Rifle shooting fundamentals

Sparks

Reposted with permission:

Attached is two very good write-ups from the NI Coach, M Mace, about a few fundamentals of shooting.

Take, read and inwardly digest.

See, I do remember stuff from when I was at Sunday School

Click the downloads and print them off, just one page each download.

They're quite decent introductions, well worth the read even if you think you can shoot already :pac:

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Reposted with permission:


They're quite decent introductions, well worth the read even if you think you can shoot already :pac:

With a few modern words "wii etc"
It's almost identical to several articles I have read before

For "me" the most difficult part of competition shooting, is when I am doing well I either lose my bottle and get the heebe jeebies

Or that I have a jam that wrecks my flow.
Although I shot two rabbits in less than 5 seconds the other day just because I thought the other guy would have missed so took the pressure off me for a 200 yard shot

I have used Digital equipment to analyse my shot and it was almost perfect, except I released 1 second after the shot where 3 seconds (I think it was 3) made a more accurate shot.

The equipment I was using was made by Sagittarius thales in the UK for the record.

However it was of immense use to the newbies as it showed them that they were holding the rifle crooked and loosely, snapping the shot, and shaking like a leaf.

Sparks

Don't diss the Wii. That Wii Fit thingy has a balance exercise that's not to be sniffed at by standing shooters...

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Don't diss the Wii. That Wii Fit thingy has a balance exercise that's not to be sniffed at by standing shooters...

Try going out in the fields with a 1 stone rig, or cycling or free weights.

Beautiful day out!

I've a 1.5 mile walk ahead of me to collect my car from my mechanic in a while.
Beats wii fit any day, as it's fresh air and it's free.

Either that or do 40 press ups ever day.(do in 4 sets of 10 if body mass is an issue)
Another very effective way of building upper body strength.

The DF figured out the cheapest way of fitness.
40 sit up's; 40 press-ups and a 2 mile run each day :eek:

Sparks

Tack, none of those things will help your balance.
As to weightlifting, it's not really that useful for target shooting. Cardio, yes. Big muscles that will happily twitch a rifle from the ten ring clear over to the far side of the range? Not so much.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, none of those things will help your balance.
As to weightlifting, it's not really that useful for target shooting. Cardio, yes. Big muscles that will happily twitch a rifle from the ten ring clear over to the far side of the range? Not so much.

Cycling a bike won't help balance?
try doing it with no hands
I can ride a motor bike with no hands too

The slower your heart can beat the less the shake.
Friend of mine who won several all army comp's also ran marathons.

His heart beats very slow as normal and as a result his off hand shot is amazing.

In regards to Target shooting vs weight lifting, shooting a 1 stone rig is much easier if you have upper body strength, particarly in the fore arms and wrists.

Mr.Flibble

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

In regards to Target shooting vs weight lifting, shooting a 1 stone rig is much easier if you have upper body strength, particarly in the fore arms and wrists.

You don't know a whole lot about real target rifle shooting, do you?

You should get a decent book on the subject and look up "bone support". You might learn something.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Cycling a bike won't help balance?

No, it won't, even if you do it with no hands.
Put it this way - what we normally do for balance training are arabesques. With our eyes shut. Compared to that, riding a bike isn't even in the same league.

The slower your heart can beat the less the shake.

Makes no odds. My heartrate's usually quite high in a match. You just learn to cope with it. You think someone shooting in the Olympics has a heartrate of 50bpm? 150, maybe

His heart beats very slow as normal and as a result his off hand shot is amazing.

That's not why his shooting's so good, I'd wager. Most marathon runners have a nearly ideal physique for target shooting - low weight, strong lower body, not much in the way of upper body muscles to get in the way, and good endurance. Heartrate doesn't really come into it much, not unless you spike past 160bpm just putting on the kit.

In regards to Target shooting vs weight lifting, shooting a 1 stone rig is much easier if you have upper body strength, particarly in the fore arms and wrists.

I think you might be doing it wrong there tack. Your muscles aren't meant to be taking the weight of the rifle, your bones are:


Arm-out like that is just never ever going to be as good as arm-back (for target shooting at a single static target at least). No matter how much work you put into it, if you put the same amount of work into the arm-back position, you'll get better results. The only people I've seen shoot that way are running target shooters and some silhouette shooters, the former because the target moves, the latter because they were shooting at several targets in succession.

Tackleberrywho

That's the way I have shot off hand for years.
I have been a member of a Target club since 2000, I was given a few tips down the years.

I can hold my rifle one handed with the aid of a short sling and my elbow canted upwards if required.

I have developed a Target/hunting stance that is very effective for off hand shooting out hunting.

Not always will a prone shot work because of the lay of the land.

I will never admit that the WII FIT is better than old fashioned techniques, all the WII Fit is a marketing gimic IMHO

The best natural Clay Shot I ever saw was a goalkeeper.
First time he every shot clays he was dusting them, not breaking them, DUSTING them.
Everybody who had been shooting years was jealous as fcuk

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I will never admit that the WII FIT is better than old fashioned techniques, all the WII Fit is a marketing gimic IMHO

/facepalm
Tack, the wii fit is acting as a cheap digital balance board. Before this point, the only bit of kit I knew of that let you see using a computer what your balance was really like (rather than what you fool yourself into thinking it's like) cost about ten grand and was a research project. With the wii fit, you can stand there in full kit with the rifle and get actual readings on your sway and balance, actually measure them.

That's the point of it for shooters.
It's not a get-fit device.
It's a RIKA for your balance.
And that's what I was trying to explain in one line above by saying it was useful for balance work.

Tackleberrywho

Ah yer auld friends Accelerometers
Is it accurate though.
I have a spirit level on my phone, but it is far from accurate. (by my standards at least)

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Ah yer auld friends Accelerometers

Nope, done with force sensors.

Is it accurate though.

It's accurate enough to track the kind of sway you have when shooting offhand, at least to a level where it'd be useful. I've not been able to try it live-firing on the range, only doing balance exercises on it. I've been thinking of buying one as a training rig using this setup to read the wii fit board directly in to a PC instead of a wii and a tv.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UciZLl2Hk

sikastag

Training in your barefeet helps balance in general. Especially in sand or similar substrates, strenghtens a lot of muscles in your feet and lower legs. Not so sure how much use it would be for prone target shooting. But milling about in your barefeet helps a lot I find. Even if you do a test of standing on one foot for a while. Its amazing how wobbly people can be - me included. Look after your ears too if you need balance! Oh ya. cheers for the two articles.

FISMA

Is the lad in the picture supposed to be a hunter or a target shooter?

It looks as if he is using see through rings - like a hunter would want if a close up shot presents and the scope is useless.

Sparks

It was the only photo I could find that showed both the right way and the less-right way to do it FISMA

Tackleberrywho

FISMA wrote: »

Is the lad in the picture supposed to be a hunter or a target shooter?

It looks as if he is using see through rings - like a hunter would want if a close up shot presents and the scope is useless.

The scope is a mile high alright

Had they shown a sing with his elbow in it would have been better too.

I got Edi Graef to make the base of my PSE stock extra flat so It sits like a plank of timer for offhand.
Not like those roundy mooney types designed for show and not for practicality.
It's one of the reasons I don't like CZ design (mag location) as I find Remmy,Tikka,Sako etc way more comfortable off hand

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The scope is a mile high alright
Had they shown a sing with his elbow in it would have been better too.

Neither of those things matter at all - the points of the photo were (a) the position of his left arm, and in particular the elbow; and (b) the way his skeleton is lined up - arm out, there's no skeletal support for the rifle; arm in, the weight goes down through his left forearm bones and into the main skeleton. If he was a she, that'd go through the hip bone (female pelvic bones flare more than male pelvic bones - men generally can't get that left elbow on the hip, some women can and have a massive advantage as a result in standing shooting), but since it's a he it's going through the ribcage in compression and the shoulder joint in tension. But either way, you have solid skeletal support for the rifle's weight from the ground to the rifle.

I got Edi Graef to make the base of my PSE stock extra flat so It sits like a plank of timer for offhand.
Not like those roundy mooney types designed for show and not for practicality.

Is your hand perfectly flat?
I don't mean do you think it's kindof flat, I mean, is your hand as flat as a flat metal plate over the entire surface that will be in contact with the rifle?

The "roundy mooney" types are built that way for a reason. People have asked why I cant the rifle so much in air rifle - it's because the base of the foreend is flat and my hand isn't, so I have to cant it over to use the rounded corner of the foreend.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Neither of those things matter at all - the points of the photo were (a) the position of his left arm, and in particular the elbow; and (b) the way his skeleton is lined up - arm out, there's no skeletal support for the rifle; arm in, the weight goes down through his left forearm bones and into the main skeleton. If he was a she, that'd go through the hip bone (female pelvic bones flare more than male pelvic bones - men generally can't get that left elbow on the hip, some women can and have a massive advantage as a result in standing shooting), but since it's a he it's going through the ribcage in compression and the shoulder joint in tension. But either way, you have solid skeletal support for the rifle's weight from the ground to the rifle.
I never mentioned females, as most Hunters are males. Hunting Rifles are designed for the masses, not the minorities, The lack of left handed versions is a prime example of this.........

Is your hand perfectly flat?
I don't mean do you think it's kindof flat, I mean, is your hand as flat as a flat metal plate over the entire surface that will be in contact with the rifle?
Yes my hand is flatter than others, and that is why a flat section suits me

The "roundy mooney" types are built that way for a reason. People have asked why I cant the rifle so much in air rifle - it's because the base of the foreend is flat and my hand isn't, so I have to cant it over to use the rounded corner of the foreend.

They build "roundy mooney" fore ends as it uses less material than square, is more aeseticaly pleasing, easier pour Polymers and is cheaper to make.

The picture is of a hunting rifle after all, who's primary job is to be like Dulux
Beautiful but tough

A hunting rifle (my .223) is ~14lbs with scope,mounts,rings,bipod and mod on board. It is quite flat, not as flat as my PSE though(might be worked on yet)

Which is heavier that ISSF rifles,as recoil is larger one needs to have a slightly different stance as an air gunner, especially as no "special" jackets are worn
So...........
The Flat palm foreend on my PSE stock is a godsend.
The CZ does NOT suit this method IMHO



Where as the Remington and sako do; because of the flat, drop floor plate. As opposed to the sticking out mag of a CZ



So my points are very valid for choosing a Hunting rifle for offhand target shooting competitions.

It wasn't me!

ISSF rifles are typically heavier than 14 lbs. Mine is probably 7 odd kilos anyway with the tube on and fully kitted out. Women typically shoot a sport rifle around 6kg (upper limit is 6.5) while men's rifles may be heavier, up to 8kg. In terms of stance, ISSF centrefire rifle shooting positiion doesn't differ from standing smallbore or air rifle. It's what works for formal target shooting with the ergonomically suitable rifles. Sporting rifles require different mechanics to provide support, but the different positions will never be as consistently stable as those principles applied to standing free rifle as practised in ISSF competition.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks can't be talking about centrefire as he only shoots .177;)


In the field the use of special jackets (other than rain coats) is not permitted

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Women shoot a lighter rifle?
A bit sexist don't ya think?
Any Army shoot I was ever at; the women shot the same rifles, same details, and often times won

Call the ISSF. as to the army, women don't have the same qualifying time for the entry run either, so differentiation based on sex isn't confined to this sport.

Sparks can't be talking about centrefire as he only shoots .177;)

no, you brought recoil into it, and I responded that in competition, it doesn't change the method of support used.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Sparks can't be talking about centrefire as he only shoots .177;)

Doesn't matter if it's air, smallbore or fullbore - there are only minor variations in the position for offhand shooting between all of them.

In the field the use of special jackets (other than rain coats) is not permitted

And on the range, we don't shoot one shot from a tree branch rest or sticks. Take away my jacket/boots/trousers and I can still shoot a ten - but not sixty of them. Maybe twenty before I'd tweak my back again.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

They build "roundy mooney" fore ends as it uses less material than square, is more aeseticaly pleasing, easier pour Polymers and is cheaper to make.

The last few years have seen ISSF foreends go from flat planks of things to "roundy moundy" things because they fit the hand better.
Maybe there's an aesthetic appeal to some, but the basics are that it does the job better.

The picture is of a hunting rifle after all

And again, I didn't choose it because it had a hunting rifle. I chose it because it showed the right way and the less-right way to shoot offhand. The rifle type is pretty much immaterial.

A hunting rifle (my .223) is ~14lbs with scope,mounts,rings,bipod and mod on board. It is quite flat, not as flat as my PSE though(might be worked on yet)

And you shoot one shot. An ISSF rifle is 12lb or so and we shoot 60 match shots, plus however many sighters and dry firing runs we'd take - you're looking at holding the rifle up for a little over two hours in total. So the odds that the way we (and by the way, everyone else too) hold our rifles in offhand is broken are pretty slim.

Which is heavier that ISSF rifles,as recoil is larger one needs to have a slightly different stance as an air gunner, especially as no "special" jackets are worn

Bullcrap.
300m ISSF and 50m ISSF and 10m ISSF standing shooting look so similar you need to be told where to look to point out the differences, all of which come down to about 2-3 inches of movement of the buttplate along the right arm (for a right-handed shooter). And if you look at any other offhanded shooting at static targets, they'll be doing the same thing as ISSF shooters do with skeletal support for the rifle, because the offhand position has the same challanges regardless of the event.

It wasn't me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQIGdY5pfCA

The standing position, because it works.

bazza888

why do they hold the the rifle with only the bottom part of the butt into the shoulder,iv seen a video somewhere with marine marksmen shooting a comp with civilians in us and they were all holding the rifles with just the bottom tip of the butt into the shoulder

Sparks

Exactly - BTW, those NRA coats are too restrictive to be used in ISSF matches. So next time you think airgunners can't shoot without their jackets, remember that the lads shooting M1s and AR15s need more support

It wasn't me!

bazza888 wrote: »

why do they hold the the rifle with only the bottom part of the butt into the shoulder,iv seen a video somewhere with marine marksmen shooting a comp with civilians in us and they were all holding the rifles with just the bottom tip of the butt into the shoulder

It's a compromise. In this case, upright head position trumps shoulder contact. Obviously it's a little less punishing with a .223 than with a .30-06. Frankly I don't fancy taking that sort of punishment from a Garand like the teenage girl in that video, but clearly isn't hurting her too badly.

bazza888

its to get a good head position using the iron sights?the marines were using unscoped rifles in the vid i saw also come to think of it

Sparks

bazza888 wrote: »

why do they hold the the rifle with only the bottom part of the butt into the shoulder,iv seen a video somewhere with marine marksmen shooting a comp with civilians in us and they were all holding the rifles with just the bottom tip of the butt into the shoulder

Because you can't drop the buttplate down low enough to get the full buttplate in contact with the shoulder on an M1 or something similar while your cheek's in contact with the cheekpiece. And if the rifle's up high like that, it can go straight across the top of your ribcage, minimising the angle between barrel and a line through your shoulders (the smaller that angle, the better, for the most part). That might be why the SCAR is shaped the way it is.

bazza888

how do you mean straight across the top of your rib cage?

Cass

Rather than close the entire thread i've edited and removed all non relevant posts. With the amount of quotes and cross over of points some posts had to be removed.

Keep on topic, and attack/address the post(s) not the poster(s).

Sparks

bazza888 wrote: »

how do you mean straight across the top of your rib cage?

The idea is that the bottom of the foreend goes across the ribcage at about the level of the collarbone. If it went across it any lower, the angle between the barrel and the line through the shoulders couldn't be made smaller because of the ribs: