Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Nose to Charging Handle / Optimal Carbine Stock Length?

  1. #1

    Nose to Charging Handle / Optimal Carbine Stock Length?

    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....eference/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!
    Last edited by Sanch; 03-08-2020 at 01:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Nose to charging handle is simply a way to teach large numbers of lowest common denominator people how to maintain consistent cheek weld. There is nothing magic about it. Consistent cheek weld is always a good thing but more critical with irons than with optics.

    Shooting squared up is inefficient body mechanics. Trading this efficiency for the protection of plates can be a logical trade off. Shooting squared up without plates is illogical.

    The old adage of “shoot as much rifle as possible” speaks to the efficiency of shooting a full stock, or as close to it as practical. I prefer to shoot the rifle one way, just like the handgun, and not switch between close range and longer range modes.
    Last edited by HCM; 03-08-2020 at 01:27 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Shooting squared up is inefficient body mechanics. Trading this efficiency for the protection of plates can be a logical trade off. Shooting squared up without plates is illogical.
    Oh dang I’m not sure if I explained my stance poorly or if that’s another thing I’m doing wrong!

    I’m not exactly square like feet side by side, I’m in a Muay Thai kind of stance with hips square ahead and my right strong hand has the right leg back a bit. I think this is the correct way to shoot pistol. Maybe it’s called modified isosceles but I’m not too sure. Anyway it’s how I train for empty hand defense, pistol, carbine and shotgun so it keeps the stance the same. I use push pull on shotgun and the magpul stock is pretty short and recoil is fine just fine.

    I assume it best to have one universal fighting stance and also it seems best to be able to move from. So if I’m wrong in this please point me to the correct stance! Or maybe I just described it poorly at first and this is correct but I named it wrong.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    I wouldn’t worry too much about the dogma surrounding bladed vs squared. However...

    Specific to you NTCH challenge, if you’re running the stock one or two clicks out and going NTCH you’re going to be just about forced into a “squared” stance. If you run the stock out further (say, to A1 length, which happens to be what I personally like), your going to be almost forced into a bladed stance. If you try to run 1 click out and bladed or 1 click in and square, you may find it uncomfortable.

    Imo once you have some fundamentals down and all of your sight alignment and trigger press and manipulation stuff is pretty much sub-conscious competence level, the rest all becomes about what’s comfortable and what works for you. Until you get there, you’re at the mercy of your chosen shaman. If your guy doesn’t seem to get what I outlined above, I’d either ask him directly about it or look for a new religion.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanch View Post
    I assume it best to have one universal fighting stance and also it seems best to be able to move from. So if I’m wrong in this please point me to the correct stance! Or maybe I just described it poorly at first and this is correct but I named it wrong.
    I’m not a “combatives” guy but I don’t agree with this (used to, don’t now). I don’t sit the same in a car vs a truck but I can drive either just as easily. I would look to optimize “stance” based on the task at hand, not hamstring various tasks by forcing them all into one stance.

  6. #6
    A purpose of a check weld is not to get one's head positioned on a rifle consistently for the sake of consistency. It is to position your eye behind your sighting apparatus. I've about half dozen of various military style carbines and rifles, and ntch doesn't work with any one of them for me.
    Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.

  7. #7
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia
    My take on stance is that you should be able to shoot when you're not in your default stance. The lower body shouldn't be constrained to one position. Check out this Max Leograndis video:


    @YVK, I agree that cheek weld gets your optic aligned with your eye, but it's also a big part of your index. So alignment and consistency are kind of the same thing.

    Also... it's been interesting watching Ben Stoeger learn to shoot ARs.
    https://www.facebook.com/PracticalPi...3126412313916/
    Last edited by Clusterfrack; 03-08-2020 at 12:12 PM.
    “There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie

  8. #8
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    My take on stance is that you should be able to shoot when you're not in your default stance. The lower body shouldn't be constrained to one position.
    I agree.

    However...

    there is a trend, or there was up until recently, away from any sort of stance guidance or training because "you're never going to be in your ideal stance in a match/fight/real-world/RAHOWA/whatever." I don't disagree with that. What I *do* disagree with is the idea that this somehow means we should teach, learn, or train on an ideal. IMO a shooter needs the fundamentals of perfect position shooting in order to re-build from that base when perfect isn't available. A new shooter should learn proper seated, squat, braced kneel, quick kneel, etc. it wasn't until I learned and had a good foundation in these techniques that I was truly able to adapt to less-than-ideal situations. I could approach something like a 9-hole wall and realize "port 6 works best if I utilize a combination of quick kneel and SBU prone." Yeah, I might have figured that out on my own, but having the fundamentals down first really helped speed me into it vs. reinventing the wheel.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    I’m about as low speed / high drag as it comes, and I shoot NTCH for consistency. I’ve been doing it for years (even during the ban era, when I had M4 stocks pinned partially collapsed) and would probably have problems changing to bladed now.

    I might well feel differently if I was a higher round carbine shooter or a competitor. I rarely break 5000 carbine rounds per year.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I agree.

    However...

    there is a trend, or there was up until recently, away from any sort of stance guidance or training because "you're never going to be in your ideal stance in a match/fight/real-world/RAHOWA/whatever." I don't disagree with that. What I *do* disagree with is the idea that this somehow means we should teach, learn, or train on an ideal. IMO a shooter needs the fundamentals of perfect position shooting in order to re-build from that base when perfect isn't available. A new shooter should learn proper seated, squat, braced kneel, quick kneel, etc. it wasn't until I learned and had a good foundation in these techniques that I was truly able to adapt to less-than-ideal situations. I could approach something like a 9-hole wall and realize "port 6 works best if I utilize a combination of quick kneel and SBU prone." Yeah, I might have figured that out on my own, but having the fundamentals down first really helped speed me into it vs. reinventing the wheel.
    Good fundamentals also does most of the aiming, getting the shooter on target quicker. Fundamentals helps the shooter get hits if the sights go down. I watched a service rifle match shooter sling up in the prone with an M14, align the sights, close his eyes and fire ten rounds. He kept all ten rounds inside the 9 ring on a reduced target at 100 yards.
    We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •