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

The magwell hold is great for less fatigue, particularly if you have mag pouches just above the beltline where you can rest your elbows on the top of the pouch and let the harness hold the weight. You can get surprisingly stable like that. What you can't do is drive the barrel from target to target aggressively because it is like trying to write a letter by grabbing the pencil right below the eraser.

Go do this drill with a shot timer. Set up two IDPA/IPSC targets 3yds apart. From 15yds, put two in each torso zone and then two in each head zone (torso target1, torso target2, head target2, head target1) so that you are drawing a "box" with the muzzle. Try it magwell and the grab as far forward as you can comfortably support. Then add forward movement (not gaming it; but shooting as fast as you can acquire the target while still walking forward). If magwell is giving you better times than use that. I tried it and I didn't get that result.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Here is that video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

Sorry, but this has several wrong aspects to it.

First of all, he didn't shoot the balloon. He shot a steel plate at 1000 yards. That is impressive, no doubt about it, but he didn't shoot the balloon. The bullet missed the balloon and splattered on the steel plate low and left of the balloon and the splatter popped the balloon. Also to be clear, he didn't claim to shoot the balloon, but simply to "pop it." He did pop the balloon.

If it was supernatural genetics and not training, he would be doing that sort of thing without shooting more than 100+ K rounds a year. This is what the guy does for a living and he does it all the time with numerous platforms and has been doing it for decades. Don't blow off his training so easily. He has 10s of thousands of hours in training.

There are some good shooters out there and some good shooters that use weird stances/grips/positions. I have a friend that is a good shooter and just about everything he does is wrong according to the book, but it works for him. That is a key lesson for you. Find what works well for you. If you try something and it isn't comfortable or doesn't give you the results you think it should, you can force the issue or you can abandon it for something more productive. Also keep in mind that stances and grips are not all-or-none sorts of deals depending on your physical capability and the gear you are using.

What I have found is that many of the techniques that come out may have some benefit in some sorts of situations, but often don't have benefits and may actually be very detrimental in other situations. You have to figure out what works for you.
 
hehe old man with the FN-FAL

wow he can shoot fast, gotta give him that. and that is not the lightest or most maneuverable rifle. I think mine with bipod and full mag was around 13 lbs?
 
If I had to choose between gaining a fraction of a second in exchange for making myself a larger and less agile target.. I would pass. If I was playing games in a comp arena( doing a dance against a timer), sure but I don't think I would use this method in a fight. that's just me.
 
Firstly, JM is not superman, he got that way through lots of practice like any other person. The way he's doing it works, and just because he's better than most will ever be doesn't mean you should avoid training the way he does. If you practice correctly then speed and instinct will come.

Secondly, I'm not really buying the the whole front facing the target in order to square up armor; If anything I would think a glancing or more angled shot would inflict less damage, which is why bullet traps are angled.
 
Ok quick reply and an "address" of the stance and the whys and hows and "what-fores"
I am a former US Marine and I was a close combat instructor for the Marines and later I did the same (and more) instruction including writing a few SOPs for the Department of the Navy. I still teach classes 3 times a month and I have been doing this type of work on and off since the end of the Vietnam war. So what I say here is not just an opinion. I have real knowledge of this subject.

The square stance is for keeping a chest plate (body armor) square to the enemy. Glancing blows of incoming rounds can run off the plate and hit arms (brachial artery) in theory, and it was found in testing that a square impact was actually safer then an angled impact for the soldier.

"Thumb over top/high arm" was developed specifically for the M-16 and M4 weapons, for close quarters fighting using full auto, for room clearing. Having the weapon under some weight (the arm) keeps the muzzle down in very rapid fire at close range on relatively flat ground. Pistol distance. A full auto burst of 5.56 rounds is far deadlier then a hit or 2 with a pistol. It doesn't work well with most other weapons for various reasons, from heat to recoil to exhaust gas and so on.

So.....
If you want to fire very fast at close range with a light caliber and be very deadly in a fight, with an AR or M16 variant, the "high arm/thumb over top" is an excellent way to shoot.

And IF you are armored up and IF you are facing an enemy who is likely to shoot back, and IF you are shooting an AR15, then "squaring up" is also a good way to shoot.

But for good accuracy in all other scenarios of rifle shooting the standard "NRA" positions are still the best.
For a BANG at 99.999% of the targets a civilian will ever shoot at, the basics are best, instead of the need for BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG at an enemy shooting back at you, in a room, while you just happened to be wearing a full battle kit and armor.

I do not say such a technique should not be learned. Not at all. It's a tool in the tool box that you can pull out and use if you know how, and there may be a time when it's useful. The times its used the most for anyone who is not in combat is "Running/gunning competition. I teach it myself, but only in context.

As we see with Jerry Miculek, it can be used at long ranges too, but it had NOTHING to offer at long range that the standard "NRA" positions can't do better. It's a trick he does to demonstrate that is is a useful technique and that it can be learned and used well.

But it's taken on the Fad status today. Emperors new clothes, in all their glory.

Today we see it over and over and over because it makes shooters think they are on the cutting edge of technique. So be it. It's not harmful. That cool-aid tastes good to them.

But to tell the truth the square stance and the High Arm/Thumb Over Top way of shooting is only "best" in about 1/10000% of the shooting you will ever do in the real world.

You won't see it used by David Tubb at any range over 20 yards.
You don't ever see it used at Camp Perry.
It's not used deer and elk hunting.
It's not used against dangerous game in Alaska or Africa.
It's not used in NRA small bore competition.

And it's not used by the US Marine Corps, US Navy SEALS or US Army in combat except when shooting inside rooms and/or at rock throwing distances, and then only when they are armored up.

Don't loose sight of the objective and then redouble your effort.
 
Last edited:
But it's taken on the Fad status today. Emperors new clothes, in all their glory.
Click to expand...

Fashion is a persistent human trait.

When I first became aware of gun magazines, back when people went to stores to buy magazines, the new thing was high capacity 9mm pistols (Wunder-nines) and guys were looping the index finger of their support hand around the front of the handguard to control recoil. I haven't seen that written about in a long time.

In the 80s, black was the color you wanted rather than coyote or incinerated dirt or other forms of khaki.

Today we see it over and over and over because it makes shooters think they are on the cutting edge of technique. So be it. It's not harmful. That cool-aid tastes good to them.
Click to expand...

The only potential harm I see to people new to the hobby is that they may mistake this technique for the basics of marksmanship. I try to mooch shooting tips from better shooters in conversation; they invariably respond with a version of basic instructions I've read dozens of times before. I don't think they are hiding anything; I think they see those basics as essential.
 
We're starting to conflate some related concepts. A squared up stance is useful beyond use of body armor because it gives you a good combination of stability, good area coverage and movement. This is why it dominates competition shooting that involves moving and shooting simultaneously.

I'm sure people who have a need to shoot on the move at close proximity targets in armed conflict also wear body armor whenever they can; but I'd be willing to bet that mobility is the main driver of a squared stance, not armor.
 
Wyosmith said:
Ok quick reply and an "address" of the stance and the whys and hows and "what-fores"...

Don't loose sight of the objective and then redouble your effort.
Click to expand...

Nicely organized and phrased thoughts. ;)

Lots of folks sometimes confuse learning different techniques with automatically understanding when it's best to employ them, or not.

Producing accurately placed and effective hits, in any particular circumstances, usually means being more results-orientated, and not fad/technique appearance-oriented.

Method matters, obviously, but it generally takes a back seat to results obtained, and at what cost.
 
When did it start being called the square stance? Over two decades ago I was told it was called the Universal Shooting Position.
 
In what way would you be less agile or a larger target?
Click to expand...

come on man, I don't want to alter the thread into a introductory 101 kind of discussion. You may not consider it a big deal but you should at least understand what I mean by it.

My point is that a square stance is just fine when you are not concerned with a target shooting back at you.

I make this comments within the context of 1 citizen vs 1 criminal attacker.
 
Last edited:
No, I asked the question because it makes no sense to me. You say "less agile" but the whole point of the squared stance is agility. Moving in a bladed stance is more difficult and returning fire on your off side is more difficult. Squared up, you can swing to engage in either direction - a tank gun isn't mounted off to one side after all. In the sense that you are a "bigger" target, you go from approximately 20" wide to 12" wide; but you now have a lot of vital zones stacked on each other.

I think people are too dismissive of the utility of this stance because it doesn't fit their expectations of how a self defense situation will happen. You state single citizen vs. single criminal - that's exactly where being able to shoot on the move is important. You don't have a base of fire to maneuver around; but you'll probably have to move in a gunfight. Certainly, it is a bad idea to run around like a one-man CQB team trying to clear your own house if you have other options; but a lot of single citizen vs. criminal(s) are very dynamic situations. It is absolutely an important tool to have; but understanding when and where to use it is important as well. That last thought rarely gets much exposition - Wyosmith's post being the rare exception.

In training, I watched a guy go prone behind a truck tire to engage another person. He had a nice stable position that presented a minimum target - except when the other person ran to his off side and button-hooked around the back of the truck he a) was unable to track the person as the protection the tire offered blocked his field of fire too; b) was not very mobile compared to his opponent; and c) when that guy cleared the end of the truck, he wasn't no longer a small target lying on the ground at less than 7m.
 
Nice post, Wyo.

In the 80s, black was the color you wanted rather than coyote or incinerated dirt or other forms of khaki.
Click to expand...

In the 80s with AR15s, it was sort of like in 1909 with the Ford Model T. It wasn't like there was a lot of options available, LOL.

Back in the 80s, a lot of people didn't cotton to guns in colors other than stainless or black. Grips and handguards could be black, brown, or green and green.
 
No, I asked the question because it makes no sense to me. You say "less agile" but the whole point of the squared stance is agility.
Click to expand...


look man... nobody is saying that a non squared up stance has to be a 1800's Kentucky rifleman stance. I simply assume that those in this conversation know what I mean when I refer to the commonly used "other" stance. A squared stance is not a launch position for movement its a platform for being a static turret at close range targets. Can you move.. sure, but its not an economy of movement vs a hybrid bladed stance.

People can do what they want but I am a proponent of getting small behind the rifle , gripping the magwell and driving it. I do so using a quasi-bladed stance like people have used for decades.
 
Last edited:
We're starting to conflate some related concepts. A squared up stance is useful beyond use of body armor because it gives you a good combination of stability, good area coverage and movement. This is why it dominates competition shooting that involves moving and shooting simultaneously.
Click to expand...

how is a square stance stable? It trades stability for quicker target acquisition. In my estimation, it dominates comp because its faster and is conducive to a game environment where everything is choreographed.
 
It is stable because the weight is being primarily supported by the big muscles in your back rather than the smaller muscles in your arms. It is not as stable as skeletal support with a natural point of aim; but that's considerably harder to do while moving. You'll also control muzzle flip better because the stock is more inboard - which again, standing still isn't a big deal; but once you are walking and bouncing around, not having the sights go straight up and straight down really complicates fast follow up shots.
 
I love reading post from those that have been there done that & have the tee shirt. Please know I am most sincere when I state that. I thank you and I welcome you home. On the other hand I find amusement when reading post from those that only have one way range experience. I am 60 years old now and realize that if I find myself in a gunfight I have either starting drinking alcohol again or my situational awareness and or survival tactics suck. Stay safe and shoot often everyone.
 
It is stable because the weight is being primarily supported by the big muscles in your back rather than the smaller muscles in your arms. It is not as stable as skeletal support with a natural point of aim; but that's considerably harder to do while moving.
Click to expand...

that's like arguing that a spaghetti noodle is strong.. and then saying its stronger than hair pasta. I don't think the square stance is more stable than the commonly used "other" stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top