American rifleman article: light rifle technique
- Thread starter dyl
- Start date
Old shooters do it wrong???
Gary Anderson set the world record in 300 Meter ISU 3 position in about 1968. No "new" shooter or anyone else has beat his record.
Gary Anderson teaches today, he Jr small bore and the CMP Master Instructors course. He teaches as I mentioned.
The AMU, has younger shooters. They teach the same method. Notice the support hand, its open.
Again, (an old shooter), the support hand doesn't grip the rifle.
Service rifles are 1.5 to 2 MOA. They are SERVICE RIFLES and not precision rifles.
Precision rifle shooting is a bit different the service rifles in as much they shoot from bipods, or bags, (bags for and aft). A 2 MOA precision rifle wont cut it.
In precision rifle the rifle is rested on a support, the support hand is moved to the rear of the rifle, holding the rear bag or the stock.
Here are a series of precision rifle shooters, not mine so I'll just post the link.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...283&thid=JN.A757khb2Mni3cRc5B606wg&ajaxhist=0
I have been shooting competition for since '77, coaching and running sniper schools since shortly after that. In all that time, I've never seen a shooter (old or new) hold the rifle down as you mentioned.
The rifle is allowed to recoil, and if you have a correct position, after recoil it will fall back for the next shot giving you your perfect sight alignment for the next shot with out you having to move.
Visit a High Power, f-class, or precision match, you will not find any shooters holding the rifle down. (that's gravity's job). You may see it at a bench at a gun range where people are plinking, but not at a match.
With all do respect to Mr. Issac Newton, He didn't shoot.
Kraigwy, there is no fighting physics. The problem here is big d's application.
Before you unload invective about ignorance, you might take care to correctly quote the statement. He didn't write the bolded above. Take a moment and go back to review the words.
big d said:
Before you unload invective about ignorance, you might take care to correctly quote the statement. He didn't write the bolded above. Take a moment and go back to review the words.
Last edited:
big d said:
I don't mind answering your question, but I will note that you have sidestepped mine on the prior page.
Why?
big d said:
That would be a compelling explanation if the technique described in the text I provided you were like an immovable vice. However that isn't the technique described.
big d said:
Observe people using slings and bipods. They do not overcome recoil, so your attempted analogy isn't aptly applied to the technique under discussion.
Could a dampening hand resting on a barrel on a rifle sitting on a rest provide a better group? Could be, but it isn't because the shooter has overcome recoil.
Last edited:
big d said:
No. Read that quote then read what you've claimed.
Now, see how Kraigwy hasn't claimed what you understood from his text?
Recoil doesn't move a bullet off target. The bullet takes the path it will take, and when all the forces are the same from shot to shot, the bullet will take the same path.
This is true of every technique.
As a couple people's long argument against physics continues 
If you pay attention, no one ever said anything about overcoming all of recoil. That's not possible with the human body - for a 308 at the point of peak chamber pressure that would require almost 5000 lbs of force inline with the barrel. Barring a hefty test fixture, that's not going to happen. You simply must overcome the torque component, which is tiny since the barrel is only slightly out of line with the point of rotation (the upper side of where the stock contacts the shoulder). The torque is comparatively quite low, because the arm it's acting on is effectively an inch or so long.
If you pay attention, no one ever said anything about overcoming all of recoil. That's not possible with the human body - for a 308 at the point of peak chamber pressure that would require almost 5000 lbs of force inline with the barrel. Barring a hefty test fixture, that's not going to happen. You simply must overcome the torque component, which is tiny since the barrel is only slightly out of line with the point of rotation (the upper side of where the stock contacts the shoulder). The torque is comparatively quite low, because the arm it's acting on is effectively an inch or so long.
mikejonestkd
New member
Big d,
There is a significant difference in forces applied to the forend of the rifle between the two techniques proposed in this thread.
one camp, the resting the forend on your hand technique is using a constant - gravity, which never changes
You are proposing using a variable - your grip, which will never be constant.
Guess which one is more consistent?
There is a significant difference in forces applied to the forend of the rifle between the two techniques proposed in this thread.
one camp, the resting the forend on your hand technique is using a constant - gravity, which never changes
You are proposing using a variable - your grip, which will never be constant.
Guess which one is more consistent?
Mike Jones states the difference succinctly. Thanks.
That is incorrect. Clearly people are taking issue with your reasoning, not physics.
Thanks. That's the point that has been repeatedly suggested to you since the middle of the last page.
Indeed, the torque will be low compared to almost 5000 lbs of inline force. Compared to the gentle force of the slight pressure exerted by the soft flesh of a fellow's hand, the force described is hardly trivial.
D, that doesn't work for you.
A rifle is aimed with all sorts of influences taken into account (wind drift, bullet drop, etc.). This process of aiming a rifle is an exercise in prediction. Does a rifle move when the trigger is pulled? Yes. However, at that point the bullet is no more "on target" than it is in the last inch of barrel. We account for many variables in sighting and aiming; in the most important sense it is the shooter who is "on target" or not, not the bullet itself.
big d said:
That is incorrect. Clearly people are taking issue with your reasoning, not physics.
big d said:
Thanks. That's the point that has been repeatedly suggested to you since the middle of the last page.
big d said:
Indeed, the torque will be low compared to almost 5000 lbs of inline force. Compared to the gentle force of the slight pressure exerted by the soft flesh of a fellow's hand, the force described is hardly trivial.
big d said:
D, that doesn't work for you.
A rifle is aimed with all sorts of influences taken into account (wind drift, bullet drop, etc.). This process of aiming a rifle is an exercise in prediction. Does a rifle move when the trigger is pulled? Yes. However, at that point the bullet is no more "on target" than it is in the last inch of barrel. We account for many variables in sighting and aiming; in the most important sense it is the shooter who is "on target" or not, not the bullet itself.
I believe I've stated several times on this topic that I am not a physics major and that I actually never studied physics.
However with many years of shooting, coaching, and seeing others shoot, plus I understand how guns work, having built several.
Physics notwithstanding, the recoil doesn't affect the path of the bullet.
The barrel is straight, or should be. Pressure is created when he powder burns, which pushes the bullet our the barrel. Besides pushing the bullet out the barrel it pushes back against the bolt face. Being the barrel is straight, pressure pushes the bullet out the straight barrel and at the same time it is pushing the rifle back. Straight back. We have an object going straight. Until there is something to interfere with that movement, it will continue going straight back and forward.
When the bullet exits the barrel, other factors interfere with the path of the bullet.
In position shooting, (such as service rifle) you try to alien your body so the rifle comes straight back, through the shoulder, to the knee (see the photos of the cocked leg position)
In precision rifle shooting, you alien the rifle where you are directly behind it, toward the center of the butt.
The two above are to deal with recoil pushing the rifle left or right, you want it straight back.
This effects horizontal movement, not vertical as you indicate.
I have never in my life seen anyone in competition hold the rifle down by putting pressure on the rifle in front of the action or the top of the scope. Again, you might see it at a gun range with someone plinking from a bench, but not in competition.
Fundamentals demand that there be no muscling of the rifle what so ever. No holding it down from the top. No griping the rifle except for enough grip on the firing (trigger finger) hand to keep that hand from falling off the rifle.
Ask you self, why are rifle stocks made with the forearm under the stock instead of the top. If it was required that the rifle be held down, the top of the barrel would have some sort of protection to the hand because the barrel gets hot and does burn.
Now you can play word games with physics until the cows come home, but it reality, on the range or field your theory doesn't work.
You will not find a serious competition shooter holding the barrel down, nor will you find a legit instructor teaching that method.
So excluding proof on the rifle range contrary, I'll stick with the methods commonly used and leave you to your physics book and theory. Personally I'd rather shoot what I'm aiming and stick with tried and true marksmanship fundamentals.
However with many years of shooting, coaching, and seeing others shoot, plus I understand how guns work, having built several.
Physics notwithstanding, the recoil doesn't affect the path of the bullet.
The barrel is straight, or should be. Pressure is created when he powder burns, which pushes the bullet our the barrel. Besides pushing the bullet out the barrel it pushes back against the bolt face. Being the barrel is straight, pressure pushes the bullet out the straight barrel and at the same time it is pushing the rifle back. Straight back. We have an object going straight. Until there is something to interfere with that movement, it will continue going straight back and forward.
When the bullet exits the barrel, other factors interfere with the path of the bullet.
In position shooting, (such as service rifle) you try to alien your body so the rifle comes straight back, through the shoulder, to the knee (see the photos of the cocked leg position)
In precision rifle shooting, you alien the rifle where you are directly behind it, toward the center of the butt.
The two above are to deal with recoil pushing the rifle left or right, you want it straight back.
This effects horizontal movement, not vertical as you indicate.
I have never in my life seen anyone in competition hold the rifle down by putting pressure on the rifle in front of the action or the top of the scope. Again, you might see it at a gun range with someone plinking from a bench, but not in competition.
Fundamentals demand that there be no muscling of the rifle what so ever. No holding it down from the top. No griping the rifle except for enough grip on the firing (trigger finger) hand to keep that hand from falling off the rifle.
Ask you self, why are rifle stocks made with the forearm under the stock instead of the top. If it was required that the rifle be held down, the top of the barrel would have some sort of protection to the hand because the barrel gets hot and does burn.
Now you can play word games with physics until the cows come home, but it reality, on the range or field your theory doesn't work.
You will not find a serious competition shooter holding the barrel down, nor will you find a legit instructor teaching that method.
So excluding proof on the rifle range contrary, I'll stick with the methods commonly used and leave you to your physics book and theory. Personally I'd rather shoot what I'm aiming and stick with tried and true marksmanship fundamentals.
The rifle moves during firing before the bullet leaves the muzzle, just not much. Expect up to 1/16th of an inch of movement during firing before the bullet exits the muzzle.
Inconsistent rifle hold will affect grouping, one of the reasons why rifles group so amazing in gun rags is that a lot of reviewers shoot off a bench rest or sandbagged. Get smacked hard in the shoulder by a light rifle, of course you'll hold it tighter the second time and change how the rifle shoots by doing so.
For a light hunting rifle, use a sling and hold it tight consistently. Never used shooting sticks myself, but I can see how they would help too.
Jimro
Inconsistent rifle hold will affect grouping, one of the reasons why rifles group so amazing in gun rags is that a lot of reviewers shoot off a bench rest or sandbagged. Get smacked hard in the shoulder by a light rifle, of course you'll hold it tighter the second time and change how the rifle shoots by doing so.
For a light hunting rifle, use a sling and hold it tight consistently. Never used shooting sticks myself, but I can see how they would help too.
Jimro
Every time someone says something is rigid and can't move, I think of an exhibit at the Smithsonian in Washington. (I guess it's still there, I haven't looked lately.)
It is a huge I-Beam, about 6 feet long, with a web of about 20 inches, and top and bottom of about 10 inches, sitting with its ends on two solid posts. It was attached to a sensitive measuring instrument (I don't recall what kind). Believe it or not, even a finger laid on that huge piece of steel would bend it. I don't wear blue tights or fly faster than a bullet, but I can truthfully say that I bent a very large I-beam with my bare hands.
Jim
It is a huge I-Beam, about 6 feet long, with a web of about 20 inches, and top and bottom of about 10 inches, sitting with its ends on two solid posts. It was attached to a sensitive measuring instrument (I don't recall what kind). Believe it or not, even a finger laid on that huge piece of steel would bend it. I don't wear blue tights or fly faster than a bullet, but I can truthfully say that I bent a very large I-beam with my bare hands.
Jim
Gunplummer
New member
Somebody said something about using a sling on an M-16 to steady the shot. The barrels were so thin when I was in that you could screw up your shots from the pressure applied. We had no problem with the M-14, but when qualifing with the m-16, we rarely used a sling. Out to 500 yards I never missed a shot. The only time I worry about gun movement affecting the bullet after a shot is when using a long barreled slug gun. They are quite slow and I really don't know if you can screw up a shot before it leaves the tube.
Gunplumber, you are correct in as much you're talking about the M16A1, but the A2 and later models the sling is attached to the handguard not the barrel as on the barrel like the A1.
I use every bite as much sling tension on my A2 service rifle as I do my M1A, Garand and bolt guns with no effect.
When I shot "combat" matches for the Guard (100-200-300 &400 on KD ranges) we still used the sling but were careful with the tension.
The purpose of the sling is to hold the rifle into your shoulder so you don't have to grip the rifle. The A1s were light enough to do that will very little tension.
I use every bite as much sling tension on my A2 service rifle as I do my M1A, Garand and bolt guns with no effect.
When I shot "combat" matches for the Guard (100-200-300 &400 on KD ranges) we still used the sling but were careful with the tension.
The purpose of the sling is to hold the rifle into your shoulder so you don't have to grip the rifle. The A1s were light enough to do that will very little tension.
themalicious0ne
New member
While I am not a physics major or major competitive shooter or instructor, I understand what both sides are saying and I will try and explain simply what is not being understood if I understand correctly.
Big D. I get what you are saying and with a constant, you probably would get a lower POI in relation to the barrel. For instance, if you were to have a straight laser bore sight in the chamber at a relatively short distance before bullet drop really comes in to play, your method may be more in line with the barrel, and cause less muzzle flip. Simply put, this would more than likely happen with downward pressure.
What you are not understanding is that, that downward pressure as you described cannot be constant. If there is different measurements of pressure applied, you will get different POI. This example is brought up with the m16a1 and using slings, or why we prefer a free floated barrel.
Now why precision could not be reached with this method is only with the variable pressure. Many handguns have weights at the for end for things such as your are talking about as well as other reasons. These however for all practical purposes are CONSTANT. This is also more or less true for what Kraiwy is talking about with a more open hand grip or bags. It may produce more muzzle flip than your method but you have a constant variable , gravity, that isn't changing. So if you sight in with said muzzle flip and shoot with same muzzle flip, you can anticipate the POI of the bullet.
In your theory, which isn't neccessarily wrong, it is nearly impossible to do. If you sight in at a bench with a lightweight rifle using your hand, even if that pressure is perfect, good luck taking a shot standing without supporting your rifle with your hand on top. The point of impact from your sight in will be significantly off. Also if you say, well if you don't apply an immeasurable pressure and simply lay your hand on top... make sure you don't wear a watch one day and not the next while shooting.
I love physics and math and in a perfect world, your style may be better thought out and make sense. But in the real world a constant or as close as we can come to it, even with added muzzle flip, is much better than a variable.
Edit: a lightweight rifles purpose is not to be shot at a bench. They are meant for hunting or carrying and I can't see the purpose of using this technique at a bench when it won't be used for its intended application and will cause a shift in POI. Sounds like doing this is gonna create a lot of wounded animals. If you want to shoot from a bench only, get the proper firearm for it. If you would like to tape a weight to your scope for consistency be my guest.
Big D. I get what you are saying and with a constant, you probably would get a lower POI in relation to the barrel. For instance, if you were to have a straight laser bore sight in the chamber at a relatively short distance before bullet drop really comes in to play, your method may be more in line with the barrel, and cause less muzzle flip. Simply put, this would more than likely happen with downward pressure.
What you are not understanding is that, that downward pressure as you described cannot be constant. If there is different measurements of pressure applied, you will get different POI. This example is brought up with the m16a1 and using slings, or why we prefer a free floated barrel.
Now why precision could not be reached with this method is only with the variable pressure. Many handguns have weights at the for end for things such as your are talking about as well as other reasons. These however for all practical purposes are CONSTANT. This is also more or less true for what Kraiwy is talking about with a more open hand grip or bags. It may produce more muzzle flip than your method but you have a constant variable , gravity, that isn't changing. So if you sight in with said muzzle flip and shoot with same muzzle flip, you can anticipate the POI of the bullet.
In your theory, which isn't neccessarily wrong, it is nearly impossible to do. If you sight in at a bench with a lightweight rifle using your hand, even if that pressure is perfect, good luck taking a shot standing without supporting your rifle with your hand on top. The point of impact from your sight in will be significantly off. Also if you say, well if you don't apply an immeasurable pressure and simply lay your hand on top... make sure you don't wear a watch one day and not the next while shooting.
I love physics and math and in a perfect world, your style may be better thought out and make sense. But in the real world a constant or as close as we can come to it, even with added muzzle flip, is much better than a variable.
Edit: a lightweight rifles purpose is not to be shot at a bench. They are meant for hunting or carrying and I can't see the purpose of using this technique at a bench when it won't be used for its intended application and will cause a shift in POI. Sounds like doing this is gonna create a lot of wounded animals. If you want to shoot from a bench only, get the proper firearm for it. If you would like to tape a weight to your scope for consistency be my guest.
Last edited:
From Big D:
You are absolutely correct that a rigid support is inherently consistent. You are also correct that the downward force is definitely variable. So, how can a shooter eliminate (or reduce as as much as physically possible) the variability of the downward force unless that downward force is solely a function of the weight of the rifle, e.g., benchrest rifles? In fact, my experience over the last 40 years or so with hunting rifles and handloading suggests accuracy is the best with NO downward force except the weight of the rifle barrel with a properly bedded receiver. My experience with hunting rifles is confirmed by my experience with a relative's very expensive benchrest competition rifles, i.e., barely touch the buttstock and feather touch the trigger with no other contact with the rifle.
To put it simply, my experience conflicts with Dwight Van Brunt's opinion expressed in the September 2015 issue of the American Rifleman.
You are absolutely correct that a rigid support is inherently consistent. You are also correct that the downward force is definitely variable. So, how can a shooter eliminate (or reduce as as much as physically possible) the variability of the downward force unless that downward force is solely a function of the weight of the rifle, e.g., benchrest rifles? In fact, my experience over the last 40 years or so with hunting rifles and handloading suggests accuracy is the best with NO downward force except the weight of the rifle barrel with a properly bedded receiver. My experience with hunting rifles is confirmed by my experience with a relative's very expensive benchrest competition rifles, i.e., barely touch the buttstock and feather touch the trigger with no other contact with the rifle.
To put it simply, my experience conflicts with Dwight Van Brunt's opinion expressed in the September 2015 issue of the American Rifleman.
The answer is you don't eliminate the variability of the downward force - you counteract it with Newton's third law. Newton eliminates it for you. Same way a vice works. The force from the movable part of the vice isn't constant every time, but the object held ends up in the same place every time - thanks to Newton.
And I will say I have never found any rifle that didn't become more accurate with downward force on the front end, excepting rifles with barrel attached slings and the like. Heavy rifles, light rifles, lever rifles, all of them. The light rifles benefited more of course, just like physics said they would. Van Brunt is right (although a hand on top of the scope is not an ideal way to supply that force).
And I will say I have never found any rifle that didn't become more accurate with downward force on the front end, excepting rifles with barrel attached slings and the like. Heavy rifles, light rifles, lever rifles, all of them. The light rifles benefited more of course, just like physics said they would. Van Brunt is right (although a hand on top of the scope is not an ideal way to supply that force).
Last edited: