Black rifle shooting stance square to target?

geologist

geologist

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Location
Lower Mainland, BC
If this is not the proper forum, mods please move.

I am seeing a lot of black rifle video with the shooters almost square to the target. Is this in order to position their plate body armour at the safest orientation to return fire from the BGs? Or is it just a lot of bad shooters on the web?

Please excuse the noob question.
 
If one examine the attributes of the various stances...square...bladed...etc., being square to the target is superior regardless.
As noted, if wearing armour, you are presenting it in a way that has a greater chance of it protecting you...
Recoil management, time to engage (swinging side to side), etc., are all maximized when the shooter is situated square to his, or her, target.
Do yourself a favour, and take one of the excellent courses put on by One Shot Tactical, and be prepared to soak up the information...and awesomeness...of being instructed by Tritium..."Hear me now....and listen later!"
 
^^^this.

I recently just changed my stance from a typical shot gunners stance. After 20 years of shooting it was difficult to do and was uncomfortable for the first few range sessions. But all the above mentioned benefits are the realities of squaring your body to the target. I'm 6' 2" and I've found that using this stance has also allowed me to significantly shorten the LOP on my rifles.

I don't know, it seems to work for me.
 
Last edited:
Like everything else, there differents fashions that goes thru. Right now it is the main trend, what will it be in 5 years?

Any position has its positive and negative aspects. Being square to the target present the plates to the opposing force, yes. But, you still present a bigger target. Of course it is better to be hit in the plate than in a non covered area but, is it better to be hit in the center of your plate or not hit at all? There are more than on way to see the problem.

To me, moving to and from that position feel less natural that the usual stance and require practice (stop-shoot-and-go). I recently read an article against the said position, stating that a mindset with the goal of being hit, was very bad. I tend to agree. Still, i practice that stand making sure to perfect the technique.

Like others have said in tactics litterature, i think that it is important is that you devellop skills that you feel comfortable with. When not comfortable, you practice until it becomes natural. The most important thing is that you HIT your intended target. There is no point doing all this fancy stuff if you are not efficient and only making loud noises. I also think that different positions will apply to different situations.

Thats my 2¢

Mem
 
after watching the Magpul videos, i tried out the square stance with both my rifles and my shotguns. i found it far more comfortable and i found that my accuracy improved. recoil was more easily managed and when shooting clays, i was able to swing easier to follow targets coming from either side.
 
when i was in the army some time ago there was a MCPL who shot from this position. He did say that he felt safer with his armour since there was no protection on the sides...on contrary sideways you would present smaller target..
another thing i saw recently is guys shooting when holding the rifles fore end from the side...i found it really strange..tried it and was so uncomfortable and didnt support the weight of the rifle
 
You square your stance to mimic wearing body armor. Practice makes perfect

The same reason I shoot my Sig sideways when I shoot. To mimic holding a shield and shooting around it.
 
The plate debate is only part of the benefits to a squared/isosceles stance. The minor reduction of target size when bladed is a moot point. The direction one is engaged from is not determined by the recipient but by the shooter. Squaring off ones plates may only be a benefit against the threat the user has identified and/or is engaging, not necessarily all threats. It is impossible to know if you and your plates are facing the only threat or the most skilled threat.

The other attributes to the square stance include: Similarity to pistol stance, ability to move dynamically in all directions, recoil management, increased target acquisition speeds, and the ability to work with your body's natural tendency to "square up" or face a threat.

The bladed stance isn't entirely useless or ineffective, it simply doesn't offer the greatest versatility. The square/isosceles stance is a staple for dynamic shooting, but it is still just a tool in in the tool box. As is the bladed stance.

TDC
 
VZsammy said:
What stance do use the top 10 competitors in 3-gun match and other type of competition using a carbine?
Click to expand...

Likely a squared stance. However, what works for competition doesn't necessarily work against an armed live target. What works for competition is largely based on what's fastest with zero concern for cover or concealment.

TDC
 
the Canadian Forces have adopted this stance because apparently its proven to be more accurate because it provides a more stable shooting platform and better recoil absorption as well as squaring off your ballistic plates in your body armour to the target your firing at. atleast thats what i'v been taught recently but i can't comment what other people have been taught
 
Watched some vids yesterday of Jerry Miculek shooting some carbine stuff. Holy holy hell is he fast!!!! Incredible to watch him take down poppers and do dbl taps. Doesn't look like he squares up much.
 
redryder said:
Watched some vids yesterday of Jerry Miculek shooting some carbine stuff. Holy holy hell is he fast!!!! Incredible to watch him take down poppers and do dbl taps. Doesn't look like he squares up much.
Click to expand...

He doesn't.

Jerry is a proponent of the bladed stance.

At least he is in the vid set I have.

John
 
Well here's what Kyle Lamb from Viking Tactics had to say about this:

Actually, we practice what we preach which is the bladed stance with the rifle. Several reasons for this. We want shooters in a Fighter's Stance with the Rifle; fighters dont stand square. Secondly, I hate to rely on the shooting ability of the terrorist to hit my plate, I prefer to take responsibility for the outcome. I want to shoot faster and more accurately than the threat, you will never shoot as fast from a square stance.

Take a look at the top Tactical and Competition shooters in the world; all bladed. It allows us to quickly move forward or laterally. I had a funny dust-up with a famous shooting academy. They explained why they square during the use of the carbine - to keep the plates toward the threat - yet with the pistol they shoot the Weaver Stance. For some reason I really got a kick out of that.

At VTAC we use stances that allow accuracy, speed, and mobility, with both weapons.

Hope this helps.

Kyle
Click to expand...
 
omegaboost said:
Well here's what Kyle Lamb from Viking Tactics had to say about this:
Click to expand...

Again, fine and dandy for the bladed/weaver stance. Except for when a right handed shooter drops his right leg back, he no longer has the ability to turn or pivot to the left as fast or as far as he would if he were square. The square/isosceles stance has more to do with your upper body than lower. Even with a squared upper torso, your feet will likely be slightly separated, usually with your support foot/leg forward, similar to that of the bladed/weaver.

TDC
 
Why not incorporate both of the stances into your repetoire depending on the application. If you watch Olympic shooters in the standing position, they need a lot of front end weapon support, need serious accuracy and aren't blazing their timings, so they blade, sit their shoulder back and make great shots. At close range and in CQB, where the targets are potentially in 360 degress and the speed vs accuracy line sways toward the speed, begin to square up.

As with anything in firearms lately (magpul or VLTOR anything...) a lot has to do with setting or promoting a trend in order to make some $$$$. Why not grab the best from all the different schools of thought, and come up with your own, tailor made to your method of running a gun. Remember, you are a different beast than them, and your rig is probably different as well.

I like the 'almost squared' stance for CQB and most ranges inside 100m. Easy to walk heel-toe, pivot the torso and absorb the recoil. Outside of that I spend a little more time worrying about steadying my gun, and thus I tend to blade and support more. At 300m I look like a bi-athlete, minus the tights.

In any case, you wouldn't marry the first girl you dated after the first date, so spend some time trying all the methods before you settle.
 
skunkydaniel said:
Why not incorporate both of the stances into your repetoire depending on the application. If you watch Olympic shooters in the standing position, they need a lot of front end weapon support, need serious accuracy and aren't blazing their timings, so they blade, sit their shoulder back and make great shots. At close range and in CQB, where the targets are potentially in 360 degress and the speed vs accuracy line sways toward the speed, begin to square up.

As with anything in firearms lately (magpul or VLTOR anything...) a lot has to do with setting or promoting a trend in order to make some $$$$. Why not grab the best from all the different schools of thought, and come up with your own, tailor made to your method of running a gun. Remember, you are a different beast than them, and your rig is probably different as well.

I like the 'almost squared' stance for CQB and most ranges inside 100m. Easy to walk heel-toe, pivot the torso and absorb the recoil. Outside of that I spend a little more time worrying about steadying my gun, and thus I tend to blade and support more. At 300m I look like a bi-athlete, minus the tights.

In any case, you wouldn't marry the first girl you dated after the first date, so spend some time trying all the methods before you settle.
Click to expand...


Well put.

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom