Modern offhand position?

[Canuck Bob]

I've been reading up on offhand shooting and techniques. Here is a link of Gunsites method for training hunters. I am very interested in these ideas.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1005010569

I had noticed that some trained folks in law enforcement and combat utilize a square stance often with a little body lean. This is all I found researching this topic. The square stance does make sense for rapid foot movement for swat or close quarters.

Anyone have experience with this?

[BrentD]

I guess everyone has their means and methods and, certainly, preferences. The material in that article isn't bad, but it may or may not conform to what works best for you. Some of it might depend on your equipment as well. Shooting "squared up" with a heavy rifle in a heavy recoiling caliber - think a Sharps in .45-100, one of my favorites - is challenging this way to put it mildly. From the "squared up" squat it will probably knock you over. But my hunting has nothing to do with combat so I don't need to consider some techniques that others might. I also don't snap-shoot, or shoot at running targets.

Consequently, I shoot deer, squirrels, you name it more or less like this - presuming that I'm going to shoot offhand at all, a very rare occurrence to be sure.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Raton/522.JPG


The only important issue with how you shoot, is that you hit what you are aiming at. I've seen some pretty crazy looking styles of shooting, but they worked "good enough" for the folks that practiced them.

The information in one of Tubb's first books has done more for my offhand shooting that almost anything else. Yet, I am shooting flintlocks or BPCRs or lever guns, and I don't have any of the attire, etc. Nonetheless, the techniques remain the same.

http://www.amazon.com/Rifle-Shooter/dp/ ... avid+Tubbs

[Canuck Bob]

Thanks Brent, I'm a life long 444 shooter and reasonably good offhand shot with that rifle and recoil. i use the traditional position rather than the target position with the arm resting on a hip style. I consider one a good enough hunting position and the other a precision position.

This enquiry is the outcome of deciding to make offhand shooting my range activity. Shooting groups is fine for a day and sight in. However I no longer hunt and health issues are even robbing me of going out into the bush. So it is a fun activity but as an old hunter and soldier I seem to always think in terms of hitting accurate and fast. With the emphasis on hitting!!

I liked the attitude related in the article regarding training for practical hunting rifle shooting. So much is precision based or psuedo combat based these days. They even promote training as a one gun guy.

That picture shows some real good form! I have no doubt you are a deadly shot. That big man sized rifle is a beauty.

[BrentD]

That shooter is not me. I can't take pictures of myself very well. But he is often a contender for the national title and has finished as high as 2nd overall, losing in a tie-breaker.

He is also a hell of a good hunting shot, having taken everything from mt. lion to antelope offhand and with many similar rifles.

The point is that target shooting style works really well for hunting, though it is often derided on hunting forums. And sometimes, what people call "hunting" style works pretty well for competition. I watched one such shooter at the National Lever Gun Silhouette matches this year do that and he shot about as well as me.

The stances suggested by the article simply don't lend themselves well to older, more traditional rifles. For me that includes flintlocks up to what I consider "ultra modern" Marlin 1893 in .38-55. Of course, the audience for that article is more familiar with very short rifles (also fashionable here on the lever gun forum), and the black-plastic guns that are purpose built for being shot that way I guess. For us older gunners, that may limit the utility of the article. I do like the idea of a walk-through target range though.

Here are a few photos of a match that I used to shoot. It was a lot like hunting (albeit there is no offhand here - unless you wanted to), it required speed (something I generally deplore when hunting), and a heck of a lot of skill in range estimation given distances as a far as 400 m, targets of unknown and variable sizes, and artillery for which range estimation really matters over even short distances (unlike the .308 in the article). Matches like these I think do help a lot with hunting scenarios, but then I think regulation silhouette and Creedmoor doe as well.

These are all relatively close range - max maybe 250 yds.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/P ... 202006.JPG

These go out to maybe 300. 25 targets, 25 bullets, 10 minutes. Targets must go down, that means only .45 caliber and above are going to be contenders. Everything matters in these matches.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/P ... 202006.JPG

[Chuck 100 yd]

The only time I shoot offhand is when there is no time for any other option as in heavy cover and the animal seems to be aware of my presence.
For those shots,instinct takes over and I revert to my shotgun training. I have often tried to remember just how the shot went after firing such as actual sight picture,trigger break etc. I can never seem to remember it all but I have never failed to bring down a Deer in those circumstances.
like in trap,skeet or sporting clays,my focus is always on the target. The shots I refer to are always in heavy cover and rarely over 30yd.
That said, I have never spent much time practicing offhand because I don`t plan to shoot that way.
I do envy those who are good at it like my friend Dick Vrooman who is an international BP rifle champion and gold medalist with flint rifle offhand at 100 m.

[7.62 Precision]

You are right, there are differences between modern combat shooting stances, precision shooting stances, etc.

The stance is nothing more than conforming your body into a stable platform from which to fire. The stance you use may change depending on circumstances. Also, even people using the same methods will have slight variations in their stances.

If I am shooting a close target (within maybe 100 m) or need to shot quickly, I will use a squared-up combat stance, left leg slightly forward, knees bent, heels turned slightly out, back straight, butt out, shoulders wrapped forward around the butt of the rifle, the rifle against the chest, elbows in tight and head up. In this position, you are aiming your rifle with your body, and once the rifle is on target, you can shoot subsequent shots without aiming and still hit the target.

Even if the rifle has some recoil, recovery is very fast and the rifle does not move much. Using this stance, I shot a bear thee times in under 1.5 seconds with a lever gun, and each shot was a kill shot. My sights stayed in target and I just had to make minor adjustments for each shot.


On the other hand, if the target is more distant or smaller, I will use a stance more like what you would expect a sniper or competitive shooter to use (as pictured in some of the other links posted) since these stances are designed for precise shooting and have been developed over many years.

I don't believe there is a right way and a wrong way to shoot. There are a number of methods that a good, some that are very good, and many that are very bad, but you don't have to shoot like me or anyone else - you may prefer a different method.



Sometimes stances are specialized to a specific type of shooting, some not really appropriate for hunting most game:

[BrentD]

Sometimes stances are specialized to a specific type of shooting, some not really appropriate for hunting most game:

This was a very popular stance in some places I have lived

It's effectiveness has always been debatable.

[AJMD429]

I really need to move to Alaska..........................

[piller]

If you can hit what you are aiming at, then you stance is not technically wrong. It might be unorthodox, awkward, or even unique. Wrong is when you miss and/or end up on your 4th point of contact. Some people have long arms, some have short arms, and there are arm length to body height variations. These all make for the position that is comfortable and conducive to accuracy to be something that is potentially different for each one of us. Still, it is best to be able to work with a couple of different positions so that you can have a chance to make a clean kill shot on the animal under most circumstances.

[Buck Elliott]

Rifle and shotgun shooting both naturally require an asymetric stance.. One shoulder and arm are naturally behind the other, at an angle, and the body turns to follow the lead of the forward arm.. The upper body is free to turn from the ankles, knees, hips or waist. Such a stance provides natural skeletal support, while being "live" enough to allow movement in nearly any direction, without sacrificing support. Bending at the knees and hips, as shown in the photos, gives up skeletal support, relying solely on muscles and tendons instead..

The "squared" stance may work well for 2-handed pistol work, but is clumsy, awkward and difficult to perfect when training with long guns..

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have been a serious student of guns and shooting for some 65 years or so, and have seen a variety of techniques come and go.. If this new "method" is so superior to the tried and true systems, it would have sprung up from the ground in numerous places, almost simultaneously, to be immediarely embraced by every man who tried it..

Unlike the mythical "average hunter", who supposedly gets off a dozen (or less) shots a year, I have fired literally hundreds of thousands of rounds in my lifetime, from single shot, double barrel, bolt action, semi- and full-automatic and lever action longarms, and I know what works best for me, and for the men and women I've shot with.

It seems that every now and again, some gung-ho jaybird comes along with a "new and improved" agenda or protocol to SELL to a rising generation of marksmen who hope that skill and profiency can be bought or bargained from the latest reigning Guru..

P.T. Barnum got it right...

[7.62 Precision]

The "squared" stance may work well for 2-handed pistol work, but is clumsy, awkward and difficult to perfect when training with long guns..

It seems that every now and again, some gung-ho jaybird comes along with a "new and improved" agenda or protocol to SELL to a rising generation of marksmen who hope that skill and profiency can be bought or bargained from the latest reigning Guru..

The squared stance works well within it's intended role, but the one we teach is still not completely squared - the non-firing leg is slightly forward. When transitioning to the pistol, the firing leg comes forward to be squared with the other.

However, the intended role is fast shooting and moving in a fight, and while I think it works great if a bear is charging or you jump a deer at close range, for most hunting, a more bladed target shooting stance is preferred to get the stability needed.

Everyone wants to come up with a better idea. Part of it is ego, but most is the fact that it sells stuff.

[MrMurphy]

The squared stance also keeps the majority of your armor pointed in the right direction in a close in situation.

I have a friend in a wheelchair for life because the USMC emphasized formal offhand (and the old M16A2 stock with armor more or less forced you to shoot that way as well) and an AK round hit him in the side of his armor, (no plates there at the time) penetrating and hitting his spine.

[7.62 Precision]

Also, a smaller target causes people to aim smaller. A hit from the front may well miss anything really vital, or hit only one vital organ. A hit from the side is much more likely to pass through several organs, decreasing chances of survival, so it can be an advantage even if body armor is not worn. For example a hit from the front might take puncture one lung, while a hit from the side could easily puncture both.

In the case of a hunter, the game should not be shooting back, and in the case of a sniper, he is taking accepted risks to be more effective, so it's not unlikely that he won't even be wearing body armor at times, and if a shooting stance exposes his side, so be it; it's what he chose.

[Grizz]

I dumped this reply yesterday, but it may resonate.

I killed a lot of deer from fishing boats and skiffs. Boats, especially skiffs, move a lot in saltwater. I did this with rifles and a revolver, sometimes sitting and sometimes standing. Standing offhand meant that the legs were bracing, but unconsciously, what is known as sea-legs. The upper body part just adapted to the situation, and I was never conscious of anything but the front sight and the spot on the deer. I did this often for years and never wounded or lost a deer. I shot a number of deer from a kayak. My point is that a rigid stance that works and is necessary for a stack of soldiers fighting in houses isn't applicable in any way to most of the hunting scenarios that I've seen.

What's different now is that my sea-legs, while still available, are no longer unconscious, and my physical dexterity is not even close to the days when I was meat hunting. Some of the mature shooters will be able to relate to this.

When I shoot in the woods I hang up a gong and walk around plinking at it from various locations. Usually the ground dictates how the offhand position happens. In Alaska I walk the beaches, often granite crags at sealevel, and plink seashells or star fish from various positions and distances. Stance is unconscious.

One thing I never thought about until this thread was my stance. I was instructed about the sight picture sometime around 1949, and the other stuff just seems to adapt to that. As best I can tell from trying it in the house, My body is about 45 degrees or more from the plane of the target, hard to quantify aiming at the mooring buoy. I shoot with my right foot about 21 inches behind my left foot. My right foot is 90 degrees to the rifle centerline, and my left foot is around 45 degrees to the the line of fire. Knees slightly bent. Slight forward lean but with my weight about evenly balanced. This would apply to shooting from a skiff with a rifle. With a handgun I see that I bring my right foot a little farther forward as I turn somewhat towart the target. Not close to squared up. For most of the deer taken from the skiff I was sitting.

Stretching out of a car window as illustrated is most likely not in the realm of practical usefulness now days. I might be able to get to that spot, but I would be riddled with holes and unable to disengage. I understand the usefulness of the squared approach for some situations, but I can't see how it would have been employed on meat hunts.

If the looter thug isis overwhelms my neighborhood I expect that I won't be thinking about posture, I'll only see the front sight and a golfball size highlight when the trigger releases. Something I literally pray I never have to see.

Grizz

[Canuck Bob]

Time was spent just working on my traditional offhand stance but being more conscious of what I was doing. I naturally assume the traditional hunting or some call an army offhand stance. The target was a picture of a deer on the wall roughly coincidence with 100 paces. A week of marginal practice made a noticeable difference in hold steadiness.

The target stance is a steady position in early try outs. Supporting the forearm/action area with finger tips feels all wrong though. The square stance is no worse than the hunting stance without range testing. The bent knee athletic position feels real natural to an old linebacker. However a lot of support comes from muscle tension and the target guys point out the folly in that well.

With long deteriorating skeletal problems and years of training hard for flabby and breathless conditioning it is going to be a challenge. So far the drill is to assume the position, check position is natural, shoulder the rifle, then visualize a shot in a few seconds. Then the rifle is lowered and done again. I'm doing 25 reps a side, natural lefty, with my most barrel heavy rifle, Winoku 92 Deluxe with an octagon rifle barrel. It is not weight lifting but it is paying off. To put it in context I would not shoot at a deer offhand at 50 yards with my current skills, sad!!!! Snap caps are in order!

This is all about fun shooting. Relearning old skills, trying new ones, and staying current with my rifles. I suspect for serious shooting going back to what has worked for decades will be likely. However it s a lot of fun trying this stuff out.