# C7 Shooting stance...



## chrisf (4 Oct 2004)

Just wondering if any one had any thoughts on what the superior shooting stance for the C7 is, gripping the rifle along the hand gaurd, or using the mag housing as a grip? I can see a lot of arguments in favor of the mag housing, but we're always taught to use the hand guard. Anyone care to enlighten me?


----------



## Tpr.Orange (4 Oct 2004)

I prefer to grip the mag housing because it is the best way to pull the rifle into your "shoulder". I find it to be easier and more steady then holding the hand guard in the standing.

Then again your stance and body positioning has a lot to do with your personal preference. It the end its what makes it more comfortable for you.


----------



## clutch6 (4 Oct 2004)

I find that using the hand guards enables you to have a more stable position especially when you are in the prone.  When you are in the kneeling having your hand on the hand guard allows you to dig into your knees a little better.

It is all about personal preference and what position you shoot better with.


----------



## D-n-A (5 Oct 2004)

On the range, and when patrolling I hold it by the handguards, during the few times I've done some CQB/FIBUA stuff I've held it by the mag housing.


----------



## KevinB (6 Oct 2004)

It all depends on what shooting you are doing.

Service rifle prone - mag housing - keeps pressure off the bbl (I rest my mag) 
 Kneeling Handguard 
 Sitting housing - but with armour handguard
Standing handguard

For CQB I have a vertical grip on my C8 and use it.  Teh mag housign is not and effective means of weapon retension if it gets grabbed for your weight/leverage is too far back.


----------



## MikeM (7 Oct 2004)

Prone - Mag housing
Kneeling - Handguard
Sitting - Housing and;
Standing - handguard.


----------



## bossi (11 Oct 2004)

Once upon a time I was coached by a Canadian Olympic team shooter.
There's one stance (standing) where you jut your hip forward, and rest your elbow on it for stability.
Depending on your body shape, you might have to hunch over a little
(which isn't the end of the world, if you're presenting a smaller target ... similar to another discussion on pistol shooting, but ... I digress ...)

Anyway - as I was saying - if you're using this stance, your body shape/size would then dictate whether you'd physically be able to hold the mag housing or handguard (known once upon a time as the forestock, but of course we need to change the name of everything on a periodic basis ...)


----------



## Gayson (11 Oct 2004)

when I stand I like to hold the rifle by the handguard and press the side of my arm against the mag.

The only time I really hold it by the mag is when I need to be suddenly using the rifle.  For example at CAC my convoy got ambushed, when I grabbed my rifle and started shooting I was holding it by the mag mostly out of habit.


----------



## rounder (17 Oct 2004)

> It all depends on what shooting you are doing.
> 
> Service rifle prone - mag housing - keeps pressure off the bbl (I rest my mag)
> Kneeling Handguard
> ...



    Thats the best for me too. But it may not be for you. Just keep in mind MINIMIZE BARREL MOVEMENT.


----------



## Morpheus32 (17 Oct 2004)

I was just chatting with a buddy of mine who got back from Afghanistan this year.  He said that the US military is changing their doctrine.  They are teaching keeping yourself perpenducular to the threat as part of their shooting positions.  This is to place the armour between yourself and the threat.  If we keep this in mind, many of the olympic stances will not work nor will some of our traditional shooting stances.  Certainly something to take into consideration...considering the effectiveness of modern body armour....

Jeff


----------



## rounder (17 Oct 2004)

> They are teaching keeping yourself perpenducular to the threat as part of their shooting positions.  This is to place the armour between yourself and the threat.



 Makes total sense, but give it ten to fifteen years before the centre of excellence adopts it as doctrine. They can't even update lessonplans in a year.


----------



## Fusaki (18 Oct 2004)

> Quote
> They are teaching keeping yourself perpenducular to the threat as part of their shooting positions.  This is to place the armour between yourself and the threat.
> 
> Makes total sense, but give it ten to fifteen years before the centre of excellence adopts it as doctrine.



I'm pretty sure that they're referring to your shooting stance while indoors. Without having too much training in the area, I've heard of a technique that requires the weapon positioned perpendicular to your shoulders, coming right off your centre line. The purpose for this is so your weapon is pointed right in your direction of travel and will therefore enable you to engage close range targets quickly, while moving through a breached door and into the room. I'm pretty sure this is a SWAT technique that isn't taught to soldiers on a large scale.

Outdoors, I can't see why you'd want to present a larger target to the enemy with or without body armour. Firm girp, steady position, and proper alignment take priority over body armour that won't save you from machine gun fire IMHO.


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

Ghostwalk said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that they're referring to your shooting stance while indoors. Without having too much training in the area, I've heard of a technique that requires the weapon positioned perpendicular to your shoulders, coming right off your centre line. The purpose for this is so your weapon is pointed right in your direction of travel and will therefore enable you to engage close range targets quickly, while moving through a breached door and into the room. I'm pretty sure this is a SWAT technique that isn't taught to soldiers on a large scale.
> 
> Outdoors, I can't see why you'd want to present a larger target to the enemy with or without body armour. Firm girp, steady position, and proper alignment take priority over body armour that won't save you from machine gun fire IMHO.



Well hopefully you won't be doing a standing olympic style position in full view of the enemy thus presenting a smaller profile.   The discussion was to modify shooting postions in all cases to place the armour perpendicular to the threat.  It won't protect you if you are exposing the weakest part of the armour which is your sides...

Actually the armour plate can and will save you from a machine gun bullet.....the concept is that if you keep yourself oriented to the enemy, you can increase your survivablity with the armour.   It is not that hard to do.   With armour on, and webbing loaded up, you tuck your elbows down tight and pull the rifle into your shoulder with either a vertical grip or the mag well.   Works fine.

Jeff


----------



## rounder (18 Oct 2004)

> Actually the armour plate can and will save you from a machine gun bullet.....



    Please substantiate... I don't believe you.


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

Rounder said:
			
		

> Please substantiate... I don't believe you.



Nice tone buddy.  Have a look what the rating is for the armour plates.  I really don't care if you believe me or not.  Cheers

Jeff


----------



## Scott (18 Oct 2004)

Let's relax a bit fellas, I didn't know that one could discern tone from type. Morpheus, do you have a link that will substantiate your answer?


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

Jeff is 100% correct.

We are taught for both building entry and CQB shooting outdoors to square off against the threat - this will maximize your protection as it put the plate @ 90 to the threat.

The entire idea is to get your armour between you and the threat - this is why more and more shooting schools have gone back to the isosolence type stance for pistol usage as opposed to the weaver (which the body is offset and the armour gap by the arm/shoulder exposed to the threat).

 I have some pics of some CQB drills being done with the C8's, Shotgun and Pistol and when I can wrest my computer back from my son @ my ex's house I will post them. 

Cheers 
Kevin


----------



## Morpheus32 (18 Oct 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> Let's relax a bit fellas, I didn't know that one could discern tone from type. Morpheus, do you have a link that will substantiate your answer?



Scott,

If rounder had taken a couple of more seconds to articulate his concerns rather than "I don't believe you", he would get a more civil response. 

Link:

http://www.firstdefense.com/html/Ballistic_Plates_Hard_Armor_Body_Armor.htm

The plates I had issued in Afghanistan were Level IV both front and rear.

Jeff


----------



## Scott (18 Oct 2004)

Morpheus, 

True, and thanks for the link.


----------



## rounder (20 Oct 2004)

> Nice tone buddy.  Have a look what the rating is for the armour plates.  I really don't care if you believe me or not.  Cheers
> 
> Jeff




    Sorry for the assumed hostilities... I had a flight to catch. And thanks... all I wanted was the link. 

Cheers...


----------



## Navalsnpr (31 Oct 2004)

Regarding shooting stances, what works for one person may not work for the next.

I've competed at CFSAC (Canadian Forces Small Arms Competition) six times and have been a member of the CF Bisley Team twice. Depending on your physique and height will either allow you or deny you the ability to hold a good stance.

For example, my standing position puts me at a 45 degree from the target, hands on the magazine and magazine well with my left elbow on top of my magazine pouch and the other down at the same angle of the other arm. It appears to work for me. Other shooters will have their elbows out horizontal, and that works for them.

What you have to do is go to the range and figure out what position works for you, record it and duplicate it all the time.

Repetition is the key to winning at shooting.


----------

