Some readers may look at this photo and say that he is doing it wrong. Sure, he’s got a grip on the magwell and his buttstock is off of his shoulder, but he may just be adapting to the cover.
Weapon handling skills are very much up to the individual and should be looked at more from a TTP standpoint than dogmatic adherence to one school of thought over another. Sure, there are definitely ways not to do it, but there are also multiple ways to get rounds on target. Over time, you’ll find something’s work better than others for you.
Gain a wide variety of skills from multiple instructors and then learn how to adapt them to your situation. When I say instructor, I mean that in a rather broad sense. Many if you serve in the military or LE and gain instruction associated with your duty. However, I recommend everyone seek training from a professional instructor whether uniformed or not.
So what do you think? Is the guy in the photo doing it “right?”
There’s a school of thought that says holding the magwell is better. Holding the fore grip, hand guard, etc puts pressure on the barrel. This can cause the barrel to bend ever so slightly, which would in turn result in inconsistent shots.
Maybe if he needed to take a absolute precision shot at distance. Or you can have a free float barrel/rail and it wouldn’t effect anything.
I don’t have an idea how big of a strongman you need to be tu put a pressure on the barrel by holding a handguard. Specially when there are so many free floating rails out there.
Excellent post, but I think you answered your own question.
That’s called a rhetorical question.
If it keeps you alive and makes the guy you are aiming at die, well than it must be working. Military Rules: #12 “In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.”
Nice!
True story
The factors that determines your firing position and to return aimed fire against an enemy are simple: your cover, the enemy’s exposure, and aligning the weapons system to hit the enemy without advantage to the enemy’s return fire. This guy is an experienced pro. Why? Because he has to lay parrellel along a stone stone wall for cover, forced to shooting offhand, off shoulder, poor cheek weld, choked up on the magwell in a shitty loop he probably had to carve out using a spork through a stone, mud and dung wall. I call this firing position “TACTICAL WHATEVER!” It may be all you can do in a tight spot to get bullets down range or cover a movement without exposing your ass to getting shot. You may even get some hits! But NOT returning fire to get into some Gucci slick looking airsofter position that James Yeager (FYI The Best Instructor on the Planet ™!!) would teach … with everything lined up juuusssttt right can get you killed big time -dead -period before you fire off a shot. Why are we discussing this?
Because, lately, we seem to have a lot of students of the “textbook way is the only way” school.
I was once on an live fire exercise with a Tier 1 Unit XO who said “Every year we bring in the top shooters on every weapons sysetm in the world here to demonstrate all aspects of shooting to our guys.” I asked Why? he said “Because there is no top shooter in the world. We let our guys choose whatever works for them.” Words to live by.
I would say he’s just using his optic to observe something down range. Also, like you stated in your post, cover will dictate position.
Nice post, but I think there is no right or wrong way as long as you can put rounds down range and on target.
I think people who take the time to comment in a negative way about what other people are doing with their weapons on the internet need to get hobbies. Do what works for you. Like a gun? Buy it. Don’t? Don’t buy it. Sure there are right and wrong ways to do things, but the fighter in the fight should be deciding those things.
Given his position, hand and body, I’m betting he’s checking something out through the scope. For you folks learning the tacticool stuff: he’s visually interrogating the area. 😉
But he’s a Marine and he’s behind the rifle, so I’m certain he’s got this.
Actually, he’s Army SF. The patch he’s wearing represents the Afghan Commandos.
Negative, Sir. He is a MSOT Marine who are tasked with training the ANA commandos.
The guy in the Photo is an Army SF officer.
I reckon he is just looking at the scenery and not aiming.
He’s actually a Major in SF who lost a leg in that fight.
As a civilian, I applaud him for setting an example to all and sundry for finding an expedient way to look for people to shoot and not get shot in the process.
In my lane, I’d like this feature active to keep my kill streak alive. AirStrikes and Helo Gunner perks don’t just magically happen.
Is he still alive?
If he is accomplishing his mission he is doing it right. Rounds on target is always good but always necessary to complete a military mission. Every tactical problem has a million answers, half are right, half are wrong.
He didn’t lose his leg in that fight. Lost it a few years prior as a Detachment Commander, some of you will know what that means. Since losing his leg he has come back to take command of a company, which he was at the time of the photo in question. The photo was actually taken during a gun fight. He is not a Marine.
Questions like this one should not be posed. No one posting here was on that operation so no one has any right to question right or wrong. Anyone who feels the need to pass judgement can pretty much go f**k their hand.
Overall, it was a rhetorical question. The point was to use a photo of a guy in an unconventional situation who knows what he is doing, yet would appear to some to be wrong. It illustrates the point that this article was trying to make. There’s a textbook answer and then there’s battlefield application. Sometimes they aren’t the same thing. No one is questioning the service, knowledge or experience. Rather, we are using his image, captured in that moment, as a training tool.
Questions like this one MUST be posed so that we can discuss and learn.
And yes, there will be some dogmatic rectal chasm who insists they have The True Knowledge of The One Way To Get It Done.
But as a former instructor of mine said “For beginners it’s always/never. For experts it’s sometimes/maybe”.
We not only have to forgive those with lesser understanding, but we have to pay it forward as those who taught us did.
Who is to say he is actively engaging the enemy at the time of the pic? He might be looking at a possible HLZ, checking sectors of fire, setting up a perimeter, looking for an active avenue of approach etc. Not to say there wasn’t a fight going on there, but during the slow moments of a fight alot of sh*t needs to happen. I saw a forum where guys were picking apart a guy in a turret… Chin strap undone, no ammo in his MG, his coms head set not hooked up etc… He might have been guiding the driver as he backed into the PX parking lot for all we know.
All I’m saying is, if the guy wants to hold his gun by the mag-well while he is conducting business to bring his left and right home, he is fine, we don’t know if that is best for him or not. Maybe that is how he trained and can shoot well that way.
Knowing SSD and Eric, I knew exactly what this write up was going to be about. Good stuff brother!
I have seen readers posting comments on blogs and websites about how everyone is doing it wrong and why their way is right. It gets pretty old real quick. I think the problem comes from the fact that training has gone “mainstream”. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that but it seems that many shooters and gun enthusiast don’t know there place. There was a time when a gun owner or even Military personnel didn’t have access to really good modern training. Now, the intermediate shooter has access to DVD’s that allow them to “train at home”. Again, that’s fine but those DVD’s are such a tiny piece of the skill and knowledge pie. Nonetheless, many shooters are getting the idea that they are now trained and experienced because they went to a couple classes or watched a couple videos. They get a glimpse into knowledge that had alluded them for so long and they take it as THE truth.
The point is, there is so much to learn. Some of the best methods came from multiple instructors and years of real world experience. These overly critical shooters and gun enthusiast confuse skill with knowledge. The Soldier in the pic is in his own unique situation. He’s not doing it wrong or right. He’s doing what he needs to do to accomplish a task.
^ their place
Thanks for getting it bro.
Very well said. I couldnt agree more.
If he’s putting rounds on target, he’s doing it right. Good talk.
There are many differences between ‘sport’ shooting and ‘combat’ shooting, this being one of them. Military personnel carry about 100 more items into the field compared to a sport shooter and as such have to compete with these items every time the weapon is mounted. These become factors of poor performance.
We all know we can shoot faster and achieve better positions when we are wearing a pair of cargo pants, a t-shirt and two magazines inserted into kydex pouches positioned on the belt! But this is just not realistic for war time.
With double stacked mag pouches, radios, antennas, bombs, bullets, smoke, water, maps, compass, GPS, survival kits, IFAKs, helmets, gloves, etc etc, it makes achieving ‘sports’ style grips almost impossible.
In this photo, based upon the angle of the weapon and his likely equipment restrictions, it would be very difficult to maintain the butt-stock into the shoulder if he went further forward as this would decrease his height as his elbows would be further apart. This is often a problem when there is a lot of equipment mounted to the front of the armor carrier. He would have to contend with his helmet interfering with his ability to maintain a sight picture also and he would be relegated to a non-supported position if he were to grip further forward, decreasing his accuracy further. His only true option is to take up a barricade supported position using his support hand.
Is he doing it wrong?
Spot on Jason…With all the variables I see,in the words of Bruce Lee come to mind,” Be the water.” The environment dictates your operational manipulation of the weapon, the key is to be fluid and ready to effectively adjust to the cover or concealment you’re presented with. It should be said that it’s impossible to make a true assessment of anything with a single photo. But either way I see no problems here, with what he’s got to work with.
I believe one of Murphy’s laws of combat states: “If its stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.” In this case just substitute wrong for stupid.
COMMON SENCE is just that…and a photograph is just a SNAPSHOT IN TIME! Remember both of those when you look at something online or in a magazine and decided “HEY, THAT’S JUST WRONG!”
What would fit here is Travis Haley talkin’ about flexibility.
Hes using his optic for exactly what optics are used for 99% of the time. To see what is out in front of the individual using the optic. In Afgjanistan weapons often are pointed at that which we eventually discover do not need destroying. I would rather sight in take up the slack and then because of my visual clarity and the given perceived threst or lack thereof make an intelligent desicion. Similar concept to the weapons mounted light issue. Invariably both will entice us to break rule #2 . But better to break a rule and live and potentially save a life than to dig for a pair of binos or your elzetta, surefire, maglite or what have you.
I have been a training cadre member and a primary Marksmanship instructor in the Military for the better part of the past 6 years, I have seen many “new and trendy” methods come and go, from the Haley and Costa arm extended grip, to grasping the mag well but what all these Experts ignore is the most important part the ultimate judge is precision and consistency. Is the war fighter in the picture capable of accurately and consistently engaging his targets, is he capable of transitioning from one position to another if he is than yes he is doing “it right”. The science of shooting is this hit what your aiming at if you do that by gripping a mag well than kudos, if you are missing reach into your cargo pocket and pull out another tool in your bag, don’t limit your self to only the methods taught by some high-speed low drag tacticoolness dvd. Different methods work for different people, the end state is you need to train train train
In staying with the focus of this post, the real question is can he the individual reduce threats effectively using that technique? If yes then who gives an F what the technique is, in real life there are no refs/instructors in a gunfight. Anything goes as long as it works.
Reminds me of the gnarly positions you end up in on a stalk lane! Whatever gets rounds on target! A hit, is a hit, is a hit!
All is fair in love and war. So, with that thought…. there is no wrong.
I say he’s doing it all wrong. Any time a soldier engages an enemy and he/she is not AR 670-1 compliant . . . that soldier is wrong. The real matter is not combat effectiveness, troop. The real matter is the position of them sleeves.
I tend to go for the holistic approach but…
The weapon is not locked squarely into his shoulder and he’s got a magazine well grip. All of this translates to poor control. It is possible that he’s a right handed shooter and not a southpaw; he may be firing from his weak side to optimize his cover. Hard to say without being present but it could easily be improved upon.
Missed the point, you have.
Quite simple……..did he hit his target. That’s what’s going to make it right or wrong for this shooter at that moment. Time DOSNT always allow you to get into the ” right” possition.
Exactly as the previous posted said. SHOW ME THE TARGET and I will tell you if he is doing it wrong.
The easy answer is that urns right if it works, which it’s absolutely true, but it’s more important that there IS a right and a wrong way, and an entire spectrum in between. The point of training is to find the way that works the best as well as the ways that don’t work out don’t work as well so you can avoid them
That came out wrong. What I’m trying to say is there it’s an ideal way that we need to strive for and adapt it to the situation. If we leave it at “do what works” it’s an over simplification and we can limit ourselves. Instead of “do what works” I’d say do what’s most effective in the situation at hand. It’s all about objective based problem solving.
As I always tell the guys in my section, if its effective, efficient, safe and works for you then do it.
There is no “Right or wrong” when it comes to shooting back at someone, there is only what works for that soldier, sailer, marine, airman, cop or local delta dan at the range.
If there isn’t a “right” way and a “wrong” way, then why have training at all? After all there have never been two gunfights that were exactly identical, so it could be contended that standardized training is irrelevant. Of course it isn’t, our goal is to train the basics to where they can be adapted to any conditions and result in quicker, more effective and efficient results than would have been gotten without the training.
But that’s just me.
He is definitely doing it wrong:
http://i.imgur.com/m30R1.jpg
He was forming himself to the cover and the orientation of the threat. Given the choice between exposing more of himself with a “doctrinally correct” grip and the minimal exposure offered by the grip he was employing, I’ll take the latter any day.
Presuming he’s actually engaging/preparing to engage threat:
Far as the lack of the “stock in the pocket,” it’s a freakin’ M4, likely firing ‘262 at most. Gun ain’t going anywhere. If he’s actually prosecuting a target at a distance appropriate to that 3.4x Elcan optic (as opposed to the reflex sight up top), it’s gonna be all about trigger squeeze and his (likely VERY HIGH) level of physical conditioning. Follow up shots, you ask? Notice that chunk of rock behind his elbow? THAT, combined with a locked-out wrist, is all he needs.
Not enough Magpul.
Was this a social experiment? If you ask an arm chair commando question on the internet, CAN you beat the record number of comments?
I don’t think it was a social experiment as much as a lesson.