Short Stock And Different Hold

[TBF]

I have been playing with shorter than normal stocks and a modified hold, over on chest somewhat above the nipple, with arm pulled in towards ribs.

I like it, less torque applied to upper body with slug loads and other thumper loads.

Recoil recovery is very fast and natural, and more straight back than holding " in the pocket " which is uncomfortable for me with hard kickers.

Any comments would be appreciated, maybe there is a reason more 3 gunners aren't using this hold.

Travis F.

[rhino]

I have been playing with shorter than normal stocks and a modified hold, over on chest somewhat above the nipple, with arm pulled in towards ribs.

I like it, less torque applied to upper body with slug loads and other thumper loads.

Recoil recovery is very fast and natural, and more straight back than holding " in the pocket " which is uncomfortable for me with hard kickers.

Any comments would be appreciated, maybe there is a reason more 3 gunners aren't using this hold.

Travis F.

That's the way they're teaching people to shoot carbines in tactical/defensive classes nowadays. Some will teach shotgun that way, but others won't because of the recoil.

I prefer to shoot exactly as you describe, but I learned to shoot with pistols. If I'd learned to shoot on a trap range, I might see things differently.

Other than recoil control, another factor is that most people will have better mobility or at least move better and more smoothely when shooting almost squared to the targets, stock toward chest, and elbow DOWN. It's a little harder to move from a traditional rifle or shotgun shooting stance.

[benny hill]

transition from target to target is slower & it is harder not to overswing a target when you have your elbows in. If it was better most of the top fast shooters would be useing it.

[Boom-Boom]

Tactically minded folks shoot this way because it shows more body armor when squared to a threat. If you shoot the traditional way w/ the weak foot forward, it opens up your lightly armored under-arm area to incoming rounds. Like Benny said, having your arms closer in to your body doesn't help w/ target transitions or overswing. I can see where each technique would work well in a given situation. Why not practice both and use both depending on the situation. In competition I shoot mostly the traditional stance.

Anyone try this stance when transitioning from strong to weak hand shooting? It might be a good technique if you have to shoot from both sides of a barricade with a mandatory transition.

[Mickster]

I tried something in NC at the NA Tac-3gun on the stage where you had to shoot through low and high ports on the left and right sides in a very narrow hallway. I watched many shooters go prone on the right side low port and fire from the strong side. just like they did on the the left side low port.

I fired the left low port from my knees rolled over forward using my strong side but then for the right low port I collapsed the stock on my CAR, dropped to my knees, threw the gun into the left side of my chest, rolled forward and worked the trigger using my strong hand.

Looks and feels weird but putting the gun into my chest worked pretty good in that situation.

[Bear1142]

TBF,

I have to respectfully disagree with Benny on this, I use the squared-up/ elbows down technique when I can and I find its faster to transition and its superior for shooting on the move. I think the overswing problem is a stand-alone issue. That is, it doesn't matter which technique your using, if you overswinging, your doing something wrong. I also agree with Boom-Boom, you need to be able to use both techniques. When I brace against a barricade for support, depending on the barricade and other factors, I will go with a more traditional type of stance if its more beneficial. In the end, have both tools in your toolbox and use whichever one is better for the given situation.

Erik

[ToddS]

Erik,

I suppose everyone has their own personal tastes and preferences. The elbows down technique came from the HK sub-gun training world as far as I can tell. It has it's merit in tactical applications,(corners, walls, full auto control, etc). However, in my humble opinion, I feel it's nearly always faster and more stable to have a wide stance and positioning of the elbows.

When indexing target to target, elbows out for me is MUCH quicker in starting and stopping the gun. Everyone I work with and train agrees. I'm a 22 year cop, 14 years of SWAT, and now a full-time trainer. I see lots of different shooters during the course of a year. I work with all types.

I would NEVER say that any one way is the only way, but I respectfully suggest you give a wide posture during shooting another chance. It certainly doesn't have the look, sex appeal, or CDI factor, (Chicks Dig It),

that tucking the elbows and narrowing the foot stance does, but it will win matches for you.

I can't speak for myself since it seems second place is the best I ever do anymore, but all the top shooters will agree with me that wider is better unless there are extenuating circumstances that require otherwise.

As far as stock length and positioning go, I feel you need the gun to fit you best when you are in a normal upright stance, and the sight comes straight to the eye without head adjustment. As far as shooting in funky positions, it really doesn't matter where the stock is placed as long as the eye is behind the sight and a full picture is seen. I mean no shadows on scopes, and of course iron sights have to be in proper alignment. I regularly do demos shooting guns upside down and other stupid stuff when showing students that sight alignment and trigger control are the basics of accuracy.

Todd Salmon

[Mig]

I have to agree with Erik on the use of squared-up/elbows down technique. He taught it to me and it works for me and found it to be superior for shooting on the move. But I don't use the Squared Technique all the time as the stage/COF will dictate the use of a different stance or position. See what works for you.

Also, I agree with what Todd S said about the Squared techinque having a high CDI factor and that's always important.

[Bear1142]

Todd,

Maybe I should clarify my statements. I'm not saying this is the only way, I think both the straight and bladed stances have applications, but circumstances dictate which one is better. If its a run/gun stage, I'll be using the squared stance and moving. I don't take the time to move and then get bladed to the target with my elbows out. I don't see how you can move with any speed in the bladed position and keep you rifle mounted. I see the bladed position as similar to the Weaver stance with a rifle. I think it limits your transitions going from right to left (right handed shooter). I do think the bladed stance gives you a more stable shooting platform, which is why I use it when I brace for long shots. I also don't like the tight shooting stance HK recommends. I tend to square up with a wider stance, similar to the bladed stance. I guess its a hybrid of what they teach, in a strict sense.

As for the buttstock position, I agree, the sight alignment principals still apply regardless of position, but I feel the closer the stock is to the centerline of your body, the better you manage the recoil. Even a .223 with a comp. has some movement. It may take a target at 200 yards to notice it, but the better you manage the recoil, the faster you'll get an accurate second shot. I guess it all comes down to what you feel comfortable with. I tend to think of this technique as the "new style" on the block. I appreciate the fact that I'm in the minority with this style, but when Isosceles pistol first showed up on the scene, it was also in the minority. Its nice to have a forum to exchange ideas and techniques like this. Maybe this will work for some other people and maybe it won't, but its nice to have the option to experiment.

Erik

[ToddS]

I wasn't referring to bladed v. squared off as much as elbows out v. elbows tucked. I nearly always shoot squared to the target, but with as wide a platform as possible or practical. That means feet and elbows.

Wider is faster, wider is more stable in my opinion.

[PacMan]

The way Todd S has been shooting at matches, I'd have to agree with him. However, I'm going to try this different position out just for kicks.

Todd, how much do I have now in the "royalty" account? (It was over $250 last time we talked )

HD

[kellyn]

Even though Todd is the perennial "1st place Loser" (since he always takes 2d), I completely agree with him.

[ToddS]

HD,

I know the account is getting out of hand, but just acknowledging the fact of how envious I am of your name should be worth something!

Remember, you ARE the man! You don't need to use a technique for CDI factor!

[rhino]

I just finished a 3-day tactical rifle class with Louis Awerbuck (yeah, I know it's tactical tommy stuff and not competition-oriented, but...) with my Bushmaster superlight carbine. I added a one-inch spacer to the shorty stock and when I messed around with at the range, it felt pretty good.

During the class, though, it took me a LONG time to get the dot or irons in my line of sight from low ready. It's not as bad from a high ready where you mount more like a shotgun, but it was painfully slow to get my first shot off from low ready.

Is it likely that stock is just a little too short for me (an A1 is just a hair too long and an A2 is way too long), or do I just need to get used to shooting with a stumpy carbine as a new skill?

I definitely went with elbows down the whole time too.

[TBF]

CDI factor, I really ought to work on that...

In my messing around with this hold I did not alter my stance, just the hold above the waist, I can definately see a disadvantage to putting my feet closer together.

I will have to experiment with the elbows, Originally this idea was an attempt to recover from recoil with a shotgun, and elbow down puffs up the pec. muscle and seems to absorb some of the recoil of a stout load.

I agree that about any method of anything won't work in all situations.

Thanks for the replies.

Travis F.