You hardly ever read a bad article on just about anything in the gun industry. Even Taurus or Jennings articles tell you how good they are and why everyone should have one.

It made me think of shooting under a vehicle also.
That type of shooting makes someone appreciate some advantages of a red dot optic.

Well just to give you a little heads up about that magazine artical, "The Accurate Rifle" Magazine will chew up products more than they praise them

I see your little beef and possible defamation of Sully and Defensove Edge has graduated to other boards

I'll make sure I send TJ a link and few from ARFCOM, so he can see you and boys little bullshit game

in the first place, this isn't ar15.com and I don't have to like a short stock on my ar15's. I am entitled to my opinion even if it irks you. don't talk about defamation after what Quinlan does over there...

Gentlemen, last warning. To all parties involved, don't make this a repeat performance. We can all disagree, but we will not make personal attacks, nor drag other sites into this.

If it goes any further, this topic will be locked.

OK with me....last post on the subject

Depends on which ones you read. I have come across quite a few no BS articles in the mags I read.

Yeah, a dot sight helps quite a bit in SBU. It's not so bad with an AR/M16 config or even an MP5, but it can be pretty tough with an M14.
It does work though.

Exactly!!!
Guys we encourage differences of opinions here, but it will be handled in a civil and professional manner, if anyone feels they cannot be civil or professional in a discussion, please bite your tounge.

no offence to you but I find that idea kindof odd, I think there are better stances that you can use depending on your weapon, its not hard to change your stance when you change your weapon...ecspecially when your moving to begin with.... JMHO

No offence taken. If we all thought the same way, we would never learn anything new.
The reasoning behind the "one stance works for everything" is based on natural reaction and efficient use of body mechanics. You can take a person that has not had a lick of training, and if you approach them aggressively, they will generally assume some variation of this stance to defend themselves. So why not build on that reaction. I have seen this stance actually improve peoples shooting with both long gun and handgun. It makes for much smoother transitioning between primary and secondary as well. I am humored by the little transition dance people do at the range when they use different stances for different weapons. I just can't see any advantage to it. For me one stance works great for everything, so why put extra effort into multiple stances?

Every instructor I am familiar with will tell you trying to obtain a perfect stance in a fight is not using your time effectively.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about the modern fighting stance (I don't think) is recoil control.

We all know that rifles throw shots in a climbing pattern to the right.(If you are right handed) Right?

With the stance in question, the recoil is directed straight back into the shoulder, there is no directional climb.

It's really interesting how it works.

I have tried the stance and didn't notice whether I had climb to the right or not. I will have to give a little more effort to try and notice this weekend.

I guess this answers the original question.

Well I know I am going to sleep better at night, knowing that we have all these Tactical Teddy's around. Who needs Homeland Security, Patriot Act, or even the army with all these "gunfighters" around.
:smile:

This post has been edited by jem375: December 6th 2005 3:32 PM

I think we've learned as much about this particular accessory as possible, topic is closed to prevent it from degrading further.