Current Soldier here! I went through BCT in 2019 and was actually taught this stance. Got back to my unit and most of my NCOs knew and shot with this stance. It seems that the Army is sloooowly moving over to it
A few NCO's ridiculed me for recommending this stance in a course of fire by saying something along the lines of: "Oh you're just an E4 that never deployed what would you know? Follow-through isn't what I was taught!" Before getting outshot by their E-2's that actually knew how to shoot and not just treated range time as something to check a box.
I have been teaching Filipino martial arts for over 20 years, and I'm an infantry vet with 2 deployments to Iraq. So I've been the victim of the ARMY's shooting stance. When I got out I started using my "martial arts" type stance for shooting because, in my mind, a good fighting stance kind of transcends the type of fighting. I then found that I was moving more naturally without any ill affect to my marksmanship. I also noticed a huge difference in my lower back pain. I said all that to say this. It's kinda nice to have an expert validate that my crazy idea makes some sense. Lol
I also don’t think for a 99% of engagements you even need to shoulder. I feel like shouldering it is putting you in a more rigid situation where you won’t be realistically while moving and you don’t even need to shoulder it with a low recoil is anyways and how short of a distance there is especially with the newer optics.
i’m also a martial artist. i’m an 18 year old amateur boxer, and used my boxing stance to have more balance and recovery from the recoil. i’m glad i subconsciously did something right lolz
I used to box 2 years ago and I use the same footing stance for my marksmanship now. I'd assume that we do this instinctively because our body is already familiar with a stance that makes us firmer and hard to knockback.
My grandpa, a Korean war infantryman, taught me to shoot more or less like this when I was a teenager. When I joined the Army, they actively un-taught me that. Their reasoning was that your body armor works best when it's straight-on, which sounds like the kind of thing an E5 makes up on the spot when a soldier asks them something they don't know and doesn't want to sound like he doesn't know either.
In the Marines, I learned to shoot the M-16A2 service rifle (2002), standing, at 100 yards, in a very peculiar "competition" stance where the shooter is completely bladed with the target. After boot camp, I joined the Fleet and learned to shoot standing completely squared with the target (2003). The idea was to maximize your plates to the threat. I never liked this stance and always ended up "dropping a leg" back, despite my NCOs and SNCOs "correcting" me. "You're going to get shot in the sides and die!" (We didn't have side SAPIs back then) After multiple deployments to Iraq, shooting mostly in this stance, I then went back to qual on the range and couldn't hit the barn side of a broad at 100 yards in this squared stance. Ultimately, I ended up finding a comfortable "fighting stance," which is what is taught today. I'm always happy to get this vindication lol. Cheers.
I've been saying this for decades. When I was a kid a USMC instructor taught me to shoot exactly like this. Your stance should be the same for rifle, pistol or throwing a punch. I've been through law enforcement and Army training that says the same old "feet apart, lean forward, stick your butt out, square your body armor to the threat" thing. They always tell me I'm wrong and I "won't qualify/pass the class" if I do it my way. I've always qualified Expert with rifle and pistol doing it my way, using the "boxer/fighter" style your showing here. Plus this is what everyone reverts to when they start moving and shooting instead of just standing there on the X.
I was also taught this army stance during my conscription time. I couldn't bare to use it when having such a huge recoil and kickback every time you fire the rifle. I used to do Muay Thai and I also was super used to my fighting stance and I still kept using it as it was so much more comfortable.
Great stuff! The 'Army' shooting position never was comfortable for me and didn't feel natural at all. Many of the soldiers that served with felt the same way. I'm glad to see someone debunk that.
I’m glad you bring this up. I took martial arts for a few years. When I got into rifle shooting I naturally adopted something like the classic fighting stance, facing diagonally, strong foot back and it felt comfortable. I also saw good performance with it so I never learned the weird forward lean that I saw some others use.
The Army is dogmatic about teaching this type of nonsense. I had a squad daddy who insisted that the Army way was generally wrong, stupid, or wrong and stupid, and he emphasized more natural fighting stances. Sadly guys like that never rise up very far in the conventional ranks and end up having very little influence beyond a granular level.
I agree 100%! I don't have a military background, but I had an instructor advise me to shoot with the extreme forward lean and feet squared and spaced evenly apart. But I never could adjust to the feeling that something, anything unexpected... could happen and I could lose my balance far too easily. While I appreciated his advice, I went back to doing it my way once I was on my own again. It just doesn't feel natural to me. Your way... offers increased stability, but it also presents a slightly smaller target to the enemy as well! Thanks!
We would do up drills for what seemed like hours!!! I was never taught the fighting stance until we where about to go to Baghdad in 07 when they had some guys from 10th group come and run us through room clearing and weapons manipulations drills!!! That was probably the best training I received in the 7 years I was in!!!
This is exactly how Kyle Lamb promotes the fighting shooting stance in his book, "Green Eyes Black Rifles." His reasoning (the "why" of the stance) matches Jeff's explanation here. Good video. Thanks.
I was taught the standard Army "squared-to-target" stance. We were told to keep our plate towards the enemy. I participated in a CMP qualification with a M1. Of course, I resorted to my Army training and learned very quickly just how unstable the "squared-off" position really is. You certainly don't notice it when using a M4/556....but when it's a M1/30-06, the instability is very noticeable!
Using a more natural fighting stance also makes it easier to move or even sprint. If you're standing still you're bleeding out... Motionless operators ventilate easily, M.O.V.E!
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years! The 'full diaper' stance is great for standing still and absorbing recoil on the range, but standing still in the field is the best way to take a long dirt nap. Optimising mobility and being able to seamlessly halt and move without altering stance is the way to win gunfights, in my opinion.
Soldiers shoot laying on the ground/rubbles or kneeling on one knee most of the time.. Or bent forward straight behind the gun, 'square' to the target(s)/facing their sector; the weapon and ammo resting on something / clamped to something / suspended to something.
@@marcross52-95 Shooting what & how? 50grain bullets one at a time or 7.5x55mm_SWISS 170+ grain bullets in 'full auto'?.. What if I told you some shooters with the same type of past job prefer a 'true fencer posture' (right shooting hand, right foot advanced/left foot slightly backed, max weight on the lead/right foot) instead of the 'spearman posture'/'inverted fencer posture' (right shooting hand, left foot stepping forward and a bit to the side, back/right foot 'pushing' and twisted body)? What if I told you the same shooters are ok with the 'defective' stance of 'parallel feet toes forward' in some situations? Open terrain doesn't mean zero cover. Some people will shoot almost as good in the 4 set-ups (left side of cover, right side, right lead foot, llf). Was/am not trying to be smart. Telling you the truth. Soldiers are always trying to shoot supported (legs will do what they can..) or close to the ground. Fixating on stance is useless. That's all I have to say. [ how can someone in such a grateful mood for the content creator be so cold to a commenter giving too / providing information?.. ] Have a nice day.
@@HAYAOLEONE Not discounting the facts you shared nor arguing with you in the first place, but this "machismo power factor tactical sport-shooter act" you have is something I've seen too much in the internet with people who have less to do. I like firearms and combative content but my life does not revolve around the internet trying to one up or solidify their "tactical badass shooter status".
Hi, I am 66 yo and got my 1st AR15 for my birthday here in 2024. I looked at a lot of UA-cam videos for the proper AR15 stance stance and there are many conflicting views. My son was in the national guard and went to Camp Lenard Wood for basic in 2012 . I asked him the proper stance. He told me feet parallel, hunch forward nose on charging handle. I told him I thought that was bullshit. A few months later I found this video and you have re-enforced what felt natural for me. Great video. Thank you!
This is MINDBLOWING yet makes complete sense; i was in the Army for 6yrs so i have that bad stance. But i trained Muay Thai for 10yrs, i never thought to stand like a fighter with my AR15. Im definitely gonna try this.
🤯 today years old …. Doesn’t bother me that I’ve been shooting like this for years thanks to the Army. It’s the 100’s of soldiers I’ve instructed. Seeing the breakdown of the positions it makes so much sense now. Definitely will share this video. Thank you sir.
Glad I found this channel. You are definitely part of a hand full of you tubers that are offering real world, logical information. Thank you for sharing.
Bringing in your son, and having him take up his regular MMA stance was a great way of demonstrating this. When I was younger, I took Tae Kwon Do, and only after seeing this video do I realize that I take up the same stance I did back then when out shooting a rifle. Dominant foot back and at about a 45 degree angle, front foot facing forward, my chest parallel with my waist, left hand out front extended out, right hand back by my chest. I ain't ever realized it was the same stance I do now when I go out shooting. It makes me think, because another stance we practiced a lot was similar to what the Army does, where our feet were parallel and about even with our shoulders, and our back was straight up. Next time I'm out I might try that out, and see what its like. In any case, real interesting video!
Jeff, I’m an armed police officer in the UK (there aren’t many of us) and I have recently adopted the stance taught by you in this video to great success. I’ve certainly not struggled in the past, being a bit of a “gun guy”, but I’m always on the lookout for ways to improve. I’ve certainly taken your word on wholeheartedly and have been teaching it to my colleagues with great enthusiasm!
@@takyon. You must first apply to become a regular police officer in a Home Office police force or British Transport Police. If you are successful, you will have to serve at least a 2 year probation period as an unarmed officer before being considered for any specialist roles. Alternately, you may apply to either the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or Ministry of Defence Police. Both of these specialist police forces arm all of their officers from the start. Both are also recruiting heavily at the moment.
The Marine Corps currently teaches a sort of in-between, where your feet are not parallel but your left foot (as a right handed shooter) is not super far forward, and you're square.
You know what you do what you feels is good and comfortable for you. In the battlefield you have no time to think about you stance. If you can fire and hit your enemy that matter..
My company does training with National Guard troops. I noticed this issue when we did our first foreign weapons familiarization class. Odd that a civilian training company has to teach basics like shooting stance.
We definitely came a long way when the Weaver stance and push pull grip method. Great content, I cant wait till next year and you expand out into training. Thanks
In the 90’s the us army infantry taught to have non firing foot forward knees bent shoulders over hips shoulders either squared or bladed. Non firing hand your index finger was pointed at target, and thumb was on side of hand guard, not over top. Even up till I got out in 07 that was the stance I taught. After I got out is when the whole plate forward butt down squared to target stuff started. I never understood that stance at all. Never understood the nose to the charging handle either.
That works for not having armor. This stance evolved out of the "plates forward" concept. My issue was the plates are always canted, and I always figured that I wouldn't get to pick my shooting stance. When I came in in 02 it was VERY rare to see an Infantryman fire from standing, so we still had a lot more weaver stance in our presentation, but it was already starting with the isoceles, which this actually is versus what the army determined was the isoceles over the years. I'm not gonna generation bash but the farther back you go in age the more violent the kids were. I honestly think some of this is a lack of fighting background. They most likely didn't wrestle or fight enough to naturally understand weight distribution.
@@fathead8933 I wore plates in iraq in 2003, and afghanistan 04-05. I still used the same stance as I did from when I joined in 94. In iraq in 2003 I shot more from the standing and kneeling then from the prone. The “plate forward” bs started with the ranger vest from the balkians in the mid to late 90’s when flak vest had ceramic plates placed over top of the normal flak vest. That mind set them “bleed” in the the big army cause officers wanted to be “rangers”. You can shoot with canted plates, look at armored forces and how they fight tanks and afv… you never put your frontal armor forward the enemy you always try to get a slight angle so if you take a round to the frontal slope it will slide off (just like a rpg off the front of a bradley). The stupid training was pushed forward by non combat nco’s and officers that had never seen actual combat. Must troops that served in iraq after 2004 never say an actual firefight and in afghanistan out side of a couple firefights most sat on a fob and drank coffee. Training manuals (in the big army) are written by officers in a school house that never done anything.
@Soup's World my thoughts on the canted plates was more "I'm exposing more non armored than I would squared up, but I can't square up properly". It was just a spec4s thoughts when the great shooting expert that qualified 27 told him how to shoot. I saw it more as another example of technique not matching doctrine or the overall concept. The problem with train the trainer is that a lot of things are taken out of context. Infantry has needed a dedicated training warrant for way too long.
@Soup's World I was 25th, so until we got orders to Iraq, our budget was Clinton Era, non 18th Airborne Corp still. So i shot maybe 1000 rds, over all 3 fireteam weapons, my first year in my unit. Yeah, it was that bad. Once we got the blank check (halfway through OIF2) and then the second blank check for the Stryker MTOE change is when I actually learned how to shoot. I got to spend quite a bit of range time with Barnhart. I didn't pay attention as much as I probably should've, but my focus was Long Range precision. Not close range precision.
@@fathead8933 ahh 2bde, I was 3rd bde 04-07. 2/27 inf, was a step back in time. I felt like when I got there I had stepped back To fort hood in 94 when I first joined. Yes the infantry is fubar when it comes to basic shooting. I learned a lot from my platoon sgt at fort Stewart who was a drill sgt at fort Jackson and had gone to amu to get trained on how to shoot. The infantry does it all messed up. And yeah I hawaii we didn’t get shot till oef 5 and then oif 5
I'm not sure about other MOS training but as an 11B we were taught too use a fighter stance. We were also taught by a bunch of former group guys in how to do this. I just wanted to clear that up.
I have the same stance. Just naturally developed that way over time. Also I started shooting really obnoxious things full auto so my staggered leg spacing became more prominent
Very informative video, thank you. When I joined the black boot army rocking the lbv and pistol belt the weaver/fighting stance was being taught. Then when plate carriers started getting issued down range the modified stance was adopted to present more surface area to the enemy in cqb but it felt un-natural.
I've had this same discussion with a well known instructor about this. I've been doing martial arts for about 30+ years, as well as being an avid shooter since my days at Ft Benning, and he swears that the new-fangled isosceles is more stable and mobile. I don't see it and have used a stance like this for years. I even pointed that out, since he himself is a martial artist, that you don't fight in "horse stance", so why would you shoot in that stance.
They teach that same stance in the Marines too. I’ve always thought that the stance seemed kind of weird and the thought of relying more on the weight of your sapi plates for recoil absorption than your actual footing was even more weird lol.
I’ve been a shooter since I was old enough to hold a BB gun and then a deer rifle. I’ve also practiced martial arts since my teens. I’ve been taking flak from the “turtles” ever since their stance became popular. It’s great to see that you’ve had the fortitude and the common sense to resist being infected by their illness. 🐢🐢🐢
I was taught the army stance in Finland. But I got the feeling from the instructors that the stance is a compromise. A sacrifice of accuracy for protection. The other stance we were taught as "old one, don't use it unless you know you're not going to get shot at" was completely sideways. And it was amazing for accuracy, but it's easy to see the point they were making: If shot from the direction you were shooting towards to, the plates would do absolutely nothing to protect you. Yours seems like a combination of both. Trying to keep the plates faced at the danger while getting that good stance.
I would rather rely on shooting the enemy before he shoots me, than hoping I get hit in a 8 and a 1/2 by 10" plate. I would rather use a stance that facilitates best shooting
I've wrestled with this for years; I do roll my shoulder slightly forward but hold my feet about 30 degrees to firing side unless I'm moving, in which case my feet point forward naturally. I think this over-rolling and forward c-grip is only useful moving forward through a funnel, but it gets taught and practiced as a static stance at the range.
All techniques are just a 90% solution, your body mechanics play a part.At face value I could say you are wrong according to how I shoot and advocate...but in the end if it works for you and you can bring it then nothing wrong.
The reason for Big Army's stance is due to body armor and placing the face of the plate directly toward the target which will most likely be firing back. Everything in life is a balance and Big Army was trying to balance putting rounds on target and reducing casualties while maintaining the ability to move quickly. Sure, there are better stances for accurate fire just like there are better stances than yours for being able to move quickly.
Plate to front is a poor theory, watch guys go through a door, only at the very end of movement are they squared up, so they are present many angles, not to mention the enemy could be moving.
That plate forward theory has always struck me as an extremely lazy argument on the army's part, not least of all because it's self defeated by of the widespread adoption, issuing, and in most units mandatory use of side plates. The "railroad track" stance (as I was taught it in 2011) is pretty awful for all the reasons covered in this video, but also because a shooter so "squared up" is mechanically incapable of getting an aggressive thumb-over-bore grip anywhere remotely forward of the magazine well, what with both arms being the same length and all. This has resulted in the extremely widespread training scar of soldiers just gripping the magazine well instead, because it's much closer and more comfortable. Basically the rifle equivalent of shooting a handgun with the "teacup" grip, and about as effective at controlling recoil.
Thanks for this video. Also thanks for the link to your article in SWAT. Exploring some details a bit more, like squaring the shoulders vs. blading, is helpful (squaring the shoulders to support the butt stock verses twisting a bit (blading) in response to natural physical dynamics is something I am still sorting out).
I also train mma, and one of the first things I did when I started to learn how shoot better was immediately mimic my boxing/ muy Thai stance without even thinking
The Army shooting stance is briefed purely because it ensures that your plate is squared forward. It doesn’t have anything to do with balance or absorbing recoil. Now, having seen this video, I will try to change to this style and see it feels.
Plate to the front is hope and dreams, the idea assumes you will always be squared up to one bad guy. It ignores the fact one will be truing left or right going into a room and that bad guys move.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Good point! Army one size fits all stance is negligible. Going back to how I learned to shoot a 20 gauge shotgun at the age of 8!
I was taught that position primarily to be able to present my body armour to the potential threat. I had a video of my last shoot at an indoor range analyzed and the comment was made....."You're ex mil eh?" Point taken.
The reason the army squares their stance is they think this will align the body or not to provide more coverage against an enemy directly in front of the shooter. Not sure if it really does or if it’s significant.
In 2007 I was taught to stand the Army way. Because you want the plate to be straight towards the enemy. If you're standing sideways, your open. I was a Cav Scout
Yes but am I sideways in the video? No, plate to front is frankly a lame excuse for leaders and NCOs to not understand proper shooting techniques. Plus is the enemy moving? Are you moving? One is always presenting many angles just walking thru a door and turning left or right in CQB.
The interesting thing is that the depiction of standing in TC 3-22.9 shows a similar fighting stance with the firing side foot behind and not standing with the feet parallel. The description just says "shoulder width apart," though.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Oh I don't doubt it still gets taught wrong. I was just thinking that it's kinda funny that the depiction says one thing but "common wisdom" says another, i.e. "That's just the way we've always done it."
Great demonstration on a better stance. I’m assuming your a “cross dominant” shooter? (Left handed rifle and right handed pistol.) I’m also cross dominant, so I had to learn rifle shooting from the left shoulder to keep both eyes open on ACOGs or red dots. Does require more footwork when transitioning from rifle to pistol.
In some situations you have to shoot while being 'tall' (right above a chest high wall for example). For such requirements, having your legs right under the pelvis (max length), the weapon presented at shoulder high, and the torso slightly bent forward, works and works ok with minimal effort from a walking forward situation. One could advocate for a twisted upper body and a 'right angle'/70° feet opening ('Weaver' general stance), maybe. Some will say there is no point in doing anything different than minimal postural change from basic positions/actions, since 'good combat shooting' in a lasting firefight = being close to the ground and/or cover plus if possible supporting the rifle/arms with/on something anyway.. (quick reaction shooting often means you're being ambushed and THEY are delivering aimed accurate shots..). In some situations you HAVE to shoot with narrow-tucked legs/the smallest 'footprint' (advancing in a ditch, walking on planks, etc). If you never trained for rapid fire 'recoil managmt' with the smallest footprint & only a good use of being firmly 'behind the recoil' + actively putting a bit of weight by simply leaning a bit forward into the aiming/firing vector, you will fail. [with a big backpack, the simplest way of 'returning fire for a few seconds before cover/prone/one knee/drop the pack and run' = gun up, bend forward a bit/keep the 'tired backpacker bend', shooting. some say it works]
Good points ..before I made this video I rewatched some of my match videos. Because of range layout. Many times I shot feet almost together. Made up for that with change in upper body to compensate
@@ModernTacticalShooting 👍 It's all about the relaxed mid section of the body, mainly.. Something automatic when accomplishing an athletic task with focus / doing something dynamic with strong hands' actions & engaging the whole body, *but missing from honest demos* with 'no aim' and slowly adopting static postures (only demonstrating bone alignment and 'proving' nothing..). Ultimately, a very relaxed mid section creates a very big tight mass (gun + arms + thorax + head + gear weight) kinda floating above the pelvis (itself floating above the unconscious legs..). Takes A LOT of recoil to really move such a mass / make it 'topple over' the legs/heels.. But I agree with the general idea of the video. The basic variants of the spearman/inverted fencer posture are kinda instinctive for all humans. We/they think 'pushing against the wall' and boom, quickly one foot goes behind, strong leg, upper body is engaged forward a bit. Feels stable. Body is twisting but well.. 🤙
@@HAYAOLEONE you're touching upon a very important, but very forgotten, principle of movement, posture and good biomechanics and general which is that everything emanates out from the core. Many people are so focused on their hands, their feet, and their head that they forget about the thing that ties them all together.
This reminds me of the isosceles stance for handgun shooting that was all the rage in the 90’s. As I recall, the argument was that it was easier to teach an unskilled shooter the isosceles stance and get them to a level of “not great, but not terrible either” competency. Police agencies, in particular, were very much interested in any techniques that could possibly improve the terrible police marksmanship record at the time, so they jumped on the isosceles bandwagon right away. So it was never really about isosceles stance being superior, just easier to teach when you only had a couple days to train a green recruit. Anyway I tried it, didn’t like it, and quickly switched back to a more traditional bladed stance. It works with the body’s bio-mechanics better, exactly as your son demonstrated. There’s a reason all the martial arts disciplines have a front stance that looks essentially the same-it’s what works.
I know this is an older video, I can say I have training scars as an 11B…we were told it’s purpose was to present maximum plates to the enemy. But what you said makes way more sense. I guess SF is the only way to Army lol. (I went to BCT in 2003) so this goes way back.
Now that would be an interesting pair up...fencing stances compared to boxing style fighting stance compared to shooting.. how similar and how different if at all
I wonder about the straight up stance. I wonder how effective it is in a gunfight where there is shooting to moving, moving to shooting and moving while shooting. I study the movements of competitive handgun shooters, wrestlers, linebackers in American football and other dynamic sports where the person has to be ready to move in any direction with a split second decision to do so. I wonder how comparable using martial arts where some of the stance is to be ready to kick. I have studied human movement and coached sports for over 25 years and have been a competitive athlete for over 40. I am at the range about every 2 weeks and have taken training classes and competed. It would be interesting to study the straight up method vs the bent over method further in various contexts in which I have experimented with myself. It would be interesting to take an MMA fighter and do force on force with Simunitions or airsoft and see how they move and compare that with the performance of a bent over gunfighter. That being said it has been universally accepted that the tactical turtle is not recommended.
I agree totally with what you say (and I can't believe the US Army is teaching its soldiers that firing stance LOL) but there is one thing I don't agree with. The learning forward aspect. That DOES need to be done. Maybe not to the extent that the US Army is teaching it but you do have to push against the rifle as they say to better manage its recoil. Staying straight up is also not going to help you manage the recoil.
The isoscles or combat stance was not meant to keep recoil down, it was for better accuracy, but any version of the weaver stance, has always been a more stable platform and the forward aggressive lean has always worked for me.
I am prior service also, you are right has nothing to do with recoil. M4 hardly have any. I was taught to use it in close distances to maximize body armor protection.
I think it's important to remember that there is some fundamental differences between shooting a rifle and a handgun. A more squared isosceles stance is probably more suitable to the latter than the former.
From a similar background to yourself Jeff. I didn't do MMA but did fencing as my unit sport (also a qualified fencing instructor). Interestingly, this is exactly the stance in fencing, particularly sabre. Balance is crucial, as you are finely manipulating the weapon on the one hand whilst keeping a balanced stance. This stance is also useful for sudden movements forwards or backwards. This can have advantages in CQB too if there is an opportunity or need to take cover? Needless to say I use this stance in combat shooting too.
I was never taught the squared to the front as a good shooting technigue, it was taught as a safety stance to square your plates to yhe target, which makes some sence in a cqb enviroment. But usually not.
When we were trained in MCMAP the fighting stance is the one you are telling us is the better one but then we were told to shoot the other way. I made the comment the stance of fighting shouldn't change.
Yes the problem with the Army is institutionalization NCOs learned bad techniques when they were lower enlisted, never got corrected and passing it on now as this is how we do it.
I was a Marine grunt, and from what I understand is that squaring up to an adversary presents more of the front armor plate, and obscures the femoral arteries.
Well the even feet stance was first used so that you don’t get a bullet pass through your side. The stance he recommended is the older stance we used with chicken wing hanging out. The way you recommend you could get shot in your side and have through and through which is very hard to survive. The even foot present most of your armor so that doesn’t happen.
You're assuming the enemy is going to square up with you and not move that is just silly. Plus what about turning left and right in door to clear your corner? sprinting to the left or right while you flank an enemy? You should be relying on good tactics not your body armor to save you.
@@ModernTacticalShooting hey I’m not trying to argue with ya I know you’ve done so much for America and I’m grateful we have men like you an I enjoy your content. But that is the way they train folks now present all the armor forward as much as you can I don’t agree with leaning forward but presenting armor makes sense. Have you ever heard what I’m talking about before?
Listen to yourself "I am not worried about putting plates to the front" Isn't the hole idea of having body armor to present it towards the enemy or primary danger area with toes facing the same direction ? If a round hits you from the side on your (boxer like) stance the round will ricochet from the Kevlar and ceramic plate inside your body finishing each of your vital organs ,saw it happening numerous times.
Additionally the "turtule stance "is a industry standard obviously developed with years of Research and development and its based on numerous methodologies I can say with confidence I was trained the exact stance in the South african police service (special operations) in a counter terrorism and swat like unit.
I always seen that the way you held the barrel is somewhat popular among competitive shooters and even sf operators. I wonder who invented it or popularized it because I keep looking and I cant find anything related on it. Back then the barrel of a rifle was always held by the bottom but now its thumb on upper part of the barrel.
Squaring feet up makes full auto recoil suck… granted most of us aren’t lucky enough to have ever experienced that problem The only time I square up for shooting is on the basketball court
Good video and explanation. I see you shoot the rifle with your left and the hand gun with your right. What is the reason? In my case I am left eye dominant yet my stance does not change, just my dominant eye as I look down the sights.
Its good for newbies when lack of time, but wide spread legs its loss mobility. On my video i shoot bill drill with 12g semi automatic shotgun without problem.
The problem with the idea of the army stance is if you actually had your center of mass in front of your feet you would fall on your face but if you dont you may as well be standing up straight with your feet in the same spot
Just got bashed online bc I was shooting with the Army stance, it works well for me though I lean pretty aggressively forward, looking to change my stance now 😂
Woah. You shoot rifle left handed and pistol right handed? I've never thought about that but I had more accurate shots using a south paw stance with rifles while we were taught to slice the pie
Current Soldier here! I went through BCT in 2019 and was actually taught this stance. Got back to my unit and most of my NCOs knew and shot with this stance. It seems that the Army is sloooowly moving over to it
Good to know
A few NCO's ridiculed me for recommending this stance in a course of fire by saying something along the lines of: "Oh you're just an E4 that never deployed what would you know? Follow-through isn't what I was taught!" Before getting outshot by their E-2's that actually knew how to shoot and not just treated range time as something to check a box.
I have been teaching Filipino martial arts for over 20 years, and I'm an infantry vet with 2 deployments to Iraq. So I've been the victim of the ARMY's shooting stance. When I got out I started using my "martial arts" type stance for shooting because, in my mind, a good fighting stance kind of transcends the type of fighting. I then found that I was moving more naturally without any ill affect to my marksmanship. I also noticed a huge difference in my lower back pain. I said all that to say this. It's kinda nice to have an expert validate that my crazy idea makes some sense. Lol
I also don’t think for a 99% of engagements you even need to shoulder. I feel like shouldering it is putting you in a more rigid situation where you won’t be realistically while moving and you don’t even need to shoulder it with a low recoil is anyways and how short of a distance there is especially with the newer optics.
I always thought almost any martial arts stance would work well when using firearms.
@@ViceN53X I study and teach Filipino martial arts so I use like a boxing stance. Like a modified neutral bow from Kenpo. It has worked well for me.
i’m also a martial artist. i’m an 18 year old amateur boxer, and used my boxing stance to have more balance and recovery from the recoil. i’m glad i subconsciously did something right lolz
I used to box 2 years ago and I use the same footing stance for my marksmanship now. I'd assume that we do this instinctively because our body is already familiar with a stance that makes us firmer and hard to knockback.
My grandpa, a Korean war infantryman, taught me to shoot more or less like this when I was a teenager. When I joined the Army, they actively un-taught me that. Their reasoning was that your body armor works best when it's straight-on, which sounds like the kind of thing an E5 makes up on the spot when a soldier asks them something they don't know and doesn't want to sound like he doesn't know either.
Agree
In the Marines, I learned to shoot the M-16A2 service rifle (2002), standing, at 100 yards, in a very peculiar "competition" stance where the shooter is completely bladed with the target.
After boot camp, I joined the Fleet and learned to shoot standing completely squared with the target (2003). The idea was to maximize your plates to the threat. I never liked this stance and always ended up "dropping a leg" back, despite my NCOs and SNCOs "correcting" me. "You're going to get shot in the sides and die!" (We didn't have side SAPIs back then)
After multiple deployments to Iraq, shooting mostly in this stance, I then went back to qual on the range and couldn't hit the barn side of a broad at 100 yards in this squared stance. Ultimately, I ended up finding a comfortable "fighting stance," which is what is taught today. I'm always happy to get this vindication lol.
Cheers.
I've been saying this for decades. When I was a kid a USMC instructor taught me to shoot exactly like this. Your stance should be the same for rifle, pistol or throwing a punch. I've been through law enforcement and Army training that says the same old "feet apart, lean forward, stick your butt out, square your body armor to the threat" thing. They always tell me I'm wrong and I "won't qualify/pass the class" if I do it my way. I've always qualified Expert with rifle and pistol doing it my way, using the "boxer/fighter" style your showing here. Plus this is what everyone reverts to when they start moving and shooting instead of just standing there on the X.
I was also taught this army stance during my conscription time. I couldn't bare to use it when having such a huge recoil and kickback every time you fire the rifle. I used to do Muay Thai and I also was super used to my fighting stance and I still kept using it as it was so much more comfortable.
Great stuff! The 'Army' shooting position never was comfortable for me and didn't feel natural at all. Many of the soldiers that served with felt the same way. I'm glad to see someone debunk that.
That turtle stance friggin sucks. I was doing is correctly all along.
I’m glad you bring this up. I took martial arts for a few years. When I got into rifle shooting I naturally adopted something like the classic fighting stance, facing diagonally, strong foot back and it felt comfortable. I also saw good performance with it so I never learned the weird forward lean that I saw some others use.
The Army is dogmatic about teaching this type of nonsense. I had a squad daddy who insisted that the Army way was generally wrong, stupid, or wrong and stupid, and he emphasized more natural fighting stances. Sadly guys like that never rise up very far in the conventional ranks and end up having very little influence beyond a granular level.
@@1mkodadek nope. because theres no budging older guys in bringing about change that will make us better. So we get the fuck out lol
I agree 100%! I don't have a military background, but I had an instructor advise me to shoot with the extreme forward lean and feet squared and spaced evenly apart. But I never could adjust to the feeling that something, anything unexpected... could happen and I could lose my balance far too easily.
While I appreciated his advice, I went back to doing it my way once I was on my own again. It just doesn't feel natural to me. Your way... offers increased stability, but it also presents a slightly smaller target to the enemy as well! Thanks!
We would do up drills for what seemed like hours!!! I was never taught the fighting stance until we where about to go to Baghdad in 07 when they had some guys from 10th group come and run us through room clearing and weapons manipulations drills!!! That was probably the best training I received in the 7 years I was in!!!
This is exactly how Kyle Lamb promotes the fighting shooting stance in his book, "Green Eyes Black Rifles." His reasoning (the "why" of the stance) matches Jeff's explanation here. Good video. Thanks.
I was taught the standard Army "squared-to-target" stance. We were told to keep our plate towards the enemy. I participated in a CMP qualification with a M1. Of course, I resorted to my Army training and learned very quickly just how unstable the "squared-off" position really is. You certainly don't notice it when using a M4/556....but when it's a M1/30-06, the instability is very noticeable!
Relying on a 8x10 plate to save you is just silly, shoot using stance allowing you to shoot faster than enemy.
Using a more natural fighting stance also makes it easier to move or even sprint. If you're standing still you're bleeding out...
Motionless operators ventilate easily, M.O.V.E!
THANK YOU! I've been saying this for years! The 'full diaper' stance is great for standing still and absorbing recoil on the range, but standing still in the field is the best way to take a long dirt nap. Optimising mobility and being able to seamlessly halt and move without altering stance is the way to win gunfights, in my opinion.
Not a soldier but always thought this was the go-to fighting and shooting stance. Have now been fully converted. Awesome video and content!
Soldiers shoot laying on the ground/rubbles or kneeling on one knee most of the time..
Or bent forward straight behind the gun, 'square' to the target(s)/facing their sector; the weapon and ammo resting on something / clamped to something / suspended to something.
@@HAYAOLEONE Sure, but for shooting moving out in the open the man in the vid knows and lived through the stuff.
@@marcross52-95 Shooting what & how?
50grain bullets one at a time or 7.5x55mm_SWISS 170+ grain bullets in 'full auto'?..
What if I told you some shooters with the same type of past job prefer a 'true fencer posture' (right shooting hand, right foot advanced/left foot slightly backed, max weight on the lead/right foot) instead of the 'spearman posture'/'inverted fencer posture' (right shooting hand, left foot stepping forward and a bit to the side, back/right foot 'pushing' and twisted body)?
What if I told you the same shooters are ok with the 'defective' stance of 'parallel feet toes forward' in some situations?
Open terrain doesn't mean zero cover. Some people will shoot almost as good in the 4 set-ups (left side of cover, right side, right lead foot, llf).
Was/am not trying to be smart. Telling you the truth. Soldiers are always trying to shoot supported (legs will do what they can..) or close to the ground.
Fixating on stance is useless. That's all I have to say.
[ how can someone in such a grateful mood for the content creator be so cold to a commenter giving too / providing information?.. ]
Have a nice day.
@@HAYAOLEONE Not discounting the facts you shared nor arguing with you in the first place, but this "machismo power factor tactical sport-shooter act" you have is something I've seen too much in the internet with people who have less to do.
I like firearms and combative content but my life does not revolve around the internet trying to one up or solidify their "tactical badass shooter status".
@@marcross52-95 ok big sandy beach
Hi, I am 66 yo and got my 1st AR15 for my birthday here in 2024. I looked at a lot of UA-cam videos for the proper AR15 stance stance and there are many conflicting views. My son was in the national guard and went to Camp Lenard Wood for basic in 2012 . I asked him the proper stance. He told me feet parallel, hunch forward nose on charging handle. I told him I thought that was bullshit. A few months later I found this video and you have re-enforced what felt natural for me. Great video. Thank you!
@stevenwalker232 Yes it's a shame what they are teaching soldiers, goes against natural body mechanics
This is MINDBLOWING yet makes complete sense; i was in the Army for 6yrs so i have that bad stance. But i trained Muay Thai for 10yrs, i never thought to stand like a fighter with my AR15. Im definitely gonna try this.
🤯 today years old …. Doesn’t bother me that I’ve been shooting like this for years thanks to the Army. It’s the 100’s of soldiers I’ve instructed. Seeing the breakdown of the positions it makes so much sense now. Definitely will share this video. Thank you sir.
Glad I found this channel. You are definitely part of a hand full of you tubers that are offering real world, logical information. Thank you for sharing.
Bringing in your son, and having him take up his regular MMA stance was a great way of demonstrating this. When I was younger, I took Tae Kwon Do, and only after seeing this video do I realize that I take up the same stance I did back then when out shooting a rifle. Dominant foot back and at about a 45 degree angle, front foot facing forward, my chest parallel with my waist, left hand out front extended out, right hand back by my chest. I ain't ever realized it was the same stance I do now when I go out shooting. It makes me think, because another stance we practiced a lot was similar to what the Army does, where our feet were parallel and about even with our shoulders, and our back was straight up. Next time I'm out I might try that out, and see what its like. In any case, real interesting video!
Jeff, I’m an armed police officer in the UK (there aren’t many of us) and I have recently adopted the stance taught by you in this video to great success. I’ve certainly not struggled in the past, being a bit of a “gun guy”, but I’m always on the lookout for ways to improve. I’ve certainly taken your word on wholeheartedly and have been teaching it to my colleagues with great enthusiasm!
Glad I was helpful! BTW my Grandparents on my moms side are both from Birmingham.
how did you become an armed police officer? i want to become one and i would love to apply
@@takyon. You must first apply to become a regular police officer in a Home Office police force or British Transport Police. If you are successful, you will have to serve at least a 2 year probation period as an unarmed officer before being considered for any specialist roles. Alternately, you may apply to either the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or Ministry of Defence Police. Both of these specialist police forces arm all of their officers from the start. Both are also recruiting heavily at the moment.
This really is one of the best channels on the internet. Thank you for your videos
I found this out a couple years ago and it absolutely changed my shooting capabilities
The Marine Corps currently teaches a sort of in-between, where your feet are not parallel but your left foot (as a right handed shooter) is not super far forward, and you're square.
You know what you do what you feels is good and comfortable for you. In the battlefield you have no time to think about you stance. If you can fire and hit your enemy that matter..
My company does training with National Guard troops. I noticed this issue when we did our first foreign weapons familiarization class. Odd that a civilian training company has to teach basics like shooting stance.
We definitely came a long way when the Weaver stance and push pull grip method. Great content, I cant wait till next year and you expand out into training. Thanks
In the 90’s the us army infantry taught to have non firing foot forward knees bent shoulders over hips shoulders either squared or bladed. Non firing hand your index finger was pointed at target, and thumb was on side of hand guard, not over top.
Even up till I got out in 07 that was the stance I taught. After I got out is when the whole plate forward butt down squared to target stuff started. I never understood that stance at all.
Never understood the nose to the charging handle either.
That works for not having armor. This stance evolved out of the "plates forward" concept. My issue was the plates are always canted, and I always figured that I wouldn't get to pick my shooting stance. When I came in in 02 it was VERY rare to see an Infantryman fire from standing, so we still had a lot more weaver stance in our presentation, but it was already starting with the isoceles, which this actually is versus what the army determined was the isoceles over the years. I'm not gonna generation bash but the farther back you go in age the more violent the kids were. I honestly think some of this is a lack of fighting background. They most likely didn't wrestle or fight enough to naturally understand weight distribution.
@@fathead8933 I wore plates in iraq in 2003, and afghanistan 04-05. I still used the same stance as I did from when I joined in 94.
In iraq in 2003 I shot more from the standing and kneeling then from the prone.
The “plate forward” bs started with the ranger vest from the balkians in the mid to late 90’s when flak vest had ceramic plates placed over top of the normal flak vest.
That mind set them “bleed” in the the big army cause officers wanted to be “rangers”.
You can shoot with canted plates, look at armored forces and how they fight tanks and afv… you never put your frontal armor forward the enemy you always try to get a slight angle so if you take a round to the frontal slope it will slide off (just like a rpg off the front of a bradley).
The stupid training was pushed forward by non combat nco’s and officers that had never seen actual combat.
Must troops that served in iraq after 2004 never say an actual firefight and in afghanistan out side of a couple firefights most sat on a fob and drank coffee.
Training manuals (in the big army) are written by officers in a school house that never done anything.
@Soup's World my thoughts on the canted plates was more "I'm exposing more non armored than I would squared up, but I can't square up properly". It was just a spec4s thoughts when the great shooting expert that qualified 27 told him how to shoot. I saw it more as another example of technique not matching doctrine or the overall concept. The problem with train the trainer is that a lot of things are taken out of context. Infantry has needed a dedicated training warrant for way too long.
@Soup's World I was 25th, so until we got orders to Iraq, our budget was Clinton Era, non 18th Airborne Corp still. So i shot maybe 1000 rds, over all 3 fireteam weapons, my first year in my unit. Yeah, it was that bad. Once we got the blank check (halfway through OIF2) and then the second blank check for the Stryker MTOE change is when I actually learned how to shoot. I got to spend quite a bit of range time with Barnhart. I didn't pay attention as much as I probably should've, but my focus was Long Range precision. Not close range precision.
@@fathead8933 ahh 2bde, I was 3rd bde 04-07. 2/27 inf, was a step back in time. I felt like when I got there I had stepped back To fort hood in 94 when I first joined.
Yes the infantry is fubar when it comes to basic shooting. I learned a lot from my platoon sgt at fort Stewart who was a drill sgt at fort Jackson and had gone to amu to get trained on how to shoot. The infantry does it all messed up.
And yeah I hawaii we didn’t get shot till oef 5 and then oif 5
I'm not sure about other MOS training but as an 11B we were taught too use a fighter stance. We were also taught by a bunch of former group guys in how to do this. I just wanted to clear that up.
I have the same stance. Just naturally developed that way over time. Also I started shooting really obnoxious things full auto so my staggered leg spacing became more prominent
Very informative video, thank you. When I joined the black boot army rocking the lbv and pistol belt the weaver/fighting stance was being taught. Then when plate carriers started getting issued down range the modified stance was adopted to present more surface area to the enemy in cqb but it felt un-natural.
That's the way I was taught in the Army. Shooting leg slightly forward. Square your body. Bend your knees.
Excellent video Jeff. Thanks for sharing your experience
I just used my boxing stance and it's worked very well.
I've had this same discussion with a well known instructor about this. I've been doing martial arts for about 30+ years, as well as being an avid shooter since my days at Ft Benning, and he swears that the new-fangled isosceles is more stable and mobile. I don't see it and have used a stance like this for years. I even pointed that out, since he himself is a martial artist, that you don't fight in "horse stance", so why would you shoot in that stance.
They teach that same stance in the Marines too. I’ve always thought that the stance seemed kind of weird and the thought of relying more on the weight of your sapi plates for recoil absorption than your actual footing was even more weird lol.
I’ve been a shooter since I was old enough to hold a BB gun and then a deer rifle. I’ve also practiced martial arts since my teens. I’ve been taking flak from the “turtles” ever since their stance became popular. It’s great to see that you’ve had the fortitude and the common sense to resist being infected by their illness. 🐢🐢🐢
Yes alot of drivel out there, made popular by ignorance and internet
I love how this is becoming standard now. Works way better under nods, and helps you present a larger body armor area to the threat as well
Thank you very much!!
Another great video, breaking the paradigm. And your son is a bad ass. Good stuff gentlemen
Really enjoy your videos Sir! Keep up the great work!
Great video. The video was simple and clarified the misconception.
I was taught the army stance in Finland. But I got the feeling from the instructors that the stance is a compromise. A sacrifice of accuracy for protection.
The other stance we were taught as "old one, don't use it unless you know you're not going to get shot at" was completely sideways. And it was amazing for accuracy, but it's easy to see the point they were making: If shot from the direction you were shooting towards to, the plates would do absolutely nothing to protect you.
Yours seems like a combination of both. Trying to keep the plates faced at the danger while getting that good stance.
I would rather rely on shooting the enemy before he shoots me, than hoping I get hit in a 8 and a 1/2 by 10" plate. I would rather use a stance that facilitates best shooting
Your sons a bad ass just like his dad that's awesome.
He is!
I've wrestled with this for years; I do roll my shoulder slightly forward but hold my feet about 30 degrees to firing side unless I'm moving, in which case my feet point forward naturally. I think this over-rolling and forward c-grip is only useful moving forward through a funnel, but it gets taught and practiced as a static stance at the range.
All techniques are just a 90% solution, your body mechanics play a part.At face value I could say you are wrong according to how I shoot and advocate...but in the end if it works for you and you can bring it then nothing wrong.
Natural point of aim! Taught to me by USMC. Works just fine. Stance is literally just like what your demo shows.
The reason for Big Army's stance is due to body armor and placing the face of the plate directly toward the target which will most likely be firing back.
Everything in life is a balance and Big Army was trying to balance putting rounds on target and reducing casualties while maintaining the ability to move quickly.
Sure, there are better stances for accurate fire just like there are better stances than yours for being able to move quickly.
Plate to front is a poor theory, watch guys go through a door, only at the very end of movement are they squared up, so they are present many angles, not to mention the enemy could be moving.
That plate forward theory has always struck me as an extremely lazy argument on the army's part, not least of all because it's self defeated by of the widespread adoption, issuing, and in most units mandatory use of side plates.
The "railroad track" stance (as I was taught it in 2011) is pretty awful for all the reasons covered in this video, but also because a shooter so "squared up" is mechanically incapable of getting an aggressive thumb-over-bore grip anywhere remotely forward of the magazine well, what with both arms being the same length and all.
This has resulted in the extremely widespread training scar of soldiers just gripping the magazine well instead, because it's much closer and more comfortable. Basically the rifle equivalent of shooting a handgun with the "teacup" grip, and about as effective at controlling recoil.
But this plate forward stance started in the ranger batts. It didn’t hit big army till 06-07 time when all the officers wanted to be secret squirrels
That was a special forces reload on that pistol if I’ve ever seen one! Love the channel!
Thank you, I try!
Thanks for this video. Also thanks for the link to your article in SWAT. Exploring some details a bit more, like squaring the shoulders vs. blading, is helpful (squaring the shoulders to support the butt stock verses twisting a bit (blading) in response to natural physical dynamics is something I am still sorting out).
I also train mma, and one of the first things I did when I started to learn how shoot better was immediately mimic my boxing/ muy Thai stance without even thinking
The Army shooting stance is briefed purely because it ensures that your plate is squared forward. It doesn’t have anything to do with balance or absorbing recoil.
Now, having seen this video, I will try to change to this style and see it feels.
Plate to the front is hope and dreams, the idea assumes you will always be squared up to one bad guy. It ignores the fact one will be truing left or right going into a room and that bad guys move.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Good point! Army one size fits all stance is negligible.
Going back to how I learned to shoot a 20 gauge shotgun at the age of 8!
@@ModernTacticalShooting yeah the bad guy you are engaging in a gunfight, big difference, I want my plates squared up.
I will try this out thank you 🙏
Love this video. Your videos are awesome.
I was taught that position primarily to be able to present my body armour to the potential threat. I had a video of my last shoot at an indoor range analyzed and the comment was made....."You're ex mil eh?" Point taken.
Stance matters
The reason the army squares their stance is they think this will align the body or not to provide more coverage against an enemy directly in front of the shooter. Not sure if it really does or if it’s significant.
In 2007 I was taught to stand the Army way. Because you want the plate to be straight towards the enemy. If you're standing sideways, your open. I was a Cav Scout
Yes but am I sideways in the video? No, plate to front is frankly a lame excuse for leaders and NCOs to not understand proper shooting techniques. Plus is the enemy moving? Are you moving? One is always presenting many angles just walking thru a door and turning left or right in CQB.
@@ModernTacticalShooting Didn't say you were wrong. Just stated the reason why they taught us to stand that awkward way.
The interesting thing is that the depiction of standing in TC 3-22.9 shows a similar fighting stance with the firing side foot behind and not standing with the feet parallel. The description just says "shoulder width apart," though.
Correct but more often than not taught feet parallel bend way over forward manual should have used a picture not drawing
@@ModernTacticalShooting Oh I don't doubt it still gets taught wrong. I was just thinking that it's kinda funny that the depiction says one thing but "common wisdom" says another, i.e. "That's just the way we've always done it."
Great demonstration on a better stance. I’m assuming your a “cross dominant” shooter? (Left handed rifle and right handed pistol.) I’m also cross dominant, so I had to learn rifle shooting from the left shoulder to keep both eyes open on ACOGs or red dots. Does require more footwork when transitioning from rifle to pistol.
Great vid. Very informative and illustrative.
In some situations you have to shoot while being 'tall' (right above a chest high wall for example).
For such requirements, having your legs right under the pelvis (max length), the weapon presented at shoulder high, and the torso slightly bent forward, works and works ok with minimal effort from a walking forward situation.
One could advocate for a twisted upper body and a 'right angle'/70° feet opening ('Weaver' general stance), maybe. Some will say there is no point in doing anything different than minimal postural change from basic positions/actions, since 'good combat shooting' in a lasting firefight = being close to the ground and/or cover plus if possible supporting the rifle/arms with/on something anyway.. (quick reaction shooting often means you're being ambushed and THEY are delivering aimed accurate shots..).
In some situations you HAVE to shoot with narrow-tucked legs/the smallest 'footprint' (advancing in a ditch, walking on planks, etc).
If you never trained for rapid fire 'recoil managmt' with the smallest footprint & only a good use of being firmly 'behind the recoil' + actively putting a bit of weight by simply leaning a bit forward into the aiming/firing vector, you will fail.
[with a big backpack, the simplest way of 'returning fire for a few seconds before cover/prone/one knee/drop the pack and run' = gun up, bend forward a bit/keep the 'tired backpacker bend', shooting. some say it works]
Good points ..before I made this video I rewatched some of my match videos. Because of range layout. Many times I shot feet almost together. Made up for that with change in upper body to compensate
@@ModernTacticalShooting 👍
@@ModernTacticalShooting 👍
It's all about the relaxed mid section of the body, mainly..
Something automatic when accomplishing an athletic task with focus / doing something dynamic with strong hands' actions & engaging the whole body, *but missing from honest demos* with 'no aim' and slowly adopting static postures (only demonstrating bone alignment and 'proving' nothing..).
Ultimately, a very relaxed mid section creates a very big tight mass (gun + arms + thorax + head + gear weight) kinda floating above the pelvis (itself floating above the unconscious legs..).
Takes A LOT of recoil to really move such a mass / make it 'topple over' the legs/heels..
But I agree with the general idea of the video. The basic variants of the spearman/inverted fencer posture are kinda instinctive for all humans.
We/they think 'pushing against the wall' and boom, quickly one foot goes behind, strong leg, upper body is engaged forward a bit. Feels stable.
Body is twisting but well..
🤙
@@HAYAOLEONE you're touching upon a very important, but very forgotten, principle of movement, posture and good biomechanics and general which is that everything emanates out from the core.
Many people are so focused on their hands, their feet, and their head that they forget about the thing that ties them all together.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug 🔥
This reminds me of the isosceles stance for handgun shooting that was all the rage in the 90’s. As I recall, the argument was that it was easier to teach an unskilled shooter the isosceles stance and get them to a level of “not great, but not terrible either” competency. Police agencies, in particular, were very much interested in any techniques that could possibly improve the terrible police marksmanship record at the time, so they jumped on the isosceles bandwagon right away. So it was never really about isosceles stance being superior, just easier to teach when you only had a couple days to train a green recruit.
Anyway I tried it, didn’t like it, and quickly switched back to a more traditional bladed stance. It works with the body’s bio-mechanics better, exactly as your son demonstrated. There’s a reason all the martial arts disciplines have a front stance that looks essentially the same-it’s what works.
Love this channel keep it up!!
I know this is an older video, I can say I have training scars as an 11B…we were told it’s purpose was to present maximum plates to the enemy. But what you said makes way more sense. I guess SF is the only way to Army lol. (I went to BCT in 2003) so this goes way back.
Good reason, I'll incorporate it.
I enjoyed the great video.^^ Can you also explain the kneeling posture?
i fenced in college, i understand, thank you sir.
Now that would be an interesting pair up...fencing stances compared to boxing style fighting stance compared to shooting.. how similar and how different if at all
@@ModernTacticalShooting bruce lee used fencing stance for his fighting with leading hand foward for the jab, control and speed, balance
I wonder about the straight up stance. I wonder how effective it is in a gunfight where there is shooting to moving, moving to shooting and moving while shooting. I study the movements of competitive handgun shooters, wrestlers, linebackers in American football and other dynamic sports where the person has to be ready to move in any direction with a split second decision to do so. I wonder how comparable using martial arts where some of the stance is to be ready to kick. I have studied human movement and coached sports for over 25 years and have been a competitive athlete for over 40. I am at the range about every 2 weeks and have taken training classes and competed. It would be interesting to study the straight up method vs the bent over method further in various contexts in which I have experimented with myself. It would be interesting to take an MMA fighter and do force on force with Simunitions or airsoft and see how they move and compare that with the performance of a bent over gunfighter. That being said it has been universally accepted that the tactical turtle is not recommended.
Good stuff. Thanks!
I agree totally with what you say (and I can't believe the US Army is teaching its soldiers that firing stance LOL) but there is one thing I don't agree with. The learning forward aspect. That DOES need to be done. Maybe not to the extent that the US Army is teaching it but you do have to push against the rifle as they say to better manage its recoil. Staying straight up is also not going to help you manage the recoil.
The isoscles or combat stance was not meant to keep recoil down, it was for better accuracy, but any version of the weaver stance, has always been a more stable platform and the forward aggressive lean has always worked for me.
I am prior service also, you are right has nothing to do with recoil. M4 hardly have any. I was taught to use it in close distances to maximize body armor protection.
I think it's important to remember that there is some fundamental differences between shooting a rifle and a handgun. A more squared isosceles stance is probably more suitable to the latter than the former.
From a similar background to yourself Jeff. I didn't do MMA but did fencing as my unit sport (also a qualified fencing instructor). Interestingly, this is exactly the stance in fencing, particularly sabre. Balance is crucial, as you are finely manipulating the weapon on the one hand whilst keeping a balanced stance. This stance is also useful for sudden movements forwards or backwards. This can have advantages in CQB too if there is an opportunity or need to take cover? Needless to say I use this stance in combat shooting too.
Fighting stance regardless of sport works...Except in the Army for some reason!
@@ModernTacticalShooting Indeed
I was never taught the squared to the front as a good shooting technigue, it was taught as a safety stance to square your plates to yhe target, which makes some sence in a cqb enviroment. But usually not.
Awesome video, just watched a video from my boy Tu Lam today on the same subject
When we were trained in MCMAP the fighting stance is the one you are telling us is the better one but then we were told to shoot the other way. I made the comment the stance of fighting shouldn't change.
Yes the problem with the Army is institutionalization NCOs learned bad techniques when they were lower enlisted, never got corrected and passing it on now as this is how we do it.
The wheel continues until broken. Good video I am going to recheck my stance
I was a Marine grunt, and from what I understand is that squaring up to an adversary presents more of the front armor plate, and obscures the femoral arteries.
That's assuming that the enemy squares up to you and does not move at Angles at all
Taught the same way in the marine corps never liked it always got yelled at for not doing it great video though keep it up
Think how bad it is when the gub-ment can screw up how you stand.
Well the even feet stance was first used so that you don’t get a bullet pass through your side. The stance he recommended is the older stance we used with chicken wing hanging out. The way you recommend you could get shot in your side and have through and through which is very hard to survive. The even foot present most of your armor so that doesn’t happen.
You're assuming the enemy is going to square up with you and not move that is just silly. Plus what about turning left and right in door to clear your corner? sprinting to the left or right while you flank an enemy? You should be relying on good tactics not your body armor to save you.
@@ModernTacticalShooting hey I’m not trying to argue with ya I know you’ve done so much for America and I’m grateful we have men like you an I enjoy your content. But that is the way they train folks now present all the armor forward as much as you can I don’t agree with leaning forward but presenting armor makes sense. Have you ever heard what I’m talking about before?
Would you hold a pistol the same way
Listen to yourself "I am not worried about putting plates to the front"
Isn't the hole idea of having body armor to present it towards the enemy or primary danger area with toes facing the same direction ?
If a round hits you from the side on your (boxer like) stance the round will ricochet from the Kevlar and ceramic plate inside your body finishing each of your vital organs ,saw it happening numerous times.
Additionally the "turtule stance "is a industry standard obviously developed with years of Research and development and its based on numerous methodologies I can say with confidence I was trained the exact stance in the South african police service (special operations) in a counter terrorism and swat like unit.
I always seen that the way you held the barrel is somewhat popular among competitive shooters and even sf operators. I wonder who invented it or popularized it because I keep looking and I cant find anything related on it. Back then the barrel of a rifle was always held by the bottom but now its thumb on upper part of the barrel.
Really god
When I was a policeman we were thaught like you show
Im from Slowenia
So I agree with you
Wat up stukus! 87 beans 9mm.
Thank you, sir.
Squaring feet up makes full auto recoil suck… granted most of us aren’t lucky enough to have ever experienced that problem
The only time I square up for shooting is on the basketball court
Good video and explanation. I see you shoot the rifle with your left and the hand gun with your right. What is the reason? In my case I am left eye dominant yet my stance does not change, just my dominant eye as I look down the sights.
I'm left diagnominate and just natural lefty rifle, righty pistol.
Well.... great... I've been fucked up for 11 years...
Guess it's better to learn late than not at all :P
Its good for newbies when lack of time, but wide spread legs its loss mobility. On my video i shoot bill drill with 12g semi automatic shotgun without problem.
The problem with the idea of the army stance is if you actually had your center of mass in front of your feet you would fall on your face but if you dont you may as well be standing up straight with your feet in the same spot
I went to OSUT in 2020 and was taught the 90's swat stance. Thank God I had the sense not to listen to that.
Thank you!
Just got bashed online bc I was shooting with the Army stance, it works well for me though I lean pretty aggressively forward, looking to change my stance now 😂
It reminds me shooting isosceles. I like shooting isosceles with pistols but definitely not with long guns.
Many an argument with instructors this has caused :l
I believe it
Amen 😇✝
So essentially a boxing stance.
In short..yep
Woah. You shoot rifle left handed and pistol right handed? I've never thought about that but I had more accurate shots using a south paw stance with rifles while we were taught to slice the pie
Good video
Ill stick with the left because its a more accurate position to shoot with your hands near the mag rather than the arm extended out
Hand near mag puts both hands near each other creating a pivot point.
I agree I'm 6'1 and 170 lb if I don't blade out in a good fighting stance 9 mm tries to push me over LOL