Posted: 4/30/2022 11:03:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PistoleroJesse][Edited]
|
The trend to more upright shooting and less prone shooting of carbines seems to be driving equipment changes. We are seing more and more gear put the eye higher over the bore to keep a natural position while at the same time keep the but firmly in the pocket. Look at this gal's setup:  Magpul - Extended Minute - 060 Stance and Rifle Grip High mount AND a cheek riser. I hear a lot of complaints about chin welds these days. It started me thinking about the pros and cons of the 1.93" spacer on my red dot carbine vs the 1.46" I have on my spr and why I opted for a high mount on the offset red dot mount as I build it out. I feel like we are slowly learning what NRA high power shooters always knew about the various positions and why they build their space guns the way they do to maximize potential at each position. So... I'm wondering what other people are doing to adapt their gear and training into something that isn't just square range/gun game usable but relevant and robust enough for actual conflict. |
Distinguished Rifleman, President’s Hundred
Joined:
Oct 2010
Posts:
7549
EE: 100% (1)
USA
|
I can’t see that setup being useful for anything but standing. If you are doing competition that is 100% standing, that’s great. If the weapon is/may be used in a variety of positions I’d rather a sight-height that works reasonably well for all of them. Something in the middle. It won’t be optimal for any position, but it’ll do the job for all of them. For me that’s the common 1.5” height. I use 1.3” in service rifle competition. It’s perfect for me in prone, sitting, and standing (using target stance) but it’s a little low for tactical shooting on my feet. 1.5” is a better middle ground for me in that regard. Anything taller and prone would become a train wreck. Since a fighting weapon is going to be more set-and-forget (as opposed to a high power “space-gun” reconfigured for each stage) I think picking a single configuration that does “pretty good” across all positions is what most shooters need and I just don’t see tall mounts doing that. |
Fundamentally the marksman aims at himself.
— D.T. Suzuki
— D.T. Suzuki
|
FPNI. Before they consolidated their rules, metallic silhouette shooting was an all-standing discipline. Some folks had scopes up to 4-6 inches higher than bore line, taking chin welds on the stocks to accommodate the upright offhand position -- but the rifle was worthless for anything else. |
|
Apparently quite a few people have lost sight of the fact that the AR15 was designed with an "in line" stock. And that due to its 2.5 inch deviation in sightline-to-boreline, most of the butt stock should extend above the plane of the shoulder(s) in order to achieve a proper (and comfortable) cheekweld. It makes no never-mind to me what "new" techniques people devise to accommodate the shooting discipline in which they participate but the effect it has can obviously be confusing to the novice shooter when considering such techniques and associated "hardware requirements". Maybe I should create a website to document the AR15's design principles and idiosyncrasies lest they be lost forever to future generations of shooters. |
Best Regards,
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
|
Originally Posted By TonyF: And that due to its 2.5 inch deviation in sightline-to-boreline, most of the butt stock should extend above the plane of the shoulder(s) in order to achieve a proper (and comfortable) cheekweld... Outside of the context of rifle setup (from an instructional viewpoint) the above statement is note worthy. Most folks put the butt in the shoulder pocket at or below the aforementioned 'plane of the shoulder'; resulting in shooters forcing their head down to sight the weapon. Tony, I am stealing that term from you. |
|
Originally Posted By mo4040: Outside of the context of rifle setup (from an instructional viewpoint) the above statement is note worthy. Most folks put the butt in the shoulder pocket at or below the aforementioned 'plane of the shoulder'; resulting in shooters forcing their head down to sight the weapon. Tony, I am stealing that term from you. Originally Posted By mo4040: Originally Posted By TonyF: And that due to its 2.5 inch deviation in sightline-to-boreline, most of the butt stock should extend above the plane of the shoulder(s) in order to achieve a proper (and comfortable) cheekweld... Outside of the context of rifle setup (from an instructional viewpoint) the above statement is note worthy. Most folks put the butt in the shoulder pocket at or below the aforementioned 'plane of the shoulder'; resulting in shooters forcing their head down to sight the weapon. Tony, I am stealing that term from you. Be my guest. The part of your reply I highlighted is exactly what the girl in the video is doing but then she has a riser on the butt stock (to compensate?). It's like the math (engineering) of the AR15 "in line" butt stock has all but been forgotten. Sigh. |
Best Regards,
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
|
Originally Posted By TonyF: Be my guest. The part of your reply I highlighted is exactly what the girl in the video is doing but then she has a riser on the butt stock (to compensate?). It's like the math (engineering) of the AR15 "in line" butt stock has all but been forgotten. Sigh. To be fair the whole point was no lever arm right? If you move the but up out of your shoulder and just leave the bttom 1/3rd you create the lever arm don't you? 
|
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: To be fair the whole point was no lever arm right? If you move the but up out of your shoulder and just leave the bttom 1/3rd you create the lever arm don't you? Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Originally Posted By TonyF: Be my guest. The part of your reply I highlighted is exactly what the girl in the video is doing but then she has a riser on the butt stock (to compensate?). It's like the math (engineering) of the AR15 "in line" butt stock has all but been forgotten. Sigh. To be fair the whole point was no lever arm right? If you move the but up out of your shoulder and just leave the bttom 1/3rd you create the lever arm don't you? Do you mean lever arm as it relates to torque physics? And that with only the bottom 1/3 of the butt stock making contact with the shoulder that it creates a "lever" at the point of the firing hand on the grip? And that this arrangement causes rotational force (torque) that is detrimental? If I'm understanding you correctly, then no, the natural sightline/boreline of the AR15 with its in line stock creates perfect alignment with the eye and any given sighting system that is the standard 2.5 inches above the boreline and 1/3 shoulder contact. I've demonstrated the same thing as Miss Yackley (at about the 40sec mark of the video) to students re: gripping the rifle with only the firing hand and pulling the rifle into the shoulder with only the bottom 1/3 of the butt stock making contact with the shoulder and never experienced any undue rotational tendency. The AR15 in its basic form factor (A1 / A2 / M4) is a well-balanced weapon. While I have fired AR15's with low power variable optics, it's always been on one of the aforementioned configurations. Not knowing the make up of the rifle in the video, perhaps the AR15 is a totally different animal with longer, lightweight (carbon fiber?) or heavy match barrels. Don't get me wrong, specialized configurations can and do require specific techniques on occasion and I kind of alluded to that in my first reply. But I also tried to point out what I thought was a fair criticism in that the entire butt stock is making contact with her shoulder and yet she has attached a riser to the butt stock. Just seems like a bit of a contradiction. I do agree with her about stance. 
|
Best Regards,
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
|
FPNI. I fully agree that sight height should be set at the do all master of none height, somewhere in the middle. I too want something optimal for all from prone to standing. 1.93 and higher, isn't optimal for me to achieve that with. And 1.45 and below, isn't optimal to me either. It's just the way it is really. |
|
IIRC, an aimpoint's 30mm tube requires a mount that puts the C/L of the optic at a little over .80 inch above the receiver in order to achieve an absolute cowitness with the iron sights (please correct me if I'm wrong). So even if one is using a high power variable with a large (50mm) objective lens (and a folding front sight), 50mm - 30mm (aimpoint) = 20mm / 2 = 10mm, a mount or riser affording another 10mm or .39 inch for the obj lens to clear the receiver. Even then, .80 + .39 = 1.19 inch. The lower 1/3 cowitness needs about 1.00 inch so with 1.19 I can understand the possible need for a riser on the butt stock lest one begins to have to rubberneck to get their eye behind the ocular lens. In my mind, if my math is correct, I can't figure the need for a mount/ring providing more than 1.25 inch (for a 50mm scope) and certainly not a 1.93 mount/ring? This is certainly an interesting topic. |
Best Regards,
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
TonyF
Training Forum Moderator
"... there's trained and untrained" (Denzel Washington -- Man on Fire)
|
I thought NV usage thru the optic was driving the push for higher mounts? Personally I always used IR for aiming, had the NV on the non-dominant eye, with the ability to go white light and red dot instantly via the dominant eye. Height was always the standard A2 equivalent. Somehow that worked OK. Prone sucked at times but that was a helmet issue usually. Setting any equipment up that is optimized for just one style is not a great idea in my opinion. Spent plenty of time pointing a rifle at 5 feet away, or across a room, and plenty of time 50-100 yds out where I was using cover or a stable position. You need to know all of the various shooting positions and stances, as they all have pros and cons. And yeah you don’t need much contact with the buttstock to stabilize the rifle. |
|
Originally Posted By tac556: Setting any equipment up that is optimized for just one style is not a great idea in my opinion. Spent plenty of time pointing a rifle at 5 feet away, or across a room, and plenty of time 50-100 yds out where I was using cover or a stable position. You need to know all of the various shooting positions and stances, as they all have pros and cons. |
