Karma Shooter, Looking at our Body Position

[CK1.0]

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.

This.

All I'm saying is that the jury is still out on some of this (for at least some of us).

Is trying to adjust your shit to get a better, more ergonomic, heads-up position behind the gun sound like a good idea? Facts.

But, should we all be throwing 2" risers on our rigs without putting some consideration into what potential cons might come with raising that ~2.5lbs of scope/mount 2" above the existing bore-axis of our rigs without maybe doing a little more T&E (that's 10% or more of the total weight of one's rig if they're running a 25lb pig of a gun, and it's a larger percentage for those of us running lighter ones)? IDK...

 

[CK1.0]

I mean, this guy's rings look pretty normal and it doesn't seem to be holding him back. Heads up, looks pretty relaxed to me. Maybe some of us just suck at shooting and need to practice more lol (I know I do)?

(Whether one hates PRS or not, you've got to respect dude's gangster as far as managing recoil like a boss and making a plate at 400 yards look way too easy lol)

 

[Eric32]

His head is rolled over and his pupil is it at the top of his eye socket.

It’s Ben Gosset he is a kick ass PRS shooter and a great general shooter. But what if he raised his scope and got faster? Or was able to spot at 150yards his impacts and process information faster?

Let’s be honest majority of the people follow the crowd and never ask why?

 

[Nik H]

Let’s be honest majority of the people follow the crowd and never ask why?

Exactly

No method works for everyone. When an expert finds a promising technique, it is up to the individual to try it. In this case, there are many variables. Without photos to indicate your eye's position relative to the optic's centerline, you're guessing. I tried a 0.625" riser and my 1.54" mount. It worked well, but it was a shade too high. My next try will bring it down by a 0.25". It will be perfect.

Reticle jump is better. It has little to do with managing recoil as much as it has to do with ensuring the recoil pulse is moving in a straight line, and your body is aligned to the path of the rifle when it recoils. The upright head position allows me to place the rifle closer to my body's centerline. No need to overthink it.

People follow the crowd. People also give something a cursory try and say it doesn't work. In this case, you need to purchase items to give it a try. How many did?

There is no shortcut to the experimental method.

 

[Lowlight]

It’s a lot of Us,

Left to its own devices the rifle will do the same thing over and over. We add in the living being and things change in a variety of ways.

I think the why is the head and shoulders as well as the brain.

1. No roll the head is neutral
2. The rifle CG under recoil is lower, or at least the same. The scope is just to see, it doesn’t have a controlled explosion. So moving it from the head changes the brains perception
3. Index, vs Anchor, look at every picture of a shooter, they anchor to the cheek. That is downward pressure.

that’s my why

 

[lash]

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

This statement doesn’t support your argument as a con. The fact is, raising the height of the sight axis actually lowers the center of the rifle body position to more in line with the body’s position. Thus, effectively lowering the bore axis. Which we can all agree is usually a good thing, right?

 

[ma smith]

This statement doesn’t support your argument as a con. The fact is, raising the height of the sight axis actually lowers the center of the rifle body position to more in line with the body’s position. Thus, effectively lowering the bore axis. Which we can all agree is usually a good thing, right?

No cheek riser, no problem...

 

[Nik H]

No cheek riser, no problem...
View attachment 8603470

Not sure what your point is.

My Anschutz 64 MPR has no cheek riser. I use low (0.92") rings. The stock design and low rings allow the scope to line up perfectly with my eye. My head is upright and prone is comfortable. Works well!

As previously stated, this is not a one-size-fits-all technique. Every rifle will be different.

 

[lash]

As previously stated, this is not a one-size-fits-all technique. Every rifle will be different.

This. During all this academic discussion, let’s not forget that for best precision, a rifle system needs to be well fit and adjusted to the shooter.

We can all (assumption) shoot what we pick up, but when we are looking for the best out of a rifle, we are best served to adjust the system to the person and the purpose we intend to use it for.

 

[Aftermath]

No cheek riser, no problem...
View attachment 8603470

Take a gander at the M14.

 

[stanley_white]

I run 1.5” rings so I suspect I am pretty close already.

With that being said, I just had my AI AT stock upgraded to the AX and added the additional height rail.

The AX stock lets me adjust the recoil pad height and the Anarchy Outdoors cheek piece lets me get very low if I need to.

Soon I will take my AI AT and mount it on my tripod at a height where if I stand on the side of the rifle with the barrel pointing to my left the center of my eye is centered on the parallax knob.

This will get my eye centered on the scope occular in a manner that ensures I don’t subconsciously “turtle” my neck in case this is a training scar.

I will then drop the recoil pad until it aligns best with my high medial area.

I will then remove the rifle from the tripod and test it in the prone.

My gut tells me I will end up with the recoil pad 1/2” or so lower than traditionally set and the additional height rail and low cheek pad will take care of the rest.

Or, shorter, I am willihg to accept, prior to testing, the theory of losing a bit of recoil management by moving my recoil pad down 1/2” in order to achieve a more comfortable head position.

Of course this is all theory until this weekend during setup and eventual range testing.

-Stan

 

[obx22]

Hmmm,
Opinionated jerk here, so take it with a grain of salt:
You are not raising the scope, you are lowering the rifle.
Stay with me here:
If you view pics of Olympic shooters, they try to keep the eyes level in all their shooting positions. Level eyes (visual cues) and level ears (balance control) translates to the ultimate in steady aiming.
If you study their gear, most are running sights on tall blocks, and often they are canted over to align with the shooters level eyes (gun to shooter, not shooter to gun.)
Look at silhouette shooters, which went crazy with ladder mounts-scopes jacked way up and rifle lower to the shoulder, again all about balance with level eyes/head.
Now we have the barricade rifle/shooter system. Viewed from the side, the sighting system, grip, foreward support, and buttplate. The shooter’s eye, grip/trigger finger, support elbows, and shoulder.
If the barrel/trigger is the fixed point in space- aiming at the target, then the first variable is the height the bore is above ground (for now I’m discussing aiming at a target the same elevation as the barreled action).
Since the human element comes in such a variety of shapes and sizes, the rifle cannot be a “one size fits all”.
Likewise, and what I think doesn’t get enough consideration:
The height the rifle has to be above ground (obviously supported by the shooter) dramatically impacts the angles the shooter’s body is in, as well as the best “form” the rifle should take to yield the best shot.
Look at it another way-
The most comfortable shooting position is from a bench. The rifles weight is fully supported- fixed in space. Now you build your position behind the rifle with grip, shoulder, cheek. If the bench and rifle is too low, you are hunched over. Now your eye is closer to the scope, so you drag your face back, kink your neck, who knows with the length of pull whether the buttplate is even touching your shoulder pocket, is beneath it, or dead pressed in so hard it’s ridiculous. So- rifle and bench height are important, but so are the rifle adjustments.
If the rifle can not be moved, now you have to rely on adjusting what you can to make it interface/ fit your body properly for the best results. That’s just from a frikken bench!
You start prone, ok- what is your optimal shoulder height above ground level?
What height and angle is your head to give the most comfort, but also the clearest vision (yes, the angle your eyes are looking out of your skull effects your vision/clarity/and amount of induced strain.)
Think of your shoulder and eyes as the fixed points in space: Now the cheekpiece and buttplate must be adjusted to fit this ideal.
What distance from your shoulder places your grip/trigger hand at it’s optimum for both elbow angle and support, but also grip control AND trigger control. Wait,(that hand) it’s also pulling the rifle into your shoulder as well.
Throughout rifle design the grip has largely been an afterthought, yet it controls EVERYTHING!
Sooo much to consider…
Now, if you are not going to reset your rifle adjustments for each different position, then one logic would be to lock it into an “average” so while it would never shine in any position, it won’t absolutely suck in one particular position. Ok, what if you adjust it to best fit your worst/most unsteady position, and then let your body compensate for the rest?
No, I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a boatload of questions

 

[CK1.0]

Hmmm,
Opinionated jerk here, so take it with a grain of salt:
You are not raising the scope, you are lowering the rifle.
Stay with me here:
If you view pics of Olympic shooters, they try to keep the eyes level in all their shooting positions. Level eyes (visual cues) and level ears (balance control) translates to the ultimate in steady aiming.
If you study their gear, most are running sights on tall blocks, and often they are canted over to align with the shooters level eyes (gun to shooter, not shooter to gun.)
Look at silhouette shooters, which went crazy with ladder mounts-scopes jacked way up and rifle lower to the shoulder, again all about balance with level eyes/head.
Now we have the barricade rifle/shooter system. Viewed from the side, the sighting system, grip, foreward support, and buttplate. The shooter’s eye, grip/trigger finger, support elbows, and shoulder.
If the barrel/trigger is the fixed point in space- aiming at the target, then the first variable is the height the bore is above ground (for now I’m discussing aiming at a target the same elevation as the barreled action).
Since the human element comes in such a variety of shapes and sizes, the rifle cannot be a “one size fits all”.
Likewise, and what I think doesn’t get enough consideration:
The height the rifle has to be above ground (obviously supported by the shooter) dramatically impacts the angles the shooter’s body is in, as well as the best “form” the rifle should take to yield the best shot.
Look at it another way-
The most comfortable shooting position is from a bench. The rifles weight is fully supported- fixed in space. Now you build your position behind the rifle with grip, shoulder, cheek. If the bench and rifle is too low, you are hunched over. Now your eye is closer to the scope, so you drag your face back, kink your neck, who knows with the length of pull whether the buttplate is even touching your shoulder pocket, is beneath it, or dead pressed in so hard it’s ridiculous. So- rifle and bench height are important, but so are the rifle adjustments.
If the rifle can not be moved, now you have to rely on adjusting what you can to make it interface/ fit your body properly for the best results. That’s just from a frikken bench!
You start prone, ok- what is your optimal shoulder height above ground level?
What height and angle is your head to give the most comfort, but also the clearest vision (yes, the angle your eyes are looking out of your skull effects your vision/clarity/and amount of induced strain.)
Think of your shoulder and eyes as the fixed points in space: Now the cheekpiece and buttplate must be adjusted to fit this ideal.
What distance from your shoulder places your grip/trigger hand at it’s optimum for both elbow angle and support, but also grip control AND trigger control. Wait,(that hand) it’s also pulling the rifle into your shoulder as well.
Throughout rifle design the grip has largely been an afterthought, yet it controls EVERYTHING!
Sooo much to consider…
Now, if you are not going to reset your rifle adjustments for each different position, then one logic would be to lock it into an “average” so while it would never shine in any position, it won’t absolutely suck in one particular position. Ok, what if you adjust it to best fit your worst/most unsteady position, and then let your body compensate for the rest?
No, I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a boatload of questions

Facts.

I'd never received any form of bolt-gun rifle training when I first started, but coming from a USPSA/IDPA background with a shit ton of lead having been slung... I decided fairly early on that if prone/bench were the most stable positions I'd ever find myself shooting from, I'd worry about those last (as far as setting up my gun fit).

For me, I'm still in the honeymoon phase where I'm still getting used to seeing 90+% of my "long-range precision rifle" shots (whether impact or splash). And that's come mostly due to the pursuit of getting better at being able to shoot off whatever position I'm presented with, which means me trying purposely not to shoot prone or off the bench too much, and during that time I've been experimenting with my gun fit a lot.

Personally, I think shooting off just a bag under the forend is a blast, it's hard and can be as brutal as it is rewarding. But I feel like I've learned a lot from it because when I find myself in more stable positions like prone or with the gun locked into a tripod, that shit just seems to take care of itself and seems relatively easy.

We're all still learning, and we all should be questioning the status quo and trying new shit if we think we're onto something, none of this shit is settled law at this point.

But we discover new stuff all the time and will continue to do so...

Like this I found today, whether you give a shit about PRS or not, Mr. Colon casually breaks down in a few minutes what has taken me like 2-3 years to figure out (and I still don't really have it figured out lol):

 

[obx22]

So I just was finally able to actually sit down and watch the original video…
My initial reply was based on the other replies in the thread funny to see almost the same points gone over(but with the graphic, far more easy to understand)!
Only negative that stands out to me, and it is likely just lack of proper experience, would be speed. I’m one of those guys who tries to lock in tight with a bunch of cheek pressure to maintain some semblance of consistency when running a bolt gun fast (an excellent example would be trying to flip a spinner target). I’m not Mr. Smooth, so it takes pressure to stay on target through the cycling process now that I (mostly) keep my face on the cheekpiece.
A couple of other takeaways from the video:
Noticing the relationship of the cheekpiece relative to your face.
Initially it’s on nearly the same level as your nose, next rifle near your moustache area, next rifle near your lips, so roughly an inch-inch and a quarter of change. However your cheekbones create a wedge face shape (narrower towards the jaw) which allows you to get your face/eyes closer to square on to the scope (and less side pressure on the cheekpiece because it’s lower/out of the way) without tilting your head.
Notice all of your cheekpieces are a radius size similar to an AR gas tube (or larger), rather than say a diameter half or 1/3 the size, which would allow it to be higher for that consistent anchor point, while still allowing your face to get closer to the rifle’s centerline with level eyes. Just observations
Instead of taller scopes, would narrow cheekpieces and a slightly lower buttplate do the same thing (raising the rifle rather than just the scope), or would that take the recoil impulse away from bore line?

 

[obx22]

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

Enjoyed your thoughts in this video and have a few for you to ponder. Around 19minutes in (right after shhh the pooch) you mentioned the lack of muzzle rise and that you didn’t understand what changed from raising the scope. Later when you mentioned “people concerned with wearing out scope mounts” you perhaps unintentionally answered your own question.
Physics-
Raising the scope changes the center of mass of the system. If the mass above the bore line is the same as below it, the barrel must recoil straight back (and in a slight twisting motion) unless acted on by another outside force such as a bipod or tripod (which adds its own variable).
Also, the reason you have a better chance at seeing the bullet trace, is the geometry of the bullets path in relation to the line of sight. Lowering the bore (in relation to the line of sight through the scope) shifts the ballistic curve further away from the shooter. The slug crosses the sight path closer to the target, rises less above the line of sight, before striking the bull. All this is happening closer to the focus point of the scope, thus it has a better chance of being perceived by the shooting eye.
Thoughts?

 

[Emerson0311]

So I just was finally able to actually sit down and watch the original video…
My initial reply was based on the other replies in the thread funny to see almost the same points gone over(but with the graphic, far more easy to understand)!
Only negative that stands out to me, and it is likely just lack of proper experience, would be speed. I’m one of those guys who tries to lock in tight with a bunch of cheek pressure to maintain some semblance of consistency when running a bolt gun fast (an excellent example would be trying to flip a spinner target). I’m not Mr. Smooth, so it takes pressure to stay on target through the cycling process now that I (mostly) keep my face on the cheekpiece.
A couple of other takeaways from the video:
Noticing the relationship of the cheekpiece relative to your face.
Initially it’s on nearly the same level as your nose, next rifle near your moustache area, next rifle near your lips, so roughly an inch-inch and a quarter of change. However your cheekbones create a wedge face shape (narrower towards the jaw) which allows you to get your face/eyes closer to square on to the scope (and less side pressure on the cheekpiece because it’s lower/out of the way) without tilting your head.
Notice all of your cheekpieces are a radius size similar to an AR gas tube (or larger), rather than say a diameter half or 1/3 the size, which would allow it to be higher for that consistent anchor point, while still allowing your face to get closer to the rifle’s centerline with level eyes. Just observations
Instead of taller scopes, would narrow cheekpieces and a slightly lower buttplate do the same thing (raising the rifle rather than just the scope), or would that take the recoil impulse away from bore line?

The narrow and lower cheek piece is a thing now. Like a judo push/pull, it’s about the relationship between 2 points.