Push / pull method with an AR?

[Mikey223]

I've been wondering why is the push/pull method so prevalent when shooting shotguns, but not when shooting ARs.
I (almost) can't find anything (either on the web or youtube) about shooting ARs like that (pulling with your strong hand and pushing with your support hand - like you wanna stretch the rifle). Everybody teaches pulling with your support hand. Why is that?

I mean if the push/pull method lowers the recoil on a shotgun, wouldn't be the same (or even better) on an AR? Can you explain why or why not?

Please be nice. I'm getting my first AR and I'm still learning - so keep that in mind. Thanks


https://youtu.be/UwCazttvm4w?si=xgS-O5iRJ3L_fKUY

https://dryfiretrainingcards.com/blo...aining-errors/

[Unclenick]

Welcome to the forum.

On reflection, I do that in the prone position at matches, though I never heard it called "push-pull" in that context. I am right-handed, so I pull the rifle into my shoulder with my right hand (trigger hand), but my left arm anchors the sling while the web between the thumb and index finger of that hand (inside the shooting glove) bears against the sling swivel at the diagonal angle of the sling, which has both right and forward force vectors. It's a very solid position for me. On offhand standing targets (no sling allowed under the match rules), my left hand is just a gun rest platform while my right pulls the stock into my shoulder, though not as firmly as in a prone position, where the sling is helping pull it back.

Jeff Cooper taught snap shooting with both hands pulling the rifle back into your shoulder. With a heavy recoiling rifle, this is the way to handle it. The harder you pull the stock into the shoulder, the less velocity the rifle develops rearward before your shoulder stops it, so the less kinetic energy it transfers to your shoulder. If you hold it loose, or worse, hold it out away from your shoulder as some benchrest shooters do, it picks up much more reward velocity and, therefore, kinetic energy that your shoulder has to stop, and that is painful with a big gun.

Your AR, however, unlike an African big game rifle, is a pussycat on recoil. You can choose to shoot it either way without fear of orthopedic consequences. So, just find what works for you for the kind of shooting you do. Experimentation is half the fun.

[JohnKSa]

Recoil management is not usually a major concern in AR type platforms. There are, of course, some that are chambered for cartridges with significant recoil, but they are in the minority. The nature of the standard AR is that it tends to be chambered in cartridges that have mild recoil.

Pulling with the support hand helps manage muzzle rise to facilitate rapid follow-up shots.

[tangolima]

I have been thinking about the same thing as a physics problem, and more or less come to the same conclusion. Simply, overly, put, pulling back with both hands adds to the backwards forces and promotes muzzle rise before bullet exits.

However, I haven't experimented it yet as I mostly shoot bench top or prone with rear bag.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Mikey223]

I watched this video: https://youtu.be/r3ZNJe1f0F8?si=B_pfPVsXdcIXu3S9

Seems like the push/pull method dropped the recoil by half. It also decreased muzzle raise so the guy had faster follow up shots.

Yeah sure .223 doesn't have the same recoil as the 12ga semiauto, but if it worked on the shotgun it should work on an AR as well right? I mean, like @tangolima said, why add to the recoil (by pulling in the same direction as the recoil), while you can go in the opposite direction

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though

[TunnelRat]

I’ve had some instructors suggest using a push/pull with a rifle as a way of having tension on the rifle to help with stability. I’ve also had instructors suggest a sort of rotational tension where you apply inward or outward pressure with the strong and support hands, almost like you were twisting the rifle by applying pressure to the grip and handguard. It felt a bit odd to me, but I have a lot of repetitions of not doing that, so it takes me time to adjust and I admittedly didn’t put much effort into it.

Given you’ll soon have your own rifle, experiment and find what works best for you.

[tangolima]

What I said is over simplified. Here is a lesser simplified version.

The push-pull tension are internal forces. It doesn't not affect the interaction between the rifle and shooter's body, i.e. the recoil force is the same (over simplification). However it does change how that recoil force is distributed and absorbed. With pull-pull, it is all in the right shoulder. With push-pull, part of it is on the left shoulder via the pushing left hand.

AR is indeed less a concern, because of the default small caliber (light bullet) and inline design. In order words, push-pull has more benefits for hard recoiling guns with traditional drop butt stock. Pump shotgun is typically example of such.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

On my Beretta 1301 (a semiautomatic shotgun), if I’m honest with myself I tend to shoot it as I would a rifle because that’s what my primary long gun is and, as I alluded to above, I have so many repetitions doing it one way that I have to consciously remind myself to do a push/pull. I still gain some stability on the 1301 pulling rearward on the handguard. The push/pull is better, but the difference is not so dramatic with the 1301, which is relatively mild to shoot, that I can’t make do. To John’s point above, the gains you see from the technique and how obvious those gains are can depend on the cartridge being fired.

[tangolima]

The recoil will unlock the pump. One would have to pull mighty hard to override.

FL: force exerted on gun by left hand.
FR: force exerted on gun by right hand.
FS: force exerted on gun by shoulder.
FG: force to decelerate gun after firing.

FS is the felt recoil and the force that torques the muzzle up.

FG is function of gun's internal ballistics based upon conservation of momentum.

Pull-pull
FS-FL-FR=FG
FS=FG+FL+FR

Push-pull
FS+FL-FR=FG
FS=FG-FL+FR

The latter has lower felt recoil on the shoulder. It is not free lunch. The left hand takes away part of the force. Theoretically the left hand can take up all the force and nothing on the shoulder, as in firing from hip.

FG-FL+FR=0
FL=FG+FR

I'm going to try it when I get home. First is to reverse and relocate the finger stop for c-clamp hold.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

During the past 50+ years I've shot a lot of rifles and shotguns, from .22 to ,458Win Mag. .410 to 10 gauge, every action type and also select fire.

The ONLY gun I remember for sure where pushing on the fore end made any sense was the old Winchester Model 12. This is because firing the model 12 does not unlock the action. Moving the fore end about 1/4" FORWARD after the gun fires unlocks the action. More modern guns don't do that, generally.

With rifles, its pull/pull with both hands. And, its especially important when shooting rifles with considerable recoil.

The object is to pull the rifle tight into your shoulder, and keep it there during firing. (I'm talking field shooting here, not benchrested)

Trust me, the last thing you want with a heavy recoiling rifle is to give the rifle butt a running start before it hits your shoulder, just as you don't want the your shoulder braced against something solid with no give.

Both of these situations will magnify the felt recoil considerably and usually painfully. This doesn't really apply to ARs or other light recoiling rifle, but applies to heavier recoiling ones, in spades!

with light recoiling rifles pulling the butt tight into your shoulder isn't needed for managing recoil, but it does help prevent the butt from slipping, which is also a benefit, and doing it the same way with all rifles is also a benefit, I think.

You can mathematically quantify the force of the push and the pull, and plug it into a formula, I can't tell you if it makes any significant difference in felt recoil, but I doubt it does. I can tell you that if you don't pull the butt in tight, you definately CAN tell the difference in felt recoil, BEEN THERE DONE THAT, GOT THE BRUISES...

[4V50 Gary]

Concur with 44_AMP. Pump action need some pushing to ensure the action is locked up.

I prefer straight pull on semi and manually operated (lever, bolt, single shot) action. The only firearm I'll use push/pull is if I'm using a Weaver hold/stance with a pistol.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

Concur with 44_AMP. Pump action need some pushing to ensure the action is locked up.

I prefer straight pull on semi and manually operated (lever, bolt, single shot) action. The only firearm I'll use push/pull is if I'm using a Weaver hold/stance with a pistol.

Hmm.. I'm afraid we are talking about different things. Pump handguard pushed forward to chamber and lock. After that there is no need to keep pushing. The action locks itself up, so much so that you need to press a button to unlock if you want to eject the round unfired.

Need to push handguard after firing to unlock? True for dry firing. With live firing, the gun's recoil does that for you. It is no issue.

Watch the video clips op posted. People on them are no beginners. I'm convinced enough to give it a try when I get home. Shooting sport is not new. It is still evolving. New ideas and methods do work better sometimes.

The first rifle I fired was a light weight Remington 700 adl in .30-06. I got bruises, not on shoulder but on my cheek. I pulled with both hands to save my dear life. The rifle rotates up so violently that the butt stock smacked my right cheek each time it went off. Later I learned ease off the pull a bit to avoid the smack. When I come to think about it, it is a long the same line.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

Need to push handguard after firing to unlock? True for dry firing. With live firing, the gun's recoil does that for you. It is no issue.

Not exactly true for all makes and models of pump guns. My comment was specific to the Winchester Model 1912, other guns work slightly differently.

I've owned a model 12 for over 50 years, and I know how they work. Recoil alone does not unlock the action. With the normal firing grip on the forend, recoil moves the gun enough, relative to the forend, to unlock the action, because you are holding the forend. Pushing forward a bit on the forend ensures this happens, but its usually not actually needed, if you hold the forend firmly and let the gun recoil away from it.

IF you fire the model 12 without holding the forend, it does not unlock.

i had a Rem 870 that would open up after dry firing if you just shook it the right way, with no pressure on the forend. It was made to do that. The model 12 wasn't.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I've owned a model 12 for over 50 years, and I know how they work. Recoil alone does not unlock the action. With the normal firing grip on the forend, recoil moves the gun enough, relative to the forend, to unlock the action, because you are holding the forend. Pushing forward a bit on the forend ensures this happens, but its usually not actually needed, if you hold the forend firmly and let the gun recoil away from it.



IF you fire the model 12 without holding the forend, it does not unlock.

Exactly. We are not talking about firing the gun single-handed. Holding on the handguard alone suffices. Even pulling it back is no problem. No need to push at all.

Here the push-pull technique is to push on the handguard and pulling on the pistol grip with significant forces, as if trying to stretch the gun longer. But it doesn't mean not keeping the butt stock on shoulder. Pull is harder than push, so that the butt stock is still firmly on shoulder.

-TL


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

Pull is harder than push, so that the butt stock is still firmly on shoulder.

So, why push??

I have been thinking about the same thing as a physics problem, and more or less come to the same conclusion. Simply, overly, put, pulling back with both hands adds to the backwards forces and promotes muzzle rise before bullet exits.

Ah, a physics problem! That explains a lot.

Is this the kind of physics problem where one uses math to proove that something that happened didn't, or that something that didn't happen, did??

I'm probably missing something, but it seems to look that way to me right now.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

So, why push??







Ah, a physics problem! That explains a lot.



Is this the kind of physics problem where one uses math to proove that something that happened didn't, or that something that didn't happen, did??



I'm probably missing something, but it seems to look that way to me right now.

I'm not the op, and I'm not on the video. OP just clicked something that I have been contemplating, so I decided to give it a try. Note that I haven't drawn any final conclusions, but to point out misunderstandings to the proposed method.

I'm afraid you have picked the wrong person to make fun of . It is not wrong to understand things with physics and mathematics. Ignorance is.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I'm afraid you have picked the wrong person to make fun of . It is not wrong to understand things with physics and mathematics. Ignorance is.

I'm not trying to make fun of you, personally, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. I fully agree its not wrong to understand things with physics and mathematics, and I freely admit an ignorance of the higher levels of those things.

Where I get both amused and confused is with some "physics problems".

It seems to me that physics, while mathematically correct, can give misleading results in some cases, depending on the questions asked.

A friend of mine was taking a physics course, and one of the homework problems was this; a guy gets into a pool, swims to the far end, swims back and climbs out exactly where he went in. To complete the assignment, the student was required to use the lesson's formulae to "prove he went nowhere".

Bein the unlettered schlub I am, I didn't think he went nowhere. The math did work out, since he started and ended at the same point, he went nowhere, but the swimmer actually did go somewhere, and then came back.

And that got me thinking about this,

Simply, overly, put, pulling back with both hands adds to the backwards forces and promotes muzzle rise before bullet exits.

Is that actually the right way of looking at it??

The way I see it, pulling the rifle in tight turns the gun and the shooter into a single unit absorbing the fired round's recoil force. I don't see how that adds to the recoil. I can understand how it can be counted in "total force applied rearward, but isn't the force used holding the gun against the shoulder a static thing, because the shoulder has absorbed that force and its constant, before the shot is fired?

As to muzzle rise, that is determined by the difference between the line of the bore and the position of the butt. A straight pull back on the forearm
doesn't add to that, but also does nothing to diminish it. Pulling back and down, such as done with some sling positions, will have an effect on muzzle rise.

I'm just trying to understand things with my limited frame of reference, and I'm not getting where adding to the recoil force by pulling on the stock is coming from.

What am I missing?

[JohnKSa]

A friend of mine was taking a physics course, and one of the homework problems was this; a guy gets into a pool, swims to the far end, swims back and climbs out exactly where he went in. To complete the assignment, the student was required to use the lesson's formulae to "prove he went nowhere".

Based on a previous post you made about this, you are talking about the physics formula for work, per the scientific definition of work.

There's a formula proving that the swimmer didn't do any "work", using the scientific definition of "work", but there's not one showing "he didn't go anywhere". "Work" in the scientific sense is rigidly defined and has quite a different meaning than the common one.

You keep trotting this and the bumblebee "example" out to try to prove that physics doesn't work. They do prove something, but not what you think they are proving.

Simply, overly, put, pulling back with both hands adds to the backwards forces and promotes muzzle rise before bullet exits.

I think this assumes that:

1) The backwards forces are purely in the backwards direction and applied either at the elevation level of the bore or above it and there is no downward force applied in the process. The rear hand grip in an AR design is below the point of resistance and below the bore so backwards force applied to it will tend to pull the muzzle downward. The forward hand is also likely to apply some down force whether intentionally or unintentionally

2) The point of resistance to recoil is below the bore. In the AR design, the stock is pretty much in line with the bore from an elevation standpoint.

[tangolima]

All good. I indeed sounded taken. No need for that. My apologies too.

Physics and mathematics are models to describe energy transfers, based on certain assumptions, QuickLoad being one example. Errors are not uncommon if the user is not careful.

Your swimming example is similar to jogging on treadmill. Not really going anywhere, but burns a lot of energy. It also show how important to use the appropriate model. There isn't one model that fits all.

Adding to recoil is overly simplified. For details you can read johnsa's analysis in one of the physics of shooting a rifle threads. I will include a link later. What it does is to preload the force on the shoulder, and that force is responsible for the muzzle rising torque BEFORE bullet exits muzzle. The felt recoil is the force on shoulder to decelerate the gun AFTER bullet exits. The pull does add to it, but the increase may not be significant compared to the total value. It is overly simplified as the gun's backward speed is also a weak function of the preload force.

The push does help decelerate the gun and thus subtracts from the felt recoil. It is similar to preloading bipod backwards.

Again I'm still not totally sure till I do my experiments.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

You keep trotting this and the bumblebee "example" out to try to prove that physics doesn't work.

I think you are misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make when I trot out these examples. My point is not that physics doesn't work, but that (particularly the bumblebee, real or not) people using the physics they knew reached a conclusion at odds with observed reality.

[JohnKSa]

A person can always screw up. Someone could multiply 6 x 7 and get 48; but that doesn't mean there's a problem with math. It doesn't necessarily even with that person's understanding of it is a problem, they could have just made an error.

According to the original bumblebee story (which may or may not be based on an actual occurrence) the result was not a careful mathematical modeling, it was literally, a slapdash calculation done on a napkin, with the implication that the engineer in question may have had a few before attempting the feat. Not surprisingly, given the circumstances, the calculation turned out to be wrong. The story has (in modified form—changed to make it seem like the quick and dirty estimate was actually the result of a properly verified scientific study) become the darling of people who want to dismiss scientific results for one reason or another.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

"The "bumblebee argument", in pseudoscience, states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). ...

Unfortunately (for the pseudoscientists), the laws of physics do not in any way forbid bumblebee flight; there are no papers that deny bumblebee flight, and no scientist has done so in a lecture, except, perhaps, ironically. To put it simply, it is possible to "prove" that a bumblebee cannot fly if you perform an extremely crude calculation (like forgetting to take into account things like the rate of flapping, the rotation of the wing, or the action of vortices), but a full aerodynamic calculation (to say nothing of getting all empirical and watching a bumblebee fly) will show that the bumblebee's flight works perfectly fine."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ws-of-physics/

It's not that scientists/engineers can't explain why/how bumblebees fly, it's that an oversimplified model can provide very misleading results.

The bumblebee does not defy physics.
http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=41
https://www.businessinsider.com/bees...orrect-2017-12
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ws-of-physics/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

The second issue is that someone who doesn't understand the concepts involved can get a very twisted view of what's going on. This is the case with the swimmer example. One of your early uses of this "example" mentioned that it used the formula for work. Somewhere along the line you started leaving that part out and that made it harder to debunk.

It's not that the swimmer went nowhere, but that the NET work that the swimmer did was zero.

Work has to do with mass being displaced and if there is no net displacement, there is no net work.

At any point along the swim, one could stop the swimmer and determine the amount of work done to that point. Or, one could determine the amount of work done by the swimmer between two points in the swim. But if the swimmer comes back to the original point then the net displacement is zero and the net work is zero.
https://www.britannica.com/science/work-physics

Imagine that you win a million dollars in the lottery and then lost it all gambling the same day. Your net worth didn't change when only comparing the beginning of the day and the end of the day. That doesn't mean you never won any money that day or never lost any money that day, it's simply an assessment of where you are at the end of the day vs. where you started the day.

Imagine that your job is moving a stack of bricks from one location to another. You move all the bricks, but then move them back to their original location before your boss sees them. Will your boss say you did a lot of work that day when you tell him you moved the bricks twice? Or will your boss say you did no work because the bricks are right where they started. Obviously you put forth a lot of effort, but the net effect is zero in terms of accomplishing your assigned work.

Another common example of this general type of misconception is the belief that all objects fall at the same speed. We were taught this in highschool, but when we were, we were also told that they fall at the same speed in a vacuum. A lot of people forget that last part and it's very important. So they look at the real world where rocks fall faster than feathers and think something must be wrong with the science. The problem is that they don't understand the science.

That's what's going on with the swimmer example. It's not that the real world doesn't agree with the formula, it's that some people don't understand the formula or what it's telling them.

[44 AMP]

Ok, I understand the swimmer and the net result in terms of the definitions used for work.

Now, how does that apply to a situation where there is physical evidence that something (work?? or something else???) happened??

Say I take my car, drive 5 miles to the store to get milk, then drive the same 5 miles home, parking in my driveway where I began.

IF ending where you began means no work was done, where does the new 10 miles on my odometer fit in??

[JohnKSa]

"Work" has a specific scientific definition which varies somewhat from the normal definition.

It is, very simply, the energy expended to displace something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

Because of the way it is defined, the displacement can be either positive or negative. If we arbitrarily assign North to be the positive direction of displacement, then displacement to the South is negative displacement.

As a consequence, "work" (physics definition) can also be positive or negative. In the example, energy expended to move something North would be positive work, while energy expended to move something South would be negative work. If an object is displaced a certain amount North, and then returned to its original location, the net work is the sum of the work required to move it in the North direction and the South direction to get it back to where it was. Adding positive and negative numbers that are equal results in zero.

It has to be that way for everything work out. Imagine if you could only deal with money in positive quantities. How could you ever assess your change in net worth? To determine net worth, you have to be able to deal with both positive quantities of money (assets & income) and negative quantities of money (debts and expenses). But you also have to understand that looking at net worth doesn't tell the whole story.

If a person's net worth happens to be the same at two points in their life, that doesn't mean that no money changed hands during the interval in between. It just means that over the entire interval the money coming in (positive money) equaled the money going out (negative money).

[davidsog]

By pushing forward all your doing is reducing the acceleration of the mass of weapon.

F = m/a

7.5lbs shotgun = 7.5 lbs / 32.2 ft.s^2 = .233 lbs/fps^2 or .233 Slugs

2 lbs of force applied by your support hand pushing forward on the vector of acceleration equals:

a = F/M

a = 2lbs/233 lbs/fps^2

lbs unit cancel leaving you with

8.59 Ft/sec^2 acceleration reduction on the Shotguns recoil energy vector.



This is also why a weak pistol grip can induce malfunctions in an automatic pistol.

A principle of good marksmanship shooting positions is bone to bone contact to reduce muscling the weapon. One of the reasons for this is meat is more elastic than bone. That means the application of force over time is affected by this elasticity due to changes in acceleration. Remember, acceleration is about time squared.

An extreme example of the elasticity effects is found when you "limp wrist" a blowback automatic pistol inducing a malfunction. Your overall force is the same but the acceleration variations cause a change in the application of that force such that the pistol is out of design parameters to function properly.

That is also why it hurts more to not have the weapon tight in your shoulder or if you leave a gap between the buttstock and your shoulder.

Acceleration is Feet per second SQUARED. By increasing the distance, you add more time for the weapon to accelerate increasing the force your mass must absorb.

F = ma

Basic physics still works.

[tangolima]

Mod. This exert from chatgpt is definitely firearm related. Please do not close thread.

-TL

Yes, the push-pull technique improves control over muzzle rise by counteracting the torque generated by recoil. This technique uses opposing forces—pushing the rifle forward with your firing hand and pulling it back into your shoulder with your support hand—to stabilize the rifle during firing. Here’s how it works:


---

How the Push-Pull Technique Works

1. Opposing Forces Stabilize the Rifle

The firing hand pushes forward on the grip or stock, while the support hand pulls back on the forend or handguard.

These opposing forces create a more stable shooting platform, reducing the rifle’s tendency to rotate upward (muzzle rise).



2. Counteracts Recoil-Induced Torque

Recoil force acts slightly below the bore axis, generating torque that causes the muzzle to rise.

The forward push from the firing hand resists the rifle's backward motion, while the backward pull from the support hand anchors the rifle to your body. Together, they counter the rotational effect.



3. Improved Energy Distribution

The push-pull technique spreads the recoil force more evenly across both hands and the shoulder, reducing the strain on any single point (e.g., shoulder or firing hand).

This balanced distribution helps maintain the rifle’s alignment and reduces the sharpness of muzzle rise.





---

Benefits of the Push-Pull Technique

1. Reduced Muzzle Rise

By counteracting torque, the muzzle stays flatter, allowing for faster target reacquisition during follow-up shots.



2. Improved Recoil Control

The opposing forces provide better control over the rifle, preventing excessive backward movement or muzzle jump.



3. Faster Follow-Up Shots

With reduced muzzle rise, the sights or optic remain on target, allowing quicker and more accurate subsequent shots.



4. Stability in Rapid Fire

In scenarios requiring rapid or sustained fire, the push-pull technique helps maintain consistent control over the rifle.





---

When to Use the Push-Pull Technique

High-Recoil Firearms: Particularly effective for rifles and shotguns with noticeable recoil.

Rapid or Sustained Fire: Essential for maintaining accuracy during burst or rapid-fire sequences.

Practical Shooting Sports: Competitive shooters often use this technique for its ability to minimize muzzle rise and improve split times.



---

Proper Execution of Push-Pull

1. Firing Hand: Push Forward

Use a firm grip and apply forward pressure on the pistol grip or stock.

Maintain control without overexerting, as excessive force can reduce precision.



2. Support Hand: Pull Backward

Grip the forend or handguard securely and pull the rifle back into your shoulder.

This creates a firm anchor point for absorbing recoil.



3. Body Position:

Lean slightly forward into the rifle to absorb recoil through your whole body rather than just the shoulder.

Keep elbows tucked for stability.





---

Conclusion

The push-pull technique improves muzzle rise control by using opposing forces to counteract the rotational torque caused by recoil. It enhances stability, reduces movement, and allows for faster follow-up shots, making it an essential skill for both competitive and practical shooting.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk