Sanch
03-08-2020, 12:57 AM
I came across an old post here from a few years ago and wasn't sure if it's better to start fresh, or necropost there:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26862-AR-Carbine-stock-length-preference/page2
I started shooting ARs in the mid 90s with A2 iron sights. I was taught nose to charging handle. I didn't get my first aimpoint until about hmm I dunno maybe 2007 and I continued to run nose-to-charging handle. I took a couple carbine classes with some big name instructors of the time around that area 2008 to 2010 and none of them corrected me and I did not appreciate they were doing anything different. I always shot squared up with my rear leg slightly back, buttstock either completely closed or open a single notch only, and the buttstock on my pec (not in the shoulder pocket).
Fast forward to this week and I am introduced to a local instructor who is pretty well regarded by trusted people and he tells me Im doing it wrong and I need to run the stock fully extended or almost fully extended and no more nose to charging handle. I tried it for a few minutes with him and it felt awkward but I respect the dude so I wanted to look more into it.
I came across that old thread and there seems to be some back and forth where John Hearne mentions nose to charging handle is still viable for the average non-high level competitive shooter. Well now it's 3 years since that thread started and the community has learned and changed and I wonder what current thoughts are.
I'm certainly open to relearning how to shoot the carbine with an extended stock. Heck, I even traded a friend for his Magpul fixed stock he wasnt usin, and installed that on my AR this weekend, because I like the idea of fixed stocks and if I'm going to be running it long, it might as well be that A1 fixed stock length.
I'm no competitive shooter, I'm no occupational shooter, I'm just a lowly civvie who will probably never need to use his carbine for reals, and my 12 gauge is my primary home defense tool. But, I am interested in this as a hobby, and learning how to be the best even if it doesn't matter. The act of optimizing is what I'm after, not necessarily the need to be optimized.
So, do I try to relearn with the longer stock? It seems like competitive shooters like it. I am not anti-competition, nor pro-competition, I'm indifferent-competition, but I assume if competitive shooters can swing the gun and transition to targets faster this way, then SF dudes and professional occupational shooters must have some benefit this way too, no?
I do stand with a squared stance, even though I don't use armor, I have done some muay thai over the years and it's my default fightin stance. So the long stock feels really weird! But I'll give it a try.
One question - if you have to use BUIS, do you then switch to nose to charging handle, and assuming you run a collapsible stock, will you drop it in a few notches to optimize for that sight picture? I'm familiar with the BUIS method of centering the front sight inside the aimpoint body, but don't think it's anywhere near as accurate as using an actual rear ghost ring A2 sight, at intermediate-to-long distance.
If I understand correctly, "running the gun" is better with a longer stock, but shooting the gun with iron sights is better with a shorter stock, so then if you run a collapsible stock, do you collapse it when transitioning to A2 BUIS rear, time permitting? I guess this is more of a military question because a gamer wouldn't bother, would take too long and the benefit is short for the end of that stage. But for a mil dude in a black hawk down type scenario, would taking cover, adjusting the stock shorter, flipping up the rear BUIS, be the thing to do, assuming you have another 5 hours of war fighting to do? Really just curious, because I'm not a warfighter, but also, I'm not a competitive shooter, and I know none of this matters for home defense whatsoever Im really just curious about this whole thing because my mind has been blown since I was taught 25 years ago to shoot nose to charging handle and only this week have I learned it's not in vogue anymore!
From Mr Hearne's response to the old thread, I'm guessing the answer is nuanced. Here's my guess but it's only just a guess, dont mean to ruffle any feathers:
If me (or whoever is in a similar position as me) just wants to be ggood for home defense as a civilian, then keep doing nose to charging handle and nearly collapsed stock because it's workin just fine for what it needs to do. Proper trigger press and offset adjustment is going to be farrr more important for a home defense scenario than how long the stock is or where my nose is. People like me are really used to the old way and maybe we'd only get marginal benefit from learning the new way, which might take months of dry fire to feel comfortable because I have tens of thousands of rounds of live fire (maybe 20k to 30k? Ammo used to be cheap in the 90s/early 2000s and I have an M&P 15-22 configured identical to my 556 gun) and a lot of dry fire over 25 years of nose to charging handle. I could be improving my pistol skills during this time.
If someone wants to only run competition then maybe always run it long because screw iron sights, if your optic goes down in the middle of the match, not a big deal.
If someone wants to be a high level SF / mil/ LE shooter or a civilian prepared to engage on that level of actual combat, then possibly learning to shoot both ways and adjusting the stock length to allow nose to chargging handle if the optic goes down and long range shooting is necessary. Or maybe even not and just do the "center the sight inside the aimpoint housing" and truck on continue fighting as best you can.
And maybe if it's a beginner just learning, nose to charging handle might be the way to teach them, if they aren't interested in competition or becoming an elite shooter, because it's more repeatable of an index and possibly easier to learn. Or maybe it's easier to teach a beginner to ignore kinesthetic index and just tell them to put the dot on the target and press the trigger. Maybe nose to charging handle is BAD to teach a beginniner because it's one more step that isn't absolutely neccesary. Not sure here curious to hear the pro instructors thoughts!
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26862-AR-Carbine-stock-length-preference/page2
I started shooting ARs in the mid 90s with A2 iron sights. I was taught nose to charging handle. I didn't get my first aimpoint until about hmm I dunno maybe 2007 and I continued to run nose-to-charging handle. I took a couple carbine classes with some big name instructors of the time around that area 2008 to 2010 and none of them corrected me and I did not appreciate they were doing anything different. I always shot squared up with my rear leg slightly back, buttstock either completely closed or open a single notch only, and the buttstock on my pec (not in the shoulder pocket).
Fast forward to this week and I am introduced to a local instructor who is pretty well regarded by trusted people and he tells me Im doing it wrong and I need to run the stock fully extended or almost fully extended and no more nose to charging handle. I tried it for a few minutes with him and it felt awkward but I respect the dude so I wanted to look more into it.
I came across that old thread and there seems to be some back and forth where John Hearne mentions nose to charging handle is still viable for the average non-high level competitive shooter. Well now it's 3 years since that thread started and the community has learned and changed and I wonder what current thoughts are.
I'm certainly open to relearning how to shoot the carbine with an extended stock. Heck, I even traded a friend for his Magpul fixed stock he wasnt usin, and installed that on my AR this weekend, because I like the idea of fixed stocks and if I'm going to be running it long, it might as well be that A1 fixed stock length.
I'm no competitive shooter, I'm no occupational shooter, I'm just a lowly civvie who will probably never need to use his carbine for reals, and my 12 gauge is my primary home defense tool. But, I am interested in this as a hobby, and learning how to be the best even if it doesn't matter. The act of optimizing is what I'm after, not necessarily the need to be optimized.
So, do I try to relearn with the longer stock? It seems like competitive shooters like it. I am not anti-competition, nor pro-competition, I'm indifferent-competition, but I assume if competitive shooters can swing the gun and transition to targets faster this way, then SF dudes and professional occupational shooters must have some benefit this way too, no?
I do stand with a squared stance, even though I don't use armor, I have done some muay thai over the years and it's my default fightin stance. So the long stock feels really weird! But I'll give it a try.
One question - if you have to use BUIS, do you then switch to nose to charging handle, and assuming you run a collapsible stock, will you drop it in a few notches to optimize for that sight picture? I'm familiar with the BUIS method of centering the front sight inside the aimpoint body, but don't think it's anywhere near as accurate as using an actual rear ghost ring A2 sight, at intermediate-to-long distance.
If I understand correctly, "running the gun" is better with a longer stock, but shooting the gun with iron sights is better with a shorter stock, so then if you run a collapsible stock, do you collapse it when transitioning to A2 BUIS rear, time permitting? I guess this is more of a military question because a gamer wouldn't bother, would take too long and the benefit is short for the end of that stage. But for a mil dude in a black hawk down type scenario, would taking cover, adjusting the stock shorter, flipping up the rear BUIS, be the thing to do, assuming you have another 5 hours of war fighting to do? Really just curious, because I'm not a warfighter, but also, I'm not a competitive shooter, and I know none of this matters for home defense whatsoever Im really just curious about this whole thing because my mind has been blown since I was taught 25 years ago to shoot nose to charging handle and only this week have I learned it's not in vogue anymore!
From Mr Hearne's response to the old thread, I'm guessing the answer is nuanced. Here's my guess but it's only just a guess, dont mean to ruffle any feathers:
If me (or whoever is in a similar position as me) just wants to be ggood for home defense as a civilian, then keep doing nose to charging handle and nearly collapsed stock because it's workin just fine for what it needs to do. Proper trigger press and offset adjustment is going to be farrr more important for a home defense scenario than how long the stock is or where my nose is. People like me are really used to the old way and maybe we'd only get marginal benefit from learning the new way, which might take months of dry fire to feel comfortable because I have tens of thousands of rounds of live fire (maybe 20k to 30k? Ammo used to be cheap in the 90s/early 2000s and I have an M&P 15-22 configured identical to my 556 gun) and a lot of dry fire over 25 years of nose to charging handle. I could be improving my pistol skills during this time.
If someone wants to only run competition then maybe always run it long because screw iron sights, if your optic goes down in the middle of the match, not a big deal.
If someone wants to be a high level SF / mil/ LE shooter or a civilian prepared to engage on that level of actual combat, then possibly learning to shoot both ways and adjusting the stock length to allow nose to chargging handle if the optic goes down and long range shooting is necessary. Or maybe even not and just do the "center the sight inside the aimpoint housing" and truck on continue fighting as best you can.
And maybe if it's a beginner just learning, nose to charging handle might be the way to teach them, if they aren't interested in competition or becoming an elite shooter, because it's more repeatable of an index and possibly easier to learn. Or maybe it's easier to teach a beginner to ignore kinesthetic index and just tell them to put the dot on the target and press the trigger. Maybe nose to charging handle is BAD to teach a beginniner because it's one more step that isn't absolutely neccesary. Not sure here curious to hear the pro instructors thoughts!