• Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

  • You Should Now Be Receiving Emails!

    The email issued mentioned earlier this week is now fixed! You may also have received previous emails that were meant to be sent over the last few days - apologies, this was a one time issue and shouldn't happen again!

Karma Shooter, Looking at our Body Position

#151
Lowlight said:
View attachment 8588596

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
Click to expand...
lol...me either.

Is it an artifact of the pic or did you have to crank your head back a bit further in the prone than in the the earlier pic, above?

I'm not arguing that this approach is inherently flawed...not at all. And, we seem to agree that I (and others) just need to pop that riser on a rifle to really understand and see how it works.

And in reference to the last couple of posts above about if you were declaring this to be the one way to go....I think its been pretty clear to most that this is just an exercise in exploring new ideas and to not be advocating things just because "that's how its always been done". Being analytical and thinking outside of the box appears to be one of the great things Chris seems to bring to the table. He doesn't seem to be locked into any particular orthodoxy and he almost always has data to back up what he says. If nothing else, you two got a bunch of us thinking about scope above bore height (and you're having a beneficial impact on AR riser sales! haha). And if it doesn't suit, we can drop back down to whatever height did work.

Oh...and hey, Frank...I just found where your hair went...it migrated to your jaw! haha
 
#152
@Lowlight are you raising your buttpad as well as the cheekpiece?

It looks like by raising the optic height it is also effectively lowering the bore height in relation to how you shoulder the rifle, making the rifle recoil in a straighter path (less muzzle rise)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22 and lash
#153
Damn it Frank! You got me out to looking at my scoped rifles and I may need to invest in a chamber pot full of higher rings! Even offhand with using that method, my eye is right at the top of the ocular bell. This migh help my Dad return to shooting after mis multiple back surgeries.

BTW does anyone have a source for Leupold High or Extra High gen 1 QD Rings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Lowlight
#154
PB&J. said:
@Lowlight are you raising your buttpad as well as the cheekpiece?

It looks like by raising the optic height it is also effectively lowering the bore height in relation to how you shoulder the rifle, making the rifle recoil in a straighter path (less muzzle rise)?
Click to expand...

I raise the butt pad as a matter of routine, any rifle shot in the prone has a higher pad

If you look every rifle with the ability to raise is raised,
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
#155
So, @Lowlight mentioned the military guys would likely be first to switch due to head gear etc. and that is exactly what has happened already. Lots of them have gone to ultra high risers with optics. It does provide for a more heads up ability especially since so much of what they do is on the move and shooting while standing. I don’t know if they care at all for prone unless it’s a sniper on a rooftop. I had switched to a riser on a carbine with a red dot and found it pretty good for what I was doing. The main issue is the stupid internet and the YouTube operators trying to “look like the cool kids” with their tall risers. As I said, I tried it on a carbine and liked it. I’m willing to try it on my bolt gun and see how I like it. My low back is jacked up from doing concrete and bench presses🤪, but bending backwards is actually what it needs since I’ve spent too many years bent forward. Also, at my level of shooting ability the only thing that will help me more would be getting to one of Frank’s classes, and hopefully if I can do that I’ll already be rocking a riser.
 
#156
@Lowlight

Hi Frank - Well, I gave it my best shot...and failed. lol

First, you had asked earlier if I had a pic of me prone on the gun but from the right side. Well, here is me with 1.42" ARC rings that I currently run. I adjusted the bipod as I normally do for prone for targets at the same level (Atlas CAL with legs on the second notch up). I built a bridge, put a bag under the butt, and this is what I look like (except I do float my thumb and my finger is more perpendicular to the trigger shoe...I just wasn't worried about that for these pics).

1736824381560.jpeg


Then I put the Leupold AR Riser on the gun. the riser is .6" so that brought the scope up to 2". but even in the Vision I could not get the comb high enough to get me in the exit pupil. Short maybe a 1/4"? The JAE wouldn't have even been close.

Now, I do want to emphasize that this is ME and my facial structure...may not have anything to do with anybody else. And I do know with the MDT ACC you can get from them a set of the LOP posts (they are the same as comb posts...just longer) and use them on the adjustable comb. It won't be able to go down all the way as the posts will bottom out on the lower part of the butt stock, but we are trying to go up, not down, right?

This is the rifle with the riser on it. And yes, I know that the riser should go on the other way but there is a sort of large lug at one end and I couldn't get eye relief except this way.
1736825018575.jpeg


The 2" may work well for others...and it may work well for me if I could get the comb high enough (eh, like put a pad on the comb for a bit of added height). Dunno, couldn't get there. But I did confirm that with the 1.42" ARC rings and in prone, this is about as far as I can flex my neck and lumbar and still be somewhat comfortable.

ALL - @LuckyLuke80‘d for the riser first so it’s his. Thanks guys

this riser was given to me by @stanley_white (who is a GREAT guy, by the by). He gave me permission to pass it on to somebody else if it doesn't work for me...and it doesn't. If you want it and are willing to send me $15, I'll mail it to you in a small priority mail flat rate box. The riser is free (and they are $79 from Leupold plus shipping and tax). If you want to give it a try, PM me. First come, first served. Its actually a very nicely made piece.
1736826269145.jpeg

1736826448303.jpeg


Cheers
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lash, stanley_white, LuckyLuke80 and 5 others
#159
Baron23 said:
@Lowlight

Hi Frank - Well, I gave it my best shot...and failed. lol

First, you had asked earlier if I had a pic of me prone on the gun but from the right side. Well, here is me with 1.42" ARC rings that I currently run. I adjusted the bipod as I normally do for prone for targets at the same level (Atlas CAL with legs on the second notch up). I built a bridge, put a bag under the butt, and this is what I look like (except I do float my thumb and my finger is more perpendicular to the trigger shoe...I just wasn't worried about that for these pics).

View attachment 8591476

Then I put the Leupold AR Riser on the gun. the riser is .6" so that brought the scope up to 2". but even in the Vision I could not get the comb high enough to get me in the exit pupil. Short maybe a 1/4"? The JAE wouldn't have even been close.

Now, I do want to emphasize that this is ME and my facial structure...may not have anything to do with anybody else. And I do know with the MDT ACC you can get from them a set of the longer LOP posts (they are the same just longer) and use them on the adjustable comb. It won't be able to go down all the way as the posts will bottom out on the lower part of the butt stock, but we are trying to go up, not down, right?

This is the rifle with the riser on it. And yes, I know that the riser should go on the other way but there is a sort of large lug at one end and I couldn't get eye relief except this way.
View attachment 8591485

The 2" may work well for others...and it may work well for me if I could get the comb high enough (eh, like put a pad on the comb for a bit of added height). Dunno, couldn't get there. But I did confirm that with the 1.42" ARC rings and in prone, this is about as far as I can flex my neck and lumbar and still be somewhat comfortable.

ALL - this riser was given to me by @stanley_white (who is a GREAT guy, by the by). He gave me permission to pass it on to somebody else if it doesn't work for me...and it doesn't. If you want it and are willing to send me $15, I'll mail it to you in a small priority mail flat rate box. The riser is free (and they are $79 from Leupold plus shipping and tax). If you want to give it a try, PM me. First come, first served. Its actually a very nicely made piece.
View attachment 8591506
View attachment 8591515

Cheers
Click to expand...
Pmed.
 
#160
A 1/4” put a touch of foam on it

I honestly think Steve you’re an edge guy, even on a normal day you’re an extra five minutes no offense.

But in your defense the vision is probably short, height wise, but maybe not. Some are short.

But that said, added a 1/4” to try it better should be easy.
 
#161
@Lowlight

Hi Frank, I was wondering if you saw any changes to the drop data on your Kestrel?

I changed my bore height on my Kestrel from 2.5” to 3.5” and my 200y data changed from .4 to .24. I was able to true my drop from 300 to 800 but I couldn’t get my 200y drop to line up.
 
#165
@Lowlight

I think you and Chris have a winner. I haven't tried it prone yet. From a tripod, it is better. My eye is perfectly centered in the eyepiece. There is no shadowing, and my head is more upright. I don't have to add any pressure to the cheek weld. I can't wait to try it prone.

I am using a Badger 1.54" mount with a Bobro riser that adds another 0.625" for a total of 2.16". A tenth of an inch lower would be better but this will do.

Thanks again!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lowlight
#168
This has been a great read for me. Being a glasses wearer all my like and trifocals for the past ten+, I have been telling people in my situation that the answer is a more straight on/level look through the optic versus trying to view the optic through the top 15% of your glasses prescription. This means that yes, you need a more raised body position and adjusted cheek weld.

Good to see a professional look at it as an approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22 and stanley_white
#170


I got out to zero the unity fast mount, zeroed really easy, it was on the paper 1st shot so no issues.

We adjusted the rifle 3x including one final time after the video. So it was good in the video, it got better after the last adjustment. I brought the LOP in, one of the weights, so 1/2” and then we dropped the cheek 1/4”. That seem to result in more of an index on the rifle and not being anchored to it. The sight picture in my opinion improves noticeably and with the Index style over the Anchor it’s a full picture immediately, even on 30x. Which every shot in the video is on 30x…

Why 30x, I shot, went to spot for my first shot, zoomed in, and just stayed there. I could see the bullet hit the paper and I was on 30x. If you told me that. I would have not believed it. Ya I can see steel getting hits but the bullet at 100, it’d be tough even with a mouse gun. So again the recoil pulse is so different, it really comes down to just setting up the rifle right.

More to do, and at distance, but. I am zeroed up and ready to try it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: obx22, CK1.0, Conrad and 5 others
#171
DI
Lowlight said:


I got out to zero the unity fast mount, zeroed really day, it was on the paper 1st shot so no issues.

We adjusted the rifle 3x including one final time after the video. So it was good in the video, it got better after the last adjustment. I brought the LOP in, one of the weights, so 1/2” and then we dropped the cheek 1/4”. That seem to result in more of an index on the rifle and not being anchored to it. The sight picture in my opinion improves noticeably and with the Index style over the Anchor it’s a full picture immediately, even on 30x. Which every shot in the video is on 30x…

Why 30x, I shot, went to spot for my first shot, zoomed in, and just stayed there. I could see the bullet hit the paper and I was on 30x. If you told me that. I would have not believed it. Ya I can see steel getting hits but the bullet at 100, it’d be tough even with a mouse gun. So again the recoil pulse is so different, it really comes down to just setting up the rifle right.

More to do, and at distance, but. I am zeroed up and ready to try it.
Click to expand...

Did you notice if you saw less mirage coming off the barrel?
 
#172
I just read this article and while it's about skeet a lot of the elements match up to the points here and also tie in some of the concerns other members have brought up like face dimensions and stock width, worth a read

Fitting the Gun Stock Optically - Decot Hy-Wyd Sport Glasses, Inc.

Interview by Nick Sisley During the 1982 World Skeet Championships held in Savannah, Georgia, I took advantage of Bud Decot’s presence-or at least tried to. With 33 years in the sport glass business, mainly providing glasses for trap and skeet shooters, Decot has a tremendous amount of knowledge...
www.decot.com www.decot.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0, lash, Lowlight and 1 other person
#174
Anyone remember DTubb's chin gun? I think yall are doing good stuff, and I've found taller mounts to be advantageous for myself. Just sharing this because every now and then something will pop up that makes me say, "damn, David's always been decades ahead...."

1737081946873.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6.5SH, obx22, Eric32 and 3 others
#175
I went out today and tried shooting prone with the taller mount.

It was noticeably better. My head was more upright; I experienced less fatigue and less hunting for the right spot on the cheek rest. Recoil management after the shot broke was significantly improved. Spotting the shot was considerably easier.

I think fine-tuning the height a little would make it even better. I think it is about 0.25" too tall. Two inches seems like the magic number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
#179
stanley_white said:
Can you elaborate a bit / pontificate on what you think is happening here?

-Stan
Click to expand...
Damned if I know exactly, but what I noticed is less muzzle rise when the shot breaks. Since I used less pressure on the cheek piece, the recoil pulse moves the rear of the rifle in a straight line versus downward. This keeps the scope in place. The amount of vertical travel of the reticle is reduced.

I could be wrong but that is what I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white and lash
#180
Nik H said:
Damned if I know exactly, but what I noticed is less muzzle rise when the shot breaks. Since I used less pressure on the cheek piece, the recoil pulse moves the rear of the rifle in a straight line versus downward. This keeps the scope in place. The amount of vertical travel of the reticle is reduced.

I could be wrong but that is what I think.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.

Thank you.

-Stan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H
#181
Question, why is it so much easier to shoot and HIT targets with the 12 pound Vudoo then the 18-20+ pound centerfire rifles in 6GT?

