|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Precision long range hunting and shooting
> Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?
Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?
@ 03:45 pm (GMT) |
David LenziI've got a few of Nathan's books on the shelf and, of course, have read his primer on the subject of marksmanship technique here on the sight. I consider this "Traditional" technique - I say that only for clarification.Modern technique, on the other hand, consists of getting square and straight behind the gun, head up, butt on the collar bone. I wouldn't typically post a link to another forum, but it is a handy reference and I'm damn sure not an expert: https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/rifle-position-collar-bone.7049485/ Any of you particularly thick skinned and hearty individuals wanna tell me how someone is actually supposed to setup a gun and shoot modern? I just don't get it, not really. Ordinarily, fine...but, a sort of weird hybrid has made its way into the training curriculum at work. I just don't see how one can get square and straight, but also effectively employ NPA and control of the handguard without some kind of support. |
Replies
@ 05:07 pm (GMT) |
Lane SalvatoRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?Yeah I can tell you how that modern technique works. Use a 223 that weighs 30 lbs. All those guys out there promoting that technique should grab a 300 Win. Mag. in a weight that is actually reasonable for hunting, put that buttstock on their collar bone, and touch it off. Hopefully they're using 200 grain Buffalo Bore ammunition. We'll see how they like it after shooting 3 shots.I see this all the time at the rifle range and I never say a word. Guys trying to sight in a rifle at 50 yards and don't understand why their groups are 2 inches on average. |
@ 05:27 am (GMT) |
Joshua MayfieldRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?David, your questions are similar to some of my thoughts after I participated in a Precision Rifle class that a friend teaches. Let's recognize the difference between static and dynamic shooting situations. If our end goal is to punch small holes through an ink spot on a stationary piece of paper at a known range in good weather and our shooting position is a nice flat piece of dry ground (static scenario) then we are freed to shoot light kicking calibers from heavy rifles with bipods up front and a "sqeeze bag" under the butt of the stock. This allows for all kinds of positioning and the ability to see impact through the scope can be perceived as a more pressing concern than the integrity of a collar bone because the collar bone is not threatened by a 12 lb. 6.5 CM. One of my little pet peaves with friends who hunt is how hard some of them work to create completely static shooting conditions, to the point that they are either lacking confidence or ability or both to take dynamic shots in the field.A dynamic shooting situation offers no guarantees of time to analyze breathing or reposition because of that pebble sticking me in my rib, no guarantees of a stationary target, no time to deploy the bipod or squeeze bag, etc. and so on. Dynamic hunting situations do create the need for a gun that is light enough to maneuver but powerful enough to do the required lethal damage. So in a dynamic situation your technique better allow you to shoot to different points accurately and without opening up a gap in your eyebrow. The collar bone approach is ill suited to dynamic shooting. A great coach used to say "You play the way you practice." I think the principle applies to shooting as well. If my practice is purely static I'll be limited in a dynamic environment. |
@ 06:18 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?Maybe people believe the bullet has left the barrel before the gun moves, so it doesn’t matter how the shooter absorbs recoil and muzzle jump. It would seem so, from watching most videos on YouTube. I hadn’t thought about it until reading “Hold That Fore-end.” |
|
@ 02:40 am (GMT) |
David LenziRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?@Joshua - Indeed. About the lightest I've seen are rifles built out at around 17-18 lbs "all in" and usually sporting an effective brake.I might do a separate post on this at some point. I've been dabbling, trying to get some first hand experience. I've got a 10 lb (all in) .30-06 as my current "goto" hunting rifle. I will say that, in the name of science, I have a pretty nice bruise on my collar bone today. I make no claims to being a great shooter - and my .-06 is a level of recoil that is challenging for me to control in pursuit of proper accuracy. That was from Saturday past. Yesterday I had the 12.5 lb, braked Creedmoor out. Far from definitive, I fired four groups with four different techniques. No collar bone complaints unique to this event, but on top of the -06 the day prior... re: Field Shooting, I've acquired an Armageddon Gear pint sized Game Changer with "git lite" fill for hunting use. I just clip it to my belt and forget it's there, but have it if I need either a hasty rear bag or something to throw over a post/log/rock, etc. (and time permits) @Scott - that brings me logically to a further discussion of the technique as I understand it, particularly with respect to bipod use. I cannot speak definitively to this because I am as yet incapable of applying this technique. Basically, these folks load the bipod (i.e apply constant forward pressure to the legs) while simultaneously using their firing hand to pull the butt into the shoulder (i.e. collar bone). Done properly (with small enough recoil impulse?), the rifle comes repeatably to the rear. My own efforts have led to significant horizontal variation/stringing in my own groups. That's with my easy shooting 6.5 CM. With my .30-06 the issue is amplified significantly. This weekend, for example, my rifle really wanted to hop left. Impact on target reflected. The groups were not especially tight, as you might expect. In contrast, I did fire my two best three shot groups ever yesterday. I fired one (the larger of the two, in the "3s" as they say) with "modern" technique off sand bags (not bipod). Still some lateral. The second (tighter, in the "2s") group, I shot with my bipod, but holding the fore-end. |
@ 04:31 am (GMT) |
Frank VallichRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?@David: Prior to investing time to read and implement Nathan's guides to better shooting my method was in between the collar bone and Traditional - it was the pocket. Accuracy jumped from 2 - 3 inch groups to less than 1 after removing the bipod and setting up low and wide behind the rifle. This was exciting as I was blaming the rifle hardware for my inaccuracy (scope-barrel-cartridges). Not once did I consider the pocket or the bipod as part of the problem.@Joshua: The reality of carrying and firing a 12 lb rifle in the field and pulling off accurate shots was less than probable. Began considering the rifle a boat anchor. I devised a great portable fore end rest for prone shooting. Too bad the wild grass grows three feet tall in most of my areas. I then decided just to carry the 12 pounder to a hide and limit the use strictly to a static position. Mhh! Not practical. Began searching, once again, for the one item unavailable to suit my criteria. A great sling. I located the RS3 sling. Purchased one. Placed it on a semi in .308. Carried well. Shot off the position of resting the upper triceps area on the knee from a genuflecting position. Practice makes for muscle memory. Stripped the sling off the semi and onto the boat anchor. Amazing results. 1/ I'm able to carry the boat anchor hands free and now I consider the dead weight a rifle. 2/ Practiced to improve accuracy. I could not practice shooting from a genuflection position at the local gun range as I was forward of the firing line. Located an abandoned lease road. The RS3 functions best when the sling is attached to the side of the rifle. I modified attachment points and where I did not want to drill and tap I devised two unique swivel attachments. I purchased a second RS3 as I use the semi for personal protection berry picking or walking the bush. I purchased a third RS3 and gifted it to a young enthusiastic outdoorsman. |
@ 05:06 pm (GMT) |
Jon ShortRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both? Fk no!My thoughts are pretty simple.Holding the fore end is consistent from whatever position you are in, including off hand, kneeling positions such as using the side of a tree as a rest, bipods prone, off your day pack prone, & all the numerous other positions you shoot from.. short range bush stalking or across a small clearing shot, to longer range shots in more controlled prone positions. You can't shoot without holding the fore end off hand can you! duh! So holding the fore end is a "one style fits all positions", which means more consistency & accuracy no matter what your position when you take you hard earned shot. Its more adaptable, what Nathans calls "transferable" skills from memory. I think people are typically pretty lazy & that's what leads to all these lazy positions, rifle set ups & shooting styles. Man up I say! Get a grip! Cheers, Jon |
|
@ 12:50 am (GMT) |
David LenziRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?@Frank - I read your other post on the sling. I really do need to try it. I’ve gone through several now that I have been disappointed with. I have a Latigo on my .30-06 and it is serviceable for shooting but just awful to carry. I’ve got a Wilderness on my Tikka...also doesn’t carry well. The nylon has been slippery in use (versus the Latigo which sticks at least) making it very hard to sling in tight. When I’m not shooting them off my color bone I can easily tolerate the recoil of both rifles, but I cannot manage it properly.
That’s my 200 yard zero...maybe. I’m confident in the elevation more so than the windage. It demonstrates the problem though - my recoil management causes horizontal dispersion. It took me a while to realize that’s what it was/is. Trying to shoot “modern” helped highlight it for me because of how much worse it became generally. As noted, shooting well off a bipod is a skill and one that, as yet, eludes me. Another example, the 12.75 lb (I weighed it again) 6.5 CM w/ APA Gen 2 Lil’ B brake on it. Bipod holding fore end, bipod “modern.” 
Both groups are three shots. The recoil management problem is even more obvious here. Scaled for distance, basically the same results as the -06 above from a rifle 25% heavier and generating perhaps half the recoil (if that). @Jon - I concur, it’s universal. It makes a lot of sense. |
@ 11:50 am (GMT) |
Steph FosterRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?Hi David. This is in regards to both threads you have posted.Technique is a nebulous thing, merely a theory or conceptual idea. Technique is only as effective as it's application. Your talk of bruising on the collar bone tells me that your understanding and application of Nathan's technique may be limited. If you were using the 'traditional' shooting technique correctly, there is no way your collar bone will be bruised - it shouldn't even come into play. What I am getting from your threads is that you maybe struggling to understand how to hold your rifle correctly. I am a 5.6 ft (170cm) female and can comfortably use unbraked high power rifles accurately and have never sustained bruising. We don't allow Nathan's books to be discussed and dissected on our forums for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Nathan has already placed a lot of free information on our website and within this forum. The books are our income earners - how we pay our bills. Secondly, forum threads quite often misleading and can easily lead to misinterpretation of facts. Threads such as this are generally deleted. You might like to think about booking a one on one consultation with Nathan (see consultation tab in our website). This may give you some go-forward. |
|
@ 06:14 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?Hi David. I have all of the Fosters’ books. I just double-checked to make sure, and it’s The Practical Guide to Long Range Shooting that contains a whole chapter on technique. I’m not suggesting a consultation with Nathan is unnecessary - even great golfers work with coaches - but I’m sure Nathan would rather start the conversation with the basics already established. I had a bruised collar bone after a range day before I bought the book. The benches at my range are not exactly “ergonomic.” The rest for my trigger arm is only 8” wide and cut at a right angle to the table. After reading the book, and watching Nathan’s free video on bench construction, I realized the bench I was using forced me into the “modern” approach you describe (i.e., buttstock-on-collar bone), which I have to be wary of. Unless bench-rest shooting is your sport, the bench is only good for rifle/load evaluation - that’s about it. Perspiring over groups can be frustrating. At my range, there’s an 8” steel hanging at 200 yards, and a 10” one at 280. So when it’s not busy, I shoot those from field positions, which to me is more fun, and more confidence-building for hunting, than shooting groups at 100 off a bench. If your hunting regularly requires shots in excess of 300 yards, then maybe it’s worth all the bench-time. |
|
@ 12:39 pm (GMT) |
David LenziRe: Modern versus Traditional Technique - a place for both?My own shooting covers a lot of ground, both professional and recreational. I enjoy experimenting, particularly with things that I am unfamiliar with. However, there is no need to worry on my account. I shall refrain from further posting in this vein. I keep the books close to hand (can see them as I type this, in fact). I appreciate the time and effort that goes into such a multi-part project, though I can scarcely imagine the decades of research being just past 40 myself. That's a long way of saying I intend no disrespect and will do my best to clean up my act. |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |