The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 26, 2015, 11:30 PM   #1
dyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,310
American rifleman article: light rifle technique

I came across an article about shooting technique in the latest American Rifleman. The article is "Mastering the lightest of rifles" by Dwight Van Brunt.

There is a quote I have a question about as it conflicts with my current understanding of shooting mechanics and fundamentals. My understanding is that consistency is king. A rest or shooting bag aids to minimize the human contribution of inconsistency. Whatever hold and hand position one practices is what should be used in the field.

Please tell me what you think about this:

"Simply put, the left hand must be used to dampen the initial effects of recoil until the bullet no longer dwells inside the barrel... A better way may be to rest the left hand on the center of the scope with just a bit of downward pressure"

Would give more article but typing on phone and it's slowing down from all the text
dyl is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 06:47 AM   #2
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,792
I can't say for sure why. But I've owned and shot a lot of ultralight rifles. The technique off a bench for consistent accuracy is different on a lightweight. With a heavier rilfe you can often just use one hand on the trigger and let the weight of the rifle steady the forend. But I use my left hand on the forend to add a bit of extra weight and pull down and back sightly.

I've found it improves accuracy. And comfort. Left alone the forend recoils upward and into the face pretty fast I'm convinced that a lot of the negative comments about Kimber's inaccuracies are simply because people don't know how to shoot a light rifle.
jmr40 is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 07:02 AM   #3
Mobuck
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,846
Those lighter rifles require you use the forward hand to hold them down with consistent force or you get a LOT of vertical stringing.
Mobuck is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 10:41 AM   #4
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
I'm missing something somewhere.

Quote:
Whatever hold and hand position one practices is what should be used in the field
This was from the OP then he and others talk of methods of steadying the rifle by holding the rifle by some means to damping the recoil, jump or whatever, but methods that they think work on the bench.

What does bench shooting have to do with field positions?

What does work is "marksmanship fundamentals" be it, light, medium or heavy rifles.

Fundamentals work. Recoil happens whether you are shooting a light or heavy rifle. You cant stop.

But, you can work on fundamentals that allow you to perfectly aligned the sight on the target, you can work on your position that allows the rifle, after recoil to fall back to your natural point of aim.

You DO NOT HOLD the rifle, you rest the rifle, I don't mean on the bench, I mean using bone support. NOT MUSCLES, you don't use muscles to hold the rifle or move it on target. You shift your position to move on target.

When the hammer drops you should be in a total relaxed state, this will help, after recoil, to fall back into that natural relaxed state. This is called follow through.

Follow through does not occur muscling your rifle to get on target, then after the hammer falls and you recover from the recoil you again push your rifle back on target.

Heavy rifles do dampen the movement of the barrel while standing, un-supported. You cant stop movement, regardless of the weight of the rifle. You can control the trigger where during that movement, where you get a surprise break when the sights pass through the target.

You cannot substitute marksmanship fundamentals by heavy barrels or any other tricks or gadgets.

If you have difficulty in shooting light (or any other) rifles, re-visit the fundamentals.

Marksmanship is not about the Hardware (rifle, scopes, rest, etc) its about the soft ware, the Fundamentals and how the shooter approaches those fundamentals.

Shooting is 90% + Mental, you improve your marksmanship by working on that 90%.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 03:43 PM   #5
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 3,995
I have a light 223, which is a little tough to keep steady. I read the article that was mentioned and I went straight to the bench in the back yard. I dry fired the usual way, with left hand on the bunny ear bag, then tried it with the left hand holding down on the scope. Much less of a crosshair dance the second way. Groups were tighter. Interesting. And don't think I haven't tried for a few years to work on technique with that rifle, with variable success.
603Country is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 04:46 PM   #6
dyl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,310
I suppose my conundrum is this: by providing pressure on the scope it may aid in keeping crosshairs steady before the trigger breaks, but once it does, doesn't pressure provided by muscle tension introduce variability? If one could hold the rifle steady before the trigger breaks, would the "jump" of a rifle without a hand on top be more consistent shot after shot?
dyl is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 05:29 PM   #7
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,792
I think Kraigwy explained everything in great detail. The fundamentals are the same. But heavier guns are more forgiving of less than perfect technique.

I don't press down on the top of the scope. When shooting from the bench my technique is almost identical to field shooting, except with the added support of the bags. I simply keep the stocks forend cradled in the palm of my left hand with a light grip on it. The weight of my hand provides just enough downward pressure to help steady things and keep recoil more in a straight backward direction instead of more muzzle flip.

It is my opinion that this does the same thing as pressing down on the scope, but it better translates into field shooting. Pressing down on the scope MIGHT be a slightly better technique off a bench. But you're not likely to be able to use it in the hunting fields.
jmr40 is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 05:40 PM   #8
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
Agreed, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
"This was from the OP then he and others talk of methods of steadying the rifle by holding the rifle by some means to damping the recoil, jump or whatever, but methods that they think work on the bench.

What does bench shooting have to do with field positions?

What does work is "marksmanship fundamentals" be it, light, medium or heavy rifles.

Fundamentals work. Recoil happens whether you are shooting a light or heavy rifle. You cant stop.

But, you can work on fundamentals that allow you to perfectly aligned the sight on the target, you can work on your position that allows the rifle, after recoil to fall back to your natural point of aim.

You DO NOT HOLD the rifle, you rest the rifle, I don't mean on the bench, I mean using bone support. NOT MUSCLES, you don't use muscles to hold the rifle or move it on target. You shift your position to move on target.

When the hammer drops you should be in a total relaxed state, this will help, after recoil, to fall back into that natural relaxed state. This is called follow through.

Follow through does not occur muscling your rifle to get on target, then after the hammer falls and you recover from the recoil you again push your rifle back on target.

Heavy rifles do dampen the movement of the barrel while standing, un-supported. You cant stop movement, regardless of the weight of the rifle. You can control the trigger where during that movement, where you get a surprise break when the sights pass through the target.

You cannot substitute marksmanship fundamentals by heavy barrels or any other tricks or gadgets.

If you have difficulty in shooting light (or any other) rifles, re-visit the fundamentals.

Marksmanship is not about the Hardware (rifle, scopes, rest, etc) its about the soft ware, the Fundamentals and how the shooter approaches those fundamentals.

Shooting is 90% + Mental, you improve your marksmanship by working on that 90%."
I'm not sure you'd call it "tricks or gadgets", but when I was in the Marines we were taught to use a rifle sling looped around a bicep and held in place by tension on the rifle sling to steady M-16A1 and A2 rifles - which remain some of the lightest rifles I personally have experience with.

I'm not sure many Marines would use this technique during short-distance combat engagements, but canny Marines who wanted to hit their targets at 300-400 meters certainly could have used this technique in the field. It takes only a second or two to wrap the sling, and it is particularly effective if you're firing from a shooting position other than prone.

Just MHO.

YMMV.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 09:21 PM   #9
603Country
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Thornton, Texas
Posts: 3,995
Doc, for many years (when necessary), I've used the rifle sling to steady the rifle for offhand shooting at deer. That said, it's still a poor way to hit what I want to hit, so I only do it when there are no other options.

As for what I said about pressing down on the scope and having better grouping, that's true. I only did it that one time, but I can see that it was a considerable improvement. That's, unfortunately, the only good news about that. It isn't really going to work for me when I'm hunting varmints or deer. I'll try it some more, since it did work with that rifle. Just for punching paper, I suppose it'll work. We will see.
603Country is offline  
Old August 27, 2015, 11:26 PM   #10
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
I'm not sure you'd call it "tricks or gadgets", but when I was in the Marines we were taught to use a rifle sling looped around a bicep and held in place by tension on the rifle sling to steady M-16A1 and A2 rifles - which remain some of the lightest rifles I personally have experience with.
the sling is part of the rifle, not a gadget. The sling holds the rifle from the upper arm to where its attached to the rifle.

The left or supporting hand does not grip the rifle. The rifle rest on the open cupped hand.

Again windage is obtained by shifting the position (butt in setting, belt buckle if prone). Elevation is obtained by sliding the support hand fore or aft depending on up or down.

The problem with the M16A1 is the front sling swivel is attached to the barrel not the forearm. Too much pressure on the sling tends to interfere with barrel whip, there fore group.

The right (firing hand) does not grip the rifle hard. it just grips enough to keep the hand from falling off the rifle. It is impossible to squeeze the trigger with a tight grip without disturbing the rifle.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 08:07 AM   #11
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
The basic physics of the situation says that without some opposing downward rotational force forward on the rifle you will get vertical stringing. This is the basic weaknesses of the "just rest the rifle" approach, and absent very heavy rifles it's a fatal flaw. That force can be from preloading the bipod, pulling down with your hand, or a sling. But it must be there.

One of the biggest disservices ever done to accurate shooting is the provably incorrect belief that the bullet exits the barrel before muzzle rise occurs in such a situation.

Edit: it's worth noting that absent such an opposing force, the magnitude of the barrel rise in inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the rifle about your shoulder. So weight, and the distance that weight is forward, are what counteract stringing absent downward force. Thus light rifles, with light barrels (and thus little forward weight), do indeed have this problem to a greater degree when incorrectly shot without opposing force.

Last edited by The Big D; August 28, 2015 at 08:29 AM.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 11:15 AM   #12
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
The basic physics of the situation says that without some opposing downward rotational force forward on the rifle you will get vertical stringing. This is the basic weaknesses of the "just rest the rifle"
The bullet goes which way the barrel is pointed at the time the bullet leaves the barrel.

The jump of the muzzle occurs when the bullet leaves the bullet so recoil doesn't move the bullet off target.

The shooter moves the bullet off target. (environmental concerns can change the path of that pullet, but not as it leaves.)

Muscle tension is required to grip. Muscle tension is a deterrent to good marksmanship because we tend to relax after the trigger falls.

This relaxing occurs when the hammer falls, its a sub-conscience reaction and we don't know we are doing it. We cant control it.

However if a total relaxed state, when you sub-consciously relax, there is no movement because you are already there.

Take an object in your extended hand. Grip it hard and see how the object shakes. We lax the grip and you will see the shaking goes away.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 06:38 PM   #13
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Quote:
The bullet goes which way the barrel is pointed at the time the bullet leaves the barrel.

The jump of the muzzle occurs when the bullet leaves the bullet so recoil doesn't move the bullet off target.
WRONG. Study up on newton's 3rd law and conservation of momentum. For there to be a force on the bullet, there much also be an opposing force on the rifle. So the rifle starts moving due to recoil at exactly the same time the bullet starts moving - when combustion pressure becomes high enough to start forcing the bullet down the barrel (about 3K PSI for typical jacketed bullets).

Not only is this a basic physical fact, it's been verified with high speed cameras numerous times. In the case of recoil operated weapons, you will even see the action begin to unlock before the bullet leaves the barrel - even on pistol length weapons.

Everything subsequent you said stemmed from the above ignorance.

Last edited by The Big D; August 28, 2015 at 06:47 PM.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 07:49 PM   #14
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Relax. It's a technique question, not a physics question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big d
The basic physics of the situation says that without some opposing downward rotational force forward on the rifle you will get vertical stringing.
Vertical stringing would be the result of variability.

Which introduces more variability?

A. A technique in which a rifle is resting in one's hands and against one's shoulder and the primary obstacle to movement of the rifle under recoil is the weight of the rifle, which remains consistent.

or

B. A technique in which the shooter attempts to introduce an additional impediment to movement under recoil by applying pressure to the scope or barrel.

Unless you've developed a system for precisely metering the pressure you apply to the scope and barrel, B necessarily introduces another variable.


I don't doubt that some of you have a light rifle and that you can get better groups on a rest while using the technique you describe. That doesn't mean that it reduces your groups for the reason you describe though. Your hand may have a dampening effect or you may be introducing other subtle differences in technique without realising it.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 07:53 PM   #15
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Quote:
It's a technique question, not a physics question.
The technique is determined by the physics. Ignorance of the physics leads to ignorance about the technique. As usual, two wrongs don't make a right.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 08:17 PM   #16
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
WRONG. Study up on newton's 3rd law and conservation of momentum. For there to be a force on the bullet, there much also be an opposing force on the rifle.
Ok I agree, I never met Newton, nor really studied physics. But I have studied firearms, ammo and ballistics.

I think its best to use Dr. Mann as an example. Mann developed what is called he Mann Accuracy device.

Its nothing more the a super accurate barrel put on a tuned action. The army makes these up and gives them to ammo companies to test their ammo so that it meets the army standard.

The device is just a barreled action:


It has no sights. and may or may not have a partial stock.

The device is laid in a V-trough. No rest, nothing holding it. Its just laid in the trough.


In the last picture you'll see a remote switch, like they use on cameras.

The Mann lays in the trough. The trough is locked down and pointed at the target.



The trough is only pointed at he target, not centered, they don't care if it hits the center of the target only that each bullet hits the target as close to the same spot as the last bullet as possible.

Again the barreled action is laid in the v-trough which is pointed at the target. The trigger is pulled remotely. And under recoil the action jumps up but falls back down into the V. Since there isn't nothing to effect the fall, it falls right back to where it lay when the last round fired. Its loaded again, fired again, it falls back into the same spot. Normally 20 or more rounds are used to get the group. If they don't get the group, they ammo is modified to meet specs.

Again, nothing holds the rifle down to dampen or disrupt recoil. Why, because it doesn't matter. The bullet left the barrel.

The Mann, just lays in the V, the same way it did the last shot. Like putting a marble in a machinist V block. Its going to lay in the bottom, with only its weight holding it to the bottom of the V, or as close to the bottom as the diameter of the marble will allow it.

That is the way a rifle should be held, in the V formed by the thumb and forefinger of the supporting hand. And nothing should hold down the rifle to keep it from recoiling.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 28, 2015, 10:56 PM   #17
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Now this is getting to a bit more of a useful discussion. The rifle DOES move before the bullet leaves the barrel. In the case of a simple barrel in line with the action like that Mann device, there are essentially no rotational forces, so the barrel/action should just move straight back with no torque, no rotation and thus no change in trajectory. The amount it moves depends on the barrel length, bullet weight, and rifle weight. For example for a 175 grain bullet out of a 20" barrel 6lb rifle (since we're talking light rifles) it will move back 83/1000ths of an inch at the point where the bullet exits the barrel. That's OK - since there's no rotation, it works perfectly for accuracy testing.

But if you move to a real rifle, you end up with a different situation. The barrel is generally not in line with the center of mass (or center of rotation around the shoulder) and beyond that you've got other torque-type forces - gravity, the support hand, your shoulder, and minor ones like your cheek and your firing hand grip on the stock. Because of all that the rifle doesn't recoil straight back - it rotates barrel upwards. The amount varies with a lot of factors, but I'd say typical values are 10/1000ths to 20/1000ths of barrel rise before the bullet leaves the barrel. That equates to a 1 to 2 MOA shift in point of impact down range (assuming a 1 y length rifle).

There are two ways to deal with this:
Option one is to allow the rifle to freely rotate and try to hold all those outside forces constant, meaning the rotation will be constant, and then dial the resulting rotation into your sights. This is what kraigwy is advocating. It works, is the historical way shooting has been taught, and can work very well but there are 2 problems:
1) it's hard to hold those forces exactly the same every time
2) they vary by shooting position, especially in unusual/stress field positions
That second problem is why you often see shooters that have good groups in all positions, but POI moves vertically. One of those torque forces (probably shoulder position) changed.

The second option is to keep the rifle from rotating. The way you do this is the same way a vice keeps something from moving - by applying a strong force pushing the should-be stationary object into a second, rigid object. In the case of a gun, this means doing something to pull or push the fore end downward into either the bipod or your rigid support hand/arm. The upside is that, like with a vice, the resulting structure is insensitive to weak outside forces and immobile. It's insensitive to the exact amount of force applied with the shoulder, cheek, firing hand etc. This is because of the way Newton's third law applies to things being pushed against stationary objects The opposite force from the stationary object cancels out whatever minor forces you apply to the "viced" object leaving it stationary. Better yet, this effect cancels out all the rotational forces on the gun, so in effect there is no muzzle rise.

Another nice thing about the second approach is that as long as you get the opposing forces set up right, point of impact won't move relative to point of aim no matter what the shooting position is.

The downside of the second approach is that every time you shoot it's to some degree a stress position, and you typically have to be stressed in the support hand and shoulder while loose in the shooting hand. That's takes some practice.

In general, most rifle disciplines have been slowing moving from the first approach to the second, and accuracy has improved as a result. The lighter the rifle is, the more benefit there is to the second approach. Make the rifle heavy enough relative to the bullet (think benchrest unrestricted class), and gravity is effectively the mobile half of the vice (the bench is the other half) and the two methods become the same thing.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 06:07 AM   #18
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by big d
Option one is to allow the rifle to freely rotate and try to hold all those outside forces constant, meaning the rotation will be constant, and then dial the resulting rotation into your sights. This is what kraigwy is advocating. It works, is the historical way shooting has been taught, and can work very well but there are 2 problems:
1) it's hard to hold those forces exactly the same every time
2) they vary by shooting position, especially in unusual/stress field positions
That second problem is why you often see shooters that have good groups in all positions, but POI moves vertically. One of those torque forces (probably shoulder position) changed.
Indeed. There is no doubt that the human part of the mechanism introduces variability. That doesn't reasonably suggest that introducing an additional human element will reduce variability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big d
The second option is to keep the rifle from rotating. The way you do this is the same way a vice keeps something from moving - by applying a strong force pushing the should-be stationary object into a second, rigid object. In the case of a gun, this means doing something to pull or push the fore end downward into either the bipod or your rigid support hand/arm. The upside is that, like with a vice, the resulting structure is insensitive to weak outside forces and immobile. It's insensitive to the exact amount of force applied with the shoulder, cheek, firing hand etc. This is because of the way Newton's third law applies to things being pushed against stationary objects The opposite force from the stationary object cancels out whatever minor forces you apply to the "viced" object leaving it stationary. Better yet, this effect cancels out all the rotational forces on the gun, so in effect there is no muzzle rise.
The technique described in the first couple of posts doesn't involve holding the rifle under "vice" like pressure that would make the rifle stationary. The technique instead is described as,

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyl
...the left hand must be used to dampen the initial effects of recoil ...
and

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmr40
left hand on the forend to add a bit of extra weight and pull down and back sightly...
Under recoil, that sort of human influenced pressure is the minor force as compared to the recoil, and the degree to which it inhibits recoil will be as variable as the pressure applied by the person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big d
Another nice thing about the second approach is that as long as you get the opposing forces set up right, point of impact won't move relative to point of aim no matter what the shooting position is.
That's true of the first approach as well though. If you remove the human variation in either technique, well, you've removed the human variation.


That doesn't mean that the second approach isn't getting better results for someone, just that it isn't because they've eliminated recoil.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 06:09 AM   #19
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,716
I am reminded of the Yogi Berra quote " "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

I am with Kraigwy on this one - both from personal experience shooting for 30+ years, and referencing my master's degree in physics.

Quote:
Another nice thing about the second approach is that as long as you get the opposing forces set up right, point of impact won't move relative to point of aim no matter what the shooting position is.
Therein lies the rub - " as long as you get the opposing forces set up right "
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 09:43 AM   #20
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Quote:
Indeed. There is no doubt that the human part of the mechanism introduces variability. That doesn't reasonably suggest that introducing an additional human element will reduce variability.
Answer me this - how much does an object clamped in a vice move when you apply modest forces to it?

The answer of course is NONE - it doesn't move at all. By using the 2nd method, a whole host of human factors become irrelevant, replaced by one big force (bipod preload, sling pull down, etc.) doing all the work like the movable half of the vice. Any force too small to overcome that disappears into thin air (really, is counteracted by Newton's 3rd law), just like with the vice.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 09:45 AM   #21
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Quote:
I am with Kraigwy on this one - both from personal experience shooting for 30+ years, and referencing my master's degree in physics.
This one will play out in a predictable way. The old shooters will do it wrong, the new shooters will do it right, and the new shooters shoot better. The last discipline to change will be service rifle, because it's inherently a 2MOA discipline.
The Big D is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 10:38 AM   #22
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
This one will play out in a predictable way. The old shooters will do it wrong, the new shooters will do it right, and the new shooters shoot better. The last discipline to change will be service rifle, because it's inherently a 2MOA discipline
Old shooters do it wrong???

Gary Anderson set the world record in 300 Meter ISU 3 position in about 1968. No "new" shooter or anyone else has beat his record.

Gary Anderson teaches today, he Jr small bore and the CMP Master Instructors course. He teaches as I mentioned.

The AMU, has younger shooters. They teach the same method. Notice the support hand, its open.



Again, (an old shooter), the support hand doesn't grip the rifle.





Service rifles are 1.5 to 2 MOA. They are SERVICE RIFLES and not precision rifles.

Precision rifle shooting is a bit different the service rifles in as much they shoot from bipods, or bags, (bags for and aft). A 2 MOA precision rifle wont cut it.

In precision rifle the rifle is rested on a support, the support hand is moved to the rear of the rifle, holding the rear bag or the stock.



Here are a series of precision rifle shooters, not mine so I'll just post the link.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...6wg&ajaxhist=0

I have been shooting competition for since '77, coaching and running sniper schools since shortly after that. In all that time, I've never seen a shooter (old or new) hold the rifle down as you mentioned.

The rifle is allowed to recoil, and if you have a correct position, after recoil it will fall back for the next shot giving you your perfect sight alignment for the next shot with out you having to move.

Visit a High Power, f-class, or precision match, you will not find any shooters holding the rifle down. (that's gravity's job). You may see it at a bench at a gun range where people are plinking, but not at a match.

With all do respect to Mr. Issac Newton, He didn't shoot.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 10:51 AM   #23
Picher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 3,694
When I was a teenager (many moons ago), I cast a block of lead with a feed ramp at the top that I could place in the magazine well when shooting at the range. It worked very well, adding about three pounds(?) to the rifle and taming recoil on my light 30-06 Savage 110.
Picher is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 12:00 PM   #24
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Kraigwy, there is no fighting physics. The problem here is big d's application.

Quote:
Originally Posted by big d
Oh, just out of curiosity, how many students did you incorrectly teach the the rifle didn't move under recoil prior to the bullet leaving the barrel? I'm always interested in the precise mechanics of how ignorance spreads through our world, especially in the context of government expenditures to spread ignorance.
Before you unload invective about ignorance, you might take care to correctly quote the statement. He didn't write the bolded above. Take a moment and go back to review the words.

Last edited by zukiphile; August 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old August 29, 2015, 12:03 PM   #25
The Big D
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2015
Posts: 173
Yes he did. I quote, from post #12:
Quote:
The jump of the muzzle occurs when the bullet leaves the bullet so recoil doesn't move the bullet off target.
He said EXACTLY what I claimed he said.
The Big D is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09029 seconds with 8 queries