Do Not Mount The Carbine This Way
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 8 months ago
Shooting Illustrated normally does fairly well with their articles. This time they bombed. In The Right Way To Shoot An AR-15, there is this picture.
He’s standing with a modified Weaver stance, much like he’s hunting deer with a bolt action rifle. That’s okay for hunting deer with a bolt action rifle, but it’s not okay when so large a solid angle has been rendered unmonitored and inaccessible by you.
That area is threat-sensitive in an assault, and that’s one reason why Marines are taught to shoot with the “plates-forward aggressive” stance. We discussed it in John Lovell On Mounting The Carbine. John also gives some practical advice on how to counter shoulder exhaustion when using the “thumb-over-bore” grip, otherwise called “C-Clamp” grip.
On April 12, 2017 at 6:32 am, Jack P said:
Once again I want to thank you for digging out the relevant info from all the fluff in the firearms world.
On April 12, 2017 at 8:06 am, Josh said:
Ignoring any mobility advantages other stances may allow for, if you don’t have SAPI plates, does it really matter whether a Weaver or forward stance is taken? The chest and abdomen are exposed in both.
FWIW I shoot handguns pretty well from a Weaver.
On April 12, 2017 at 9:54 am, Herschel Smith said:
I guess it pays to practice like you intend to shoot in self defense, and if you’re better at this stance, then so be it. I find the Weaver and modified Weaver very uncomfortable, and don’t use it either for carbine or pistol. I would like to think that reflexively, I would go into the stance that Lovell shows.
On April 15, 2017 at 8:36 am, Fred said:
– The squared off stance has advantages over the weaver (or “old school” stance) that go beyond plates and that have nothing to do with plates. Mostly the ability to react more quickly to your left and right and move up or down, left or right w/ your weapon (and maneuver your entire body for that matter).
For this reason I believe its a huge disservice how this is often being taught as being “about the plates” which is only one (and minor at that since most hits are in extremities anyway) aspect.
– This is why back in the years I resented the “squared off ” stance at first…. since ergonomically from a pure shooting performance from the standing the old school stance provides more stability to your rifle and better performance at range. and it was the distillation of decades of shooting science……Not wearing any plates I felt perhaps this new “fad” would not apply.. …… if troops,… scratch that.. citizens,…were properly instructed on the advantages of “squared off” instead of trainers just being lazy about it and telling folks “it presents your plates better” more folks would perhaps adapt it including those who dont habitually wear plates in their AO.
-Not sure why it was mentioned that “The marines are taught to shoot with their plates forward” ..while this is not wrong , I understand the Army started did this first. A less parochial description might simply be to write “US Forces” or some such. ;)
Otherwise thanks for your awesome blog and please keep up the good work!!
On April 24, 2017 at 2:20 am, Daniel Smith said:
On April 15, 2017 at 8:36 am, Fred said:
– The squared off stance has advantages over the weaver (or “old school” stance) that go beyond plates and that have nothing to do with plates. Mostly the ability to react more quickly to your left and right and move up or down, left or right w/ your weapon (and maneuver your entire body for that matter).
For this reason I believe its a huge disservice how this is often being taught as being “about the plates” which is only one (and minor at that since most hits are in extremities anyway) aspect.
-Fred,
I will have to disagree wholeheartedly with you on this (respectfully). I can say from first hand experience that the ability to react to left and right while facing forward is not convenient at all. The most convenient way actually would be the way FAST teams do it with mostly pistols and leaning. To say that the abdominal and thoracic cavity being completely covered by armor is not a huge reason to put all that armor between you and the enemy, is a confusing statement. Which leads me to my next point. Respectfully, if you are not an MD. or have worked in a Trauma Center, then to say that most gunshots are extremities, is also another confusing statement. I can attest from my own experience working in a Level 1 Trauma Center, that most all gunshots that come in (which are being fired by teens who have no experience whatsoever in firearms training, and mostly using crappy hand-me-down weapons) about 85% of the victims end up dying to gunshots to the abdominal region/thoracic region (chest shots). I work weekends graveyard shift in the ED here in Downtown Charlotte, and probably get about 8 gunshots a night. But that’s usually a slow night.
On May 11, 2017 at 7:41 am, Fred said:
Daniel,
We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
I respect your work in the Trauma center (Big Props Sir!!!) but I believe the injuries you see there are not typical to the military /paramilitary conflict we focus on here.
I suspect the civilian common criminal shoots you run into have little to do with fighters exploiting cover to fire on each other.
In a spirit of mutual respect ; talk to any deployed Infantryman or security contractor and he will tell you most hits are in the extremities. (likely because in a military/paramilitary conflict shooters at least try to use cover which then covers the exact spot where their plates would be)
These men may ” not be MDs or have worked in a Trauma center” but I do not believe they need to.
very respectfully,
Fred