Demonstrated Concepts Cheek Weld

[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.

[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.

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