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

Deaf.. many people draw some sort of equivalence between gun games and combat training. To them, its the same.. so if its good for running a stage it must be good in a real application.

I will always train in a manner which is conducive to getting small behind a rifle. Others can practice the tactical kabooki dance of their choice, its fine by me.
 
:rolleyes: Nobody has suggested competition and fighting are equivalent. Are you intentionally misinterpreting what has been said to create a strawman or have you just not read or understood what you read?
 
My comment does not represent anything that has been said, it was intended to reflect upon the competition reference that Deaf made. He seemingly suggested that he understood its use in comp. My comment simply highlights the spirit of why "some" people seem to accept is broadly as a good method. I simply agree with Deaf in that I "get it" as a comp style but I only support its use in very limited circumstances as a real life SD consideration.

As you can see by my post count, I don't comment much. I have no desire to cook up meaningless hubbub.
 
Deaf Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

What was the point of that comment? I mean, aside from adding a snide remark to an old thread? The point you are raising has actually been discussed already in the thread. But let me raise a few counterpoints...

If someone is shooting at you, any number of things you do might be unhealthy. If you stand up and move you might get shot. If you take cover, you may lose sight of your attacker and get shot (remember the Dallas police officer who crowded the column he was hiding behind and was outflanked and killed after his standing, moving attacker shot him with a rifle at close range?).

From kneeling or prone, you much reduce the area you can observe and being able to know where your attacker is at is critical information. The urge to avoid incoming fire can make you lose situational awareness in a way that can be very deadly.

At the same time prone, and less so kneeling, reduce what you can observe off of a nicely mown range with a slightly elevated firing line, they also increase the amount of time it takes to move or change positions. The closer your attacker is, the less team support you have, the more you must be aware of attacker location and be able to move quickly in response.

Does that mean you should never go prone or kneel? Of course not. Just like natural point of aim and skeletal support are still important for good long range accuracy. But realistically, defensive use of a rifle is likely to be dynamic, take place at less than 50m (and probably a lot closer than that), and you probably won't be maneuvering as part of a team - so you will be forced to be both maneuver element and base of fire.

It would be great to have a discussion of WHEN certain techniques should be used or what type of tactics they support instead of the same brain-dead repetitive conversations over and over again.
 
Well FB, lucky for me the storm is below us! But I'm a Red Cross as well as Knights of Columbus member and we are now gearing up for receiving people who got out. Then, when it's over, we will do damage assessment (and Houston will be just one HUGE damage assessment!)

As for the 'stance' part, I understand the different stances might bring better hits (kind of like John Wick's stuff... if one believes his suit is that bulletproof.) But the thing is while I do study stances (especially karate ones) I do understand that once the fur flies lots of those stances will be very heavily modified.

Didn't mean to step on your toes Bartholomew. Long time ago in Karate and IPSC I was what they called a 'technical' fighter. Since no one was really trying to kick or punch me (nor shoot at me in IPSC) then things like stances or 'splits' or pivots just meant lots to me. Later as I got older and had some fun in Krav Maga, IDPA, and taught CHL classes, I gravitated more toward viewing things from a more hostile environment lens.

If you view lots of YouTube Afghanistan and Iraq footage you will see once the ranges decrease the GIs start hugging ground and not exposing themselves much. I mean they really don't want to get shot, armored or not.

They only use 'stances' when they have lots of buddies to cover all the angles. Just to dangerous otherwise.

So while I keep up on the stances, both pistol and rifle, I find old WW1 and two stuff, like prone and kneeling from behind cover, more realistic (and wise.)

Deaf
 
Stay well and safe while helping out, Deaf.

Lots of folks overlook that stances primarily, in the arts, serve as teaching and practice tools.

They can help someone achieve a better balanced normal way of standing and between moving, and they're great for learning new things, but it's important for more advanced practitioners to reach the point where they realize that "stances" ... especially done from a static position ... are more of a way to begin/end fluidly transitioning when out in the dynamic world of movement and danger.

I reached a point as a firearms instructor, which was only my secondary responsibility, where I evolved to apply the lessons (learned in the arts) of balanced fluidity with optimal positioning (stances), while using short and long guns.

The older you get, the more it all starts to look alike and blend together, right? Too bad it usually doesn't start out that way. ;)
 
Last edited:
Deaf Smith said:
If you view lots of YouTube Afghanistan and Iraq footage you will see once the ranges decrease the GIs start hugging ground and not exposing themselves much. I mean they really don't want to get shot, armored or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understood you the first time you said that. I just don't understand where you are going with it. The OP asked about a specific technique. The specific technique is only useful if you need to move and shoot at the same time or transition from moving to shooting immediately. We've moved from discussing technique to discussing the tactic it supports to discussing the tactic it supports in the context of "I've got a squad of guys with rifle, armor, and comms with me and the option to clear structures with grenades or artillery."

Putting aside the issue of whether the Youtube video you see shows people static because that is when they have time to film stuff and/or bodycam/helmetcams of moving people make for shaky, unwatchable video, where are you going with that? I'm going to assume those guys know what they are doing and are in a static position for a good reason. Are we going to discuss what conditions lead to choosing a static position over a mobile one in an infantry context and then relate that to a non-infantry situation?

That would at least be a different conversation than the usual "Why is he putting his arm out so far?" that started this (and that ended up the same way as the last 20 times that conversation has been had anywhere else on the Internet complete with "tactical kabuki" phrase and all the usual dojo posturing that predates the Internet by decades).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top