any time soon.

By facing the target (as opposed to a more bladed stance) you increase the area you can engage to the front. By grabbing way out front, you gain better control over the direction of the muzzle. The stock is collapsed way down to move the point of leverage further back (again better control) and reduce the overall length of the weapon and the nose is touching the charging handle so you have a zero that is good for different people across multiple weapons.

They also use that safety way more than I ever have, though I can kind of see the merit to it if you're flipping your firearm around so much.

Part of it is because they can, with the AR15 safety it is so easy to flip on and off that many prefer to be more active in its use. If you've got a safety where you have to change your "master grip" to flip it on or off, people tend to use it less and the accompanying accidents happen.

Further, if I can move and shoot dynamically with the old way, why switch?

My advice is to get a shot timer and use whatever works best for you. I don't have a lot of time to train these days, so I'm not big into the whole "Train in my special method for 20,000 rounds and you'll definitely see 0.20 sec shaved off your 6-shot string" thing. If it doesn't feel natural for me and improve my times after a few hours work, then I go back to what has been working for me.

ETA: You guys type fast!

I can see the benefit to using big muscles if you're coping with big recoil. But the 5.56, near as I can feel, has no recoil at all. I could shoot it off my teeth. So their concerns about making sure the body absorbs the recoil seem odd--maybe designed for full auto or very rapid fire?

Yes, it is basically a derivative of the stance they used to use with MP5 subguns for full-auto. Stock tucked in towards the centerline/collarbone. The idea is to minimize recoil to the degree that you can fire multiple rounds from a single sight picture at close ranges. The other thing is that since you are using muscles to aim the gun instead of skeletal support, you want to use the big muscles in your back as much as possible since they fatigue slower and handle weight better.

 

[VeeArDoubleyouSee]

Are not some folks advocating the squared up stance in order for best protection with body armor?

Yes, squaring off, especially with a plate in front, means a better chance of getting hit in the plate or kevlar rather then through the gaps in the armor, like at the armpit.


Tucking the elbow is for the same reason, to make yourself a smaller target. I do it out of habit now, to the point that seeing someone shoot with their elbow out makes me cringe (even though I know it's correct for shooting when no one is shooting back).

 

[Cosmoline]

Were elbow hits a big problem at some point? Seems to me if someone is shooting back I either want to be running away or getting down behind something big and made from steel or concrete. In other words--is off hand shooting of any real value in defensive situations? I've always thought of it as something for the range. Too unstable for most hunting and too vulnerable for a fight.

From the DVD descriptions (for what that's worth) it seems like these tactics are mostly a response to a barrage of essentially un-aimed AK-47 or subgun fire in combat. Bullets flying more or less randomly. So they don't want to be on the ground because there are more rounds skittering down there, and they don't want body parts exposed because that increases the odds of something hitting them. Yet they MUST remain off hand in order to move forward to take positions. Not because they like standing up but because retreat to a secure position isn't an option. For me, retreat is always an option. I love retreating.

just don't put it in your shoulder. keep your head up and move the carbine to your head, with the toe of the stock under your chin on your collar bone

Ah! That helps. Thank you

 

[taliv]

i don't think getting shot in the elbow was the main point, so much as not smacking your funnybone on barricades/doors/walls/lamps/etc when moving around

 

[basicblur]

Tucking the elbow is for the same reason, to make yourself a smaller target.

Reason I've seen for learning to shoot with the elbow tucked is if you're injured/wounded and have to shoot with one arm, you're going to want to tuck the elbow in for weapon stabilization. Since that's the 'preferred' method for one arm operation, it was also suggested you learn to do so while using both arms in order to standardize training/shooting position.

 

[451 Detonics]

Any time you have more than one "expert" in any given field you will have more than one "best" way to do things. Take what works for you from each and develope a style that works best for you.

 

[LoonWulf]

i can sorta understand a square stance. I always used one playing paintball on airbunkers, hitting targets out to the maybe 50yds wasnt that much of an issue. Ive only used a more closed stance for shooting rifles, and i only JUST got a gun you could shoot off your collarbone without causing damage lol. I might try shooting like i do a paintball marker next time out.

 

[henschman]

With my .30 cal's, I use a similar stance for close quarters with my support hand far forward on the grip for better control of the barrel, but I put the stock in my actual shoulder pocket (for obvious reasons) and take a more bladed stance than what you guys are talking about. Not 90* off target, like with a high power offhand stance, but more like 45*, with trigger side elbow tucked in so as not to whack anything. I don't have any body armor, so I don't care about that advantage. In fact, I'd rather be a narrower target if possible. If you are 45* to the threat, you probably won't end up shot through both lungs like you would at 90*. I find it to be quite dynamic and easy to move in, as well.

It is good to know the traditional high power style stance, as well... that is what you would use for maximum stability if you had to take a shot on a small or distant target from standing, and when you have a few seconds to get into position. Yes, it is best for when they are not immediately shooting back at you. It works fine if they don't know you're there, though. It is great for, say, shooting out a window while standing far back in a room so as to be as hard to spot as possible. It can be very stable, especially when augmented by solid support such as a wall or door frame. A sling helps, too.

I think a well-rounded shooter ought to be familiar with the muscle-neutral precision positions as well as the dynamic close quarters positions, and be able to transition between them as the situation dictates.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

What 451 said. Try them all and figure out what works for you with the equipment you have in the situation you are in. If you have to make a difficult precise shot, blade up - stick your elbow out and shoot as accurately as you can. If you have to move towards the shed you think the BG's are in, then move like the video tells you.

 

[boricua9mm]

The squared up, scrunched stance Magpul is teaching/advocating is simply what has been taught for SMG shooting for many decades.

Like others have mentioned, it's about speed, flexibility, and ability to control muzzle rise. I laugh when folks try to tell me about the Magpul technique like it's something new. When I say "You mean the SMG stance?" they usually just scratch their heads.

 

[Hizzie]

There are several different schools of thought regarding stance. To each his own as body dimensions vary wildly and what works for a guy with long lean limbs and torso might not work for the short stocky guy who loves the weight pile at the gym. I have tried the stretched out stance advocated by Kyle Lamb in his book Green Eyes Black Rifles and it works very well for me with an AR, not so much with an AK. For me a more squared boxing stance works better with a kalashnikov. See what is out there, if it makes tactical sense try it with an open mind. If it works great, if not at least you put rounds down range and had some fun.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Trying different stances and positions is good just to see what you can and can't do. Same true of holding a firearm. Having said that, I also have martial arts and some stick, blade weapons training as well. As such just to keep things simple, I have a stance that works well for all of them. I'm sure I am not unique in this or the desire to have one stance that works well for all.

 

[Cosmoline]

Boricua and Bartholomew--that's a interesting observation and it makes a lot of sense. They're really running the AR's as if they were submachine guns. Obviously the platform is capable of much more than a pistol caliber submachine gun, but if I think of it in those terms the collapsed stock and the muscular stance fall into place.

 

[Sam1911]

me a more squared boxing stance works better with a kalashnikov.

I think that is one of the unsung details about the AK series that is often misunderstood.

I don't know -- at all -- what the best of Soviet marksmanship training was teaching throughout the second half of the last century. Whether those soldiers fortunate enough to get decent riflery instruction were told to square up or not, I just don't know. But the often-touted claim that the guns were built for little tiny malnourished munchkin people, 95 lb. Viet Cong women fighting in tunnels, and the child soldiers of the various African hot-spots clearly isn't true. But the 12.5" LOP of the average AK is almost universally claimed to be "too short" by any American upon first picking one up. They've got to have the "NATO-length" stock.

But I'm 6'2" and about 220 lbs, and I think the LOP is perfect -- when shot squared-up, which is the way I use that kind of firearm. It would make a miserable rifle to try to shoot NRA High Power with. But I can run it through a shoot-house or field course beautifully.

 

[Tirod]

Shooting stances are directly related to what type is done.

When I first saw three position .22 International shooting, it seemed bizarre the contorted ways people were twisting themselves to just hold up a gun to shoot it. Three years later I understood it more.

Tactical shooting isn't precision bullseye stuff, it's oriented to protect the shooter as much as help keep them in a 2MOA window. "Squared up" presents the majority of a chest plate protector toward the front - as opposed to bladed, which exposes the opening under the arm and leaves an unprotected area right where a COM shot would go thru both lungs and the heart. Conversely, it's more narrow, you be the judge.

It's not about striving for precision as much as surviving the two way range experience. With that in mind, not all three gun competitors use strictly tactical moves, they can blend both to increase hit probability. Targets don't shoot back.

Those stance tips trickle down to how trainees are taught - and to improve scores. In Basic, a lot of precision technique creeps into range fire and training, then in the field, tactics - shoot, move, communicate - gets the priority.

Anyone who insists there is only one way to shoot correctly throws a big red flag to me. Stances change with the circumstances and time given, and if that isn't also part of the overview in instruction, it's entirely up to me to decide whether it's any good. I make the final choice, not an "expert." They weren't at some previous time in the past, and had to learn, too. Experts from the 70's have had to adjust as things are collectively added to a instruction set. What someone taught in the days of a bolt action and 1911 isn't necessarily what works today, right? It's just harder to see when viewing a smaller time frame.

What's current now will be old hat and dated in 20 years.

 

[Zerodefect]

Don't overthink it.

Don't try to replicate the Magpul pose. Everyone is shaped different. If I try to look like them I end up as an exagerated troll thing with muscle cramps. If I set my hands/stock/shoulders up properly I fall right into thier stance and it feels great. That 3 gun stance looks way more agressive than it really is so If you're like me you were probally overdoing it a bit.

Just get your hand where it needs to be, square your stance, get a cheek weld and your body will fall into line naturally.

-Put your hand way out on the rail like they instruct for better barrel stability. My support arm is allmost straight and I pull the rifle in.
-Feel free to get your thumb up high. My hands are kinda long, I can wrap my thumb way up high, allmost to the top rail.
-short stock, nose to charging handle, keep that stock low in your shoulder
-care not, where your feet are.


Keep in mind it's not a stable hunting pose. It's a CQB, "Oh %^*& I'm getting shot at!" pose. it's not supposed to be comfortable. It's supposed to be fast with excellent recoil control.

If you have time, and range, go ahead and use whatever slow shoot stance you want. I've been practicing running the 3 gun stance with my SPR for a while, It deos get more effective at longer ranges when you get used to it and your muscles tune up to it.

I will still "blade at 45", not squared up, for a longer shot if I need to.




I've noticed a bunch of Marine pics where the Marine has an absolutely terrible stance....... (Magwell grip etc.) Then I realized he's not in close combat, he's taking pot shots at a target way out of range and just useing his weird stance to keep the rifle steady. Not a true fighting stance, and that's ok. The pics where they are in CQB are quite rare, Photo guys don't want to be shot anymore than anyone else, and thier stance is much different in that situation.

You have to use what works for you, and some stances are better in certain situations than others.


Also did you grab AOTTC part II? Magpuls 2nd carbine DVD absolutely blows away the first one. Only thingis they forgot left hand speed reloads in the drill section. But you can see that in the first DVD set anyways.

 

[Cosmoline]

Thanks for the input. I'm not sure how practical any of this is for me, but it's interesting. Much of it seems unnecessarily complex. They're constantly flicking the safety, slapping magazines in and out and so on. I'd be more interested in a technique where the safety started off and stayed off for the whole fight, where magazines were left to fall to the ground, and where the emphasis was on running to cover and getting away rather than going forward as a team to engage.

 

[Grunt]

Lemme see here, I've been shooting since must have been about 1976 or so and here's what I've learned about shooting stances. As soon as one is widely accepted, they change it again. Remember the FBI crouch that went to the Isoclese to the Weaver and now we're squaring ourselves back on target again just like the Isoclese stance they taught years ago. I have a hunch that once every instructor is teaching the same thing, somebody else comes up with something new just to stand out from the crowd and draw in more students to their train of though. Personally, I have long since given up on keeping up with the latest stance fad. I stick with what gets me rounds on target as accurately as possible and as fast as possible.

 

[taliv]

grunt, yes conventional wisdom on stances has changed over time, but it's not necessarily a conspiracy on the part of instructors... it's changes in the guns and environments. short fixed stocks to long fixed stocks to collapsible, adoption by police with different requirements, much more prevalent use of body armor, etc.

to some extent, changes since the 70s have also been driven by competitions. when someone starts winning with a different technique, it makes sense to take a look at it and see if there is an advantage.