I understand the concept.
Is controlling the butt of the rifle no longer a concern?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Karma Shooter, Looking at our Body Position
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Is controlling the butt of the rifle no longer a concern?
No you absolutely do using the bridge nothing changes there.
I think that could be the test...lay flat on the floor with your hands under your chin or cheek bones. If you can do that for more than a couple of minutes, maybe this is ok for your body structure. I tried it and was in excruciating pain within 3 minutes. I put a sexy pillow under my chest to help change that torso/neck angle and I could make it a little longer. I'm better off looking up, sorta, so that my neck remains more aligned with my torso.
This holds true when I am shooting offhand, kneeling, off a tripod...I need to not bend my head up very much and tend to shoot sort of looking straight forward. I accomplish this primarily by using a pretty short length of pull. For example, most of the collapsing butts on my AR's remain fully collapsed.
I doubt I'm the only one with a fucked up neck.
This holds true when I am shooting offhand, kneeling, off a tripod...I need to not bend my head up very much and tend to shoot sort of looking straight forward. I accomplish this primarily by using a pretty short length of pull. For example, most of the collapsing butts on my AR's remain fully collapsed.
I doubt I'm the only one with a fucked up neck.
Last edited:
I think that’s the point. It’s a “suggestion”, not everybody needs to do it. In my personal case, it is hard to shoot for extended periods prone, so I’m going to “try” it. I for sure put to much pressure on my butt stock and look through my scope with my eyes up, because that’s the only way I can see through my scope on a particular gun, so why not?
FWIW, this guy uses a jaw weld, intentionally tries to keep his height over bore low (1:50 and 2:55), his mount height looks like either a 1.18” or 1.34”, and I’m pretty sure he does ok when shooting prone sometimes.
Nope! He shoots bAriCAdE bEnChReSt. His experiences and accolades are null and void. AG Cup winner doesn't mean anything. Lmao. Francis, Keith and slade all run taller rings i believe. Soon as I get some coin I'm definitely going to taller rings. I think 1.5" would be the highest I'd go to start out with.
It's only gonna work if you are competing in something like "bAriCAdE bEnChReSt", so they should be good to go.
Last edited:
IDK? Seems like scope height is the missing spec in all the "pro shooter rifle build" articles I've seen... Frances's scope looks pretty low in the recent pics/vids I've seen, not sure about Slade/Baker. Buschman uses low rings and he doesn't suck too bad lol.
I mean what loser only wins world championship back to back. All jokes aside. I think going taller is better for comfort. But going tall as 1.5" or taller might be a bitch in some shooting ports we see in matches. Everything comes with a cost and trade offs unfortunately. 1.5 is tall as id go for myself just to see if there is that improvement in a more neutral body position.
Proper Prone Position?
It doesn't matter because he's not competition shooting.
It doesn't matter because he's not competition shooting.
One thing I will add, I think in addition to optics height one can also take into account buttstock / cheek piece width.
The wider the buttstock / cheek piece the more the shooter has to cant their neck to get their eye centered in the scope and this can also add unneeded cheek pressure to the rear of your system.
When I ran the Vortex Gen 2 Razor 3-18x with its extremely forgiving eye box I mounted an Accurate Mag Sport Tac Lite buttstock with the cheek piece removed / a chin weld to my MDT ACC Premier chassis and it worked amazingly.
When I switched to a USO FDN 5-25x with its tighter eye box I could no longer use the same stock as the scope required a cheek weld / cheek piece to avoid scope shadow.
Here are pics of my previous setup;
www.snipershide.com
Here is a link to the stock if anyone else wants to experiment:
Great new video on this @Lowlight & @ChrisWay.
-Stan
The wider the buttstock / cheek piece the more the shooter has to cant their neck to get their eye centered in the scope and this can also add unneeded cheek pressure to the rear of your system.
When I ran the Vortex Gen 2 Razor 3-18x with its extremely forgiving eye box I mounted an Accurate Mag Sport Tac Lite buttstock with the cheek piece removed / a chin weld to my MDT ACC Premier chassis and it worked amazingly.
When I switched to a USO FDN 5-25x with its tighter eye box I could no longer use the same stock as the scope required a cheek weld / cheek piece to avoid scope shadow.
Here are pics of my previous setup;
Custom Two Inch Taller "The Answer" Rear Bag by Enough Said
As someone new to precision rifles, but not new to shooting in general, the biggest bad habit I brought with me was excessive pressure on the cheek weld or chin weld causing inconsistent impacts. While I do not like technical solutions to training problems (remember three round burst?), I...
www.snipershide.com
Here is a link to the stock if anyone else wants to experiment:
Great new video on this @Lowlight & @ChrisWay.
-Stan
Last edited:
IDK, I’m the type that goes back and forth between not wanting to mess with my rig/gear so I can have enough consistency in place to actually concentrate on working on improving the shooting part, but at the same time feel like you can teach an old dog new tricks, so I’m open to experimenting a bit and trying new things too.
I went to a 1.5” height mount for about a month a little over a year ago, and decided I didn’t like how my gun felt/handled that way. I didn’t feel like my rig would plop down the same way onto a bag as easily or as good as I was used to with the taller mount and never really got comfortable with how it tracked differently under recoil while spotting shots so I went back to a 1.25” height mount…
That said, at that time I was running a fat pig G3 Razor which was a full diet Coors of weight up top more than the scope I’m running now, and maybe a month and 4-5 range trips wasn’t enough time to acclimate to the change after being used to what I had been used to.
I think I might get another 1.5” height mount and give it another honest try, but IDK if I would want any taller than that now that I’ve figured out that lowering my cheek piece is so much better and makes a whole bunch more room for my melon behind the gun and keeps me from mashing my face into the back of the rifle.
I went to a 1.5” height mount for about a month a little over a year ago, and decided I didn’t like how my gun felt/handled that way. I didn’t feel like my rig would plop down the same way onto a bag as easily or as good as I was used to with the taller mount and never really got comfortable with how it tracked differently under recoil while spotting shots so I went back to a 1.25” height mount…
That said, at that time I was running a fat pig G3 Razor which was a full diet Coors of weight up top more than the scope I’m running now, and maybe a month and 4-5 range trips wasn’t enough time to acclimate to the change after being used to what I had been used to.
I think I might get another 1.5” height mount and give it another honest try, but IDK if I would want any taller than that now that I’ve figured out that lowering my cheek piece is so much better and makes a whole bunch more room for my melon behind the gun and keeps me from mashing my face into the back of the rifle.
Isn’t the critical measurement the height difference between cheek rest and scope Center? Doesn’t Francis run a very small cheek rest set quite low?
Adjustable combs are quite common on clay target shotguns and yes, they not only move up/down but also side to side so as to keep the shooter's on-eye directly behind the rib without rolling the head.
Mr. Cross' Loggerhead comb hardware also provides side/side adjustment but this is for stocks and I haven't see such on rifle chassis (but I'm more than willing to be corrected on this).
I think its an important ergonomic adjustment and would love to see this in chassis butt stocks as well as traditional stocks.
IDK what the critical measurement is... but I think the cheekrest-to-scope center is probably it.
However, how an individual gets to their happy place might be a little different for everyone, as we've all got different-sized heads and run different chassis/stocks that feel different and have different geometry (with some allowing for more/less adjustment than others).
From the pics/vids I've seen of him recently, it looks like Francis Colon is running the MDT minimalist low-profile cheekpiece I referenced earlier in the thread (which is sort of like running no cheekpiece at all), but IDK what height mount he runs (it looks like he uses an A419 mount, which comes in either 1.26" or 1.54")?
I went shooting yesterday and tried to gauge whether I should go through the process of trying a 1.5" mount again on my rig... but the main takeaway I got was: it occurred to me that what stock/chassis one uses is another part of the equation to consider.
I currently run a Manners TCS with my cheekpiece set all the way down as low as it'll go, with a 1.250" height mount... and my giant melon seems to fit behind the gun/scope pretty good right now as-is already while allowing me to keep my head upright. But, having owned/run both a Manners TCS and MDT ACC Elite, they have different geometry, with the TCS having a lower comb height as compared to where the action/barrel sits when compared to an ACC Elite, as the ACC Elite's buttstock comes back more level and/or in-line with the action/barrel. So in a way, as far as that cheekrest-to-scope center measurement, it seems like maybe a TCS with a 1.250" height mount = ACC Elite with a 1.5"..?
So now, after trying to put it under a microscope and evaluate it, and with me already running/having a heads-up position and "jaw weld" with my cheekpiece lowered, I think a taller 1.5" mount on the TCS would be too much and kind of put my head up too high (and is probably why it felt so weird to me when I tried it before), as I'd have a "no weld" instead of a "jaw weld" unless I raised my cheekpiece back up to match with the taller mount (so I'm probably already good and where I need to be).
(I tried to put a line along the top of the respective barrels to show what I mean):
This is why I come here and take your classes @Lowlight.
The video makes perfect sense to me. Keeping the eye centered and the head neutral is completely logical. The part that intrigues me the most is the absence of vertical movement of the reticle after the shot.
I will be buying some risers to try
The video makes perfect sense to me. Keeping the eye centered and the head neutral is completely logical. The part that intrigues me the most is the absence of vertical movement of the reticle after the shot.
I will be buying some risers to try
I am excited to see trigger cam footage of this at some point with and without the riser.
-Stan
Well, yes...that's exactly what needs to be done if using higher rings on your set up. Is that an issue for you?
And I do run 1.42" ARC rings and I'm fairly comfortable with them.
I may be wrong but weren't Chris and Frank talking more like 2" high mounts?
Yes
I just bought a 5/8" riser to try. I based it on photos and figured being I am shorter than Chris.
Hi Nikki! - hope your new year is healthy, joyous and prosperous for you and yours.
A member here in my local area offered me a Leupold AR Riser for free. Very nice guy...we are meeting for breakfast in a week...I guess I'll pick up the tab! haha
And yes, I still don't quite get it but as I and Frank both acknowledged....I need to try it and see. And I made the same point....some of us are clinic students and one of us is a clinic instructor! So, I better take what he says seriously hahaha (and you need to come to OH next year, bro! I missed seeing you there
)My confusion still comes from how this change either doesn't require me to bend my torso up at a higher angle (with higher bipod and bag) or absent that I would need to bend my neck further back.
We will see. As I noted above:
The same to you, Stephen.Hi Nikki! - hope your new year is healthy, joyous and prosperous for you and yours.
A member here in my local area offered me a Leupold AR Riser for free. Very nice guy...we are meeting for breakfast in a week...I guess I'll pick up the tab! haha
And yes, I still don't quite get it but as I and Frank both acknowledged....I need to try it and see. And I made the same point....some of us are clinic students and one of us is a clinic instructor! So, I better take what he says seriously hahaha (and you need to come to OH next year, bro! I missed seeing you there
My confusion still comes from how this change either doesn't require me to bend my torso up at a higher angle (with higher bipod and bag) or absent that I would need to bend my neck further back.
We will see. As I noted above:
The point is, I think, a neutral head & eye position aligned to the center of the scope. A position like the kid who watches TV with his head in his hands.
When I look at photos of me shooting prone, I see what they are talking about. 1.54" rings on my AXMC with the riser set at its lowest aligns with the lower part of my eye. My scope needs to be higher. If I can get that to happen, my head will be more upright. My eye will align properly, and my cheek weld will be better. Recoil management should improve to reduce the vertical jump when the shot breaks.
It should be more comfortable with less fatigue. I am willing to try it. @Lowlight has yet to steer me in the wrong direction.
Last edited:
Well, yeah....I get the kid watching TV position....I was a child of the 50's after all! haha
But you highlight why a "one size fits all" approach (for most anything) is often an error. You are on 1.54" rings with your comb set as low as it will go and the scope still "aligns with the lower part of my eye".
I, on the other hand, am running 1.42" rings and need my comb pretty much as high as it will go (on the JAE) and almost as high as it can go on the Vision.
Hey, I have high fashion model cheekbones and you don't!
I get the idea...what I don't know is how much more stress this will induce to either my lumbar, neck...or both.
But as we both agreed, we have to try it to know so in a week or so I'll pop this Mk 4 riser on the Vision and see how it feels.
Have a great day, Nik.
Last edited:
I think, today we are conditioned to, 1. Put the scope low, then 2. Choose from a variety of sizes from .8xx to 1.5” and it’s all over.
I think going higher like this, beyond 1.5 to 1.8 to 2.0 that becomes the universal fit area.
Not saying it is universal, I’m saying I see a point where the decision is easier. The stocks will be 1.8” ( or whatever the number is ) and chassis will be 2.0
I think going higher like this, beyond 1.5 to 1.8 to 2.0 that becomes the universal fit area.
Not saying it is universal, I’m saying I see a point where the decision is easier. The stocks will be 1.8” ( or whatever the number is ) and chassis will be 2.0
Well, yeah....I get the kid watching TV position....I was a child of the 50's after all! haha
But you highlight why a "one size fits all" is often an error. You are on 1.54" rings with your comb set as low as it will go and the scope still "aligns with the lower part of my eye".
I, on the other hand, am running 1.42" rings and need my comb pretty much as high as it will go (on the JAE) and almost as high as it can go on the Vision.
Hey, I have high fashion model cheekbones and you don't!
I get the idea...what I don't know is how much more stress this will induce to either my lumbar, neck...or both.
But as we both agreed, we have to try it to know so in a week or so I'll pop this Mk 4 riser on the Vision and see how it feels.
Have a great day, Nik.
I never said it is a one-size-fits-all.
I was talking about my face and not anyone else’s. Low brow knuckle dragger genes.
I had the benefit of some good photos of me in position, and it is visible. I just never thought of using a riser.
Last edited:
No, I’m not saying guys did, but the word has some bearing on the concept.
I mean it might be we see, and people can choose to follow or not, for a stock you use 1.6 and a chassis is 1.8, but this is a super long uphill road. The most popular height is 1.1” so telling someone without a background to go 1.8” will get laughed outta the store at first.
It will be the military guys that do it first cuz all the gear so head high will be comfy
But it’s the kinda stuff we think about and experiment with, why not, it’s right there
I mean it might be we see, and people can choose to follow or not, for a stock you use 1.6 and a chassis is 1.8, but this is a super long uphill road. The most popular height is 1.1” so telling someone without a background to go 1.8” will get laughed outta the store at first.
It will be the military guys that do it first cuz all the gear so head high will be comfy
But it’s the kinda stuff we think about and experiment with, why not, it’s right there
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as though everybody is taking the as “this is the way it is!”? @Baron23, and @Nik H, you guys shot lights out at Mifflin. For me on thing that stuck out was Chris talking about adjusting you bag anfter every shot. With my AT-X, I have to do that every shot. Prone, tripod, whatever. I know I’m crushing my face on the butt stock because I can’t see through my scope unless I do, so why not try? The chinese risers on Amazon are $20. That’s 10 shots with today’s ammo prices so why not? Yes, you have to rezero, etc. so maybe it 16 shots or $32 tops $40. Shit you spend that on a thumb rest. Again, I take it as “try”, just like “try dope” in gravity ballistics.
Nice to hear from you!
This is why I will try the riser. I put too much pressure on the bag through the cheekpiece. Always adjusting. It makes sense to try this out. There is a reason why I say that I am constantly learning.
Last edited:
Nice of you to say that. I sure didn’t feel like I was lights out. Actually, I sort of feel like the weak sister in these clinic. lol
Now, Jamie, Matt and others…yeah. As for Nik, was this the year we shot a group at 300 cause Nik shot like a BR guy w a mech front rest. He slayed it and he shoots really well…now if he only had a suppressor on that dam rifle! Haha
And I don’t have the issue you and Nik seem to have wrt having to crush down on the comb to get in the eye box. Does your comb not go down any further?
For me it’s just the opposite as I need to raise my comb quite a bit to get into the box.
But, as Nik said, Frank has never led me astray and I have a riser coming in a week to try it. Nothing to loose by giving it a try. I’m in 1.42” rings now and I guess that riser will add 1/2”??? Maybe more?
As Frank and I seemed to agree…I won’t really understand it until I try it so…I will
And this is Robbie, right? How ya doing, mate. Healthy and joyous new year to you and yours.
You should come to OH next year. Very nice and the mover was a hoot. Food in town…meh. But we had a ball and it flat. Haha
Cheers
Last edited:
The cheek pressure moving/compressing the rear bag every shot is something I’ve noticed and been annoyed by, but I didn’t dig into it. Now I will have to experiment.
Yes sir it is. You remembered. Lol. Did Black Bear last year and it was amazing. Will pm not to muck up the thread.Nice of you to say that. I sure didn’t feel like I was lights out. Actually, I sort of feel like the weak sister in these clinic. lol
Now, Jamie, Matt and others…yeah. As for Nik, was this the year we shot a group at 300 cause Nik shot like a BR guy w a mech front rest. He slayed it and he shoots really well…now if he only had a suppressor on that dam rifle! Haha
And I don’t have the issue you and Nik seem to have wrt having to crush down on the comb to get in the eye box. Does your comb not go down any further?
For me it’s just the opposite as I need to raise my comb quite a bit to get into the box.
But, as Nik said, Frank has never led me astray and I have a riser coming in a week to try it. Nothing to loose by giving it a try. I’m in 1.42” rings now and I guess that riser will add 1/2”??? Maybe more?
As Frank and I seemed to agree…I won’t really understand it until I try it so…I will
And this is Robbie, right? How ya doing, mate. Healthy and joyous new year to you and yours.
You should come to OH next year. Very nice and the mover was a hoot. Food in town…meh. But we had a ball and it flat. Haha
Cheers
I mean I'd love for them to make their Match/Hunt rings in something a little higher than 1.25" at least. I want to use them for hunting and probably NRL Hunter but to get the 1.5" height you need to use the one piece mount that weighs a full pound.
Last edited:
The hunting stuff is far too low for guys 90% of the students in AK are hunters. I see hunting rifles and have a method to succeed with them but it’s completely different
Low mounts are not good
Low mounts are not good
I ordered a riser from Bobro Engineering that will add 5/8" to my 1.54" mount. I'm excited to try it when it gets here.
2.0 Mount Arrived and has been added to my GAP Production Rifle in 6GT
The Cheek fits and is comfortable
The Cheek fits and is comfortable
Frank, You could use this with your video poking fun at the "gopher" looking for their shot without the follow through!
All kidding aside, I bet this would really help folks with glasses.
All kidding aside, I bet this would really help folks with glasses.
Are you prone in that pic, Frank, or laying out on a table to simulate?
I got a riser yesterday from another very kind and generous member. And I found a small phone tripod and wireless shutter release for my iPhone. I know above you asked if I had the same picture, but from the trigger hand side, which I did not.
When it gets above absolute zero here in Maryland (yeah, where's the fucking global warming when you want it? haha), I'm going to set up in the garage and take pics from both sides, with and without the riser. This should be very illuminating for me...as the picture you posted above is for yourself.
Cheers
Last edited:
Here is prone, the house sucks I wanted a better image, I might need a slight tweak but I’m not laying in the snow for this
You don’t need to do anything we are exploring the benefits of higher rings and currently we have very little reasoning to continue with low or medium height rings.
I personally recommend 1.375” as a minimum and 1.45” to 1.54” as the standard height.
I personally recommend 1.375” as a minimum and 1.45” to 1.54” as the standard height.
Similar threads
Rifle Competition Events
Competition Dynamics Burris Optics Team Challenge AAR
