The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 16, 2017, 09:22 PM   #26
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
In what way would you be less agile or a larger target?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 20, 2017, 02:12 AM   #27
NateKirk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 356
Firstly, JM is not superman, he got that way through lots of practice like any other person. The way he's doing it works, and just because he's better than most will ever be doesn't mean you should avoid training the way he does. If you practice correctly then speed and instinct will come.

Secondly, I'm not really buying the the whole front facing the target in order to square up armor; If anything I would think a glancing or more angled shot would inflict less damage, which is why bullet traps are angled.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".”

― --Thomas Jefferson
NateKirk is offline  
Old June 20, 2017, 10:24 AM   #28
Wyosmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 2,129
Ok quick reply and an "address" of the stance and the whys and hows and "what-fores"
I am a former US Marine and I was a close combat instructor for the Marines and later I did the same (and more) instruction including writing a few SOPs for the Department of the Navy. I still teach classes 3 times a month and I have been doing this type of work on and off since the end of the Vietnam war. So what I say here is not just an opinion. I have real knowledge of this subject.

The square stance is for keeping a chest plate (body armor) square to the enemy. Glancing blows of incoming rounds can run off the plate and hit arms (brachial artery) in theory, and it was found in testing that a square impact was actually safer then an angled impact for the soldier.

"Thumb over top/high arm" was developed specifically for the M-16 and M4 weapons, for close quarters fighting using full auto, for room clearing. Having the weapon under some weight (the arm) keeps the muzzle down in very rapid fire at close range on relatively flat ground. Pistol distance. A full auto burst of 5.56 rounds is far deadlier then a hit or 2 with a pistol. It doesn't work well with most other weapons for various reasons, from heat to recoil to exhaust gas and so on.

So.....
If you want to fire very fast at close range with a light caliber and be very deadly in a fight, with an AR or M16 variant, the "high arm/thumb over top" is an excellent way to shoot.

And IF you are armored up and IF you are facing an enemy who is likely to shoot back, and IF you are shooting an AR15, then "squaring up" is also a good way to shoot.

But for good accuracy in all other scenarios of rifle shooting the standard "NRA" positions are still the best.
For a BANG at 99.999% of the targets a civilian will ever shoot at, the basics are best, instead of the need for BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG at an enemy shooting back at you, in a room, while you just happened to be wearing a full battle kit and armor.

I do not say such a technique should not be learned. Not at all. It's a tool in the tool box that you can pull out and use if you know how, and there may be a time when it's useful. The times its used the most for anyone who is not in combat is "Running/gunning competition. I teach it myself, but only in context.

As we see with Jerry Miculek, it can be used at long ranges too, but it had NOTHING to offer at long range that the standard "NRA" positions can't do better. It's a trick he does to demonstrate that is is a useful technique and that it can be learned and used well.

But it's taken on the Fad status today. Emperors new clothes, in all their glory.

Today we see it over and over and over because it makes shooters think they are on the cutting edge of technique. So be it. It's not harmful. That cool-aid tastes good to them.

But to tell the truth the square stance and the High Arm/Thumb Over Top way of shooting is only "best" in about 1/10000% of the shooting you will ever do in the real world.

You won't see it used by David Tubb at any range over 20 yards.
You don't ever see it used at Camp Perry.
It's not used deer and elk hunting.
It's not used against dangerous game in Alaska or Africa.
It's not used in NRA small bore competition.

And it's not used by the US Marine Corps, US Navy SEALS or US Army in combat except when shooting inside rooms and/or at rock throwing distances, and then only when they are armored up.

Don't loose sight of the objective and then redouble your effort.

Last edited by Wyosmith; June 20, 2017 at 10:34 AM.
Wyosmith is offline  
Old June 20, 2017, 10:47 AM   #29
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
But it's taken on the Fad status today. Emperors new clothes, in all their glory.
Fashion is a persistent human trait.

When I first became aware of gun magazines, back when people went to stores to buy magazines, the new thing was high capacity 9mm pistols (Wunder-nines) and guys were looping the index finger of their support hand around the front of the handguard to control recoil. I haven't seen that written about in a long time.

In the 80s, black was the color you wanted rather than coyote or incinerated dirt or other forms of khaki.

Quote:
Today we see it over and over and over because it makes shooters think they are on the cutting edge of technique. So be it. It's not harmful. That cool-aid tastes good to them.
The only potential harm I see to people new to the hobby is that they may mistake this technique for the basics of marksmanship. I try to mooch shooting tips from better shooters in conversation; they invariably respond with a version of basic instructions I've read dozens of times before. I don't think they are hiding anything; I think they see those basics as essential.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 20, 2017, 03:47 PM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
We're starting to conflate some related concepts. A squared up stance is useful beyond use of body armor because it gives you a good combination of stability, good area coverage and movement. This is why it dominates competition shooting that involves moving and shooting simultaneously.

I'm sure people who have a need to shoot on the move at close proximity targets in armed conflict also wear body armor whenever they can; but I'd be willing to bet that mobility is the main driver of a squared stance, not armor.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 21, 2017, 03:24 PM   #31
fastbolt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2002
Location: northern CA for a little while longer
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyosmith View Post
Ok quick reply and an "address" of the stance and the whys and hows and "what-fores"...

Don't loose sight of the objective and then redouble your effort.
Nicely organized and phrased thoughts.

Lots of folks sometimes confuse learning different techniques with automatically understanding when it's best to employ them, or not.

Producing accurately placed and effective hits, in any particular circumstances, usually means being more results-orientated, and not fad/technique appearance-oriented.

Method matters, obviously, but it generally takes a back seat to results obtained, and at what cost.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 11:52 AM   #32
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 19,244
When did it start being called the square stance? Over two decades ago I was told it was called the Universal Shooting Position.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 12:50 PM   #33
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
In what way would you be less agile or a larger target?
come on man, I don't want to alter the thread into a introductory 101 kind of discussion. You may not consider it a big deal but you should at least understand what I mean by it.

My point is that a square stance is just fine when you are not concerned with a target shooting back at you.

I make this comments within the context of 1 citizen vs 1 criminal attacker.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; June 22, 2017 at 01:04 PM.
FireForged is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 02:56 PM   #34
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
No, I asked the question because it makes no sense to me. You say "less agile" but the whole point of the squared stance is agility. Moving in a bladed stance is more difficult and returning fire on your off side is more difficult. Squared up, you can swing to engage in either direction - a tank gun isn't mounted off to one side after all. In the sense that you are a "bigger" target, you go from approximately 20" wide to 12" wide; but you now have a lot of vital zones stacked on each other.

I think people are too dismissive of the utility of this stance because it doesn't fit their expectations of how a self defense situation will happen. You state single citizen vs. single criminal - that's exactly where being able to shoot on the move is important. You don't have a base of fire to maneuver around; but you'll probably have to move in a gunfight. Certainly, it is a bad idea to run around like a one-man CQB team trying to clear your own house if you have other options; but a lot of single citizen vs. criminal(s) are very dynamic situations. It is absolutely an important tool to have; but understanding when and where to use it is important as well. That last thought rarely gets much exposition - Wyosmith's post being the rare exception.

In training, I watched a guy go prone behind a truck tire to engage another person. He had a nice stable position that presented a minimum target - except when the other person ran to his off side and button-hooked around the back of the truck he a) was unable to track the person as the protection the tire offered blocked his field of fire too; b) was not very mobile compared to his opponent; and c) when that guy cleared the end of the truck, he wasn't no longer a small target lying on the ground at less than 7m.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 04:31 PM   #35
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,525
Nice post, Wyo.

Quote:
In the 80s, black was the color you wanted rather than coyote or incinerated dirt or other forms of khaki.
In the 80s with AR15s, it was sort of like in 1909 with the Ford Model T. It wasn't like there was a lot of options available, LOL.

Back in the 80s, a lot of people didn't cotton to guns in colors other than stainless or black. Grips and handguards could be black, brown, or green and green.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 06:55 PM   #36
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
No, I asked the question because it makes no sense to me. You say "less agile" but the whole point of the squared stance is agility.

look man... nobody is saying that a non squared up stance has to be a 1800's Kentucky rifleman stance. I simply assume that those in this conversation know what I mean when I refer to the commonly used "other" stance. A squared stance is not a launch position for movement its a platform for being a static turret at close range targets. Can you move.. sure, but its not an economy of movement vs a hybrid bladed stance.

People can do what they want but I am a proponent of getting small behind the rifle , gripping the magwell and driving it. I do so using a quasi-bladed stance like people have used for decades.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; June 22, 2017 at 07:02 PM.
FireForged is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 07:06 PM   #37
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
We're starting to conflate some related concepts. A squared up stance is useful beyond use of body armor because it gives you a good combination of stability, good area coverage and movement. This is why it dominates competition shooting that involves moving and shooting simultaneously.
how is a square stance stable? It trades stability for quicker target acquisition. In my estimation, it dominates comp because its faster and is conducive to a game environment where everything is choreographed.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 09:34 PM   #38
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
It is stable because the weight is being primarily supported by the big muscles in your back rather than the smaller muscles in your arms. It is not as stable as skeletal support with a natural point of aim; but that's considerably harder to do while moving. You'll also control muzzle flip better because the stock is more inboard - which again, standing still isn't a big deal; but once you are walking and bouncing around, not having the sights go straight up and straight down really complicates fast follow up shots.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 22, 2017, 09:59 PM   #39
GLK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2000
Location: Brandon FL USA
Posts: 463
I love reading post from those that have been there done that & have the tee shirt. Please know I am most sincere when I state that. I thank you and I welcome you home. On the other hand I find amusement when reading post from those that only have one way range experience. I am 60 years old now and realize that if I find myself in a gunfight I have either starting drinking alcohol again or my situational awareness and or survival tactics suck. Stay safe and shoot often everyone.
__________________
Just face shoot the criminal was the advice I was given. Old tech new tech, face shooting will nearly always take the wrong doing out of a bad guy.
GLK is offline  
Old June 23, 2017, 07:16 AM   #40
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
It is stable because the weight is being primarily supported by the big muscles in your back rather than the smaller muscles in your arms. It is not as stable as skeletal support with a natural point of aim; but that's considerably harder to do while moving.
that's like arguing that a spaghetti noodle is strong.. and then saying its stronger than hair pasta. I don't think the square stance is more stable than the commonly used "other" stance.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old June 23, 2017, 10:11 PM   #41
Snyper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
I don't think the square stance is more stable than the commonly used "other" stance.
If it were more stable you'd see boxers and martial artists standing that way.
__________________
One shot, one kill
Snyper is offline  
Old June 24, 2017, 07:22 AM   #42
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
FireForged, try it with a shot timer and see what works for you. Maybe you are the exception.

Snyper, see Pat Roger's December 2001 article in SWAT Magazine "The fighting stance and length of pull." The whole point of this stance is that your torso is the turret and your feet move where you need to go. It is designed for movement while firing or while needing to be able to immediately fire without stopping movement. And it very closely resembles a boxing or muay thai stance - though with the C-clamp grip, your weak arm will be further forward.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; June 24, 2017 at 07:28 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 9, 2017, 07:35 AM   #43
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetwarrior View Post

Half the firefights i was involved in, almost no one was even aiming, never mind standing square approaching other shooters. People just lying behind bushes emptying out a complete magazines on full auto above their heads totally blind firing, people emptying magazines around building corners without looking, people firing shots through closed doors, etc etc that is how things went down as far as I recall. I would guess for every 50 rounds fired maybe one was a hit.
Half the fire fights you were in involved (novices) holding a rifle above their heads emptying out their magazines as fast as they can.... that is obviously NOT how to stay alive in a gunfight. Especially if you come up against trained and experienced shooters.

As for squaring up to your target was developed because of body armor. "Blading" your target exposes your vital organs whereas "squaring up" puts your vital organs behind armor.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Skadoosh is offline  
Old July 9, 2017, 07:52 AM   #44
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 3,670
Key points why shooters are moving to this stance:
1) It greatly improves survivability with body armor
2) It uses your natural ability to thumb point with an out stretched arm
3) It frees your feet up to be more mobile while shooting and walking
4) It gives you a nice shoulder pocket for recoil absorbsion. The key point is the rifle muzzle moves less and more vertically than before.
5) It allows you to use a shorter gun, shorter in the buttstock.
Nathan is offline  
Old July 9, 2017, 07:58 AM   #45
muzzleblast...
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2015
Location: Obwat, TN
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
I like Jerry Miculek... Taking shooting instruction from JM is like getting fitness tips from Superman...
LOL. Well said.
muzzleblast... is offline  
Old July 25, 2017, 04:36 AM   #46
Jeff22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2004
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 639
Some people find that they can drive the rifle laterally better using that technique, to engage multiple targets
__________________
You can only learn from experience if you pay attention!
Jeff22 is offline  
Old August 8, 2017, 02:09 AM   #47
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,089
By no means do I have experience or credentials.
For myself,I use the collapsible stock either short or one click out.
I put the butt just right of my sternum,on my chest,under my eye.my chin will spot weld.
Both eyes open,up to 2x optics work great.I use a cantilever mount scooted forward for proper eye relief.
Body rotation,pretty much square to maybe 15 deg..I really don't extend my arm or thumb over.
I'm free and balanced to move any direction,or instantly flopon my face...
Not that I do that as a fat stiff old man.
I don't think the boxing,etc references line up.You aren't blocking a hook or dealing with extending reach,or power in a punch using a rifle.
A Samari with a katana might use a very square stance.Irrelevant,other than mobility in any direction.He keeps his shoulders square and blade oriented at the opponents midline.He CAN react right or left pivoting on the balls of his feet,remaining square and balanced.
A running back with a football will be agile in all directions running square.
Longer ranges?Assuming there is some cover,My guess is you would use it for support.Adapt your stance.
Assuming there is no cover,isn't it generally a bad idea to be standing on your hind legs with no cover shooting at someone 200yds away?Square,bladed,or otherwise?

Last edited by HiBC; August 9, 2017 at 04:24 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old August 8, 2017, 09:18 PM   #48
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
I don't think the boxing,etc references line up.You aren't blocking a hook or dealing with extending reach,or power in a punch using a rifle
you are right, they don't line up.


Quote:
A running back with a football will be agile in all directions running square
running is not a square anything.. if you already have momentum from movement, its not a "stance". If a square stance was such a good platform for movement, runners would use it on the starting line. A square stance is a good platform to be a turret... its not a good platform for agility and dynamic movement. People can say it is all day long but I will politely disagree. What this argument boils down to is what guys running a timed stage want to believe that it is and the efforts to make the stance relevant in real world situations. Is it relevant?.. I think it is in some limited circumstances. Is it "generally" , "substantially" or "broadly" better than the traditional modified stances?.. nah, I don't think so.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; August 8, 2017 at 09:24 PM.
FireForged is offline  
Old August 8, 2017, 10:09 PM   #49
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireForged
Is it "generally" , "substantially" or "broadly" better than the traditional modified stances?.. nah, I don't think so.
What is a "traditional modified stance" as you see it? Because when I hear traditional, I think skeletal support and a natural point of aim, neither of which are practical combined with movement.

Quote:
A square stance is a good platform to be a turret... its not a good platform for agility and dynamic movement. People can say it is all day long but I will politely disagree
When you walk or run without a firearm, do you do so bladed?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 9, 2017, 02:28 AM   #50
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,089
Square shoulders do not preclude a leading foot.Runners do launch from square shoulders.

"Stance"???? Static.

Look at hockey and basketball,bladed is limited and predictable. Square can go any direction.
Its like arguing isosceles vs Weaver. Weaver is "bladed" . Weaver is pretty good,..........but......

Last edited by HiBC; August 9, 2017 at 03:04 AM.
HiBC 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 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10225 seconds with 10 queries