Karma Shooter, Looking at our Body Position

[Lowlight]

Okay we did a live on this topic as this is something we are looking at more and more. We already know we are going to higher rings. The AR15 world has going to higher Risers and now the bolt action world should follow. For a while now I have been taking about 1.375" to 1.55" as the rings I look for today. I don't go low, I stay high to keep my head up. Well saying this repeatedly has lead to Chris getting a 1" AR Riser for his bolt gun.

So this week I jumped in to look at this and felt it was better. My biggest concern was prone, and prone even for me was very comfortable.

I wanted to talk about this, today Chris and I jumped on a LIVE and recorded our thoughts.



The graphic Chris drew is a touch light on the screen, so here is the image.

For reference:

Measurement for Chris was 7"
Measurement for Me was 5"
The Rifles averaged 3.75" with the Knights being the lowest at 2.75" scope over bore height.

This is a thought, an experiment, so we want to your opinions ... we know the immediate negatives what are some we might have missed ?

 

[EbTac]

I'm pretty sure Keith Baker has been running pretty tall rings for awhile. I know in one podcast he talked about experimenting with even taller rings than 1.5" height. I know I currently run 1.125 height and honestly wish I had bought taller for the comfort when going prone. Shorter rings definitely put a strain on my neck and it's annoying. I really don't see any draw backs atleast none that I know of going to super tall rings. But the other side you look at austin buschman and he runs really low rings and is very successful. But your definitely on to something about getting more comfortable and having to body position and eye position more upright with the occular.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I've been a proponent of high mounts in precision rifles as well as carbines.....for several years now. There really are no serious cons (the biggest would be some height over bore issues with carbine that are very easy to deal with).

There's just not much negative as our eyes are in the front of our head and want to be looking forward. Anything the works towards that natural "need" is going to end up working out pretty well.

With precision rifles it also lets us get the stock closer to the middle of our chest. Which, just like a handgun where you'd want your hand directly behind the barrel if you could, you want your chest directly behind the barrel of a rifle if you could.


Entertainingly enough, the biggest reason people on the inter webs use to argue against tall mounts on any kind of rifle is aesthetics. There is almost never an actual negative reason given that affects performance (that isn't trivial). And I've never met anyone yet that didn't find higher mounts much more comfortable after they tried them.


High mounts are the future (they are the "now" for anyone who keeps up with the best modern tactics).....the people who aren't using them are just late to the party.

 

[Emerson0311]

I've been a proponent of high mounts in precision rifles as well as carbines.....for several years now. There really are no serious cons (the biggest would be some height over bore issues with carbine that are very easy to deal with).

There's just not much negative as our eyes are in the front of our head and want to be looking forward. Anything the works towards that natural "need" is going to end up working out pretty well.

With precision rifles it also lets us get the stock closer to the middle of our chest. Which, just like a handgun where you'd want your hand directly behind the barrel if you could, you want your chest directly behind the barrel of a rifle if you could.


Entertainingly enough, the biggest reason people on the inter webs use to argue against tall mounts on any kind of rifle is aesthetics. There is almost never an actual negative reason given that affects performance (that isn't trivial). And I've never met anyone yet that didn't find higher mounts much more comfortable after they tried them.


High mounts are the future (they are the "now" for anyone who keeps up with the best modern tactics).....the people who aren't using them are just late to the party.

This is what works for me too.

 

[Lowlight]

We know high is better everything lately is 1.5” and it’s better, but this idea of adding an 1” to 1.5” is the part that changes it to the next level.

Sure lots of 1.5” guys, but now, add the inch. 1.45” is where they are for clip ons too 1.45 to 1.54 usually so an increase over that

The key is looking at Chris’ head and neck as he addresses the other heights , my rifle the green ATX chassis is the Area419 at 1.5”

 

[CK1.0]

IMHO IDK if it’s necessarily about getting taller rings for everyone… to me it’s more about getting/having a neutral “heads up” position where one’s head isn’t cocked over to the side, so our heads can remain more square with our shoulders.

In some cases with some setups, tall-ass rings/mounts can sometimes lead to ending up with a tippy, top-heavy feeling rig that tracks shitty under recoil (especially on a bag) and requires constant correction and more input and effort to get to settle down right before taking a shot (especially if one has a bigger/heavier scope). Rifle rigs, just like motorcycles and sports cars, handle and track better with a lower center-of-gravity, they just do. Another downside is you can end up with a rig that is harder to fit into different positions and is clunky to manage (especially with rigs in the 20lb+ range).

Someone took a pic of me shooting modified prone off a stack of tires at K&M a while back, and when I saw it I was surprised to see that my head was kind of cocked over to the side more than I’d ever noticed. Especially since I already was running a fairly short LOP with a medium-high 1.26” mount, and had my cheek piece set only about halfway up in its range and lower than most.

Since, I’ve dropped my cheek piece all the way down, and my gun almost looks more like a traditional hunting rig than a PRS rig from the side. Now I have a bunch more room to get my giant melon behind the scope and can naturally keep my head upright and square with my shoulders… It’s been a revelation, now I can spot my shots 100% better than before and every position has become easier.

Now that I’ve noticed it, and from looking at the size of most guy’s melons, I’d say maybe ~90% of guys I see behind precision rifles are running their cheek pieces too high and don’t know it, and would probably benefit from lowering them just like I did.

 

[spife7980]

Also begs the question: cheek or jaw?
In the first picture hes got it on his jaw, about an inch lower than where I go with my cheek.

And I suspect the relationship is a threesome with the buttpad height in the mix as well as the cheek piece and ring height. Is it better to have everything higher up relative to the rifle with higher rings, or to have it all adjusted lower relative to the rifle with lower rings.
If the relationship between them are the same and comfort is identical, the relative height above bore is sort of a wash as far as I can figure it.

 

[CK1.0]

To add (and not trying to be snarky), Chris’s rig from the pic above looks like it’d handle like shit under recoil, off a bag, and be a PITA when running tripod-rear support with a flat-bag out front, and he probably wouldn’t be able to even see through his scope when trying to fit it into ~1/3 of the ports or some of the tight little windows we run into at matches... (JMHO/YMMV)

 

[stanley_white]

2025 will be the year of the 1.93" and 2.26" mounts from Area 419, MDT etc.

I wonder if anyone will announce this new product line at SHOT?

Also, hilariously, PRS barricades will eventually be re-built to accommodate rifles with such tall scopes being put through portholes.

You heard it here first...

-Stan

 

[CK1.0]

I do think this is a good topic… good gun fit and good posture behind the gun definitely yields positive dividends.

It’s just that IDK if reaching for taller rings/mounts is completely the answer (or the best one)… it might be time for the current/traditional stock/chassis designs to evolve a bit too.

I mentioned earlier how lowering my cheek piece all the way helped me a bunch, but if I’m honest, a 1/2” or more even lower might even be better but I’m out of travel and at the lowest I can go with a Manners TCS. I’d have to take the cheek piece off and get into chopping things to experiment further.

Come to think of it, in the case of the guy who just won this year’s AG Cup, Frances Colon, that’s exactly what he did… he pulled the cheek piece off his MDT Elite and threw it in the trash to get his positioning behind the gun right and has run it like that for a while now, and now MDT makes a tiny plastic minimalist cheek piece that is more like hole cover than a cheek piece that’s been perennially out-of-stock since they started offering them (and I for one think he’s onto something)…

 

[Lowlight]

I’m 2” different from head to shoulder with Chris the tall fits me in both prone and tripod on tripod it’s the best

This as we are thinking is more universal, instead of .88, 1.1, 1.375, 1.5” what if all were just 2.0” and done … the fit better size be damned

If you look back Chris has run this for months

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Are we no longer resting our cheek bone on the stock?

Jowl weld?

Or just an over exaggeration?

This is a real question.

 

[CK1.0]

Are we no longer resting our cheek bone on the stock?

Jowl weld?

Or just an over exaggeration?

This is a real question.

I think it depends on who you ask…

I mean, depending on what one is doing, does it really even matter?

The traditional doctrine of getting/having a good cheek weld as an extra point of contact behind a rifle almost doesn’t really apply anymore. For modern precision rifle shooting, I’d argue that in most cases, having too strong of a cheek weld is actually bad, as the gun is going to move under recoil no matter what, and a heavy cheek weld is just going to influence how the gun moves and cause one’s reticle to move in wonky ways besides where it normally/predictably would (with the gun just coming straight back and the reticle moving straight up and then coming straight back down to rest).

And I don’t think the old doctrine of using a cheek weld as an index point to get back behind the scope the same way each time holds much water anymore either… as anyone with a gun that’s set up to fit them can easily get back behind the glass the same way every time with enough practice to build the necessary muscle-memory.

If one is a military sniper on a gun for long hours behind the glass on over watch or something, then yeah, a solid cheek weld or giving one’s self somewhere for one’s head to rest and take some of the work off one’s neck makes sense. Or, if this was 20-30 years ago and one was shooting a rifle that couldn’t be adjusted to fit, than sure. But ever since guys figured out that shooting a long rifle while standing wasn’t very stable, things have changed.

I’m firmly of the opinion that keeping one’s head up straight behind the gun out weighs any perceived benefit from smashing one’s jaw/face into the buttstock.

 

[ChrisWay]

To add (and not trying to be snarky), Chris’s rig from the pic above looks like it’d handle like shit under recoil, off a bag, and be a PITA when running tripod-rear support with a flat-bag out front, and he probably wouldn’t be able to even see through his scope when trying to fit it into ~1/3 of the ports or some of the tight little windows we run into at matches... (JMHO/YMMV)

I will take a video shooting it. Believe it or not it recoils remarkably flat and moves less than any other setup I have.

 

[ChrisWay]

I've been a proponent of high mounts in precision rifles as well as carbines.....for several years now. There really are no serious cons (the biggest would be some height over bore issues with carbine that are very easy to deal with).

There's just not much negative as our eyes are in the front of our head and want to be looking forward. Anything the works towards that natural "need" is going to end up working out pretty well.

With precision rifles it also lets us get the stock closer to the middle of our chest. Which, just like a handgun where you'd want your hand directly behind the barrel if you could, you want your chest directly behind the barrel of a rifle if you could.


Entertainingly enough, the biggest reason people on the inter webs use to argue against tall mounts on any kind of rifle is aesthetics. There is almost never an actual negative reason given that affects performance (that isn't trivial). And I've never met anyone yet that didn't find higher mounts much more comfortable after they tried them.


High mounts are the future (they are the "now" for anyone who keeps up with the best modern tactics).....the people who aren't using them are just late to the party.

People will argue about anything! I guess I’m part of that bunch too so

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

People will argue about anything! I guess I’m part of that bunch too so

Let’s argue about those shooting gloves

 

[Lowlight]

If you look at the evolution of the Marc and Frank classes this ties right into our teachings and observations. We made an art form out of creating clones in a short amount of time. Alaska classes were only 2 day classes and we in short order performed miracles with a super wide variety of shooters.

The two biggest keys our success was the bipod and scopes. We cannot dictate who brings what equipment, you try but the mix, especially in AK is crazy, with a majority of hunting rifles. We developed processes to clean people up as fast as possible.

For example, if the scope was too low on the Hunting Rifles, which causes the shooter to roll their head over, we put them a standing bench. Raising the rifle to replicate standing as much as possible, helped center the head. As you can see in the image, we raise everyone's bipod. Low Rings, Low Bipods are shit. The mantra to get low is old and completely outdated.

Getting low had context in hunting with iron sights, not with scopes anymore. We have learned over the years.

Forget the individuals up there, look at the muzzles, they are all lined up. That is setting the baseline from which we can bring the individual bodies into line.

But you can absolutely see it, the smash into the rifle and the change in recoil patterns

 

[Baron23]

I’m no expert but I have no interest in a “jowl weld” as o do find cheek bone on the comb to be the most consistently reproducible mount.

Now it is a fact that people have very different cheek bone to eye relationships as well as different length of their neck and flexibility in their neck and lumbar.

As a long time shotgunner, I have clearly established that my relatively high cheek bones (close eye to cheek bone distance) requires a very high comb position to see over the receiver compared to many others.

Taking this to rifle and I need that high comb position to get into the eye box. I’m currently running ARC’s “extra high) rings that are 1.42” to center. Any higher rings and I’d have a concern about having enough adjustment in the chassis’ comb to get me behind the scope. My OG JAE is pretty much out of comb adjustment with these rings. My Vision could go higher if I had higher rings but I’m not at all sure my neck can bend back further.

MDT ACC, you can use the longer LOP posts for the comb and go higher and Mr. Cross makes extra long posts for his Loggerhead hdwr for stock (which I needed on a Rem 700 deer rifle w low Leupold rings just to get me behind the scope which is just a 3-15 Vortex).

I’m always willing to be proved wrong but I don’t see this as a “one size fits all” type of variable.

This is me on a JAE w ARC 1.42 rings. I’m not at all sure my neck and lumbar could flex enough for me to use higher rings.

Cheers

 

[Lowlight]

You don’t need a Jowl weld, your combs adjust well beyond, maybe that J Allen is limited but most cheeks go well beyond our needs up vs down for people today.
Still address the cheek the same, it’s comfortable

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

More real questions:

-if a shooter is making good groups do you still suggest trying taller rings for the sake of taller rings?

-is this something that happens as you age? Or has this always been something you fought but now have SME role and can chase things you have always found worked against your body position?

 

[RayDBonz]

That will work fine on a one-way range.
If there are incoming rounds, probably not the best thing to have more of your melon exposed.
Look at the increase in deaths from head shots going from the M1A or M14 to the AR. It's not pretty. And that was only about 1" more of your soft squishy head exposed.
Remember - incoming rounds have the right-of-way.

 

[CK1.0]

https://mdttac.com/mdt-low-profile-cheek-piece/

 

[Aftermath]

Do you think weight of the system has any input?
Would it be better/worse for a shooter to have a strong cheek weld vs something approaching free recoil in a heads up position, dependent upon the weight of the system?

 

[CK1.0]

Just so no one gets it twisted, I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I’m 100% in agreement with Frank’s/Chris’s point that one’s positioning behind the rifle matters (and is actually kind of a big deal).

I’m just of the opinion that trading one’s bad positioning behind a rifle with a low center of gravity, for a better/good position with a higher (and poorer) center of gravity isn’t necessarily the way for everyone.

IMHO most guys can accomplish the same goal (better heads up position behind the rifle) in most cases with what they already have, just by experimenting with lowering their cheek piece… and while some guys may indeed have to move to a higher mount/rings to get there, they should probably try the easy/free thing first before potentially turning their rig into something more tippy and top heavy and maybe trading one compromise for another.

It’s fine if anyone thinks I’m full of shit, but maybe try it before you dismiss where I’m coming from (it’s free and you might even like it).

 

[clefairy]

Higher bag is needed too. Thats why I’ve always been a proponent of using the gamechanger bag as a rear bag and positional bag.

Look at a toddler when they watch tv. Head on the horizon with elbows on the ground supporting their big heads. Whenever I hear someone say they need a dedicated rear bag, it’s just extra shit to carry to me since the gamechanger fills the role so well.

Gotta aim high under time? Put the buttstock in the V of the bag to get the barrel a little higher. Need to aim low? Vertical that bag and have a nice squeeze on it. Phil velayo has good videos on rocking the gamechanger in the prone

Low center of gravity sounds nice in theory, but no one is shooting at me and straining your eyes to look at the top 3rd of you eyeball starts fatiguing the weakest muscle of the head.

 

[Dead Eye Dick]

Funny, another reference ( a quarterly magazine dedicated to Precision Rifles) is going practically ballistic over scopes being mounted too high. Even to the point of using the least expensive Leupold rings over MK4 or one piece mounts because you can make the scope lower. The thought is that the lower the scope, the lower the center of gravity of the rifle so the more stable the rifle will be. Pretty much the opposite of what Frank is advising. Of course Frank is trying to get the shooter on target, not worrying over a quarter inch lower center of gravity.

I am finding and Brenda is finding as well that a scope mounted sufficiently high, makes getting on target much easier and frankly a bit less painful.

 

[EbTac]

Do you think weight of the system has any input?
Would it be better/worse for a shooter to have a strong cheek weld vs something approaching free recoil in a heads up position, dependent upon the weight of the system?

Less down pressure from head to cheek piece is better. More down pressure needs to have equal pressure up from rear bag support. Why you see the PRS crowd do more of a jaw weld with light pressure and influencing the rifle system little as possible. (taking out as much human error as possible)

 

[Aftermath]

Is this FJB behind a red rifle?

 

[Aftermath]

Less down pressure from head to cheek piece is better. More down pressure needs to have equal pressure up from rear bag support. Why you see the PRS crowd do more of a jaw weld with light pressure and influencing the rifle system little as possible. (taking out as much human error as possible)

Yeah...PRS with a 2500 lb rifle on some tank trap...
What about the guy with a 8 lb rifle leaning against a tree aiming at a nice muley?

 

[ma smith]

Just so no one gets it twisted, I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I’m 100% in agreement with Frank’s/Chris’s point that one’s positioning behind the rifle matters (and is actually kind of a big deal).

I’m just of the opinion that trading one’s bad positioning behind a rifle with a low center of gravity, for a better/good position with a higher (and poorer) center of gravity isn’t necessarily the way for everyone.

IMHO most guys can accomplish the same goal (better heads up position behind the rifle) in most cases with what they already have, just by experimenting with lowering their cheek piece… and while some guys may indeed have to move to a higher mount/rings to get there, they should probably try the easy/free thing first before potentially turning their rig into something more tippy and top heavy and maybe trading one compromise for another.

It’s fine if anyone thinks I’m full of shit, but maybe try it before you dismiss where I’m coming from (it’s free and you might even like it).

It seems...you can (by math) replicate "high rings" with a high barrel position...since the rings are just spacers...and head height and optic height are independent of barrel position.

 

[EbTac]

Yeah...PRS with a 2500 lb rifle on some tank trap...
What about the guy with a 8 lb rifle leaning against a tree aiming at a nice muley?

Still not gonna smash my face down on the stock.

 

[Rob01]

Is this FJB behind a red rifle?
View attachment 8580585

 

[EbTac]

When I was new to precision rifles and PRS I did this crap thinking it was the right way. Cheek piece cranked up and smashing my face down. My recoil management and my POI was very inconsistent. Lost target in the scope on the regular and missed shots high on the regular. Soon as I lowered my cheek piece and put light face pressure on the stock I saw positive results and my recoil management was super consistent. The rifle tracked straight back instead of bouncing all over the place because I had so much down pressure on the rifle system. Now anytime I shoulder a rifle with a high cheek piece it feels so awkward and I'm fighting for a natural sight picture.

 

[EbTac]

It took alot of convincing from @drglock for me to lower my cheek piece and stop smashing my face down. In turn it allowed me to get the stock more inside on the clavicle and see that my recoil impulse was straight back and my face wasn't pushing the stock down or in a down and to side motion off of recoil.

 

[Aftermath]

High jowl weld....check.

 

[EbTac]

@Aftermath don't knock it until you try it.

 

[Aftermath]

@Aftermath don't knock it until you try it.

The NVision Halo XRF on my coyote AR could easily become my test platform. It's plenty damned high. I have a Magpul Precision Adjustable buttstock on it so it could be fairly easily tested. Thing is, when on a tripod, I'm pretty much like what has been presented....head up high.

I'll have to evaluate the prone shit but my guess is my fucked up neck won't allow my head to tip up much more for long without great pain. I think I'd have to have some sort of sex pillow to get into the right position...but maybe that's the fun of it? You perverts!! I should have known.

I have trouble riding my old Cannondale on the down bars for very long if I am having to look down the road very far.

 

[Aftermath]

I think this has about as much to do with length of pull as scope to barrel spacing. I find that if I have the LOP real short, I am more heads up to see the full view.

Yay? Nay?

 

[EbTac]

The NVision Halo XRF on my coyote AR could easily become my test platform. It's plenty damned high. I have a Magpul Precision Adjustable buttstock on it so it could be fairly easily tested. Thing is, when on a tripod, I'm pretty much like what has been presented....head up high.

I'll have to evaluate the prone shit but my guess is my fucked up neck won't allow my head to tip up much more for long without great pain. I think I'd have to have some sort of sex pillow to get into the right position...but maybe that's the fun of it? I have trouble riding my old Cannondale on the down bars for very long if I am having to look down the road very far.

For the prone position i know exactly what you are talking about. Running a taller rear bag helps tremendously and getting up for on your forearms and elbows. The prone position is used as an example I should have ran my bipod legs way higher, my body position was way too flat for the elevated target position. That's where you can see why I'm completely flattened out to gain more elevation for the target. Shooters with a bigger midsection or barrel chest do way better in prone with taller bipods. Allows them to be in a better body position and way less strain on the neck.

 

[Aftermath]

This image here is pretty much how I am in position ideally.
I mean, obviously, I am far better looking while in said position (plus, I use the correct side of my head) but, nevertheless, this is about what I shoot for.
Pun intended.
I do say "ideally" because I don't do the barricade benchrest shit. I might have to do some serious kama sutra shit to get to the where I can squeeze the trigger at the living creature I am about to create massive loss of blood pressure in.

 

[EbTac]

I think this has about as much to do with length of pull as scope to barrel spacing. I find that if I have the LOP real short, I am more heads up to see the full view.

Yay? Nay?

Ehh I'm 5'8" so I run a LOP that is a happy medium for prone and positional shooting. I do believe you are better off with a shorter LOP than a LOP that is too long. Typically if I run a LOP that is perfect for me in the prone position that LOP is slightly too long for positional. I find myself reaching and driving the rifle harder but I believe it's also dependent on body type and reach. I have short arms and a thick chest "man tits"

 

[Aftermath]

For the prone position i know exactly what you are talking about. Running a taller rear bag helps tremendously and getting up for on your forearms and elbows. The prone position is used as an example I should have ran my bipod legs way higher, my body position was way too flat for the elevated target position. That's where you can see why I'm completely flattened out to gain more elevation for the target. Shooters with a bigger midsection or barrel chest do way better in prone with taller bipods. Allows them to be in a better body position and way less strain on the neck.

See...this is where there is some disconnect.
Taller rear bag?
What sort of hunting are you doing over there in the Orange and Black?

Seriously...I love to use a bipod but have only extremely rarely ever found one useful while hunting. The grass and shit is too tall for a bipod. How would any sort of taller rear bag help that? How much shit do you carry to hunt with? I don't even like to carry shooting sticks or a tripod. I am now in the position of shooting shit from a fixed, sheltered, heated position but all of the above holds true...no prone shots out of this shooting shack. I'm either on a tripod, heads up...or on the ledge and still, heads up. No bags 'tall...ya know?

I will admit to have never done any of the barricade benchrest shit, and am not likely to ever do any sort of sanctioned event. I do have a decent place to practice with 112 acres. If it were all flat enough, I could shoot a mile but I can only get 850 and stay on property. I shoot from various "props" out to 650 but have zero desire to do so on the clock with some fucking range fee and other guys I am very likely to dislike.

Yeah...curmudgeon.

 

[EbTac]

See...this is where there is some disconnect.
Taller rear bag?
What sort of hunting are you doing over there in the Orange and Black?

Seriously...I love to use a bipod but have only extremely rarely ever found one useful while hunting. The grass and shit is too tall for a bipod. How would any sort of taller rear bag help that? How much shit do you carry to hunt with? I don't even like to carry shooting sticks or a tripod. I am now in the position of shooting shit from a fixed, sheltered, heated position but all of the above holds true...no prone shots out of this shooting shack. I'm either on a tripod, heads up...or on the ledge and still, heads up. No bags 'tall...ya know?

I will admit to have never done any of the barricade benchrest shit, and am not likely to ever do any sort of sanctioned event. I do have a decent place to practice with 112 acres. If it were all flat enough, I could shoot a mile but I can only get 850 and stay on property. I shoot from various "props" out to 650 but have zero desire to do so on the clock with some fucking range fee and other guys I am very likely to dislike.

Yeah...curmudgeon.

The rear bag was in regards to help with a more comfortable body position in the prone position. I clearly stated that because you stated a concern with neck strain in the prone position if I'm not mistaken.

 

[EbTac]

@Aftermath by the way this is a competition shooting talk thread. Not a hunting thread.

 

[Aftermath]

The rear bag was in regards to help with a more comfortable body position in the prone position. I clearly stated that because you stated a concern with neck strain in the prone position if I'm not mistaken.

Point taken.
Yes.
Even with a tall rear bag...getting up on your elbows sort of defeats the purpose of prone, no?

Do you hunt that OSU land? When I was in school there, there were some monster whitetails to be had.

 

[Aftermath]

@Aftermath by the way this is a competition shooting talk thread. Not a hunting thread.

Oh...so.....shooting is not shooting?

 

[JustSendit]

edit forget it, don’t feel like offering my opinion between a online argument.

 

[Aftermath]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I'm out.

 

[EbTac]

Point taken.
Yes.
Even with a tall rear bag...getting up on your elbows sort of defeats the purpose of prone, no?

Do you hunt that OSU land? When I was in school there, there were some monster whitetails to be had.

Prone is the lowest position. No one says the perfect prone position is flat and low as you can possibly get. Frank points this out numerous times in this thread and other threads and videos regarding prone position. In prone you indeed want to be up on your forearms and elbows. It is more stable and more comfortable on the shooter wether your a sniper of some sort or competitive shooter.

 

[Aftermath]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I'm out.