Tactical shooting technique....

Discuss anything with like-minded people.
No posting of copyrighted material.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade, Hush

Post Reply
User avatar
AAA
Industry Professional
Posts: 714
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:17 pm

Tactical shooting technique....

Post by AAA »

Just wanted to start some discussion on tactical shooting techniques, in particular with the rifle/SMG/carbine. I know there's a lot of RKI's on here, so I was hoping to get some good input.

When I was trained it was all modified/modern weaver stance. I swear when I'm shooting I can still hear someone screaming "Weaver stance!!! Stand like this and they can see all of this, stand like this and it's only this!" behind me.

I see these days it's all a modern tactical isosceles style stance, facing directly to the target. I see some advocates like Chris Costa use a stance where the butt is verging towards the middle of the chest resting right where the collar bone joins the sternum. Everyone I've spoken in police and SF units have told me this is how they are now trained.

I guess I missed the memo! When did this start to become popular and what is the reason for it? I find it a very unnatural stance and I notice it doesn't work well with a respirator.

Anyone?
Tornado Technologies
Mailing Address:
22115 NW Imbrie Drive #181
Hillsboro OR 97124
PH: (503)690-8000
Web: www.tornado-technologies.com
David Hineline
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4289
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: South Sioux City, NE
Contact:

Post by David Hineline »

I know the sideways rotate used to be pushed as providing a smaller profile target rather than head on of today.

They decided that a side stance proviced a target which got both lungs and the heart, where the straight on while providing a larger target did not get all three organs at once.
NFA shooters blow their load with only one pull of the trigger.
User avatar
jppd47
Silencertalk Goon Squad
Posts: 1305
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:20 pm
Location: CT
Contact:

Post by jppd47 »

Also now we (military) wear the plates, so you have your most protected area towards enemy, evan if its a bigger target. If a bullet hits the side, not as much protection, bigger risk of becoming a casualty.
pro-gun gun owners are a minority.
Fair Use applies (U.S. Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Subsection 107)
User avatar
AAA
Industry Professional
Posts: 714
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:17 pm

Post by AAA »

All the new issue vests I've seen have side SAPI plates, so I'm assiming these are not issued to everyone as yet?
Tornado Technologies
Mailing Address:
22115 NW Imbrie Drive #181
Hillsboro OR 97124
PH: (503)690-8000
Web: www.tornado-technologies.com
User avatar
Twinsen
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 7693
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: AZ

Post by Twinsen »

I can't stand the rifle on chest stance. It's pretty much unworkable with any full power cartridge as well. For instance, an 8mm mauser with a steel butt plate on your collarbone. Or any full power 12ga on your collarbone. I can fire one in my shoulder all day, but try one mag from the collarbone/chest area and I can feel it for the rest of the day and see purple in the mirror for the next 2 or 3 days.

My stance is either terrible for target shooting, or plain bad for combat shooting.
User avatar
Braidon
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:28 am

Post by Braidon »

AAA wrote:All the new issue vests I've seen have side SAPI plates, so I'm assiming these are not issued to everyone as yet?
Almost everyone deploying is getting the new Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest that has the Ancillary Protective System built in which provides both soft and hard armor protection to the sides of the wearer but you also have to think of the size of plate, a E-SAPI (side plate) is much smaller, in some cases 1/3rd the size of the front and back SAPI plates... so if you were to be hit in one of the side plates you will be still sustaining much more damage from the impact alone than if the larger surface area and more massive front or back plate took the hit, also faster follow up shots and more control during rapid fire can be attained when a good lean forward is placed into the shooting stance from the chest/ hips forward stance. Also according to Pat Rogers the forward stance provides the shooter a better ability to "wring" or twist the arms and hands in a tighter or more controlling manner for the weapon thus allowing a strong more rigid shooting platform also helping with recoil as with a strong weapon to arm/ hand contact and control your body is now not just relying on your shoulder/chest/ collar bone to take the impact of the recoiling weapon. Besides most armored vests have some sort shoulder strap that takes some of the impact too. And of course in the end you just look plain bad ass when faced head on, almost like a wrestler/ bear/ bad ass/ gun fighter all rolled in to one. That's just my $.02
User avatar
continuity
Elite Member
Posts: 4554
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:39 am
Location: Ohio

Post by continuity »

Instructors at our dept are moving toward "if it feels comfortable use it". The thoughts are that in a stressful situation you're going to go to a position you are most comfortable shooting from. Only thing is that you've got to be able to place hits on target. Whether it's a front on crouching, good for moving into the target and better armor protection, or sideways, youre a smaller target, the best way is the way you hit the target best. Just some thoughts.
User avatar
soohwa
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Tx

Post by soohwa »

A lot of it has to do with natural point of aim (isosceles) and recoil management.

Additionally what Hiline said, yes you create a smaller profile but a number of officers were getting seriously injured/killed by shots that went under their armpits or through their arms.

With the bigger caliber rifles there is still the standard riflemans stance, but with the subguns and lite MG's recoil management and putting multiple shots on target is where it's at.
كافر
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

There has definitely been a switch from the Weaver stance to something that's at least more isosceles, if not completely isosceles, of late. It think this comes from a few things.

Not the least of these is the use of competition shooters to train our fighting men. When the "war on terror" started, many military units were woefully lacking in terms of the way they had been training to shoot as it relates to training to fight. Guys like Frank Garcia and other known IPSC shooters got tapped to train some of these units. They brought with them the IPSC-style isosceles stance, and the rest is history.

There are, however, a lot of arguments made for the newer stance. Things like natural point of aim, natural reaction to a threat, etc. It my belief, however, that a lot of this was reverse-engineering people's logic. They like the newer stance so they start looking for other ways to make their argument. You'll hear a lot of arguments made like "when we do sims training we see XYZ" as a way to validate what people are doing/teaching. They'll also say things like "isosceles is a fighting stance, Weaver is a shooting stance", etc.

Personally, I've mostly moved away from Weaver to at least a modified Weaver (here's me shooting an IPSC stage). I'm actually on my way today to a Randy Cain Handgun 101 class as a refresher and he's more of a Weaver instructor. I've trained with him before and he'll teach one way but is fine with a shooter doing something different if it works for them. One of the things I want to work on is settling into what that "works for me" really is.

In terms of the carbine, I've pretty much always shot squared up, stock in the pocket (here's me shooting a carbine stage). I frankly don't give a damn what works with some ancient wood-stocked relic, I shoot an AR and I want to use a stance that works with my gun for the kind of shooting I do. You can see from the video above that it works standing, moving, kneeling, etc.

The key here, as in most things, is to get exposed to various ways of doing things, if they seem viable for you and your situation try them out, and use them if they do and trash them if they don't. It is critical, however, not to get locked into any dogma and keep an open mind. I see a LOT of shooters get locked into one philosophical camp or another and miss the chance to improve their abilities because of it.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

here's another video, the beginning of which you can get a good view of how I stand with the carbine.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
User avatar
PPGMD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: It's a me, Mario.

Post by PPGMD »

rob_s wrote:There has definitely been a switch from the Weaver stance to something that's at least more isosceles, if not completely isosceles, of late. It think this comes from a few things.

Not the least of these is the use of competition shooters to train our fighting men. When the "war on terror" started, many military units were woefully lacking in terms of the way they had been training to shoot as it relates to training to fight. Guys like Frank Garcia and other known IPSC shooters got tapped to train some of these units. They brought with them the IPSC-style isosceles stance, and the rest is history.
You claim to shoot a modified weaver for example, yet in your pistol video it's nearly a text book isosceles.

Isosceles took over practical shooting because it works. Competition shooting, IMO is the breeding ground for new ideas, because they are willing to try new things, and will do anything to become a faster shooter (while maintaining a certain accuracy level).

It's not that Weaver is a bad stance, since it's stood for almost 40 years now, and it's still being taught. But competition has shown that isosceles, or at least a version of it, is faster, while maintaining the same accuracy level. Heck even Gunsite is not being as strict about Weaver as they once were (of course this depends on your Range Master for the class).

I personally shoot a modified isosceles, I go by Eno's term, Freestyle platform, which basically means I just shoot in whatever position is best for my body. Everyone has different length necks, arms, different shoulder heights, et al. So the exact position is not relevant, all that matters is that you are preventing your body from unduly influencing the gun. His book does a better job of explain this concept.
"Some day you will wake up next to a woman and she won't scream" - A Buddy From College

Hk USP Tactical 45 + Gemtech Blackside
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

PPGMD wrote: You claim to shoot a modified weaver for example, yet in your pistol video it's nearly a text book isosceles.
I personally shoot a modified isosceles, I go by Eno's term, Freestyle platform, which basically means I just shoot in whatever position is best for my body. Everyone has different length necks, arms, different shoulder heights, et al. So the exact position is not relevant, all that matters is that you are preventing your body from unduly influencing the gun.
Interesting to contrast these two sentences.

One of the big problems with discussions like these is one of semantics. Modify a Weaver enough and it becomes an isosceles, and modify and isosceles enough and it becomes a Weaver. When people talk about "modified Weaver" or "modified isosceles" it seems dependent on what they learned first, and typically both are about the same thing. I call mine modified Weaver because I was originally taught Weaver and "modified" my stance from there. Reaching around cover the way I was, even a strict Weaver shooter is going to start pushing the elbow of the support hand. Get on the support side and even a strict Iso shooter is going to start bending the elbow.

Interesting take (albeit a bit biased) with some of the history of both here

This is one of those "9mm vs. .45" type debates to me. I don't care what people call it or how they shoot, just that they do it safely and as accurately and quickly as possible. Unfortunately most have too much vested in their way and are too interested in winning the argument and not focusing on what they should, which is winning the fight.

The carbine is the same, except to say that once you start moving and shooting certain stances just plain go out the window.
Last edited by rob_s on Thu May 21, 2009 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
User avatar
Poacher
Elite Industry Professional
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:53 pm
Location: Berryville, AR
Contact:

Post by Poacher »

It depends on the situation and what cover is available. I have shot at people in many "stances" On one occaision I was basically hanging out of a bunker window trying to shoot a guy close to the wall of the base. Now that will never be covered in a class and tactically could be considered quite stupid but it was a risk I choose to take.

Anyway, the crouched stance, like Rob_s pointed out above, is a classic reaction to a close threat and no cover is available. You will crouch and you will shove your weapon out in front of you and start shooting and moving hopefully...

The butt of the weapon on the color bone is so your weapon is mounted under your shooting eye and your weapon can be raised straight up into your line of sight when a target appears. Instead of you raising your weapon and canting your head to the side to get a sight picture.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."-- Vince Lombardi

Director of Training & Special Initiatives
Nighthawk Custom
[email protected]
877-268-4867
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

I should also say, I'm glad to see this type of discussion here. Too much of the NFA world is just about collecting hardware and making brass at the range.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
User avatar
PPGMD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: It's a me, Mario.

Post by PPGMD »

rob_s wrote:Interesting to contrast these two sentences.

One of the big problems with discussions like these is one of semantics. Modify a Weaver enough and it becomes an isosceles, and modify and isosceles enough and it becomes a Weaver. When people talk about "modified Weaver" or "modified isosceles" it seems dependent on what they learned first, and typically both are about the same thing. I call mine modified Weaver because I was originally taught Weaver and "modified" my stance from there. Reaching around cover the way I was, even a strict Weaver shooter is going to start pushing the elbow of the support hand. Get on the support side and even a strict Iso shooter is going to start bending the elbow.
It also depends on how to define each. I define weaver and a push-pull stance, while isosceles is more balanced with neither side unduly effecting the gun.

In the video you arms are even so a push-pull technique is unlikely. Which is why I said it's nearly text book isosceles. Your avatar OTOH it's clear that you weak arm is bent so you are likely introducing some element of the weaver push-pull stance at that time.

Anyways I started with Weaver, got my ass kicked by people out shooting me with Isosceles, started using that found it was uncomfortable, then I was introduced to Eno's book, and I started to learn more about the background of isosceles and applied his principles to find how to make Isosceles work for my body.

The best way to describe is would be take isosceles, relax your shoulders, and use the elbows to bring the gun up to your eye. I found that keep your shoulders hunched up like you commonly see with many isosceles shooters tiring, often people can only stay in that position for a few minutes before it gets uncomfortable in shoulders. But with a "Freestyle Platform" I am totally relaxed, and I can stay in shooting position as long as my arms can hold the gun up.

I do believe that shooters should be competent with both stances, because as you said there are cases where you might have to use weaver, certain cover objects, in cases, and while moving forward firing on targets on the weak hand side.
"Some day you will wake up next to a woman and she won't scream" - A Buddy From College

Hk USP Tactical 45 + Gemtech Blackside
User avatar
SFCat66
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Post by SFCat66 »

It ain't the Olympics, or American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars. Technique does have it's place, but rarely have I ever been in the same tactical situation as where and how we train. Adaptation of technique is what needs to be stressed, so that one can consistently deliver accurate fire and conduct reloads, etc., in/behind/adjacent to proper cover.
"Normal is a cycle on a washing machine"

SFCat66
User avatar
PPGMD
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: It's a me, Mario.

Post by PPGMD »

SFCat66 wrote:It ain't the Olympics, or American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars. Technique does have it's place, but rarely have I ever been in the same tactical situation as where and how we train. Adaptation of technique is what needs to be stressed, so that one can consistently deliver accurate fire and conduct reloads, etc., in/behind/adjacent to proper cover.
Mindset
Skills
Tactics
Gear

In that order.

Mindset and tactics aren't things commonly discussed here. Talking about skills is unusual but is a good move forward.
"Some day you will wake up next to a woman and she won't scream" - A Buddy From College

Hk USP Tactical 45 + Gemtech Blackside
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

SFCat66 wrote:It ain't the Olympics, or American Idol, or Dancing with the Stars. Technique does have it's place, but rarely have I ever been in the same tactical situation as where and how we train. Adaptation of technique is what needs to be stressed, so that one can consistently deliver accurate fire and conduct reloads, etc., in/behind/adjacent to proper cover.
True, but...

It all starts with the ability to get a single hit on a single stationary target while standing still. It's never going to get easier than that. If the shooter can't make the hole appear where they want to in the target on a nice manicured range on a fresh spring day with plenty of sunlight, then everything else is a waste of time.

Take someone who can't do that and ask them to hit multiple, partially obscured, targets while both the shooter and the target are moving and with the targets shooting back at them and you may as well get the coffin ready.

The fundamentals are key because they are the basis of everything else. Good stance, sight alignment, and trigger press are the ideal. Eventually you may get in a situation one one or all of those basics aren't available, but having those basics down pat will improve your ability to get hits quickly in those situations as well.

This is a big pet peeve of mine in the training community right now. There are a LOT of instructors lately pushing a whole lot of run and gun in their classes. Some even use the "this is what it's like in the real world" argument. IMHO that amounts to nothing more than masturbation with a gun if the shooters don't have the fundamentals down pat first.

The local drills nights that I run always follow the crawl-walk-run philosophy. We start out getting that single hit on a single stationary target while standing still and we progress from there. I gauge the ability of the shooters on the line and we don't move on until at least 50% of them have it down (there's always 10-20% at the top that get it right away, and 10-20% on the bottom that are never going to get it). If less than 50% are getting it then it's my "job" to figure out why and make the corrections before we move on as a group. Some shooters have complained that the drills are too boring, or too basic. Ironically the majority of the complainers are the ones that aren't getting it. They quickly stop complaining if we move to dynamic drills that don't get scored. As Pat Rogers would say "this is what we call a clue".
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
User avatar
Fudmottin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:36 pm

Post by Fudmottin »

Very interesting thread. I've never practiced CQB techniques with a rifle or carbine (I think the M16 is carbine length by an older standard). So with a long gun, the best I can do is from a bench. I've done NRA silhouette. Not well. And just once. I used a weaver stance for that. Shooting at rams on the 500 meter line off hand requires as much support as you can get.

With a handgun, I'm not too bad with point shooting. With a PPK/S, the sights are so bad I don't use them. I sort of look over the pistol using the ridge on the top of the slide as a pointing guide. Anything pie plate sized inside of 25 meters is toast. With pistol I tend towards isosceles.

I'm sure most of you shoot far, far better than I can. I'm not a competition shooter and I haven't been in combat. All my shooting experience is with me stationary.
User avatar
SFCat66
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Post by SFCat66 »

Sorry about not replying, been at the Indy 500...
The fundamentals are key because they are the basis of everything else. Good stance, sight alignment, and trigger press are the ideal. Eventually you may get in a situation one one or all of those basics aren't available, but having those basics down pat will improve your ability to get hits quickly in those situations as well.
Fundamentals are key. But, I hasten to add a caveat here...
Many times I've seen shooters that are great on the range, yet fall apart in a tactical situation because they cannot get past the range environment and apply fundamental marksmanship to other movement techniques, so there becomes a "fugly monster" of half weaver, half isocoles, whatever else technique, but the important thing is, it works for the shooter. And it imparts confidence to the shooter, that he can win the fight, even if his technique and form sucks.
This is a big pet peeve of mine in the training community right now. There are a LOT of instructors lately pushing a whole lot of run and gun in their classes. Some even use the "this is what it's like in the real world" argument. IMHO that amounts to nothing more than masturbation with a gun if the shooters don't have the fundamentals down pat first.
I agree about 50%. While it's important that the student/shooter be confident in his/her ability and skills, just making noise is useless if you're not making hits (philosophical cover argument can commence). My 50% disagreement is rooted in the fact that running/sprinting can simulate adrenaline and stress, and that the student/shooter needs to be comfortable with kit, rifle and other stuff when it's banging about, and not just hanging off their frame.
"Normal is a cycle on a washing machine"

SFCat66
User avatar
Fudmottin
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:36 pm

Post by Fudmottin »

Here is a very simple situation that screws me up. At least it did last time I had an opportunity to do it.

Shooting skeet. When firing one from the launcher, I've managed to get up to a 90% hit rate. At least I could in the past. This was using a Mossberg 500A with 28" modified choke barrel. Old style. Wooden stock and fore grip and no provision for choke tubes. The sight is just a bead near the muzzle.

Switch to doubles and I get all flustered. I can't hit either of them. I get one of them maybe 10% of the time. I don't recall ever hitting both.

I enjoy shooting when I can. But I honestly suck at it. OK, I suck when it comes to hitting what I'm supposed to be shooting. There are a couple notable exceptions. But none of them involve me moving in any way while shooting.
User avatar
rob_s
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: SE FL

Post by rob_s »

SFCat, I think we're on the same page.

All I'm saying is that if a shooter can't get hits at the "single round on a single stationary target while standing still" level then he's not going to get much out of running around the range like a madman. Crawl, walk, run. Sight picture, trigger control, stance in an ideal and sterilized environment and THEN start to throw in variables like less-than-ideal positions, elevated heart rate, shooting on the move, shooting moving targets, etc. If 5 of 5 slowfire at 10 yards aren't in the A zone of an IPSC or the -0 of an IDPA target, then they're never going to get 5 of 5 in the same area on a moving target while moving over uneven ground after running from the 50 to the 10 and under the stress of a timer.

The carbine is more forgiving in all of this. It's a lot easier to get good hits with the long gun, especially so if you give them a red dot sight and can get them to understand holdover. In fact, I think it's deceptively easy and see this all the time when we go to long-range shooting (meaning, past 100 yards). We can take guys that are able to score very well on a CQB stage and put a 6" steel plate at 100+ yards and watch them miss 5 of 5 at that distance. While the 10 yard targets are very forgiving of sloppy sight picture and trigger control, the same can't be said for those 100+ targets.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
Post Reply