Ergonomics

[kraigwy]

This would have been WAY off topic from the sight it was posted so I'm starting another tread regarding ergonomics and thought it would better fit the General Rifle Forum

Ditto the M16 (if there is a gun with worse ergonomics I don't know what it is but people who train on it swear by it). It just means you can train around any deficiency.

I don't know what some people call "ergonomics" but my ideal is ease of use.

Taking the M16 example. What other rifle has better ergonomics?

You can reach the selector switch/safety with your shooting hand without changing your grip that much, without taking it out of your shoulder.

You can also hit the mag release with your shooting hand while reaching for a second magazine, and if the magazine is correct, it will fall under its own empty weight, allowing your free hand to come up and insert the next magazine and hitting the bolt release (if you ran the rifle dry)

All

Without taking the rifle from your shoulder, or your eyes off the sights/target.

I've shot a lot of other military style rifles but none with the ergonomics I've found with the M16 series.

My favorite, and the one I shot the most, would be the M14/M1A. I really like the M14 rifle but it can't compare with the M16 when it comes to ergonomics.

You have to take your hand off the pistol grip to get to the magazine release, then push the mag, out and down. Then release the bolt, Yes the bolt released can be reached with your trigger finger, but still you have to take your hand off the pistol grip to remove and insert magazines.

The safety on the M14 can be reached with the trigger finger but even that is not as fast and easy as releasing the safety on the M16.

At least the with the M14 you can change the mag without taking the rifle out off your shoulder, something that I can't do in loading the M1.

To me that's ergonomics.................or is it that I don't know the meaning of ergonomics when it comes to rifles?

[Crow Hunter]

To me, good ergonomics on a rifle mean that I can operate the rifle while expending the least amount of time and energy possible.

I think the M16 FOW got almost everything right.

The one change that I would like to have to the ergonomics of the AR is the ability to lock the bolt open with the same finger as I drop the magazine with.

So that if needed, I could lock the bolt open while drawing the bolt back with my off hand instead of having to drop the rifle down and use my right hand to draw back the bolt while engaging the bolt catch if needed for malfunction clearances.

Otherwise, it is superior to every rifle of it's time period and is the basis for basically all the newer generation rifles. (Same safety, mag release, bolt release)

While it is very possible to adapt to a gun with inferior ergonomics and that should not be a persons only reason for using a gun, superior ergonomics will always makes someone faster and more repeatable. (There are whole engineering disciplines built around shaving seconds and fractions of seconds off of operations by improving operator ergonomics.)

[Woody55]

My only complaint is that I wind up doing a lot of shooting with the lower edge of the stock touching my shoulder instead of the whole stock against my shoulder. Otherwise, I have to contort myself to get a good sight picture.

This is because the stock goes straight back instead of down like on traditional rifles. The reason it is designed that way is so the muzzle doesn't rise so much when firing on automatic. Less torgue around your shoulder.

The sights are elevated to make up for this. However, as I got older, I wanted the sights to be higher. Probably because I'm not as flexible as I used to be.

I don't recall having that problem when I was younger.

[dgludwig]

My vote for the rifle with the best "ergonomics" (if there really is such a thing) goes to the Winchester Model 94 carbine. Now there's a little rifle that handles and points quickly, especially in thick cover, and the hammer is instantly available. The Model 94 made the 30-30 cartridge popular, not vice-versa, imo.

[Double Naught Spy]

There are all sorts of ways of looking at ergonomics, the efficiency work or design. What is 'efficient' can vary on perspective, but it all will come down to sustainability. How well is efficiency maintained for the period of time during which the work is done or device is utlized?

The M16 does well with the hand controls, no doubt about it. As with any design, it can be improved, but does well as put into service. However, it has one flaw disliked by many and it was done to be more ergonomic, the high sight system. Clint Smith would argue against the efficiency of the M16 due to this and that is because of getting "canoes" put through your head when the enemy shoots you there because your head sticks up higher with the M16 than with many other guns. Being dead destroys the sustainability of action in real life application (battle).

As with the 1911, there are folks for whom the grip and grip area controls are not easily manipulated. Modification of the gun makes that more possible.

Beyond the high head target complaint of Smith, most any action on the M16 can be performed repeatedly and comfortably over a long period of time and so that would qualify the rifle as being nicely ergonomic for most folks. Something to not here is that as with shoe sizes, there is no universally accepted single size that fits all. Just because some people find the gun ergonomic does not mean it will be to everyone.

[kraigwy]

Clint Smith would argue against the efficiency of the M16 due to this and that is because of getting "canoes" put through your head when the enemy shoots you there because your head sticks up higher with the M16 than with many other guns.

LOL,

Never heard that one before.

All do respect to Clint Smith, but........ Didn't seem to be a problem in SE Asia, when I attended the Live Fire FTX with pop-up, shoot-back targets.

[btmj]

You can also hit the mag release with your shooting hand while reaching for a second magazine, and if the magazine is correct, it will fall under its own empty weight, allowing your free hand to come up and insert the next magazine and hitting the bolt release (if you ran the rifle dry)

All Without taking the rifle from your shoulder, or your eyes off the sights/target.



I can't seem to do this with my rifle. From a standing position, I can't hold it against my shoulder, with only my right hand on the pistol grip. When I take my left hand off the handguard to reach for a mag (or to do anything else), the muzzle falls down, rotating the stock off my shoulder. My usual process is to drop the mag and then point the weapon at the sky, holding it in my right hand, while using my left to insert a new mag. Then back on target.

I have a 16 inch barrel, a modest 4x scope, no light or assecories mounted forward. I have handled other AR carbines, and mine does not seem unusually muzzle heavy. They all seem a bit muzzle heavy. Am I doing something wrong?

I don't want to derail the discussion too much. I love the AR-15 and consider it to have very good ergonomics... BUT, it is different from most other rifles. If you are accustomed to shooting bolts, levers, pumps, you get use to supporting the weapon with your left hand while your right hand loads and manipulates the action. The AR-15 may be better, but it is different, and that takes some getting use to. Particularly if you shoot a wide variety of long guns.

[Jo6pak]

The thing about ergonomics is that it is highly individual. One size does not fit all, and neither does one rifle.

That's why we get to collect so many:cool:

[btmj]

The very first time my wife shot my AR-15, she shot it very well. After the first 20 round mag, she was making 300 yard shots on a 12 inch gong. She could hit the 100 yard gong shooting rapidly.

More so than any other rifle, the AR-15 design is very easy for beginners to shoot very well. And THAT might be the clearest defense of the AR-15 ergonomics.

[Art Eatman]

I first heard the word applied to cars. Comfort and convenience when driving. Location of controls, seating positions and all that.

So, same for rifles. The caveat is that most designs of anything are okay for some 85% of all people--but some 15% of all people are either taller or shorter or skinnier or fatter than the 85% "standard".

[kraigwy]

Clint Smith would argue against the efficiency of the M16 due to this and that is because of getting "canoes" put through your head when the enemy shoots you there because your head sticks up higher with the M16 than with many other guns

I got to thinking about this and it drove me nuts until I went out and measured the center of the rear sight to the comb or where your face is suppose to do.

My A2 Style AR is right at 1/2 inch higher then the rear sight to the comb on the M1.

I really think that's a non-issue.

[HiBC]

kraigwy,I take it you measured drop at the comb to sight height.The 1/2 inch difference is even less significant if you figure in drop at the heel.The M-16 has zero,the Garand has some.

These days most folks are carrying the M-4 .The collapsable stock is useful for varying LOP.From up close and moving with the butt on the chest below the eye,stock collapsed,to extended for conventional positions,tall to short,thats pretty ergonomic,too.

The vertical foregrip is pretty common .I have the folding Yankee Hill on mine.Now,I'm talking my scoped prairie dog gun.I sometimes shoot in a modified Hawkins position.My left fist is on the ground.The vertical foregrip is in that fist.Very low,best with 20 rd mags,and very steady.

[Chris_B]

I have a Colt sporter in 5.56. I guess you'd call it an 'A2', no removable handle, no bells, no whistles, no rails no optics but iron sights, nothing.

I've never served. When I wanted to buy an AR I took along a friend who did serve, US Army. We looked at a bunch and he picked up the rifle I have now, and said "you want this one"

He taught me to use it in 30 seconds, and the instructions he gave me stuck in my head. From completely untrained to being able to use the rifle even if it jams (which I haven't had happen) in such a short time tells me that there's something 'right' about the rifle, regarding ease of use. It's easy to use and easy to shoot, and easy to be passably accurate with

That's not the classic 'ergonomics' as we think of it today, but easy is still easy

[Hawg]

Another vote for the model 94.

[jmr40]

Ditto the M16 (if there is a gun with worse ergonomics I don't know what it is but people who train on it swear by it). It just means you can train around any deficiency.

Someone is confusing esthetics with ergonomics.

An M-16 or AR may not be pretty by some peoples definition, but they are probably the most ergonomic, functional rifle ever developed.

[Double Naught Spy]

All do respect to Clint Smith, but........ Didn't seem to be a problem in SE Asia, when I attended the Live Fire FTX with pop-up, shoot-back targets.

That was where Clint Smith got his experience with the M16 was SE Asia.

I really think that's a non-issue.

I see you have fallen into your own trap, so to speak, about what is being ergonomic. The M16 is great because you like the erogonomics, but when somebody points out something less ergonomic, you discount it as a non-issue. That is something interesting about ergonomics, the little 1/2 here and 1/2 there problems that mean the difference between what people like and what people don't.

[raimius]

I see you have fallen into your own trap, so to speak, about what is being ergonomic. The M16 is great because you like the erogonomics, but when somebody points out something less ergonomic, you discount it as a non-issue. That is something interesting about ergonomics, the little 1/2 here and 1/2 there problems that mean the difference between what people like and what people don't.
While having your face .5in higher might get it shot off, I don't think it really falls under "ergonomics."

[kraigwy]

When you get your spot weld, the M16 any different then any other battle rifle.

[Picher]

To me, ergonomics with sporting rifles means that the rifle has the right combination of weight, balance, length of pull, drop at the cheek rest and heel, and shape to minimize felt recoil and align the eye with the sights.

For example, a Winchester 94 was mentioned as having perfect ergonomics and while I agree to a great extent, it can be one of the worst when a scope is mounted on it, especially the older ones that need a side mount.

I like my rifles to snap up quickly and perfectly aligned. Low-mounted scopes on Remington 700s are close to perfect, but I also like Tikkas, which also have palm swells that feel nice.

My Franchi O/U 20 gauge shotgun is the most ergonomic firearm I've ever handled. It seems made just for me! I can flip the safety off and bring it up in a half-second, pointing perfectly every time. Recoil is well-directed, making a second shot very quick, but not often necessary. I'd thought my Rem semi-autos pointed well, but they are a bit slower to mount and don't down as many clay birds.

[dgludwig]

For example, a Winchester 94 was mentioned as having perfect ergonomics and while I agree to a great extent, it can be one of the worst when a scope is mounted on it, especially the older ones that need a side mount.

Though I nominated the Model 94 as a leading candidate for The Rifle That Fits Best category, I was careful to not mention putting any kind of optical sight on it. With the exception of one Savage Model 99 rifle, all of my lever-actions have the Williams "FoolProof" receiver sight mounted on them. I have an early Remington Model 760 rifle that was made with a stock having a relatively low drop on the comb. It is also best suited in terms of fit (proper eye to stock "weld") with a receiver sight. But in terms of a scope destroying or diminishing the handling qualities of the Model 94 or its ilk, the same can be said for a lot of other rifles, including the AR-15.

[allaroundhunter]

I can't seem to do this with my rifle. From a standing position, I can't hold it against my shoulder, with only my right hand on the pistol grip. When I take my left hand off the handguard to reach for a mag (or to do anything else), the muzzle falls down, rotating the stock off my shoulder. My usual process is to drop the mag and then point the weapon at the sky, holding it in my right hand, while using my left to insert a new mag. Then back on target.

Do you have weakness in your shoulder or arms? The AR platform (especially in carbine form) is very light. There should not be much of a problem with holding the rifle against your shoulder while you perform a mag change.

[Chris_B]

Do you have weakness in your shoulder or arms? The AR platform (especially in carbine form) is very light. There should not be much of a problem with holding the rifle against your shoulder while you perform a mag change.

Out of curiosity, I just tried this with four rifles:

1903A3
M1 rifle
M1 Carbine
Colt Sporter with 20" barrel

Of those four, when I hold the Colt Sporter to my shoulder and drop my left hand, the barrel wanders down. The other rifles, even the relatively heavy M1, do not produce this effect and I can hold them to my shoulder with ease, one handed

It's because as I pull back with my right hand to sock the Colt rifle into my shoulder, my right hand, on the pistol grip, is lower than my shoulder, causing me to pull down as well

If I do not try to sock the butt into my shoulder, there's no problem doing it

As for strength, I have no problem whatsoever holding that same Colt Sporter out at full Arm's length, with just my right hand, as if the rifle were a pistol I would shoot one handed in the classic stance

It seems to me that this is a body mechanics issue that will vary from shooter to shooter

[allaroundhunter]

Chris, that is interesting. I suppose it could vary person to person, and have to do with body type/mechanics. I have just never had a problem with it and have never heard of others having it either.

[Chris_B]

Yes, I was surprised when it happened

Been messing around with it. It's because of the height of my elbow

I typically have my right elbow fairly high when I shoot. If I lower my right elbow while holding the Colt, there's no problem socking the Sporter in one-handed. raise it, and the barrel droops

I learned something new today! I wonder how that new mechanic will influence my shooting that rifle. I feel it can improve it, as it must be more stable to have my elbow lower

[allaroundhunter]

I learned something new today! I wonder how that new mechanic will influence my shooting that rifle. I feel it can improve it, as it must be more stable to have my elbow lower

Learning something new about our body mechanics is always a good thing when it comes to shooting. It cannot make our shooting worse, it can only help!

[btmj]

Chris_B is on to something...

I tried again with the AR. I could not do it no matter how hard I pulled the rifle into my shoulder with my right hand. I could keep the stock from falling off my shoulder, but there is no way the sights would stay "on target"

However, I can keep my Winchester Model 12 shot gun on my shoulder, holding it with just my right hand. I notice that the stance for a shotgun puts my right elbow well underneath the stock, and my body is only slightly bladed to the target. I am also crouched.

With the rifle (any rifle) I am fully errect, most of my weight is on my right foot, and bladed 45 degrees or more to the target. Left elbow directly under the forearm, and right elbow 90 degrees out (horizontal). I notice that I am fully supporting the weight of the rifle with my left hand, and my right hand is relaxed and pulling into my shoulder just enough to maintain shoulder contact. I don't think about it, this is how I have always shot a rifle, it is how I was taught.

If I pull my right elbow under the weapon, and hold it more like a shotgun, there is no problem supporting it with just my right hand. But that does not seem like a very accurate way to shoot... :)

[madcratebuilder]

Ergonomics is a multidisciplinary field incorporating contributions from psychology, engineering, industrial design, graphic design, statistics, operations research and anthropometry. In essence it is the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body and its cognitive abilities.

Last two words.

I would say the AR is a highly ergonomic. It can easily be changed by the end user to suit the end users cognitive abilities.

[Malamute]

I think the comment about the line of sight being higher isn't about the stock, its about the height of the sights over the line of the barrel. The sights being higher than the barrel mean that to get over a berm or cover, you are more exposed than if the sights were closer to the barrel, and you werent as tall above the cover to use the sights. I dont know how much difference that makes to others, it doesn't much to me, I hardly ever get into firefights, and dont anticipate basing my gun choices on that issue. I like the general ergonomics of the AR types. I was surprised the first time I tried a shot at a running rabbit and scored the first round. I repeated that many times when I fooled around with them. It's all academic to me, I don't own an AR.

The AR isn't alone in the height of the sights over the barrel, the AK preceded it by several years.

I agree with Kraigs assesment of ergonomics. Many guns seem to fit me well without much drama, and a few don't. The ones that fit well are easier to use well, and are generally quicker to use.

[HiBC]

I'mnot a veteran,or particularly skilled at any shooting discipline at the moment,but I will suggest this:The classic,elbow high offhand shooting position works good!!Except for one thing,it is being discussed in the context of rapid magazine changes.

I suggest if you need a rapid magazine change and this is about serious purposes....there are a lot of better options than the classic marksman offhand....like getting some cover?And maybe,if you are on your hind legs,be moving and shooting?Stock short,elbows covering ribs?

I'm thinking,if someone is shooting back that standing still stuff does not work out for a prairie dog.

[kraigwy]

HiBC, you don't need to be in combat to realize the benefit of the quick mag. change of the AR.

They are quite popular in 3 gun and multi gun events where you shoot, move to cover or another position and magazine changes are required.

You shoot, and while moving you hit the mag release with the thumb on your shooting hand while the support had grabs for another magazine. The empty mag falls from the rifle under its own weight and the left or support hand slaps another mag in the weld.

No other rifle I know of is as fast or as easy when it comes with changing magazines on the run, without looking.

I believe that is why they are so popular in competition.

It worked the same way in combat, the point man, empties his clip full auto and falls to the ground as he reloads, the slack (guy behind the point man) does the same thing when the point man drops, then normally (the way we did it) the '60 gunner is right behind the slack and is now ready to move up and take up his position while the rest of the squad forms a line.

Again, I've never seen a rifle that worked better in these cases.

I've done most of my match shooting with a M14 or M1A, you have to take your shooting hand off the pistol grip to change magazines. In high power that's not a big problem.

The way I did it was to fire my first two rounds, roll to the left a tad and change mags while I'm looking through the spotting scope at my first two hits to see if I need a sight change. But in this case I'm not running to cover or to a new firing point. Plus I have 60 seconds to get in position, shoot two, look load and shoot 8 more. Thats a lot of time, in 3 gun or multi gun you don't get the luxury of that much time.

As too the AR forcing your head higher, putting you in danger.......all I can say its a none issue.............probably the dumbest thing I ever heard about ARs.

[raimius]

Chris_B is on to something...

I tried again with the AR. I could not do it no matter how hard I pulled the rifle into my shoulder with my right hand. I could keep the stock from falling off my shoulder, but there is no way the sights would stay "on target"

However, I can keep my Winchester Model 12 shot gun on my shoulder, holding it with just my right hand. I notice that the stance for a shotgun puts my right elbow well underneath the stock, and my body is only slightly bladed to the target. I am also crouched.

With the rifle (any rifle) I am fully errect, most of my weight is on my right foot, and bladed 45 degrees or more to the target. Left elbow directly under the forearm, and right elbow 90 degrees out (horizontal). I notice that I am fully supporting the weight of the rifle with my left hand, and my right hand is relaxed and pulling into my shoulder just enough to maintain shoulder contact. I don't think about it, this is how I have always shot a rifle, it is how I was taught.

If I pull my right elbow under the weapon, and hold it more like a shotgun, there is no problem supporting it with just my right hand. But that does not seem like a very accurate way to shoot...
Supporting the firearm from underneath is going to be easier than supporting it from the horizontal.

An "elbows in" stance is taught by a lot of mil/leo instructors. Keeping your elbows in provides a narrower stance so you don't bump into things as easily, and you present a slightly smaller target. If you slightly crank down on the rifle like twisting a towel to wring it out, you might get a little more stability. It probably won't be as stable as the traditional olympic/competition stance, but it shouldn't be a whole lot less.

[imp]

Most of the threads I read where Kraigwy has posted, I usually keep my booger pickers off the keyboard, because he usually posts something very similar to what I would, except he's smarter and more experience than I. This time I feel like I need to add my little bit.

Definition of Ergonomics. Design factors, intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort.

On the M16, the saftey selector, mag release, and trigger are accessible by the right shooting hand. ( Sorry lefties, it's a right hand world...)

The bolt release is just behind the off hand, easily engaged without losing sight picture.

The only reason to break sight picture on the M16 is to pull the charging handle, and IMHO, that should be done before going into a hostile environment.

The only thing I personally dont like about the M16 is the forward assist. Should just have a bolt handle on the side, like every other battle rifle worth its salt.

Overall, the weapon is light weight, can be operated with a minimum of movement, is easily adjustable and mission adaptable. It is the essence of ergonomics in a weapons platform.

[Crow Hunter]

Should just have a bolt handle on the side, like every other battle rifle worth its salt.

While this wasn't applicable at the time it was designed, the rear charging handle is a serious benefit with modern optics and accessories.

I have access to a couple of SCARs (L&H) and that reciprocating side charging handle is not as "ergonomic" for me as the rear charging handle. (Technically I am baby sitting them at my house right now:D)

It gets in the way, you will bang your knuckles on optics when charging causing you to let go of the handle before you get it all the way back, it can get caught on chest harnesses and pull it slightly out of battery (it usually goes back but sometimes it doesn't), it pokes you when you are walking with it slung:rolleyes:, unless you move it to the right side.

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a great idea because my 1st EBR was an AK and I liked the charging handle. Once I got to try and use one with optics on the SCAR, I lost my enthusiasm.:(

[Malamute]

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a great idea.... Once I got to try and use one with optics on the SCAR, I lost my enthusiasm.


Interesting how things in real life use don't always work out like we thought they would.

[Crow Hunter]

Interesting how things in real life use don't always work out like we thought they would.

Yes it is.

Luckily it was my brother's money spent on them and not mine.

:D

That being said, I would take that SCAR 17 over any .308 AR I have ever picked up just based on weight alone. I would have to find a work around for the charging handle.;)