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)Originally Posted by Rex G
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)
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
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?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
In one of the youtube vid comments he talks about a right side only charging handle.
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
It might not be as new as you might think...
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.
3/15/2016
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.
Getting the optic up higher isn't exactly new, either...
https://images.guns.com/wordpress/20..._GIGN_team.jpg
3/15/2016
Getting the optic up higher isn't exactly new, either...
https://images.guns.com/wordpress/20..._GIGN_team.jpg
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.
Reply With Quote