Basic Shooting Positions for AR; Sitting and Kneeling

Discussion in 'Training' started by lklawson, Apr 29, 2015.

  1. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Nice...... I see a few different ones I'm gonna try.
     

  3. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,698
    2,173
    Florida
    That's a good article for people to see. I have been guilty of resting my rifle on a bench at the range for too much of a session, from time to time, and articles like this are good for reminding people of the need to cultivate skills in other positions, too. Given the addition of the kneeling position to M4/16 qualification tables, I actually began practicing the kneeling position in earnest awhile back. Of course, offhand shooting is important, as well.

    The sitting position is, by far, my favorite to use. My first time hunting javelina, I actually used it, and it was just the ticket for allowing me to take the shot from the sloping side of a canyon. The patch of ground from which I shot would not have accommodated a prone position, but sitting provided almost as much stability.
     
  4. planosteve

    planosteve Lifetime Supporter

  5. rickm

    rickm Member

    shooting is like sex try every position you can think of to see which you like never know when you might need the others lol
     
  6. If one really wants to be a practical shooter, just snap shoot standing up. When you are able to shoot well that way, you'll be able to hit the target using the other ways.

    Those listed positions likely come from the military just to fool people into thinking they are better shoots than they really are. They just plain don't want to let soldiers shoot the 85,000+ rounds they need to fire to become good shots.

    If anyone doubts me and thinks these strange positions are useful, they should go watch 200-1000 hours of real combat footage from WW2, Vietnam, Syria, Ukraine, etc.
     
  7. USMC_VET

    USMC_VET Supporting Member

    I remember qualifying at Edson range at Camp Pendleton and going prone , sitting and standing
     
  8. USMC_VET

    USMC_VET Supporting Member

    By far the most favorite was at the 33 area near camp Horno and shooting prone from roof tops in the fake village
     
  9. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    ..........
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Branth

    Branth Member

    6,275
    4
    I'm skeptical of the sitting positions. That's neither fast to get into or get out of, and my gut tells me it would be bad in a real life gunfight.
     
  11. slade601

    slade601 Member

    633
    0

    You just have to spring up and then roll into a new stance. Simple spetsnaz stuff.
     
  12. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    It's one of those DM positions for when you can't find a better one. Not enough room to go prone, low obstruction taking prone out of play, planning on being there for an extended period of time so kneeling will be uncomfortable as hell eventually. I had to learn them and practice them, but I rarely ever used them.
     
  13. USMC_VET

    USMC_VET Supporting Member



    The sitting position is really nice as you can use your knee's to stabilize the rifle . During one of many rifle qualifications while I was active duty in the Marine Corps I did very well in the sitting position
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2015
  14. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    8,698
    2,173
    Florida
    It was fast enough to drop into for a shot at a javelina. While the prone position powers the profile and allows more stability, frequently, tall vegetation and down slopes can make it not so useful. In those situations, being able to use an alternative is pretty important. No single position is supposed to be a panacea. Each has its own uses.
     
  15. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    No, they come from about 250 years of military doctrine and experience with the rifle.

    Sitting and kneeling positions for enhanced accuracy when shooting a rifle as part of military combat tactics can be traced back as far as the U.S. Revolutionary War (if not before - I haven't been able to verify prior art yet) and have existed in every military training regiment since for exactly the same reason under exactly the same conditions.

    Not really. It's a combination of things. The first being that sitting and kneeling (as well as prone and braced) positions are inherently more easy to be accurate with. You can line up shots quicker and easier with higher levels of accuracy. Standing, unsupported, "snap" shots, on the other hand, require vastly more time and effort to achieve similar accuracy. One thought which seems to have been reoccurring over the centuries is that if your opponent has his troops making "snap" shots, then they are going to be inherently less accurate for the same levels of training, and will be wasting ammunition while your troops, taking supported stance shots (such as prone, kneeling, sitting, braced, or sling) are going to be much more accurate and therefore much more effective at disabling the enemy.

    You reference how often actual combat troops make standing, unsupported, "snap" shots, and it is true that this does happen frequently. The counter-point, however, is that studies seem to indicate that these shots are not particularly effective and amount to, at best, "suppressing fire." In other words, they may be shooting that way but they're not hitting anything. If the enemy is also shooting back in the same manner, then they are in little danger of being injured by enemy fire and can justify taking the extra second to drop down to a kneeling or sitting position to kill the enemy with accurate fire.

    Now you may completely disagree with this reasoning. That's fine. It's not my reasoning and I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm presenting it as the line of reasoning that has developed for support of these methods in military use over a period of centuries.

    Naturally, other methods of fire such as Indirect Fire and Volley Fire have been concurrent in use, showing that there seems to be plenty of room for both concepts.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  16. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    I've had a chance to train some of those up and down techniques that they use, though my Martial Arts connections. They're actually a lot faster, more comfortable, and safer than many people seem to believe. I know that Russians in general, and Spetsnaz in particular, have a reputation for being tough as nails and able to take punishment, but in the field you don't want to decrease your combat potential by deliberately injuring yourself.

    The Russian "Wave Squats" and related techniques are really quite effective, particularly when loaded out with gear.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  17. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Sitting positions lend to accuracy more easily than kneeling, while (admittedly) less so than prone. They may not be quick to get into, but it really isn't any slower than getting a proper prone position and it can fit in places or circumstances which aren't as well suited to prone such as sitting on a slope or hill and shooting down.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  18. Branth

    Branth Member

    6,275
    4
    Valid. I hadn't thought of them as an alternative to prone, but as an alternative to kneeling.

    As an alternative to kneeling, they are slow and weird. As an alternative to prone, I can see their usefulness.
     
  19. The studies done in the 1950s & 60s showed that soldiers who were trained to snap shoot hit 400% more enemies. The oppisite of what you post here.

    The only reason one won't hit 99%+ of the time snap shooting is because of the lack of practice. If you can hit when snap shooting, you'll also be able to hit when not snap shooting. The inverse isn't true.
     
  20. A snap shoot only takes a second at the most. One doesn't have a second to kneel or sit down. If you take a second, you'll be laying on the ground. Dying or wounded.