Demonstrated Concepts Cheek Weld

[Flamingo]

This seems pretty interesting to me. I am considering on getting one of the Keltec CP33s to try it out.


https://youtu.be/87kKBaLI1f8

Anyone here tried this out?

[Totem Polar]

Interesting. I get the ranging out to 150 or so. That said, I’m not convinced that this set up is better than a G17MOS with GDHP+P for most uses that a micro PDW would good for including clearing. But, hell, what do I know: I’m open to new ideas and gear.

[Flamingo]

I agree on that, I just think it would be something fun to try out. I am definitely not sold on .22 LR for SD use.

[OlongJohnson]

Somewhere in the PDW thread, there's a link to someone doing some decent shooting using a plain round AR pistol buffer tube with a high cheek weld, no brace.

[Parf]

Rhett let me, and a group of people try out his CP33 with his method after a local class. Having never shot it before, it was the easiest and fastest thing I've ever gotten to shoot. Especially with transitions. Everyone had the same experience. It made me consider getting one for the joy it would bring new shooters with instant gratification.

So easy. So fast. Just stupid. I recommend it.

[GJM]

How is all that offset?

[Parf]

How is all that offset?

I didn't have any issues with it? I'm running 1.93 mounts on everything anyway because I like the heads up position it gives me.

[Parf]

https://youtu.be/QhfluziKZBY

[LHS]

It's stupid easy to make hits at 50 yards or more with the technique, and at speed. I don't trust the KelTec, as you can see in the FW video mine is less than reliable. I'm also not convinced .22 is the right cartridge for the platform. Rhett's experimentation with the Steyr is very intriguing, and I'd love to see the concept developed further with a purpose.

[JCN]

That gun looks like a ton of fun. I kind of want one.

I tested one of those Glock brace folding thingys which is kind of like the same thing-ish.


https://youtu.be/cpy8YWQ-3Hw


https://youtu.be/mj3j2fcqpLg


https://youtu.be/gxx234KtXd0

[Rex G]

This cheek pistol concept is a quite valid, in my estimation, especially with BATFEmen wanting to forbid extended pistol braces, but being left-eye-dominant, and with the ejection port of most weapons being on the right side, I believe that I would have to completely close my dominant left eye, to enable this to work when firing from my right cheek. Perhaps, the optic could be mounted, on an offset mount, to the left, to enable firing from the left cheek, with both eyes open, and the cases ejected at enough of a downward angle, to enable the ejected brass to clear? Yes, the substantial offset would need to be sorted-out, and I am not sure it would be workable. And, yes, an offset optic increases the bulk of the weapon, which means a wider amount of bag space, for toting the weapon. May not be worth the fuss, for this left-eyed guy.

Kel-Tec? Hmm. I have seen some very interesting B&T pistols, at an LGS, that might be good cheek pistols. One of the Demonstrated Concept videos shows a B&T TP9 being used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHkGyjsq7hQ

[HeavyDuty]

Somewhere in the PDW thread, there's a link to someone doing some decent shooting using a plain round AR pistol buffer tube with a high cheek weld, no brace.

I shot my first AR pistols this way for years with no issue - just a plain pistol RE with a foam cover and cheekweld. Later on I tried two of the saddle type RE covers, that worked even better (and I still have them somewhere in case I need to regress.)

[PNWTO]

I dig it; also like the idea of the CP33 as a micro-PDW bee dispenser and have thought about getting one for the wife.

[GJM]

It's stupid easy to make hits at 50 yards or more with the technique, and at speed. I don't trust the KelTec, as you can see in the FW video mine is less than reliable. I'm also not convinced .22 is the right cartridge for the platform. Rhett's experimentation with the Steyr is very intriguing, and I'd love to see the concept developed further with a purpose.

Which Steyr?

[BlueSky]

I have been using cheek weld for several years now. I showed my setup in post 318 in this thread

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?41496-Let-s-talk-PDW-s/page32

In the pictures there I had a brace on the gun but that is gone now. I push the buffer tube up and in - into the pocket under the cheek bone right against my upper molars. Chopping the grip off a bit helps this a lot. I have been running 300 BLK with a 7 inch barrel, all is good. Recently got a Geissele super duty 11.5 inch pistol, changed the brace and buffer tube to just a 5 inch tube and it runs great as well.

What he talks about regarding the fixed relationship between eye and optic is very important. Put the optic on a tall mount, keep head erect and the gun pushed into the cheekbone and go to work. And without a brace you do not qualify for ATF worksheet 4999.

[LHS]

Which Steyr?

The TPP, or whatever they're calling the semi-auto version of the TMP these days.

[GearFondler]

Rhett uses the same cheek weld approach with the Shockwave birdshead grip on shotguns and makes it look easy. If I ever pick up a second 1301T I'll be doing some experiments.

[BillSWPA]

Some shoulder harness ideas that may conceal better than a strap going across the front of the chest:

https://www.stellarrigs.com/Carbine_Pistol_Rigs.html

https://www.stellarrigs.com/Stellar_Shotgun_Rig.html

https://www.stellarrigs.com/Bull_Pup_cnclmntrig.html

[Vandal320]

Lucky Gunner dropped a video about this today.


https://youtu.be/zFnKCNKRBK0

[Wondering Beard]

Lucky Gunner dropped a video about this today.


https://youtu.be/zFnKCNKRBK0

This is making me think that a stockless SIG Rattler could work quite well with those techniques.

[Totem Polar]

I’m starting to warm up to this idea a bit, I have to admit.

[GJM]

Interesting comment on the TP9 trigger being horrendous -- the exact reason I got rid of mine.

[Kirk]

I wonder if the Grandpower Stribog could work as a cheek weld pistol. I am at least confident that they work consistently. My primary issue is that I'm a lefty and I'm a little paranoid about taking a lot of brass to the face. This could be a dumb worry, I'm not really sure

[GearFondler]

I wonder if the Grandpower Stribog could work as a cheek weld pistol. I am at least confident that they work consistently. My primary issue is that I'm a lefty and I'm a little paranoid about taking a lot of brass to the face. This could be a dumb worry, I'm not really sureI believe ideally you would want more upper behind the grip rather than stopping flush like that but it might still work. But you would almost definitely get a burnt nose as a Lefty.

[Vandal320]

What about the CSM MP57? Other than it's a "Chassis System" and 5.7. Looks like it would work with the cheek weld.


https://youtu.be/30JMfsNVQTo

[GearFondler]

What about the CSM MP57? Other than it's a "Chassis System" and 5.7. Looks like it would work with the cheek weld.


https://youtu.be/30JMfsNVQToYep, that should work. Expect for the issues with a chassis... Mainly, how well is it made and will it hold zero. Most chassis designs will loose a zero if you remove the pistol. Probably not enough to make a big difference at 15yds but the Cheek Weld idea should be viable for 75 to 100yd shots.

[45dotACP]

Very interesting idea. Probably not gonna bank on a .22lr for self defense tho.

Did this guy do anything with the idea of using a sling and pushing into it to create tension? Making a cheek weld against a sling strap or anything?

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[pastaslinger]

I wonder if the keltec p50 can work with this idea.

[GearFondler]

Very interesting idea. Probably not gonna bank on a .22lr for self defense tho.

Did this guy do anything with the idea of using a sling and pushing into it to create tension? Making a cheek weld against a sling strap or anything?

Sent from my moto g(6) using TapatalkHe's shown that technique when shooting it one handed.

[Totem Polar]

He's shown that technique when shooting it one handed.

Yeah, he’s a real thinker when it comes to isometric sling tension. Both his birds-head shotgun stuff and AR pistol stuff address the topic.

[GJM]

I started messing with my Rattler in dry fire, and it shows promise. Wonder about .300 BLK against my face.

[Clusterfrack]

I agree that the cheek-weld index is novel and interesting. For me, how interesting remains unclear. If it's practically limited to rimfire and sub-caliber guns... I'll pass.

I'd like to see someone run a 5.56 or 9mm carbine at a 2-gun or USPSA match using this technique.

Edit: LOL! GJM posted at the same time. Looking forward to your 300 facial results.

[GearFondler]

I started messing with my Rattler in dry fire, and it shows promise. Wonder about .300 BLK against my face.
I agree that the cheek-weld index is novel and interesting. For me, how interesting remains unclear. If it's practically limited to rimfire and sub-caliber guns... I'll pass.

I'd like to see someone run a 5.56 or 9mm carbine at a 2-gun or USPSA match using this technique.

Edit: LOL! GJM posted at the same time. Looking forward to your 300 facial results.

I can't speak from personal experience, only what I've seen Rhett demonstrate in his videos, but he uses the Cheek Weld technique to run 12g Shotguns with the birdshead grip. That is certainly more recoil than most any rifle caliber will produce. One caveat is that he does use a recoil strap on the grip but that is mostly to improve control and split times... He can run it without the strap just fine. The trick according to him is to let the firearm recoil straight back, sliding along the cheek. When you don't have a stock pinned to your chest the muzzle is not forced to recoil upwards, only rearward.

Edit to add: Rhett also built an Elk Gun using a buffer tube only AR in 6.5 Grendel and he added a right-side only charging handle to avoid hitting his face. I don't know if the Rattler charging handle would be in the way or not.

[Kirk]

Are there any guns where this could safely be tried for a lefty? I'm drawing a blank here but I'd really like to try this out.

[Totem Polar]

I started messing with my Rattler in dry fire, and it shows promise. Wonder about .300 BLK against my face.

I am having the exact same thoughts vis-a-vis my DD PDW .300BLK, with the old-school foamie sleeve in lieu of the brace.

That said, Rhett could certainly do it.

[Paul D]

The B&T GHM9 and MPA 30SST would probably fit the bill (and extreme ends of budgets)

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.8601c3a0b5738964c565e8e16b7c0a72?rik=ZJpmxNZXGmG kzQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.gandrtactical.com%2fassets%2f images%2fGHM92-Compact2.jpg&ehk=%2b2gRlM%2fLbUg9GiMxOIUFQqwF9MEL9e9hNHTxRScuIW U%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.47840ba0f4f3b632ba32accd9c7c2c53?rik=mO3%2f9xJz7 hEEHg&riu=http%3a%2f%2f17g3xk34ahga1v23q91j8y5oxka.wpeng ine.netdna-cdn.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2014%2f05%2fMPA30SST-2015.jpg&ehk=uS1PnE2X1Ehc7mlq8XJ9r40ESrbgKp0YFJ%2bCgy%2bRBL E%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

[breakingtime91]

If braces get banned, I'm gonna try out my mk18 with just the buffer tube. Good technique and the red dot should make it doable. I'll just wrap the buffer tube with hockey tape.

[Rc217]

I think non-reciprocating slides on pistols made like the cp33 would end the race for the ultimate pistol mounted optic pretty quick. I think adapting the pistols in some way or having a shelf for the optic like the Flux brace has would be easier to do vice continuing to attempt to engineer something that can withstand riding a moving slide. I like the cheek concept as well.

[rm06]

I agree that the cheek-weld index is novel and interesting. For me, how interesting remains unclear. If it's practically limited to rimfire and sub-caliber guns... I'll pass.

I'd like to see someone run a 5.56 or 9mm carbine at a 2-gun or USPSA match using this technique.

Edit: LOL! GJM posted at the same time. Looking forward to your 300 facial results.

Not apples to apples but I've seen this guy cheek weld a stockless 12ga


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMRkmjKh3gg

[Duke]

If this niche concept/firearm deign/skill looks like a game changer for you….


Then we need to turn off the Internet for 60 days go master strict pulls, peripheral vision hand eye connection or just Begin flossing and trimming nose hairs on a daily basis.

[Clusterfrack]

Not apples to apples but I've seen this guy cheek weld a stockless 12ga


That is impressive. But, I'm interested in how the ergonomics work in more dynamic shooting, as in a USPSA or 2-gun match. E.g. Splits, transitions, shooting on the move, and most importantly how tight the hits are while doing all that on carbine-challenging targets. If it's something I can already do with a handgun, I have zero interest. If it brings carbine-level performance... now you have my attention.

[Vandal320]

This Guy is developing aftermarket parts to better cheek weld the CP33.


https://youtu.be/4LtC4QqjzrY

[GJM]

I understand the shotgun, but I don't get the benefit of a .22 or 9mm over a pistol, given the logistics. If this works in 5.56 or .300 BLK, it has my attention, especially if braces go away.

[GearFondler]

I understand the shotgun, but I don't get the benefit of a .22 or 9mm over a pistol, given the logistics. If this works in 5.56 or .300 BLK, it has my attention, especially if braces go away.Check his FB page (Demonstrated Concepts LLC)... Tonight he just posted a Pic of a 5.56 he's working with right now.

[OlongJohnson]

I understand the shotgun, but I don't get the benefit of a .22 or 9mm over a pistol, given the logistics. If this works in 5.56 or .300 BLK, it has my attention, especially if braces go away.

He did a bunch with a 5.56 gun during summer 2020 when we were all geeking out about PDWs and stuff. With his stockless shottie videos, I can't think of any reason it wouldn't also work well in .300 BLK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muy1rIDwwOU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yatair5xM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJeEckKVKo4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFJg62p2QQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBTeRYIm9Q

[Clusterfrack]

That is impressive. But, I'm interested in how the ergonomics work in more dynamic shooting, as in a USPSA or 2-gun match. E.g. Splits, transitions, shooting on the move, and most importantly how tight the hits are while doing all that on carbine-challenging targets. If it's something I can already do with a handgun, I have zero interest. If it brings carbine-level performance... now you have my attention.


He did a bunch with a 5.56 gun during summer 2020 when we were all geeking out about PDWs and stuff. ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJeEckKVKo4

Very cool. I'm going to give this a try.

[GJM]

Very cool. I'm going to give this a try.

I like the buffer tube, because it keeps your face away from the charging handle.

[Clusterfrack]

I like the buffer tube, because it keeps your face away from the charging handle.

Agree. A lower optic mount will be required. I'll probably keep using a standard length tube. I have not had good experience with non-standard buffer systems or adjustable gas blocks.

[SouthNarc]

I agree that the cheek-weld index is novel and interesting. For me, how interesting remains unclear. If it's practically limited to rimfire and sub-caliber guns... I'll pass.

I'd like to see someone run a 5.56 or 9mm carbine at a 2-gun or USPSA match using this technique.

Edit: LOL! GJM posted at the same time. Looking forward to your 300 facial results.


I have a theory that a cheekweld only on a buffer tube may very well provide for a considerably more agile gun. I mean if you think about it you’ve removed the entire variable of the stock seated in the “pocket” of the shoulder. Your cheek and hand versus your cheek, shoulder, and your hands. 3 variables versus 4. I could be totally wrong but if you watch Rhett run a stockless AR pistol he sure isn’t suffering for speed or accuracy.

[awp_101]

I'll probably keep using a standard length tube. I have not had good experience with non-standard buffer systems or adjustable gas blocks.
Would adding a LAW folder take the shorter tube back out to standard length?

[HeavyDuty]

Would adding a LAW folder take the shorter tube back out to standard length?

Not internally due to the spacer that is required.

[GJM]

I watched the linked videos. Lots of good info and impressive shooting. Something I am not as keen on, is all the fiddling he did with his 5.56 build components. I am more inclined to run a stock BCM or Knight’s upper and call it good. Look forward to seeing how the .300 performs, shot this way.

[Clusterfrack]

I watched the linked videos. Lots of good info and impressive shooting. Something I am not as keen on, is all the fiddling he did with his 5.56 build components. I am more inclined to run a stock BCM or Knight’s upper and call it good. Look forward to seeing how the .300 performs, shot this way.

I'm on the same page. Fiddling and tuning leads to reliability problems, in my experience.

[WobblyPossum]

If it seems to work fine with a pump action 12ga, I’m sure it would work with a mil-spec AR that isn’t using special buffers or adjustable gas blocks.

[JHC]

It's stupid easy to make hits at 50 yards or more with the technique, and at speed. I don't trust the KelTec, as you can see in the FW video mine is less than reliable. I'm also not convinced .22 is the right cartridge for the platform. Rhett's experimentation with the Steyr is very intriguing, and I'd love to see the concept developed further with a purpose.

Bettah or waarse?

https://ruger.com/products/22Charger/models.html

78385

Looks like great fun.

[Vandal320]

New video is up.
https://youtu.be/tYsdwm9LwzQ

[RustyCrusty]

Late to the party as usual. It’s me, Rhett (DCON TRAINING)

Happy to answer any questions.

[RustyCrusty]

Bettah or waarse?

https://ruger.com/products/22Charger/models.html

78385

Looks like great fun.

I’d bet my life on a dirty CP33 over a shiny new 10/22. I have no luck with them.

[Clusterfrack]

RustyCrusty
Rhett, thanks for checking in. This is exciting and cutting edge stuff, and exactly the sort of thing we should be discussing and documenting on Pistol-Forum. A few questions:


Do you have a parts list for the 5.56 cheek pistol?
Can you comment on the tradeoffs of a short vs. full-size buffer tube and buffer? E.g. Do a short buffer tube and buffer require an adjustable gas block and tuning for ammo type to be reliable?
Have you tested 300 BLK?


I'm sure there are lots of other questions.

[Default.mp3]

New video is up.
https://youtu.be/tYsdwm9LwzQ @SouthNarc (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=10) also reposted it on his Instagram. Haven't watched the video yet myself, but that's a pretty big vote of confidence, IMO.

[SouthNarc]

@SouthNarc (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=10) also reposted it on his Instagram. Haven't watched the video yet myself, but that's a pretty big vote of confidence, IMO.

Goddamn have the Gun-Karens come out in full swarm on that video. Clutching pearls and swinging purses.

[Flamingo]

Late to the party as usual. It’s me, Rhett (DCON TRAINING)

Happy to answer any questions.

I am interested in the parts list as well. I haven't seen the attachment on the side of the cheek pistol you have in the latest video, what is it?

[RustyCrusty]

RustyCrusty
Rhett, thanks for checking in. This is exciting and cutting edge stuff, and exactly the sort of thing we should be discussing and documenting on Pistol-Forum. A few questions:


Do you have a parts list for the 5.56 cheek pistol?
Can you comment on the tradeoffs of a short vs. full-size buffer tube and buffer? E.g. Do a short buffer tube and buffer require an adjustable gas block and tuning for ammo type to be reliable?
Have you tested 300 BLK?


I'm sure there are lots of other questions.

-yes. Working to offer a complete upper and lower retrofit kit soon. Heavy focus on weight reduction and providing the lightest shooting gun possible. People worry about lightweight carrier and buffer, but they don’t bother upgrading cam pin, gas rings- both of which are HUGE for reliability gains. **you can do this with any stockless AR, just like you can do trim work with a framing hammer**

-short buffer shines in vehicle presentation and movement with back against walls. That shit happens. Full size buffer shines with LPVO and other tight eyebox optics.

-I’ve run a few thousand rounds with 300blk, but honestly won’t be running anymore in bulk with pricing on that.

General statement on cartridge reliability: a 22 that is tested to run 1k without failure is more trustworthy in a fight than ANY individual gun that you can’t afford to test with 1k rounds of defense ammo… looking at you 300blk/5.7. I’ve had really wonky AMMO failures with 300blk in all guns. Popped primers on defense guns that kill a gun entirely. Multiple times. Across multiple manufactured loads. I hear nightmares about 5.7 feeding from dudes who pew lots of it.

[theJanitor]

edit. already posted

[Bergeron]

I am absolutely no one's gunfighter, but the quality of thought and presentation that's going into this is fascinating. The 24" door frame discussion was great.

I really like my house, but it's nightmarish angles and spaces if you're trying to come out of the master bedroom and clear spaces- this combination of equipment and techniques would address many of those matters.

[Clusterfrack]

Strike Industries 5" buffer tube assembly (https://www.strikeindustries.com/si-ar-spre-slick.html) is on the way. I'll do some 300BLK testing when I get it.

[Wondering Beard]

Late to the party as usual. It’s me, Rhett (DCON TRAINING)

Happy to answer any questions.

Hi,

I'm very interested in the shooting techniques.

In the first videos (I haven't seen all of them) I saw of your work (with shotguns), it appeared that you used the (or a variation of the) Haught (push-pull/"stretch the gun") technique. Is that basically it, or does it have some changes or is it something else entirely? Do you change techniques when it comes to ARs or equivalent weapon?

In the last video shown here, you have your support hand over the rail, how do you work that? is there any pressure/tension involved at all or something else?

Any details you can pass on would be really helpful as what you show seems to provide answers to questions I've had for quite a while.

[LHS]

I have a theory that a cheekweld only on a buffer tube may very well provide for a considerably more agile gun. I mean if you think about it you’ve removed the entire variable of the stock seated in the “pocket” of the shoulder. Your cheek and hand versus your cheek, shoulder, and your hands. 3 variables versus 4. I could be totally wrong but if you watch Rhett run a stockless AR pistol he sure isn’t suffering for speed or accuracy.

This past weekend I was taking Tom Givens' shotgun instructor course and spent an entire day shooting my 14-in 870 without letting the butt touch my shoulder. It felt dramatically faster, and while I didn't get to test with and without on a timer (that's coming), my performance certainly did not suffer. I still like having a stock for bracing against my forearm while doing reloads or other manipulations, but shooting with only the hands on the gun and a cheek weld worked beautifully and I will be likely continuing this whenever possible.

[GJM]

Hi,

I'm very interested in the shooting techniques.

In the first videos (I haven't seen all of them) I saw of your work (with shotguns), it appeared that you used the (or a variation of the) Haught (push-pull/"stretch the gun") technique. Is that basically it, or does it have some changes or is it something else entirely? Do you change techniques when it comes to ARs or equivalent weapon?

In the last video shown here, you have your support hand over the rail, how do you work that? is there any pressure/tension involved at all or something else?

Any details you can pass on would be really helpful as what you show seems to provide answers to questions I've had for quite a while.

My question, too. I looked through his videos on YouTube and couldn't find one where he explains exactly how he holds the AR pistol, in terms of how he applies force.

[Totem Polar]

…but shooting with only the hands on the gun and a cheek weld worked beautifully and I will be likely continuing this whenever possible.
:eek:

That’s a compelling endorsement of the concept.

[RustyCrusty]

My question, too. I looked through his videos on YouTube and couldn't find one where he explains exactly how he holds the AR pistol, in terms of how he applies force.

Shotgun- push-pull works. Rather than pulling (like a bow draw) I clench my elbow and shoulder back into my spine. The pressure is that of starting an arm wrestling match.

On AR/AK/CP33, with fingers-over/inverted grip I’m pulling the gun into body with lats, gripping hard and using the same push-clench pressures.

[SouthNarc]

The pressure is that of starting an arm wrestling match.



Now THAT is a great visual. Well done Rhett.

[SouthNarc]

Rhett what about the actual amount of pressure into the cheek/jaw on the buffer tube? Any good analogies you could make there to connote the pressure into words?

[underhook]

Every breakthrough idea and paradigm shift by definition breaks the established thinking and will be ridiculed. How do we distinguish the McDojo bull shit from legit innovation? I remember first time I saw SouthNarc's material on strapping knife upside down by your dick. I thought he'd fallen off the short bus. Then when I took ECQC and got shot with my own gun while sucking on a dude's bulls in a north and south I kind of got the in fight weapon access rule.

My question here is how do we validate this?

[GJM]

Every breakthrough idea and paradigm shift by definition breaks the established thinking and will be ridiculed. How do we distinguish the McDojo bull shit from legit innovation? I remember first time I saw SouthNarc's material on strapping knife upside down by your dick. I thought he'd fallen off the short bus. Then when I took ECQC and got shot with my own gun while sucking on a dude's bulls in a north and south I kind of got the in fight weapon access rule.

My question here is how do we validate this?

Leaving aside tactical considerations, shooting games are quite good at evaluating pure shooting performance. PCC in USPSA seems an ideal place to evaluate the cheek weld with just a buffer tube vs a traditional stock, because mobility and shooting into and out of position are so much of USPSA. I am thinking of removing the stock from my MPX and shooting some arrays with movement and seeing how things vary.

[LHS]

Leaving aside tactical considerations, shooting games are quite good at evaluating pure shooting performance. PCC in USPSA seems an ideal place to evaluate the cheek weld with just a buffer tube vs a traditional stock, because mobility and shooting into and out of position are so much of USPSA. I am thinking of removing the stock from my MPX and shooting some arrays with movement and seeing how things vary.

I'm planning on doing something similar next month, running my cheek pistol at the local BUG match

[zaitcev]

I'm planning on doing something similar next month, running my cheek pistol at the local BUG match
What gun do you use?

[LHS]

What gun do you use?

I've got a CP33 like what Rhett uses, though mine isn't nearly as reliable as his.

Another option I might try is to run my 733 clone minus the stock in the local two gun match, along with another run with the stock. Assuming that doesn't kill my out-of-shape ass...

[Norville]

Leaving aside tactical considerations, shooting games are quite good at evaluating pure shooting performance. PCC in USPSA seems an ideal place to evaluate the cheek weld with just a buffer tube vs a traditional stock, because mobility and shooting into and out of position are so much of USPSA. I am thinking of removing the stock from my MPX and shooting some arrays with movement and seeing how things vary.


I'm planning on doing something similar next month, running my cheek pistol at the local BUG match


USPSA rules require a stock.. I researched it when I wanted to run a braced pistol - not allowed. It’s in the PCC equipment rules.

At a local match you could probably get away with it.

[Wondering Beard]

Now THAT is a great visual. Well done Rhett.

Sadly not for me as it isn't something I've ever done.

[Wondering Beard]

Shotgun- push-pull works. Rather than pulling (like a bow draw) I clench my elbow and shoulder back into my spine. The pressure is that of starting an arm wrestling match.

On AR/AK/CP33, with fingers-over/inverted grip I’m pulling the gun into body with lats, gripping hard and using the same push-clench pressures.

Just to be sure I understand:
There is a "push", with the offhand, on the forestock/rail but the "pull" essentially comes from the "pulling inward" of the elbow and shoulder into the body and spine/back?
With the offhand over the rail, it's still the same "push-Pull" as modified by your technique, the offhand is just in a different position?

Also, for clarity, is the advantage of the offhand over the rail simply that it takes less room in cramped quarters (the elbow is made to come inward a lot more, allowing better maneuverability in tight spaces) compared to the usual method?

Finally, as SouthNarc asks, what's the pressure, if any, on the cheek?

[LHS]

USPSA rules require a stock.. I researched it when I wanted to run a braced pistol - not allowed. It’s in the PCC equipment rules.

At a local match you could probably get away with it.

I guarantee our BUG match director will allow it, even if it's not for official score. He just loves seeing oddball stuff for the lulz

[TCinVA]

This past weekend I was taking Tom Givens' shotgun instructor course and spent an entire day shooting my 14-in 870 without letting the butt touch my shoulder. It felt dramatically faster, and while I didn't get to test with and without on a timer (that's coming), my performance certainly did not suffer. I still like having a stock for bracing against my forearm while doing reloads or other manipulations, but shooting with only the hands on the gun and a cheek weld worked beautifully and I will be likely continuing this whenever possible.

Speed of presentation is going to depend on how you start.

In other words, if you are carrying the gun in a field sort of carry (muzzle up) and mount the gun by just driving the stock to the cheek instead of just backward to the shoulder it can get you on target slightly faster. IF you get everything else right. (Head position, body position, etc) If you get it wrong it takes an extra fraction of a second to drive the stock back and find your mount. Sometimes while mounting the gun from a muzzle up I'll shoot with the stock floated off the shoulder because with recoil mitigation I'm not worried about getting kicked. If I'm going for the quickest first shot I can make I'll shoot when the sights are there regardless of where the stock is. If I'm firing a multiple shot string I just drive the gun back into the shoulder before the next shot.

It's essentially the same as flowing from a short stocked position to a full mount of the gun.

You will likely find it is not faster coming from a true low ready position with the stock already locked against the upper body.

[RustyCrusty]

Rhett what about the actual amount of pressure into the cheek/jaw on the buffer tube? Any good analogies you could make there to connote the pressure into words?

About the pressure that I’d feel on my cheek in school as I rested my head in my hand and tried not to fall asleep. About the same ‘feeler pressure’ I’d put into head control on a wrestling partner in a clench.

[RustyCrusty]

Just to be sure I understand:
There is a "push", with the offhand, on the forestock/rail but the "pull" essentially comes from the "pulling inward" of the elbow and shoulder into the body and spine/back?
With the offhand over the rail, it's still the same "push-Pull" as modified by your technique, the offhand is just in a different position?

Also, for clarity, is the advantage of the offhand over the rail simply that it takes less room in cramped quarters (the elbow is made to come inward a lot more, allowing better maneuverability in tight spaces) compared to the usual method?

Finally, as SouthNarc asks, what's the pressure, if any, on the cheek?

Push-pull works
Pull-push works

What I tend to do is grab the thing, crunch it as tight into the body as possible, and torque it like I’m trying to open a pickle jar.

Drawing power from lats and pecs is huge for any kind of 2 hand shooting.

Overhand allows better striking/control, muzzle dexterity, and a smaller firing platform.

[Wondering Beard]

Push-pull works
Pull-push works

What I tend to do is grab the thing, crunch it as tight into the body as possible, and torque it like I’m trying to open a pickle jar.

Drawing power from lats and pecs is huge for any kind of 2 hand shooting.

Overhand allows better striking/control, muzzle dexterity, and a smaller firing platform.

Thank you.

I'll put some practice into this.

[GearFondler]

"So how do I do this again?"

"Well, Rhett said it's like arm wrestling a pickle jar without falling to sleep."

[LHS]

Speed of presentation is going to depend on how you start.

In other words, if you are carrying the gun in a field sort of carry (muzzle up) and mount the gun by just driving the stock to the cheek instead of just backward to the shoulder it can get you on target slightly faster. IF you get everything else right. (Head position, body position, etc) If you get it wrong it takes an extra fraction of a second to drive the stock back and find your mount. Sometimes while mounting the gun from a muzzle up I'll shoot with the stock floated off the shoulder because with recoil mitigation I'm not worried about getting kicked. If I'm going for the quickest first shot I can make I'll shoot when the sights are there regardless of where the stock is. If I'm firing a multiple shot string I just drive the gun back into the shoulder before the next shot.

It's essentially the same as flowing from a short stocked position to a full mount of the gun.

You will likely find it is not faster coming from a true low ready position with the stock already locked against the upper body.

We're on the same page of music

[Rex G]

All of the enabling, in this discussion, is tempting me, while being left-eye dominant is the one big factor that is holding me back, and compelling me to think outside of the material which has been presented. The accessory that catches spent brass would be a work-around, but, as with an offset-mounted optic, which I mentioned in my previous reply post, the penalty would be added width.

Perhaps the sight, at least for compressed-hold cheek-firing, could be a high-quality laser? (Perhaps the BUIS could be in the conventional positions?) I have zero experience with lasers, on firearms, but did use them with PD-issued Tasers. (Until I retired, in 2018, I was not allowed to use lasers, on duty/defensive firearms, 24/7/365, so I would have to start learning about buying suitable lasers, from scratch.)

Of course, there is the Charlie Askins low-light, close-range sight, a white rag tied around the muzzle. ;) (Of course, that context was for shotguns, to enable launching Blue Whistlers, to shoot ‘em spang through the brisket.)

[Clusterfrack]

This is super helpful, and makes sense for the cheek-weapon. How I run a carbine and handgun is substantially different from what you describe below. With handguns, many top shooters are focusing on relaxing the shoulders, and do not apply strong force with anything other than the support hand and both wrists. I have found this to be tremendously helpful for fast precise transitions, predictable tracking of the sights, and a lot more. Removing tension above the elbows is something I'm continuing to work on.

So, it looks like some of us will need to switch between significantly different techniques for cheek-weapon, long gun, and especially handgun.


Push-pull works
Pull-push works

What I tend to do is grab the thing, crunch it as tight into the body as possible, and torque it like I’m trying to open a pickle jar.

Drawing power from lats and pecs is huge for any kind of 2 hand shooting.

Overhand allows better striking/control, muzzle dexterity, and a smaller firing platform.

[Clusterfrack]

...Perhaps the sight, at least for compressed-hold cheek-firing, could be a high-quality laser? (Perhaps the BUIS could be in the conventional positions?) I have zero experience with lasers, on firearms, but did use them with PD-issued Tasers. (Until I retired, in 2018, I was not allowed to use lasers, on duty/defensive firearms, 24/7/365, so I would have to start learning about buying suitable lasers, from scratch.)...

I'm thinking the same thing. I currently have a TLR-7 on my PDW, but may switch to a TLR-8g (WML/green laser)

[GJM]

Do you want/need a minimalist charging handle, so it isn’t leaving tracks on your face? With a buffer tube you can be further back, but with no tube it seems like you are at the charging handle?

[EMC]

Do you want/need a minimalist charging handle, so it isn’t leaving tracks on your face? With a buffer tube you can be further back, but with no tube it seems like you are at the charging handle?In one of the youtube vid comments he talks about a right side only charging handle.

[EMC]

How is no one on primary and secondary fb page talking about this new method? I would ask but they tend to ball bust anyone asking unorthodox questions. And then they ball bust anyone answering. [emoji1787]

[EMC]

How is no one on primary and secondary fb page talking about this new method? I would ask but they tend to ball bust anyone asking unorthodox questions. And then they ball bust anyone answering. [emoji1787]Holy crap they approved my post! Woooo

[1Rangemaster]

I agree on that, I just think it would be something fun to try out. I am definitely not sold on .22 LR for SD use.

[TCinVA]

How is no one on primary and secondary fb page talking about this new method? I would ask but they tend to ball bust anyone asking unorthodox questions. And then they ball bust anyone answering. [emoji1787]

It might not be as new as you might think...


https://youtu.be/M0OplOJQQAw

Stockless use of a compact weapon was done quite a bit in the old days because various bits of protective gear prevented getting a cheek weld on various usually shoulder mounted weapons like SMGs. Adaptations like using tension against a sling and even (GASP!) push/pull were used to stabilize the gun in firing...usually with short bursts of fire. This was a close quarters technique used inside structures and given the speed and violence of action involved in the way those units used them it was pretty effective. When three dudes pile into a room and they're firing short bursts at the upper chest or face of bad guys, often after the place had been gassed and banged, it had a way of solving the problem PDQ.

The MP5 isn't as popular today as it was back then, but there are still organizations that use versions of the MP5 for EP and some covert applications where whipping something like an MP5K or MP7 out from under a coat and going to work could be advantageous. There have been some similar attempts to develop rifle caliber weapons with folding/collapsible stocks for similar uses...and the same techniques would be applicable to those for quick reaction if the threat was immediate enough where the stock couldn't be deployed.

Of course, the push/pull element that was crucial to that use by some of the elite units didn't always translate down the line to everyone else's training. A lot of folks had the form but not the function and few who weren't those elite units had the training time necessary to really dial in the technique and while not completely lost it's been largely forgotten. Which is why now if you mention it you get looked at like you just grew another head.

Somewhere out there there's a video of OSS training on SMG's that talks about using push-pull to control the Thompson on full auto and doing so without the gun mounted. I wish I could find it...

Of course, a lot of people today would tell you that push/pull is just some shotgun perversion and has no place being used with rifles to stabilize the gun to make a more precise shot, to make multiple rapid shots up close, to add greater control with full auto fire. And there's absolutely not video out there of me using an MP5 at just under 15 yards stacking a full magazine into a fist sized area high in the "chest" of the steel which actually pushes the target and target stand directly backwards knocking it completely over. None of that is canon, so you good folks of the internet just keep yanking on those guns in the exact same direction as recoil is already trying to push them and hope for the best because that's what The Lord and all the tactical guys want you to do. Just leave that push/pull heresy to us shotgun losers who are using an outdated and ineffective weapon like a 12 gauge like it can actually do something besides door breaching.

The entire firearms training world gets a bad case of amnesia on a regular basis and forgets what went before...which is really kind of a pain in the ass because it means lessons have to be learned over and over again instead of a consistent progression. The modern age is better than most because unlike the post-WWII period there's a chain of progress from Cooper (who is foundational to all modern firearms training...and who also taught the use of isometric tension. Shocker.) until now thanks to people like Tom Givens, Louis Awerbuck, Farnam, and others who have built on that foundation. Even so, there are still so few who have direct experience with what was actually taught that what is discussed most often is some cartoonish caricature of what people think Cooper taught.

Most of the gunternet won't use push/pull and if they do, they'll probably do it wrong and proclaim it useless. And that's the foundation of being able to do any of this stuff. I don't entirely blame them because I didn't know how to use push/pull right either until I had proper instruction in its use. And at one point in time I thought Rob Leatham was speaking in riddles when he said aiming is overrated. It took work to go out and find the right answers, and most simply won't ever do that.

People don't recognize refinement of an older concept if they don't know the older concept existed.

[EMC]

It might not be as new as you might think...


https://youtu.be/M0OplOJQQAw

Stockless use of a compact weapon was done quite a bit in the old days because various bits of protective gear prevented getting a cheek weld on various usually shoulder mounted weapons like SMGs. Adaptations like using tension against a sling and even (GASP!) push/pull were used to stabilize the gun in firing...usually with short bursts of fire. This was a close quarters technique used inside structures and given the speed and violence of action involved in the way those units used them it was pretty effective. When three dudes pile into a room and they're firing short bursts at the upper chest or face of bad guys, often after the place had been gassed and banged, it had a way of solving the problem PDQ.

The MP5 isn't as popular today as it was back then, but there are still organizations that use versions of the MP5 for EP and some covert applications where whipping something like an MP5K or MP7 out from under a coat and going to work could be advantageous. There have been some similar attempts to develop rifle caliber weapons with folding/collapsible stocks for similar uses...and the same techniques would be applicable to those for quick reaction if the threat was immediate enough where the stock couldn't be deployed.

Of course, the push/pull element that was crucial to that use by some of the elite units didn't always translate down the line to everyone else's training. A lot of folks had the form but not the function and few who weren't those elite units had the training time necessary to really dial in the technique and while not completely lost it's been largely forgotten. Which is why now if you mention it you get looked at like you just grew another head.

Somewhere out there there's a video of OSS training on SMG's that talks about using push-pull to control the Thompson on full auto and doing so without the gun mounted. I wish I could find it...

Of course, a lot of people today would tell you that push/pull is just some shotgun perversion and has no place being used with rifles to stabilize the gun to make a more precise shot, to make multiple rapid shots up close, to add greater control with full auto fire. And there's absolutely not video out there of me using an MP5 at just under 15 yards stacking a full magazine into a fist sized area high in the "chest" of the steel which actually pushes the target and target stand directly backwards knocking it completely over. None of that is canon, so you good folks of the internet just keep yanking on those guns in the exact same direction as recoil is already trying to push them and hope for the best because that's what The Lord and all the tactical guys want you to do. Just leave that push/pull heresy to us shotgun losers who are using an outdated and ineffective weapon like a 12 gauge like it can actually do something besides door breaching.

The entire firearms training world gets a bad case of amnesia on a regular basis and forgets what went before...which is really kind of a pain in the ass because it means lessons have to be learned over and over again instead of a consistent progression. The modern age is better than most because unlike the post-WWII period there's a chain of progress from Cooper (who is foundational to all modern firearms training...and who also taught the use of isometric tension. Shocker.) until now thanks to people like Tom Givens, Louis Awerbuck, Farnam, and others who have built on that foundation. Even so, there are still so few who have direct experience with what was actually taught that what is discussed most often is some cartoonish caricature of what people think Cooper taught.

Most of the gunternet won't use push/pull and if they do, they'll probably do it wrong and proclaim it useless. And that's the foundation of being able to do any of this stuff. I don't entirely blame them because I didn't know how to use push/pull right either until I had proper instruction in its use. And at one point in time I thought Rob Leatham was speaking in riddles when he said aiming is overrated. It took work to go out and find the right answers, and most simply won't ever do that.

People don't recognize refinement of an older concept if they don't know the older concept existed.Yeah one of the old federal marshals mentioned the old MP5 gas mask technique on the P&S thread. Rhett mentioned that one of the bigger realizations is the eye placement relative to modern red dot optics seemed to drive some of the performance gains he experienced as much as the cheek welding.

[TCinVA]

Getting the optic up higher isn't exactly new, either...

https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2013/06/mp5_with_french_GIGN_team.jpg78508

[RustyCrusty]

Getting the optic up higher isn't exactly new, either...

https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2013/06/mp5_with_french_GIGN_team.jpg78508


All of it is based around the concept of getting the optic linked to the eye.

People think about this in terms of recoil control, like they need to physically pin the gun in place. To a certain extent yes, but that is NOT the primary goal.

The primary goal is to keep the gun visually aimed on target.

Weaver/Cooper found that a second hand on the gun kept the gun more controllable. Focus is typically on the feel. Real benefit was that it made the gun return to the line of sight faster and that a second hand on the gun stabilized the gun in the shooters vision more repeatably and reliably.

Again, focused on the feel, people associated stock use with a tactile sensation of pinning the gun to the body and attribute that as the primary benefit.

Stock links the optic to the torso- which is better than free floating the gun in front of the face like traditional handgun. One step closer to the REAL goal of keeping the gun visually aligned to fire.

Cheekweld links the gun directly to a body structure with an unchanging spatial relationship to the eye.

When you shoulder a gun and look anywhere but straight ahead, the relationship between the eye and optic is ever-changing. To compensate for this, we’ve raised the optic, given it a bigger field of view, given it ‘infinite’ eye relief,
and tried all manner of placement on the gun.

These can help but aren’t complete solutions.

The only complete solution is to mount the gun to the eye directly.

Mounting the gun to the cheek/jaw creates a relationship between eye and gun that is far more absolute than the chest/shoulder mount. When mounted in this fashion, the gun can be aimed wherever the shooter looks while maintaining the same eye-to-gun spatial relationship.

[GJM]

Looking forward to hitting the range later with my Tippman .22 to experiment.

78521

[Vandal320]

Vehicle work video is up.
https://youtu.be/lL-XRhx3axQ

[GJM]

I am very open to new ideas, and interested in exploring this technique.

Philosophically, here is the issue that I am trying to reconcile. In our USPSA shooting, my wife and I have been working on extending our arms, and setting our wrists, but otherwise taking the tension out of our shooting. My wife is down in Moab while I am up in Montana for an elk trip, but she has been working hard at exploring reducing tension, and today for example by reducing tension, was able to shoot .17 splits at 15 yards into the A zone with her CO pistol. In my only range session exploring this, and clearly I know just enough about it to be dangerous, the way I was applying force was degrading my ability to make fast accurate hits with the AR .22 pistol compared to shooting the .22 AR carbine with a stock that I regularly train with.

[GJM]

Not my call, but I would love it if we could keep this thread on Rhett and discussion of and experimentation with his methods, as opposed to another equipment heavy thread — lest his thoughts be diluted.

[Clusterfrack]

Not my call, but I would love it if we could keep this thread on Rhett and discussion of and experimentation with his methods, as opposed to another equipment heavy thread — lest his thoughts be diluted.

Thanks for this. If someone wants to start a cheek-pistol equipment thread, I'll move some posts.

[HeavyDuty]

Thanks for this. If someone wants to start a cheek-pistol equipment thread, I'll move some posts.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?50247-Cheekweld-Pistols

[TGS]

How well does this work when you're smoked, injured and/or in the midst of an adrenaline dump?

What about when you're reacting to something instead of initiating a staged event?

[HeavyDuty]

How well does this work when you're smoked, injured and/or in the midst of an adrenaline dump?

What about when you're reacting to something instead of initiating a staged event?

That would be a damn good scenario to test. I’m thinking it would be similar to carbine since you’re still consistently mounting up, but that’s not based with any actual experience.

[Wondering Beard]

How well does this work when you're smoked, injured and/or in the midst of an adrenaline dump?

What about when you're reacting to something instead of initiating a staged event?

To add to that, how does it work with "strange" positions such as you'd find using the Viking tactics "wall".

[Zman001]

It seems to me that once you get to the size of an AR, you might as well just get a brace or a stock. There are lots of options that add virtually zero bulk, and you get the benefits of a stock

[MandoWookie]

It seems to me that once you get to the size of an AR, you might as well just get a brace or a stock. There are lots of options that add virtually zero bulk, and you get the benefits of a stock

This is partially a work around to get away from the increasingly spotlighted braces, without going the SBR route.

[GearFondler]

It seems to me that once you get to the size of an AR, you might as well just get a brace or a stock. There are lots of options that add virtually zero bulk, and you get the benefits of a stock
This is partially a work around to get away from the increasingly spotlighted braces, without going the SBR route.It's also to create a smaller shooting footprint/silhouette/platform. A cheek weld AR sticks out considerably less than a stocked AR. This doesn't matter on the range but can make a huge difference transitioning through buildings or in vehicles.

[Zman001]

It's also to create a smaller shooting footprint/silhouette/platform. A cheek weld AR sticks out considerably less than a stocked AR. This doesn't matter on the range but can make a huge difference transitioning through buildings or in vehicles.

Maybe I'm missing something, but i really don't see how this is true. You are still dealing with a buffer tube, a stock fully collapsed adds no length, and a stock 1-3 clicks out adds maybe 2" OAL.

A proper "weld" on the gun should be about the same with or without a stock.

[GearFondler]

Maybe I'm missing something, but i really don't see how this is true. You are still dealing with a buffer tube, a stock fully collapsed adds no length, and a stock 1-3 clicks out adds maybe 2" OAL.

A proper "weld" on the gun should be about the same with or without a stock.You either watch his material for the demo or you don't.

[Zman001]

You either watch his material for the demo or you don't.

I realize the questions and doubts may be tiring, and you do not have to reply, but this is a discussion thread

[MandoWookie]

I realize the questions and doubts may be tiring, and you do not have to reply, but this is a discussion thread

My understanding is, with out the stock, just a plain pistol reciever tube, you maintain a much more heads up position, with the line of the tube above the shoulder, and bring the gun back to your cheek.

This means where the stock would be is above the shoulder, not in front of it. In a normal mount up with a stock, even collapsed all the way, you have to have it in the shoulder pocket, then bring your head down and forward to line up with the sights.

With this method you are bringing the gun up and back, ignoring the length of the tube, because it is over the shoulder, you can get a more compressed stance, bringing the muzzle further back than and equivalent stocked AR and a normal shooting stance.

Edit to add: Note that he is using a non standard reciever tube length in his demos, that is shorter than a carbine reciever extension, but the principal should still be the same, because either way he is not behind it, so its length is not critical.

[Zman001]

My understanding is, with out the stock, just a plain pistol reciever tube, you maintain a much more heads up position, with the line of the tube above the shoulder, and bring the gun back to your cheek.

This means where the stock would be is above the shoulder, not in front of it. In a normal mount up with a stock, even collapsed all the way, you have to have it in the shoulder pocket, then bring your head down and forward to line up with the sights.

With this method you are bringing the gun up and back, ignoring the length of the tube, because it is over the shoulder, you can get a more compressed stance, bringing the muzzle further back than and equivalent stocked AR and a normal shooting stance.

Edit to add: Note that he is using a non standard reciever tube length in his demos, that is shorter than a carbine reciever extension, but the principal should still be the same, because either way he is not behind it, so its length is not critical.

Ok, i got it now, thanks

[RustyCrusty]

Same upper. Fully collapsed brace, as small as I can get while being behind the gun, sighted fire vs a compressed Cheek/jaw weld with forward of charging handle mount.

Gun married to eye is faster to acquire a dot, shorter arc of motion, less pendulum effect/over swing, more degrees of motion from a sighted and seated position. Still capable of ‘punching out’ and getting behind gun, cutting tube into trap/curve of neck and running very close to my gamer speeds.

790307903179031

[Wondering Beard]

Same upper. Fully collapsed brace, as small as I can get while being behind the gun, sighted fire vs a compressed Cheek/jaw weld with forward of charging handle mount.

Gun married to eye is faster to acquire a dot, shorter arc of motion, less pendulum effect/over swing, more degrees of motion from a sighted and seated position. Still capable of ‘punching out’ and getting behind gun, cutting tube into trap/curve of neck and running very close to my gamer speeds.

790307903179031

If the brace is fully collapsed but still on the buffer tube, is the cheekweld technique you advocate still workable?

Also, how does it all work from "weird" positions such as the ones used with Viking tactics "wall"? It would seem that some of the crouching positions (like the one dealing with the hole at the bottom of the "wall") would make it difficult to keep a consistent cheekweld position but I have no idea.

[RustyCrusty]

If the brace is fully collapsed but still on the buffer tube, is the cheekweld technique you advocate still workable?

Also, how does it all work from "weird" positions such as the ones used with Viking tactics "wall"? It would seem that some of the crouching positions (like the one dealing with the hole at the bottom of the "wall") would make it difficult to keep a consistent cheekweld position but I have no idea.

It’s still doable, but suboptimal. Running an SBA3 with the tails folded in was a step in my path to cheek/jaw-only mounting. I noticed that taking the time to bump into the shoulder pocket wasn’t really worth the time penalty on many entries to shooting positions on stages. The tighter shooting windows and wider target spreads provided less benefit from shouldered shooting because the shouldered position requires the entire torso to be rotated to each target whereas the cheek/jaw mount allowed me to quickly rotate my gun and head more naturally in a wider arc. From a sprint with brace over shoulder it was faster to just jam the brace along my neck and torque the gun into my jaw to fire. It wasn’t as viable with the standard stock or the expanded floppy tails on the SBA3 because the toe would interfere with my shoulder, snag on clothing/gear as i turned my head to address target arrays and elevated the receiver too high along my jaw for consistent eye to optic marriage. It also messed with my muffs before I switched to EEP100s.

The VTAC wall is a hilarious oddity to me, and is one that highlights the uselessness of the shoulder stock. That’s not just my opinion. Take it directly from the source. I liked a video from Viking Tactics of them shooting their own drill without using a stock at all for more than half of the positions (the last 5 of 9 you can see the stock is floating freely by his bicep). The only relationship that is constant is eye-to-optic. Arguably- they aren’t using a stock for ANY of the positions because the gun isn’t braced to the shoulder; it’s pinned to the barricade itself for all 9 holes. It’s a far superior approach to absorb recoil and stabilize the gun with the environment any time the environment is more sturdy than the shooter. If I don’t need a stock for unsupported shooting, I certainly don’t need it when I am offloading some of the work onto the environment

https://youtu.be/KbyqAoiX4CA

[MandoWookie]

It’s still doable, but suboptimal. Running an SBA3 with the tails folded in was a step in my path to cheek/jaw-only mounting. I noticed that taking the time to bump into the shoulder pocket wasn’t really worth the time penalty on many entries to shooting positions on stages. The tighter shooting windows and wider target spreads provided less benefit from shouldered shooting because the shouldered position requires the entire torso to be rotated to each target whereas the cheek/jaw mount allowed me to quickly rotate my gun and head more naturally in a wider arc. From a sprint with brace over shoulder it was faster to just jam the brace along my neck and torque the gun into my jaw to fire. It wasn’t as viable with the standard stock or the expanded floppy tails on the SBA3 because the toe would interfere with my shoulder, snag on clothing/gear as i turned my head to address target arrays and elevated the receiver too high along my jaw for consistent eye to optic marriage. It also messed with my muffs before I switched to EEP100s.

The VTAC wall is a hilarious oddity to me, and is one that highlights the uselessness of the shoulder stock. That’s not just my opinion. Take it directly from the source. I liked a video from Viking Tactics of them shooting their own drill without using a stock at all for more than half of the positions (the last 5 of 9 you can see the stock is floating freely by his bicep). The only relationship that is constant is eye-to-optic. Arguably- they aren’t using a stock for ANY of the positions because the gun isn’t braced to the shoulder; it’s pinned to the barricade itself for all 9 holes. It’s a far superior approach to absorb recoil and stabilize the gun with the environment any time the environment is more sturdy than the shooter. If I don’t need a stock for unsupported shooting, I certainly don’t need it when I am offloading some of the work onto the environment

https://youtu.be/KbyqAoiX4CA

I was about to say, in all the footage I have seen of people using the VTAC, you see the stock become irrelevant for most halfway down at least. Which makes sense, as I thought the whole point was to force people out of conventional shooting positions.

[GlockenSpiel]

Considering that this is set up for always shooting from a compressed position, is it time for a reverse (not just vertical) pistol grip, of the type that used to be done on paintball guns?

Edit: Didn't put this in the gear thread because, afaik, this doesn't actually exist yet.

[zaitcev]

Considering that this is set up for always shooting from a compressed position, is it time for a reverse (not just vertical) pistol grip, of the type that used to be done on paintball guns?

The Mid-Evil's 360 ARG ("Adjustable Rifle Grip") may be of interest in this regard. Unfortunately, it's pretty expensive.
https://www.mid-evil.com/product/360-arg/

[GJM]

I have continued to experiment with this method, and see if it can work into my use.

My USPSA PCC has both a conventional optic, in this case a Holosun 512C sealed red dot, and a Holosun 507 in a T-Rex offset mount. See below.

79680

What I have been experimenting with, is using the cheek weld method in conjunction with the offset mount and the stock floating above my shoulder, to allow me to address targets on the move and in confined areas. It looks like this.

79681

[SouthNarc]

I have continued to experiment with this method, and see if it can work into my use.

My USPSA PCC has both a conventional optic, in this case a Holosun 512C sealed red dot, and a Holosun 507 in a T-Rex offset mount. See below.

79680

What I have been experimenting with, is using the cheek weld method in conjunction with the offset mount and the stock floating above my shoulder, to allow me to address targets on the move and in confined areas. It looks like this.

79681

George have you worked much with your support hand in a palm down/overhand position? When Rhett demos this there's an observable down-inboard squeeze that creates counter pressure and really locks the gun down better IMO than a conventional support hand grip.

[GJM]

George have you worked much with your support hand in a palm down/overhand position? When Rhett demos this there's an observable down-inboard squeeze that creates counter pressure and really locks the gun down better IMO than a conventional support hand grip.

The issue with that, is that I will need to change my "regular" support hand position, which slows by moving from conventional PCC shooting, to cheek weld, and back to conventional. PCC shooters have adopted the butt back over the shoulder, rather than depressing the muzzle, to transition faster, and what I am trying to do is use the cheek weld and offset optic to allow me to also shoot from the transitioning/traveling position.

[SouthNarc]

The issue with that, is that I will need to change my "regular" support hand position, which slows by moving from conventional PCC shooting, to cheek weld, and back to conventional. PCC shooters have adopted the butt back over the shoulder, rather than depressing the muzzle, to transition faster, and what I am trying to do is use the cheek weld and offset optic to allow me to also shoot from the transitioning/traveling position.

Gotcha!

[GJM]

Did some shooting on the move today with the offset 507, holding the carbine as in the photo above. Worked great and was quick to transition from conventional PCC technique to cheek weld and back. My face is on the tube, behind the charging handle, so no interference. I think the Holosun circle only is ideal for this application.

Then I went sitting, and shot this five round group at 25 yards using the stock. Nice to be able to integrate both techniques.

79733

[orionz06]

Considering that this is set up for always shooting from a compressed position, is it time for a reverse (not just vertical) pistol grip, of the type that used to be done on paintball guns?

Edit: Didn't put this in the gear thread because, afaik, this doesn't actually exist yet.

Those weren't really even good for paintball, the love for Tom Kaye/AGD is what kept them marginally relevant in a niche group of the sport.

[Dov]

Might have missed it but wondering if anyone has tried this with Ruger's Charger?

I'd also think Ruger's 22 Charger would be more reliable on average than the KelTec 22.

I'd also think this would work with Mare's Leg type levers though outside of perhaps "handgun" hunting with carbine level ballistics not sure utility of that.

[joshs]

Those weren't really even good for paintball, the love for Tom Kaye/AGD is what kept them marginally relevant in a niche group of the sport.

Yeah, I was a huge AGD fan and never got the Y frame. Paintball grip angles evolved to be pretty similar to modern AR grip angles.

On an AR where you can still shoot with your face on the receiver extension, I think a modern AR grip still works. Face on top of the receiver might benefit from a more vertical grip.

[zaitcev]

Might have missed it but wondering if anyone has tried this with Ruger's Charger?
I tried it in a 2-gun match and it works fine, although with some rough edges. The PC Charger is not as compact as KelTec CP33, so the concept does not apply properly. The promise is to get a rifle-like performance from an almost service-size handgun. But this is much larger, so basically Ruger is useful as a demonstration and training tool only, IMHO. Also, the stock grip is much too slanted for comfort. Fortunately, it's an AR-compatible grip and more vertical grips are available on the market (even more than vertical). But overall it's pretty fun and lets you dip your toe into Cheek Pistol if you have a Ruger PC Charger laying around.

http://www.fraurem.com/rccpb.html
(for the record, I designed the Fraurem "platypus" after I tried a tube)

https://www.mid-evil.com/product/360-arg/
(crazy goofy product that found an completely unexpected redemption with the Cheek Pistol)

P.S. Both "platypus" and a tube will knock your ear muffs slight off enough to let the sound in, if your optics raiser is too low. I think most people need at least 1". I started out with 0.83" and that only worked with ear plugs. Not sure if this is endemic to PC Charger or if any Cheek Pistol works like that. Both RCCP-B and tube have no comb, under the assumption that a tall riser is needed anyway, to reduce craning of the head.

[GearFondler]

P.S. Both "platypus" and a tube will knock your ear muffs slight off enough to let the sound in, if your optics raiser is too low. I think most people need at least 1". I started out with 0.83" and that only worked with ear plugs. Not sure if this is endemic to PC Charger or if any Cheek Pistol works like that. Both RCCP-B and tube have no comb, under the assumption that a tall riser is needed anyway, to reduce craning of the head.

If you pay attention to Rhett's new vids you'll notice that he has transitioned to tall risers on everything he cheek welds, including the birdshead shotguns, so he can keep his head upright and use his lower jaw rather than his cheek bone.

[Dov]

I tried it in a 2-gun match and it works fine, although with some rough edges. The PC Charger is not as compact as KelTec CP33, so the concept does not apply properly. The promise is to get a rifle-like performance from an almost service-size handgun. But this is much larger, so basically Ruger is useful as a demonstration and training tool only, IMHO. Also, the stock grip is much too slanted for comfort. Fortunately, it's an AR-compatible grip and more vertical grips are available on the market (even more than vertical). But overall it's pretty fun and lets you dip your toe into Cheek Pistol if you have a Ruger PC Charger laying around.

http://www.fraurem.com/rccpb.html
(for the record, I designed the Fraurem "platypus" after I tried a tube)

https://www.mid-evil.com/product/360-arg/
(crazy goofy product that found an completely unexpected redemption with the Cheek Pistol)

P.S. Both "platypus" and a tube will knock your ear muffs slight off enough to let the sound in, if your optics raiser is too low. I think most people need at least 1". I started out with 0.83" and that only worked with ear plugs. Not sure if this is endemic to PC Charger or if any Cheek Pistol works like that. Both RCCP-B and tube have no comb, under the assumption that a tall riser is needed anyway, to reduce craning of the head.

thanks

[the_tacticallopath]

I've been following Rhett's work for a while and I chatted with him a little about suggestions for a 9mm platform. With his input, I settled on a Stribog SP9A3G pistol. I have it set up as a cheekweld pistol I'm branding as "CheekBog." After some zeroing and taking a semi-supported position in an indoor range, it put this group on paper at 20 yards. I have more content up on IG and FB already, but will follow up with more here as well.

94535

[the_tacticallopath]

Unsupported 20yd work from cheekweld.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHolakF-Rc&ab_channel=TacticallopathMedia

[the_tacticallopath]

Trying a Rumble link as well...


https://rumble.com/v1kmizv-20-yard-work-with-cheekbog.html

[the_tacticallopath]

I wonder if the Grandpower Stribog could work as a cheek weld pistol. I am at least confident that they work consistently. My primary issue is that I'm a lefty and I'm a little paranoid about taking a lot of brass to the face. This could be a dumb worry, I'm not really sure

See the above, my man. It works gangbusters. I went for the SP9A3G, but I may switch the lower one day for an A3 receiver that I can attach a more vertical grip to and run CZ mags. The biggest ergonomics pain with the factory lower running it from cheekweld is the grip angle.

[wmu12071]

97133

Rhett posted this a few days ago. I don't know if it is just because I have a 22/45 or because I didn't want to buy the Keltec but this is very interesting to me. I have a pic mount coming for my 22/45 and I will be seeing If I have an optic to try this. If I try it and it shows any promise I will be buying a new 22/45. My current example has a loaded chamber indicator. (and lacks a threaded barrel but if my wife asks its all about safety) I have seen inward pressure on the loaded chamber indicator stop the round going into the chamber and cause an out of battery discharge. Because the shooter was shooting with a "normal" stance it just cause a burn mark and pain on the side of the left thumb but the same happening to the cheek seems like way less fun.

Edited to say: With a few people around the only thing we can think of causing the issue was the LCI. The round was stopped against it and there was a mark on the casing when we got it out. I don't want to derail this thread into that topic.

[Clusterfrack]

…22/45. My current example has a loaded chamber indicator. (and lacks a threaded barrel but if my wife asks its all about safety) I have seen inward pressure on the loaded chamber indicator stop the round going into the chamber and cause an out of battery discharge. Because the shooter was shooting with a "normal" stance it just cause a burn mark and pain on the side of the left thumb but the same happening to the cheek seems like way less fun.

Edited to say: With a few people around the only thing we can think of causing the issue was the LCI. The round was stopped against it and there was a mark on the casing when we got it out. I don't want to derail this thread into that topic.

https://www.tandemkross.com/LCI-Replacement-for-Ruger[emoji2400]-MKIII[emoji769]-and-MKIII[emoji769]-2245[emoji769]--Black_p_16.html

[psalms144.1]

I keep trying to warm to this concept, but, so far, it's not "doing it" for me. I shoot tighter/faster groups out to 25 yards with standard handgun than any "cheek weld" variation I've tried in equivalent caliber. When I push to 50/100 yards, the accuracy with the "cheek gun" is totally behind a 16" barrel rifle or PCC. So, unless I'm going to be doing room clearing in my house, where's the niche for this?

[wmu12071]

https://www.tandemkross.com/LCI-Replacement-for-Ruger[emoji2400]-MKIII[emoji769]-and-MKIII[emoji769]-2245[emoji769]--Black_p_16.html

I found it. That link got messed up some how. Thank you sir.

[Gun Mutt]

My 5" CMMG Banshee in 9mm seems like an ideal candidate, but I'm damned if I can find any info on a buffer tube to replace the brace.

Please bear in mind that any suggestions should be typed slowly and use small words; I barely understand Glocks and AK's, the Banshee is the only AR anything I own.

[Gun Mutt]

Bueller....?

[HeavyDuty]

I’m not familiar with that specific PCC. How long is the current receiver extension?

Edit - this is typical for a full carbine RE length pistol extension: https://www.aimsurplus.com/products/bcm-pistol-receiver-extension-buffer-tube

[Gun Mutt]

And then I finally had the brilliant idea to contact the actual manufacturer...gawd, but I'm slow sometimes. CMMG rep assures me it's plug-n-play.

https://cmmg.com/receiver-extension-kit-pistol

[mikey357]

And then I finally had the brilliant idea to contact the actual manufacturer...gawd, but I'm slow sometimes. CMMG rep assures me it's plug-n-play.

https://cmmg.com/receiver-extension-kit-pistol

Curious how LONG that CMMG Pistol Receiver Extension is?

[JHC]

And then I finally had the brilliant idea to contact the actual manufacturer...gawd, but I'm slow sometimes. CMMG rep assures me it's plug-n-play.

https://cmmg.com/receiver-extension-kit-pistol

necro reply posting to find out how this worked out for you. Now that the dust seems to have settled, the braceless AR pistols are still viable with cheekweld I take it.

[Gun Mutt]

Fwiw, I shoot my lil' Banshee better with the cheekweld than I ever did trying to crowd myself behind the OEM brace it came with.