The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[JMA]

It is necessary mostly in case of use/unuse of hard body armor, or when you switch from red dot to scope (usually from reflex/aimpoint to ACOG due to character of AO) and need do have your eye directly on it. With rigid army system, I can´t see as a solution issuing different unadjustable lenghts of stock. I personally had to change rifle many times already, while still in one unit, just because it was easier for paperwork for my superiors. I am sure sooner or later someone would ended up with wrong lenght. Adjustable stock is not even expensive and easily solves all this problems. Question is, why NOT to use it then?

I can understand the length of pull requirement changing if the shoulder padding thickness changes significantly. I would have thought that the use of body armour is by now not negotiable so that would not change. Hence my comment about winter clothing.

I have noted that very often the butt-stock is not positioned in the shoulder when the weapon is fired. (see photo below) Only possible with a pea-shooter. This leaves me wondering whether angle of the butt stock (in relation to the plane of the barrel) should also be adjustable?


The man closest to the left has only the toe of his butt-stock on his shoulder while the second man seems to have it pulled right into the shoulder. What accounts for the difference? (other than that the second man adjusts his cheek position accordingly while the first man seems to keep his head upright and moves his weapon to suit) - I make the observation that the sight may well be viewing over the wall but it will be touch-and-go whether a bullet fired will clear the wall.

What in an AO changes your requirement for a specific butt-stock length? An how often do you change AOs?

[BushrangerCZ]

I can understand the length of pull requirement changing if the shoulder padding thickness changes significantly. I would have thought that the use of body armour is by now not negotiable so that would not change. Hence my comment about winter clothing.

I have noted that very often the butt-stock is not positioned in the shoulder when the weapon is fired. (see photo below) Only possible with a pea-shooter. This leaves me wondering whether angle of the butt stock (in relation to the plane of the barrel) should also be adjustable?


The man closest to the left has only the toe of his butt-stock on his shoulder while the second man seems to have it pulled right into the shoulder. What accounts for the difference? (other than that the second man adjusts his cheek position accordingly while the first man seems to keep his head upright and moves his weapon to suit) - I make the observation that the sight may well be viewing over the wall but it will be touch-and-go whether a bullet fired will clear the wall.

What in an AO changes your requirement for a specific butt-stock length? An how often do you change AOs?

To the pic - soldier closer to us is not firing, just looking over that compound wall. Today´s trend is to shift pressure from shoulder almost to the center of the chest, because of better reflexive and natural aim, but still you are supposed to press it firmly against the body. When I used to fire Czech Sa58 rifle with collapsible stock, I had sometimes bruise under eye, because I am lanky and stock was too short. When I pushed stock to the shoulder and looked into the foresight, the back of the rifle was kicking me in the face. When I switched to commercial adjustable stock from FAB, problem was solved. If we talk about optics, I think that average US Army infantry grunt gets issued Reflex and ACOG (not sure). I have nothing against good old iron sights, but for hundred meters, I can hit a coin with M4 and ACOG when lying prone, I can´t do that with iron sights, I would not even see such a small target. Also iron sights are not so good with NVG (even if you use DBALL or AN/PEQ, it´s still good to have an option to aim without it at night). When I mentioned change of AO, it was according to the optics, red dot vs. scope, not because of the stock. Also sometimes you just get issued something and no one asks if you want ACOG or Reflex or whatever.

[SethB]

He is correctly mounting the weapon. It's an M4, not a Perazzi.

[Ken White]

He is correctly mounting the weapon. It's an M4, not a Perazzi.

this to an old guy who doesn't know about 'mounting' weapons or understand the reference to a shotgun?

[SethB]

The only people that still use rulers to measure length of pull are the wing shooters. When they bring the weapon up from the high ready that they favor, they call it mounting, and for those purposes a long length of pull is an asset.

Most people that shoot M4s these days use the stock in, with their elbow down like shown in the picture. It gives you a short package, keeps your elbow from running into things, and squares your body up to the target.

Most people assume that this helps your rifle plate to catch lead, but it also helps the but to stay on your shoulder. If you turn too much it will slide off.

Some guys actually make pads that will help keep the toe of the stock from sliding.

He's using just the toe so that he doesn't have to lean his head down over the rifle to see the sight.

As for the finger on the trigger... that part is just plain wrong.

[jcustis]

That fireteam leader appears to be issuing commands, and has probably come out of the TM-prescribed eye relief of 1.5" for the sight in doing so.

I don't think he has mounted the weapon properly though, and he certainly doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the use of a supported position (from the wall) to gain stability when firing. We don't shoot from those types of positions (save the prone) in training, and it tends to show as in these types of photos.

I recently spied video of a rifleman firing his A4 with the legs to his gripod extended, yet the weapon was elevated and the gripod useless because he was employing a magazine well hold.

This fireteam leader is not applying the fundamentals, and appears to simply be "putting rounds downrange" in a fashion that most of us find fairly difficult to swallow. Then again, it's also probably just silly showmanship for the reporter. The patrol leader could probably employ a little "fix and maneuver" finesse and move an M-ATV right down on top of the insurgents, given what the terrain looks like. He might be doing just that, but I doubt it.

The more I look at this Marine's loadout, the more I'm convinced we need to find another way in terms of M203 assignments. Take away all you want to say about using it to control illumination, or to employ HE fires that the TL can personally employ, and focus of just the weight math for a bit; just does not add up in their favor.

On top of the radio that he could be carrying, extra batteries, admin gear, low-density optics, etc., the TL has to carry more than the average rifleman by way of all the gold and white eggs he has on hand. There's some good reason for a bit of it, but when fatigue sets in, they are overall less effective as a leader and you can't tell me they are able to concentrate and lead as effectively. Mission essential equipment needs to be distributed across the element, and we have slipped a bit in the fieldcraft department over the years.

[Kiwigrunt]

Just an observation. Neither the dude on jcustis’ photo nor the dude on BushrangerCZ’s photo (the one on the left) are looking through their scopes.


SethB, thanks for that rundown, that explains a lot. Body armour became a fashion just after I left so I was trained on the ‘old’ ways.
I can certainly see how that would work well for CQB. Just wondering, do these stances work equally well for longer range shots? It would appear to me that the posture is not quite so stable.

[Ken White]

The only people that still use rulers to measure length of pull are the wing shooters. When they bring the weapon up from the high ready that they favor, they call it mounting, and for those purposes a long length of pull is an asset.

That's my new factoid for the day...

[Pete]

Like Savile Row suits, Purdey guns are bespoke -- crafted to fit the shooter -- usually through measurements taken by a West London Shooting School instructor. He will use a "try gun," which can be adjusted until size and sight lines are perfect. Purdey stocks new guns in its South Audley Street shop for customers who don't want to wait 12 or more months for a custom job.

Click here if you have $80,000 to spend on a shotgun!

[Pete]

Most people that shoot M4s these days use the stock in, with their elbow down like shown in the picture.

How times change. When I was taught to shoot on the middle 1960s for the offhand position a right-handed shooter was taught to have his right elbow held up as high as possible. When firing offhand -- with the hasty sling, of course -- the World War II Dads coaching us also didn't like the practice of the left forearm being held down flush against the left torso.

[SethB]

The chicken wing creates a pocket for the recoil pad/plate to sit in. I still shoot some hunting rifles like that.

With the M16/M4, you have to adapt a little bit for best results. You don't need the stock in the pocket to absorb recoil.

It's all about accuracy and follow ups.

Here is a good photo.

[JMA]

The only people that still use rulers to measure length of pull are the wing shooters.

Really? That probably accounts for the general drop in standards then.

The simple method is take hold of the pistol grip turn the knuckles downwards with the butt (stock) flat on your forearm then lift the weapon up by bending the elbow. The perfect fit is when the weapon locks in the perpendicular position. If you can't get to the perp then the butt is too long and if you can get past the perp then it is too short. (adjust for any shoulder padding)

When they bring the weapon up from the high ready that they favor, they call it mounting, and for those purposes a long length of pull is an asset.

Where is the butt (stock) in the "high ready'?

In the days when weapons which had a recoil were used the butt rested in the shoulder so that in one movement the barrel was raised and pointed at the target as your cheek found its position on the butt.

It appears that with low recoil weapons the position of the butt seems less important. The principles of marksmanship remain the same (aiming, holding, breathing, squeezing) Holding indicates a stable platform as being important. I would be interested to observe the fall of shots fired by weapons half in or half out of the shoulder or even with no shoulder contact at all. That is before we consider aiming, breathing and trigger action.

Most people that shoot M4s these days use the stock in, with their elbow down like shown in the picture. It gives you a short package, keeps your elbow from running into things, and squares your body up to the target.

Not sure the position of the right arm makes that much difference other than at 45 degrees downwards being the most comfortable.

Most people assume that this helps your rifle plate to catch lead, but it also helps the but to stay on your shoulder. If you turn too much it will slide off.

How so?

Some guys actually make pads that will help keep the toe of the stock from sliding.

You see what lengths one has to go to if the butt (stock) is in the wrong position to start with.

He's using just the toe so that he doesn't have to lean his head down over the rifle to see the sight.

Yes thats kind of weird. I read in a Brit weapon pamphlet the other day that after all this time they now advocate that the head when shooting should be in the upright position to help maintain your balance. Funny that in all my time I never heard of a soldier falling over because he cocked his head slightly to the right when aiming.

As for the finger on the trigger... that part is just plain wrong.

Agree and already noted.

[JMA]

To the pic - soldier closer to us is not firing, just looking over that compound wall.

Oh? Then what's his finger doing on the trigger?

Then of course there was Blah who asked earlier about locating the enemy by obvious signs such as dust and muzzle flash. Here we see dust. But changing fire positions would be meaningless as they stick out like dogs b*lls above the parapet. - (as Fuchs would tell you if the Taliban was a half decent enemy those two Marines would be history in a matter of seconds.)

Today´s trend is to shift pressure from shoulder almost to the center of the chest, because of better reflexive and natural aim, but still you are supposed to press it firmly against the body.

Never heard of this before. Who says "you are supposed to ..."?

"When I used to fire Czech Sa58 rifle with collapsible stock, I had sometimes bruise under eye, because I am lanky and stock was too short. When I pushed stock to the shoulder and looked into the foresight, the back of the rifle was kicking me in the face. When I switched to commercial adjustable stock from FAB, problem was solved.[/QUOTE]

You have an armourer in your battalion? I picked up a brand new FN folding butt (stock) on an unannounced visit to Mozambique and found that the length of pull was short so got the unit armourer to bolt on a standard FN recoil pad to fix it. The cheek position was sorted by taping a first-field-dressing onto the frame of the butt (stock) with a few rolls of insulation tape.

If we talk about optics, I think that average US Army infantry grunt gets issued Reflex and ACOG (not sure). I have nothing against good old iron sights, but for hundred meters, I can hit a coin with M4 and ACOG when lying prone, I can´t do that with iron sights, I would not even see such a small target. Also iron sights are not so good with NVG (even if you use DBALL or AN/PEQ, it´s still good to have an option to aim without it at night). When I mentioned change of AO, it was according to the optics, red dot vs. scope, not because of the stock. Also sometimes you just get issued something and no one asks if you want ACOG or Reflex or whatever.

Yes lets talk about optics. First I must say that I am not talking about "designer weaponry" for special forces. On a recent BBC TV programme:

At War: The Soldiers and Their Families
Queens Royal Lancers Herrick XII (April – Oct 2010)

It was said:

The insurgents are hardly ever seen. Out of more than a hundred exchanges of fire this troop only set eyes on them twice.

So lets talk optics and red-dots and all that stuff. Obviously did not help the Queens Royal Lancers one little bit.

So I wonder what the teaching is on how to suppress/kill the enemy if you know roughly where they are but can't see them?

[BushrangerCZ]

Oh? Then what's his finger doing on the trigger?

So lets talk optics and red-dots and all that stuff. Obviously did not help the Queens Royal Lancers one little bit.

So I wonder what the teaching is on how to suppress/kill the enemy if you know roughly where they are but can't see them?

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall, with all respect Sir, it´s obvious.

With this attitude, you could cut off the sights at all, as Taliban fighters do sometimes. If you have ACOG, you can use it successfully also as an observation device. I am not going to discuss if it´s advantage or not. And yes, we have armourer, but there is no Sa58 recoil pad. Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

[Ken White]

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall

Easy for one not familiar with weapon mounted optics to miss that, no one familiar with them should...

Agree with JMA on the length of pull. It is important -- try teaching small persons to shoot with an M1 designed for big Americans. Even more fun is to watch a large person shoot an M4 that has a stock that will not extend. Length of pull may be ignored but there will be an accuracy / muscle memory penalty. One can work up various innovations to get around the issue but such 'fixes' always seem to not work when one really needs them.

As an unrelated aside, being ancient and having walked around four Continents and an Island or two with unfriendly, even hostile, lurkers abounding and my finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon not on Safe far more often than not, I do not see that rigid finger outside the trigger guard except to fire as much more than a compensation for inadequate training (or marginally capable persons). Others may differ...

Fingers on triggers worry me far less than does the seeming increase in use of full auto fire and the practice of using the Magazine for a handgrip. For that matter, hand grips in my experience are not counducive to single shot accuracy because the upper edge of the thumb and forefinger aren't as sensitive to cant as the palm and that orientation puts undue strain on the muscles of the forearm as compared to a bottom of the stock hold with the palm of the supporting hand.

[JMA]

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall, with all respect Sir, it´s obvious.

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

With this attitude, you could cut off the sights at all, as Taliban fighters do sometimes. If you have ACOG, you can use it successfully also as an observation device. I am not going to discuss if it´s advantage or not. And yes, we have armourer, but there is no Sa58 recoil pad. Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

Perhaps I should say that I note that the line infantry units are tends to mimic and adopt the "special forces" way of doing things which in most cases is not a good idea for line infantry. I suggest that it is good to question what is going on around you rather than just go with the flow.

For example you may consider asking the question as to the point of having optics on weapons if they are used to improve individual observation but are seldom used in a contact (see a hundred examples on YouTube).

Second how many times have you heard on a YouTube clip a commander issuing a fire-control order? You suppress the enemy by winning the "fire fight" through laying down directed and controlled section fire into likely cover on their position.

I could go on.... sadly I see little evidence of the current crop of soldiers questioning, adapting and above all thinking about how better to close with and kill the enemy. Maybe it is because of a lack of depth in their training I don't know.

[82redleg]

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

[JMA]

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

The photo comes from here, they are Marines, so you must help me understand the Marine rank structure.



E5 is the fifth rank level? Who (what rank) would be the platoon sergeant?

The Brit (Rhodesian) platoon sergeant would be the fourth rank level. How long does it take the average marine to make E5 or platoon sergeant? Five years? Seven years?

Look by the end of the war (1980) we had some pretty over promoted guys at all rank levels so don't take my comment the wrong way.

[JMA]

Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

... and your army lets you modify your weapon (and presumably your kit) as you like?

[BushrangerCZ]

... and your army lets you modify your weapon (and presumably your kit) as you like?

It does to certain extent, depends on the regiment. But I was talking about my own rifle, for which I have a license and keep it at home (it´s the same one as issued in army). Well, for 300 bucks, it´s brand new assault rifle directly from factory, 3x cheaper than decent pistol, so it´s natural choice.
PS: Just a detail - guys on the picture are not US Army but USMC (it makes no difference I know).