Data:

When I built my two MPA’s, barely high enough rings were all that could be found. It was so bad, I paid almost double at a LGS for a set of rings. When we built the Vudoo, I had my choice of virtually any ring I could wish for. While not as tall as Frank’s newest idea, they are tall.

The MPA’s go right at 19 pounds, and over 22 pounds with the mini plate and Shemedium bags attached. The Vudoo, at Brenda’s request (looking out for my fair bit of seniority in the age thing) well demanded that if I was going to build that rifle, make it light. And light it is. With bipod attached, it weighs in right at 12 pounds 1 ounce. It is just barely butt stock heavy, but will balance well enough. The two centerfires balance perfectly

All three rifles have identical Leupold MK5 with PR2 reticles.

No longer a contender to win or even finish well, I generally expect to hit at least 50% of the shots I take in all situations (QUIT LAUGHING :(. ). My centerfire percentage has fallen last year. Fallen a lot. My rimfire percentage has gone way up, higher than I have shot PRS style matches before. These percentages are at matches, not free shooting.

So, idea, considering this thread, might the higher rings and the more relaxed position but positively affecting the shooting, or is it just rimfire rifles, and rimfire targets, despite the size, just so much closer, thus easier.
 
#182
Dead Eye Dick said:
Question, why is it so much easier to shoot and HIT targets with the 12 pound Vudoo then the 18-20+ pound centerfire rifles in 6GT?

Data:

When I built my two MPA’s, barely high enough rings were all that could be found. It was so bad, I paid almost double at a LGS for a set of rings. When we built the Vudoo, I had my choice of virtually any ring I could wish for. While not as tall as Frank’s newest idea, they are tall.

The MPA’s go right at 19 pounds, and over 22 pounds with the mini plate and Shemedium bags attached. The Vudoo, at Brenda’s request (looking out for my fair bit of seniority in the age thing) well demanded that if I was going to build that rifle, make it light. And light it is. With bipod attached, it weighs in right at 12 pounds 1 ounce. It is just barely butt stock heavy, but will balance well enough. The two centerfires balance perfectly

All three rifles have identical Leupold MK5 with PR2 reticles.

No longer a contender to win or even finish well, I generally expect to hit at least 50% of the shots I take in all situations (QUIT LAUGHING :(. ). My centerfire percentage has fallen last year. Fallen a lot. My rimfire percentage has gone way up, higher than I have shot PRS style matches before. These percentages are at matches, not free shooting.

So, idea, considering this thread, might the higher rings and the more relaxed position but positively affecting the shooting, or is it just rimfire rifles, and rimfire targets, despite the size, just so much closer, thus easier.
Click to expand...
My group sizes were not affected. I shot six, 5-shot groups at 100 yards, and all were normal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Eye Dick
#183
Dead Eye Dick said:
Question, why is it so much easier to shoot and HIT targets with the 12 pound Vudoo then the 18-20+ pound centerfire rifles in 6GT?
Click to expand...
40 gr bullet twisting 16t @ 1060 mv
105 gr bullet twisting 7.5t @ 2700 mv

half the projectile weight, half the twist, half the speed...so smaller bores, lighter bullets, slower twists...less forces involve taking the rifle off axis.

IMHO, .223 added to the mix can be a good half-way point for "trainers".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Eye Dick and Nik H
#184
Thanks to @Baron23 supplying me with a riser I got it set up. I can’t say it did anything to make the accuracy better necessarily, but it did a lot to help with the comfort and fit in all positions. Definitely easier to find the eye relief without having to bend my neck at an unnatural angle. Prone was good, but work off the tripod was even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash, Baron23, Jscb1b and 3 others
#185
LuckyLuke80 said:
Thanks to @Baron23 supplying me with a riser I got it set up. I can’t say it did anything to make the accuracy better necessarily, but it did a lot to help with the comfort and fit in all positions. Definitely easier to find the eye relief without having to bend my neck at an unnatural angle. Prone was good, but work off the tripod was even better.
Click to expand...
I will add that I would get comfortable behind the rifle with my eyes closed. When I felt like it was what I liked I would open my eyes and was pretty repeatable behind the scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Nik H
#187
stanley_white said:
One way to test to see if your eye is upright and centered behind the scope is to buy a pair of these with clear lenses for $10 from Walmart.

Put them on, get in the prone, look through your scope, if the glasses frame is in the way, your eye isn’t centered.


-Stan

View attachment 8595657
Click to expand...
Great. Now the next time I need reading glasses, they’ll be as hard to find as 8 pound cans of Varget and 105 hybrids when a democrat is president.
 
#188
Holy Shitballs I hadn’t looked at this thread since it was posted. Goddamn man, it’s pretty funny.
Not that any of our opinions are worth any more than another, none of you messaged me so I’ll jump in unsolicited!
First, lolicopter.
Second, why do threads start bringing up random camps / my dad can beat your dad up? We’re all trying to shoot stuff, whatever you call it seems ridiculous to argue about who prefers to shoot what and at what speed.
Third, there’s a longer video I put out that discusses some of the stuff mentioned and left other stuff out. Rather than wear the glass down on my phone with my thumbs, I’ll post a link and see if any of you take a peek. I’m not saying I’m right, but I sure think I am! (I’m always kind of kidding so calm down weirdos).
Podcast Video
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric32, Spd37, lash and 3 others
#189
ChrisWay said:
Holy Shitballs I hadn’t looked at this thread since it was posted. Goddamn man, it’s pretty funny.
Not that any of our opinions are worth any more than another, none of you messaged me so I’ll jump in unsolicited!
First, lolicopter.
Second, why do threads start bringing up random camps / my dad can beat your dad up? We’re all trying to shoot stuff, whatever you call it seems ridiculous to argue about who prefers to shoot what and at what speed.
Third, there’s a longer video I put out that discusses some of the stuff mentioned and left other stuff out. Rather than wear the glass down on my phone with my thumbs, I’ll post a link and see if any of you take a peek. I’m not saying I’m right, but I sure think I am! (I’m always kind of kidding so calm down weirdos).
Podcast Video
Click to expand...
For me, I think you're spot on.
 
#191
In lieu of getting a riser, I took the cheek piece off of my bravo and shot like that. My rings are 1.44” already, and pulling the cheek riser allowed plenty of room for my melon as well as let me put the butt stock damn near right in the middle of my sternum. It was a significant difference in recoil management. I liked it so much that I had a friend print me a “cap” to go in place of the cheek piece. It has the rods in case I need to raise it slightly (prone). It might look goofy but it feels 100% better.

IMG_1281.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H, Emerson0311, CK1.0 and 3 others
#192
ChrisWay said:
Holy Shitballs I hadn’t looked at this thread since it was posted. Goddamn man, it’s pretty funny.
Not that any of our opinions are worth any more than another, none of you messaged me so I’ll jump in unsolicited!
First, lolicopter.
Second, why do threads start bringing up random camps / my dad can beat your dad up? We’re all trying to shoot stuff, whatever you call it seems ridiculous to argue about who prefers to shoot what and at what speed.
Third, there’s a longer video I put out that discusses some of the stuff mentioned and left other stuff out. Rather than wear the glass down on my phone with my thumbs, I’ll post a link and see if any of you take a peek. I’m not saying I’m right, but I sure think I am! (I’m always kind of kidding so calm down weirdos).
Podcast Video
Click to expand...
I watched the video and took some great stuff out of it. Bottom line there are several different things a person can do to get the rifle to fit you! raising the scope is definitely one of those ways to get the gun inline with a persons particular body style. We would all be kidding ourselves if we said there is only one way. Thank you for the info and fuck it I'm bout use a two inch riser.....JK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23, lash and Nik H
#195
I watched the video and thought it was pretty good.

But, nothing about how raising the scope will change how the rifle rig recoils was covered… and it seems like this is being attacked from a prone/tripod shooting perspective only (which I had no idea so many guys had so much trouble with honestly).

Most guy’s scope/mount combos are going to weigh ~40oz or more and raising that much weight up from where most of a rig’s weight rides (barrel/action) is going to have an effect on how a rig tracks under recoil, especially on a bag.

Personally, I thought not tightening the scope down a little made the head positions shown in the video misleading (as Chris had to hold onto to the scope too), instead of just getting into a realistic firing position… the standard mount without the riser looked about fine to me if he had realistically got behind the gun like it was going to kick some.

IMHO, there’s a reason most guys (including most pros) who spend a lot of time shooting off bags aren’t raising their scopes up too high for the most part, with most sticking to that “mediumish” height of ~1.25-1.34”, and it’s probably because most guys who aren’t too concerned with trying to make relatively easier and inherently more stable positions like prone shooting or shooting when locked into a tripod more comfortable don’t really care about those positions as much as when shooting off bags or front-bag and tripod-rear support, where recoil management and how the guns track under recoil is far less forgiving.

I’d like to see some live fire video from the side perspective off a bag while experimenting with how high is too high… I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to spot some of the negative impacts of raising that much weight higher up on the gun.
 
Last edited:
#196
Most pros aren’t concerned with trigger control and fundamentals but here we are.

The ring height comes from and I am just stabbing in the dark here the stupid port holes that are super small or crawling into a tube and shooting out of a tiny hole.

What would be a negative impact from raising the scope. If you say cant I would say Send it level. If you say it changes your dope I say gravity ballistics. If you say recoil management I would say not having your neck cranked over and your butt pad anchored to your midline and not just the very tip or a small percentage of it. Would be better off.

But Chris has been shooting with his middle finger for a while because he understand how to think outside the box.

Locked up on a tripod vs a bag still need to have recoil management.

Just think about this you don’t have situational awareness looking around with your head tilted forward. Your head is meant to be upright to process information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dot3 and Nik H
#197
I just think there’s a point where it becomes a low bore-axis versus high bore-axis thing (sort of like with pistols) and in a lot of cases having a higher bore-axis isn’t desirable or worth the trade-off. JMHO/YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
#198
Pistols don’t recoil the same way as a rifle. Reciprocating mass in a semi auto is about as close you can get.

And assaulters are going with 2” and more for lvpo and red dots for more SA in a house and being able to bring the sights to your eyes not your eyes down to your sights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H
#199
I wasn’t talking about reciprocating-mass (like a semi-auto pistol slide going back and forth). Recoil is recoil, and the physics are the same whether it’s a pistol, a rifle, or a giant piece of artillery. For the most part, generally, the lower the bore-axis (and center of gravity), the less muzzle flip.

And guys kicking down doors aren’t trying to spot their impacts/splash/trace hundreds of yards away.

I’m all for trying to get to a more heads up position behind the rifle… but I do think there’s a point where we can’t just keep raising that much weight up higher and higher on our rigs before we encounter some of the side-effects that get introduced when doing that.

Is being more comfortable behind the gun worth living with a gun that recoils more erratically and that reveals and exploits deficiencies in our firing position and/or stability more easily worth it? Maybe for some.

But I’d argue that for a lot of us there’s a tipping point with how high we can go without having to add more weight down low on the rig in order to counter balance and mitigate some of the negative effects is all.

I tend to see this a little like how we address LOP these days… it’s pretty settled and most agree with the more modern doctrine that shorter LOP is better than what guys used to do. But there’s definitely a point where one can go too short, to where they can no longer manage recoil well, and while having one’s LOP set a little too short might be comfortable and feel great while looking through the scope with the gun locked into a tripod, if it’s too short and doesn’t allow one to get into the gun enough, they won’t be able to see shit once it goes bang (until it settles back down).
 
#200
Eric32 said:
And assaulters are going with 2” and more for lvpo and red dots for more SA in a house and being able to bring the sights to your eyes not your eyes down to your sights.
Click to expand...
You can't fix AR's by dropping the riser, because the functional buffer tube sets a limit on head placement options.

You can "fix" head position on bolt-guns, however, by lowering the cheekpiece, and raising the rifle via support (higher bipod/tripod). That opens up the argument to dicussing centre of mass/CoG. etc, since you have two methods with different tradeoffs.

Point being this isn't a dogmatic discussion, the real world of shooting always works buy guys figuring it out first, then figuring out how to explain why it works. Later on you get guys who can take the "why it works" and extend it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dot3, lash and Nik H
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lowlight
The Everyday Sniper Podcast: New Training Seasons Starts Now
Replies
0
Views
346
Lowlight
Lowlight
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 1
Replies
4
Views
542
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
robozebra
My Quest for the Big 5 (kinda…)
Replies
81
Views
4K
robozebra
robozebra
Yoteski
Rifle Competition Events Competition Dynamics Burris Optics Team Challenge AAR
Replies
10
Views
1K
dgheriani
D
pangris
Sons of Liberty Armorers Class - AAR
Replies
53
Views
2K
bfoosh006
bfoosh006
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts