Tried new AR square stance with thumb over grip, kind of confused as to its utility.
- Thread starter internetwarrior
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
FireForged, try it with a shot timer and see what works for you. Maybe you are the exception.
Snyper, see Pat Roger's December 2001 article in SWAT Magazine "The fighting stance and length of pull." The whole point of this stance is that your torso is the turret and your feet move where you need to go. It is designed for movement while firing or while needing to be able to immediately fire without stopping movement. And it very closely resembles a boxing or muay thai stance - though with the C-clamp grip, your weak arm will be further forward.
Snyper, see Pat Roger's December 2001 article in SWAT Magazine "The fighting stance and length of pull." The whole point of this stance is that your torso is the turret and your feet move where you need to go. It is designed for movement while firing or while needing to be able to immediately fire without stopping movement. And it very closely resembles a boxing or muay thai stance - though with the C-clamp grip, your weak arm will be further forward.
Last edited:
Half the fire fights you were in involved (novices) holding a rifle above their heads emptying out their magazines as fast as they can.... that is obviously NOT how to stay alive in a gunfight. Especially if you come up against trained and experienced shooters.
As for squaring up to your target was developed because of body armor. "Blading" your target exposes your vital organs whereas "squaring up" puts your vital organs behind armor.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Key points why shooters are moving to this stance:
1) It greatly improves survivability with body armor
2) It uses your natural ability to thumb point with an out stretched arm
3) It frees your feet up to be more mobile while shooting and walking
4) It gives you a nice shoulder pocket for recoil absorbsion. The key point is the rifle muzzle moves less and more vertically than before.
5) It allows you to use a shorter gun, shorter in the buttstock.
1) It greatly improves survivability with body armor
2) It uses your natural ability to thumb point with an out stretched arm
3) It frees your feet up to be more mobile while shooting and walking
4) It gives you a nice shoulder pocket for recoil absorbsion. The key point is the rifle muzzle moves less and more vertically than before.
5) It allows you to use a shorter gun, shorter in the buttstock.
muzzleblast...
New member
LOL. Well said.
By no means do I have experience or credentials.
For myself,I use the collapsible stock either short or one click out.
I put the butt just right of my sternum,on my chest,under my eye.my chin will spot weld.
Both eyes open,up to 2x optics work great.I use a cantilever mount scooted forward for proper eye relief.
Body rotation,pretty much square to maybe 15 deg..I really don't extend my arm or thumb over.
I'm free and balanced to move any direction,or instantly flopon my face...
Not that I do that as a fat stiff old man.
I don't think the boxing,etc references line up.You aren't blocking a hook or dealing with extending reach,or power in a punch using a rifle.
A Samari with a katana might use a very square stance.Irrelevant,other than mobility in any direction.He keeps his shoulders square and blade oriented at the opponents midline.He CAN react right or left pivoting on the balls of his feet,remaining square and balanced.
A running back with a football will be agile in all directions running square.
Longer ranges?Assuming there is some cover,My guess is you would use it for support.Adapt your stance.
Assuming there is no cover,isn't it generally a bad idea to be standing on your hind legs with no cover shooting at someone 200yds away?Square,bladed,or otherwise?
For myself,I use the collapsible stock either short or one click out.
I put the butt just right of my sternum,on my chest,under my eye.my chin will spot weld.
Both eyes open,up to 2x optics work great.I use a cantilever mount scooted forward for proper eye relief.
Body rotation,pretty much square to maybe 15 deg..I really don't extend my arm or thumb over.
I'm free and balanced to move any direction,or instantly flopon my face...
Not that I do that as a fat stiff old man.
I don't think the boxing,etc references line up.You aren't blocking a hook or dealing with extending reach,or power in a punch using a rifle.
A Samari with a katana might use a very square stance.Irrelevant,other than mobility in any direction.He keeps his shoulders square and blade oriented at the opponents midline.He CAN react right or left pivoting on the balls of his feet,remaining square and balanced.
A running back with a football will be agile in all directions running square.
Longer ranges?Assuming there is some cover,My guess is you would use it for support.Adapt your stance.
Assuming there is no cover,isn't it generally a bad idea to be standing on your hind legs with no cover shooting at someone 200yds away?Square,bladed,or otherwise?
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
you are right, they don't line up.
running is not a square anything.. if you already have momentum from movement, its not a "stance". If a square stance was such a good platform for movement, runners would use it on the starting line. A square stance is a good platform to be a turret... its not a good platform for agility and dynamic movement. People can say it is all day long but I will politely disagree. What this argument boils down to is what guys running a timed stage want to believe that it is and the efforts to make the stance relevant in real world situations. Is it relevant?.. I think it is in some limited circumstances. Is it "generally" , "substantially" or "broadly" better than the traditional modified stances?.. nah, I don't think so.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
FireForged said:
What is a "traditional modified stance" as you see it? Because when I hear traditional, I think skeletal support and a natural point of aim, neither of which are practical combined with movement.
When you walk or run without a firearm, do you do so bladed?
Square shoulders do not preclude a leading foot.Runners do launch from square shoulders.
"Stance"???? Static.
Look at hockey and basketball,bladed is limited and predictable. Square can go any direction.
Its like arguing isosceles vs Weaver. Weaver is "bladed" . Weaver is pretty good,..........but......
"Stance"???? Static.
Look at hockey and basketball,bladed is limited and predictable. Square can go any direction.
Its like arguing isosceles vs Weaver. Weaver is "bladed" . Weaver is pretty good,..........but......
Last edited:
What the video doesn't show, nor does he tell you, are the 40-50 shots he took before he hit the balloon. But it is good entertainment, I'll give him that! Creative editing sure can make things look good.
To the OP, train, train, train. Try everything, then try it a fifth time. Find what works best for you, then use it. Take in other people's advice, but don't believe it's the only way to get the job done. You may come up with a grip and stance that is unique to you, no one else uses it. But if it works for you, you're good.
FireForged
New member
I am talking about how professionals all over the world typically move and fight with a rifle. I am not talking about shooting sports and those who are running timed stages
When I say "typical" I am referring to what is done most often when considering (self defense, fighting) broadly, not narrowly. As I said earlier, I think the square stance is prudent in some limited circumstances. As a general or routine method, I do not.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
FireForged, I'm not asking you to explain wormholes in the space-time continuum. I'm just asking to explain what kind of stance you are referring to.
Uh-huh. I guess I missed the conference where all the professionals decided to do that one way. Probably not professional enough to get the invite. So as I understand it, this stance you describe is traditional; but modified, bladed, and typically used by professionals all over the world as well as undescribable in anything but the vaguest generalizations?
Uh-huh. I guess I missed the conference where all the professionals decided to do that one way. Probably not professional enough to get the invite. So as I understand it, this stance you describe is traditional; but modified, bladed, and typically used by professionals all over the world as well as undescribable in anything but the vaguest generalizations?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
zukiphile said:
Well, let's hope that was the reason!Justice06RR
New member
Once in a while, I shoot with the forward C-clamp... at the range. I'm a civilian also so I have no expert training.
I do shoot with 3 retired Marines, one of them is now a deputy who is younger than me. None of them shoot with this weird C-clamp/thumb over technique.
In fairness, I've seen the C-clamp technique many times in 3gun events I go to. It makes for faster transitions in fictional stages.
I do shoot with 3 retired Marines, one of them is now a deputy who is younger than me. None of them shoot with this weird C-clamp/thumb over technique.
In fairness, I've seen the C-clamp technique many times in 3gun events I go to. It makes for faster transitions in fictional stages.
Change should not be made for the sake of novelty (or to sell slots in a defensive training class).
Putting part of the left hand on top of the barrel does aid in control of the muzzle rise in fully automatic fire. But if you don't have a machine gun much of the rationale for it goes away and if it makes you feel awkward, it may not be improving things.
Squaring yourself to the target presents your opponent a larger target. That's okay if you're wearing body armor and the ballistic plates are covering the chest (but not your sides) because you get the benefits of the triangle formed by your arms and chest and the added protection of the vest. But, if you're not wearing a vest, or a helmet, or working for SOCOM, an "old school" stance that presents a smaller target may still be advisable.
I'm a Baby Boomer. I was taught to shoot by my grandfather who taught marksmanship to soldiers in World War II, so, yeah, between what he taught me and what the Army later taught me, I am almost certainly "out of date" and my techniques "old school". But, you know what? When I use them, I am using comfortable, well-practiced, well-ingrained techniques that I now naturally assume without having to think about and which allow me to hit the target - - and in the end that's what counts.
One point about Jerry, he can really shoot. And, he practices a lot. With free ammo.
But, he is just different from other people. He has the strength, hand eye coordination, twitch muscles etc all put together the right way to make him an incredible shooter.
You can hand me a football and Unlimited time and coaching and, I will not become Roger Staubach. Period. Same with a baseball. I won't be Nolan Ryan. Ever.
I physically cannot do what Jerry does with a gun.
I also can't be a CPA. Such is life.
But, he is just different from other people. He has the strength, hand eye coordination, twitch muscles etc all put together the right way to make him an incredible shooter.
You can hand me a football and Unlimited time and coaching and, I will not become Roger Staubach. Period. Same with a baseball. I won't be Nolan Ryan. Ever.
I physically cannot do what Jerry does with a gun.
I also can't be a CPA. Such is life.
Deaf Smith
New member
You guys do know if you are fighting someone who can shoot BACK, and shoot well, standing up using any stance might be very unhealthy.
For competition, well ok, but for when it's real not every opponent is some guy sticking an AK over a sandbag and spraying lead.
Deaf
For competition, well ok, but for when it's real not every opponent is some guy sticking an AK over a sandbag and spraying lead.
Deaf
Hey Deaf. How are you fairing in the bad weather down there??
Anyway, you do realize your question is probably more of a rhetorical one, right?
Kind of like the exuberant and enthusiastic martial arts practitioners who actually think they'll be able to have a fight stop for the necessary time for them to square up and fight from "stances".
Then, they exhibit that puzzled Labrador expression when you try to explain making your "fighting stance" your everyday stance ... thinking it just means a "stance".
Then, they act even more puzzled when you try to explain what the word "fight" really means when it's connected to terms like a "knife-fight" or a "gunfight" ... even when they already know (or ought to know) what it means to say "fistfight".
That's not usual, though, because there's an awful lot of people (even cat owners) who have never seen a serious cat fight and saw what it really means when someone says, "the fur flies". I remember the first time I saw one occur, late at night under a street lamp, and saw that pair of cats create a veritable whirlwind of cat fur that floated a few feet up in the air, and made a pretty respectable cloud a few feet all around them. It made me think of the Tasmanian Devil cartoon.
Last edited: