Tried new AR square stance with thumb over grip, kind of confused as to its utility.

I

internetwarrior

Inactive
Finally tried the AR standing square thumb over barrel shooting stance, some thoughts...

ok, so first of all, let me state i have zero official tactical training. I have many "shootouts" in my 19/20 year old life with the South African "flying squad" - which is basically like a really poor swat team with no training.

So everything I learned was on the job, and lots of it by watching what went wrong with other people (them getting shot / killed etc on both sides).

anyways fast forward 20 years, I decide to go to the range here with some of associates instead of alone like i normally do.

Pretty quickly everyone is telling me i shoot old school, (including the range master), and that things have changed.

So I say I am game, what must i try do. So they show me, square up to the target, get the butt of the rifle high up in your shoulder, left hand as far forward as you can on the rifle (this is about the only part i was doing already), try get your thumb up over the top of the barrel, lift the left elbow etc. stand tall, weight forward, back bent forward, feet no more than shoulders apart.

Anyways I put about 300 rounds downrange like this to give it a try, and while it was interesting, I do not understand the purpose of it other than for range use?

Maybe it really is better? I don't know - all i am saying is to me it sure didn't seem like a good idea. Maybe someone on here can fill me in. I will summarize my "concerns"

first major concern, the balance issue of being squared up. I learned to shoot on the balls of my feet with left foot way in front. Why? this is a great position to break into a sprint, a great position to back up quick, and a great position to drop to knee for stable shots, all of those three things very quickly. Squared up puts your next step as slow, also puts you way off balance if you get blindsided in a confined space by someone running into you from the side, or grabbing your rifle as you enter a room.

second major concern, squared up you are presenting the largest possible target you can to anyone shooting at you?

third major concern, I do not believe anyone can shoot more accurately long range in this stance with this grip. so assuming engagement is over 100 meters this is a bad idea which brings me to my next point

Every drill we did in this new stance was shooting at targets that were 5 10 and 20 yards away pumping lots of rounds into them. At this distance I would much prefer a shotgun.

also the drill where you move forward all squared up shooting at the next target is the most unrealistic thing I have ever seen. If you shot the first target - well the other targets if they are armed will be shooting at you now. There is zero chance you emerge from cover, standing tall, facing square, and walk towards other armed shooters.

Half the firefights i was involved in, almost no one was even aiming, never mind standing square approaching other shooters. People just lying behind bushes emptying out a complete magazines on full auto above their heads totally blind firing, people emptying magazines around building corners without looking, people firing shots through closed doors, etc etc that is how things went down as far as I recall. I would guess for every 50 rounds fired maybe one was a hit.

And at that point moving and staying alive was key, if you managed to hit your target that was just a bonus, the primary goal was being mobile and being alive. I can clearly remember often i would be in full sprint with my rifle in only one hand, sliding behind walls, lying in ditches, smashing out windows and jumping in or out of buildings to find cover, etc etc

Anyways that was my take. Maybe I am just a washed old internet warrior at this point.
 
Are these associates hard core gamers by any chance? Cause this sounds more like FPS training than real life training.
 
I am not certain - I did not know half the people there at all. But I really don't think any of them have been shot at before, I just get that feeling. Although I could be wrong.

That being said they certainly had all the gear. Gloves, mags, vests, etc lots of nice guns.

I have one what I think is a nice gun, a daniel defense 4 something? I have had it for 5 years but I am kind of unfamiliar with ARs so I figured i better put more effort into the gun, I have shot maybe 2000 rounds with it.

The guns I am familiar with are Galil/R5/R6/FNFAL
 
video above is some impressive shooting.

but he is not standing all squared up, that is just a regular stance with a high'ish thumb grip, but even that part is not too unnatural.
 
lol whoever this old man you posted the video of is definitely not a good example for the average person such as myself.

he is like a cyborg. just watched him shoot a balloon at 1000 yards with a 9mm handgun, I mean cmon, that is supernatural genetic talent there, not training.
 
lol whoever this old man you posted the video of is definitely not a good example for the average person such as myself.

he is like a cyborg.
Click to expand...

I like Jerry Miculek. He is the easiest fellow on youtube to watch, but I substantially agree with your comment. Taking shooting instruction from JM is like getting fitness tips from Superman; you aren't necessarily going to argue that he is wrong, but applying it to yourself might be problematic.


I understand this business about facing the target to be sensible if you are wearing armor that doesn't cover your sides, only your front and back. I tried that thumb over top squared position; it's ok if you are only going to be in that position for a moment, but it isn't as sustainable over time as a traditional bladed position.

I don't wear armor, and I don't shoot all that fast. I find the fundamentals of three position shooting that were developed long before I was born to be a lot easier to understand and use. For someone like me, the video below is more useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ligUEAJH25E

I still like JM videos though.
 
HiBC said:
Here Jerry shows that he can quickly get hits at longer ranges with his thumb over the top.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Jerry could probably do the same thing standing on one foot while balancing a stack of wine glasses on his head.
 
How about learning and practicing a variety of ways to shoot?
And being able to fluidly transit from one to another as circumstances require.
Being proficient with any one stance technique doesn't help much if say you need to go prone, or snap shoot from behind a wall.
 
How about learning and practicing a variety of ways to shoot?
Click to expand...

Depends why you shoot. If you need to prepare to deal with a wide range of circumstances for your profession, then that preparation makes a lot of sense.

If you are a recreational paper target shooter, exploring your tactical side is a bit of a distraction. I do a lot of standing shooting just because it's the most comfortable for me.

JM's reason for shooting as he does in the above video doesn't bear much scrutiny. He observes that everyone shoots about the same when they get down into position, and that just isn't so. Improving one's technique and consistency in position is a challenge for those of us who are mere hobbyists.
 
Often these new "improved" techniques are just a gimmick.
If you're not using them, you're not one of the cool kids anymore.
You have to pay for the classes to be able to qualify for that elite crowd.
 
Let's break it down a little.

Feet relatively even--allows movement in any direction.
Chest square--presents armor well and makes transitioning to any target in your front 180 fairly easy.
Forward grip--makes rapid target transitions easier (less tendency to overshoot the movement)
Thumb over--helps recoil control

It is more fatiguing and sacrifices some long range stability/accuracy. It was developed by some very fit military guys who were in more close range fights than distance engagements.
 
So basically this shooting technique is for a squad of heavily armored soldiers with lots of backup covering each other from all angles, probably with the element of surprise, probably clearing out a structure with lots of small rooms?
 
So basically this shooting technique is for a squad of heavily armored soldiers with lots of backup covering each other from all angles, probably with the element of surprise, probably clearing out a structure with lots of small rooms?
Click to expand...
I think you've covered it well.
 
Squaring up does a few things:
1) fronts your armor towards the target. If I am engaging a man with a rifle, I am wearing armor.
2) aligns your fighting position with your centerline, which is the most natural way for humans to fight.
3) sets your hips, shoulders, and feet towards the target, allowing you to point your centerline towards a new target quickly.
4) mitigates recoil by setting a stable platform that involves the whole body.

The correct stance looks something like shoulder width or slightly wider, weight forward onto the arches of your feet, almost like you are about to set out into a sprint. It is a very aggressive stance. With the rifle held tight and close to your centerline, sucked in hard to your chest/plates, you should be able to control recoil very well.

The support hand being held far out onto the muzzle produces much leverage to control recoil. That your hand is overtop of the barrel with your elbow flared uses your body's musculature and skeleton to maximum effect in keeping the muzzle locked down.

Many--if not all--competitive 3-gunners use this stance because it is faster, more accurate, and more repeatable.

It is, however, very, very taxing on the body. If anything, this kind of stance is designed for close-medium range engagements where speed is a factor, multiple hits on target will be decisive, and when your body armor being fronted is more important than having ballistic cover. When able, use cover/concealment first.

John Lovell is a great source for commentary/training.
 
There are a lot of common "hur hur hur" internet memes related to this thread; but let's be serious for a moment. First, let's make the obvious point that shooting quickly and accurately and fighting with a rifle have overlapping skillsets; but aren't the same thing. Things that make sense in IPSC may not make sense in a fight.

Having said that, the people who taught me this stance originally learned it via the military and they didn't learn it because the military wanted them to dominate IPSC. The squared up shooting stance is basically the same stance taught for the MP5 in the mid-1980s. When you view it through that lens, a lot of that stance makes good sense. It is basically the isoceles pistol stance with a stocked weapon.

Using the MP5, the squared up stance lets you easily control the recoil of the subgun as well as giving you the ability to engage quickly over a 270 degree facing. Being able to engage quickly is important, because in the environments the MP5 was used in (indoors, urban), targets could appear quickly in any direction.

Eventually, we have a better understanding of intermediate caliber rifle cartridges. We understand 5.56mm hits a lot harder than 9mm but has less overpenetration threat. Guys who used to use the MP5 in that role now gravitate towards the AR15. The idea becomes relevant on a larger scale in any situation where you can't clear a structure by bombing it off the map or tossing in a thermite grenade and shooting everyone who flees. It becomes especially relevant with restrictive ROEs and over 50% of average engagements occurring under 50yds.

One immediate issue is the AR15 is longer (lever/fulcrum) and heavier than an MP5. We didn't use skeletal structure to support the MP5 because at the ranges it was commonly used, that was unnecessary and the MP5 was a shorter lever with less weight. With the AR, we have a heavier weapon and a longer lever. You need to reach out further to control the muzzle and there is more weight to control. The more you can push this task off on to the bigger, better oxygenated muscle groups, the longer you can use this tactic before fatigue sets in.

If you are going to grab forward to control a 16" barrel, then a C-clamp grip minimizes the strain on the tiny muscles in your wrist area. You can check for yourself with no rifle at all - extend your support arm out and try different positions (palm up, flat; palm up angled (like a Magpul AFG), and palm facing inward to the weapon. Which position has the least strain?

So when would we want to abandon the greater stability offered by skeletal support? Well, it would need to be a situation where mobility and being able to respond quickly to targets took a higher priority than accuracy - basically, if you could use a subgun in that role, then a squared up stance with an AR is probably a solid choice.

The great thing about an AR is it can be used like a subgun - rapid shots delivered at close range in an urban environment with minimal risk to bystanders, or it can be used like a military rifle for more traditional battlefield engagements. To me, it seems like the battlefield utility is obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top