I'd like to speak up for my former service here. Not defending this, but putting it into context.
Of all the services, the Navy is the most backwards when it comes to small arms. As a service, blue water sailors are still stuck in the 1960s when it comes to training, equipment, and mindset. As a class, the admirals that drive training and equipment at the shipboard operational level are the least informed, least trained people out of all the services. Ships are only allowed to have what equipment they are authorized to have, and this equipment is not decided on by firearm enthusiasts. For example, when I retired in 2014, the armed security sentries were wandering around with M-16A3s, which are standard M-16A2 rifles with a full auto (safe/semi/auto) fire control group installed instead of the A2 fire control group (which is safe/semi/burst), and flat top upper receivers. These poor bastards are required to use the bolt on carry handle iron sights, and are not authorized to use the excellent M68CCO Aimpoint red dot sight that the Army has been issuing by the hundreds of thousands for over a decade.
In the case of this photo, the armorer who put that rifle together is at fault. The person shooting it is the ship's CO, who almost certainly doesn't own his own firearms, and is possibly qualified to shoot it, but is not trained in a proper stance.
The hand on the shoulder is in case the skipper lets the rifle get away from him when he shoots it full auto, which, if you look closely, the selector switch is on. Commercial ranges that rent machine guns do the same thing, they always have a range safety behind the shooter who rents a machine gun, because n00bs who have never fired one before are always surprised how hard they recoil.
As a guy who has hundreds of hours of formal instruction on carbines, and has spent thousands of dollars on training and equipment, let me tell you what else is wrong with that picture that the tweet doesn't describe:
stock is all the way out, which makes it far too long for most people to shoot properly
the railed forend is not on all the way, if you look close it is crooked. The back part of the top half is not fully seated into the D ring. The design of that rail is intended for use with stock issue rifles with the stock handguard mounts on the barrel, and comes in 2 pieces. The top half goes on first, and then the bottom half.
the vertical foregrip is way too far back, and is not intended to be used with a beer can grip like that. Holding a VFG like that gives less vertical and lateral control of the barrel. VFGs are used primarily as a hand stop, so you have a consistent place to put your off hand. Point the thumb of your off hand towards the target and use a C clamp type hold on the forend, this gives you much more control of the rifle for movement between targets, and lets you mitigate recoil.
Stance is bladed, like at a Camp Perry high power shooting match. That is not a fighting stance, it presents the left arm hole of worn body armor to the enemy, and exposes your left lung and heart to enemy fire, negating wearing of armor in the first place. Shoulders should be square to the target, presenting your front armor plate to the target straight on so as to protect the most of your vital organs. That means collapsing the buttstock to one or two clicks out
The mass media specialists that took this photo are even less well trained than the man shooting the rifle. They don't know much of anything about small arms, unless they are gun nuts like I was, and then, if they were, they would have caught this photo and never published it.
In short, this photo doesnt surprise me. I know the general level of training in the fleet, both on the user and armorer level, and to say it is lacking is understating it.
As it should be. Even short dudes can shoot like that - training tells you to keep the stock fully extended and use an L stance when shooting standing, UNTIL you put on armor. When wearing armor you then shorten the stock and use a wider stance. But initial basic rifle training does involve full open stock, and everyone not a midget can actually shoot fine with that. That is what the army trains.
Your training may differ out of convenience for civilians, but the collapsible stock is not for user arm comfort, it is for compensating when wearing armor vests, which prevent normal shouldering. Everyone could shoot fine using a full length stock before the collapsible was introduced - standard service rifles for the hundred+ years before the m4 were issued worked fine.
I run my Magpul MOE one click out from fully collapsed even when I dont have armor on, and I'm 6'5" with long arms. I do that for manipulation reasons, and for movement, especially shooting while moving. Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less.
And then it doesn't line up at all with how you have to use it with armor, when you can't shoulder it properly. You also get an inconsistent sight picture between the two. It matters less with modern optics than it does with irons, but fuckabout tacticool room clearing drills and practical marksmanship are different things.
Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less
That entire sentence is word vomit with no effective meaning. You aren't doing long range shooting while standing, and indoors that is a completely irrelevant metric.
Lemme guess, it's some bullshit sbr with no effective use beyond 100 yards, too. The ATF going mad over them is one of their greatest tricks - convinced tens of thousands of retards to intentionally buy shit rifles.
Nope, 14'5" with a pinned Battlecomp 2.0. I'm not a believer in shorty ARs, because I want my fragmentation range to be as long as possible. I use a clone of Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 1 for my "social" ammo, so out of a 14.5" that keeps me reasonable close to 200m fragmentation range. I just built a modernized 20 inch musket, too, complete with A2 fixed sights. Just because. ;)
I'd like to speak up for my former service here. Not defending this, but putting it into context.
Of all the services, the Navy is the most backwards when it comes to small arms. As a service, blue water sailors are still stuck in the 1960s when it comes to training, equipment, and mindset. As a class, the admirals that drive training and equipment at the shipboard operational level are the least informed, least trained people out of all the services. Ships are only allowed to have what equipment they are authorized to have, and this equipment is not decided on by firearm enthusiasts. For example, when I retired in 2014, the armed security sentries were wandering around with M-16A3s, which are standard M-16A2 rifles with a full auto (safe/semi/auto) fire control group installed instead of the A2 fire control group (which is safe/semi/burst), and flat top upper receivers. These poor bastards are required to use the bolt on carry handle iron sights, and are not authorized to use the excellent M68CCO Aimpoint red dot sight that the Army has been issuing by the hundreds of thousands for over a decade.
In the case of this photo, the armorer who put that rifle together is at fault. The person shooting it is the ship's CO, who almost certainly doesn't own his own firearms, and is possibly qualified to shoot it, but is not trained in a proper stance.
The hand on the shoulder is in case the skipper lets the rifle get away from him when he shoots it full auto, which, if you look closely, the selector switch is on. Commercial ranges that rent machine guns do the same thing, they always have a range safety behind the shooter who rents a machine gun, because n00bs who have never fired one before are always surprised how hard they recoil.
As a guy who has hundreds of hours of formal instruction on carbines, and has spent thousands of dollars on training and equipment, let me tell you what else is wrong with that picture that the tweet doesn't describe:
stock is all the way out, which makes it far too long for most people to shoot properly
the railed forend is not on all the way, if you look close it is crooked. The back part of the top half is not fully seated into the D ring. The design of that rail is intended for use with stock issue rifles with the stock handguard mounts on the barrel, and comes in 2 pieces. The top half goes on first, and then the bottom half.
the vertical foregrip is way too far back, and is not intended to be used with a beer can grip like that. Holding a VFG like that gives less vertical and lateral control of the barrel. VFGs are used primarily as a hand stop, so you have a consistent place to put your off hand. Point the thumb of your off hand towards the target and use a C clamp type hold on the forend, this gives you much more control of the rifle for movement between targets, and lets you mitigate recoil.
Stance is bladed, like at a Camp Perry high power shooting match. That is not a fighting stance, it presents the left arm hole of worn body armor to the enemy, and exposes your left lung and heart to enemy fire, negating wearing of armor in the first place. Shoulders should be square to the target, presenting your front armor plate to the target straight on so as to protect the most of your vital organs. That means collapsing the buttstock to one or two clicks out
The mass media specialists that took this photo are even less well trained than the man shooting the rifle. They don't know much of anything about small arms, unless they are gun nuts like I was, and then, if they were, they would have caught this photo and never published it.
In short, this photo doesnt surprise me. I know the general level of training in the fleet, both on the user and armorer level, and to say it is lacking is understating it.
As it should be. Even short dudes can shoot like that - training tells you to keep the stock fully extended and use an L stance when shooting standing, UNTIL you put on armor. When wearing armor you then shorten the stock and use a wider stance. But initial basic rifle training does involve full open stock, and everyone not a midget can actually shoot fine with that. That is what the army trains.
Your training may differ out of convenience for civilians, but the collapsible stock is not for user arm comfort, it is for compensating when wearing armor vests, which prevent normal shouldering. Everyone could shoot fine using a full length stock before the collapsible was introduced - standard service rifles for the hundred+ years before the m4 were issued worked fine.
I run my Magpul MOE one click out from fully collapsed even when I dont have armor on, and I'm 6'5" with long arms. I do that for manipulation reasons, and for movement, especially shooting while moving. Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less.
And then it doesn't line up at all with how you have to use it with armor, when you can't shoulder it properly. You also get an inconsistent sight picture between the two. It matters less with modern optics than it does with irons, but fuckabout tacticool room clearing drills and practical marksmanship are different things.
That entire sentence is word vomit with no effective meaning. You aren't doing long range shooting while standing, and indoors that is a completely irrelevant metric.
Lemme guess, it's some bullshit sbr with no effective use beyond 100 yards, too. The ATF going mad over them is one of their greatest tricks - convinced tens of thousands of retards to intentionally buy shit rifles.
Nope, 14'5" with a pinned Battlecomp 2.0. I'm not a believer in shorty ARs, because I want my fragmentation range to be as long as possible. I use a clone of Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 1 for my "social" ammo, so out of a 14.5" that keeps me reasonable close to 200m fragmentation range. I just built a modernized 20 inch musket, too, complete with A2 fixed sights. Just because. ;)