Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Zero Three
The unit I am in conducted an extensive assessment of this and actually at one point in time did MTTs to conventional units, teaching this as part of the course. I too grew up with the urban myth that it induced malfunctions but after seeing it proven wrong so extensively over time and circumstances, have changed my opinion on it and now am a strong advocate of it. It works, it doesn't cause issues and it increases the shooters performance/groups at the target. The bullet doesn't lie.
|
I just got done with an MTT mission. Had a pvt who couldn't group worth a damn. Shot 17/40 paper qual for the warm-up qual. I changed his position, got his L hand off the heat guard & sand bag and placed it at the mag well for both supported and non-supported. Likewise, I showed him a kneeling technique where you put the mag on your knee (2:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOH7NrZNvdM) He shot 30/40. The MTT unit I'm with did a test with sandbag vs. sling vs. hand. Using guys who know how to shoot (they shoot ragged group at 25 w issue M4/M16) and same point of aim, we got different point of impact with each position. Conclusion: that non free-floated system is crappy enough that having a sand bag vs no sandbag is enough to cause zero shift at 25m! So effect of position/hold/rifle-surface contact on barrel harmonics is definitely there. Mag on the ground and holding at the mag well create a consistent, improvised "free float." It does require a degree of flexibility though.
FWIW, I have experienced malfunction (double feed) with resting mag on the ground. Marked that magazine, tossed it away, and I never experienced another malfunction using "well maintained and inspected" mags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
An M-4 mag catch assembly was not designed to hold the weight of a firing M-4. It's an already flimsy catch that barely holds in the magazine. With a 20 rd mag holding the weight of the M-4 might not be bad a 30rd mag will rock back and forth and as was pointed out might start to bend/crack parts that were never intended to hold weight. I'd sure like to examine the mag catches on those that have been firing with mag touching the ground and view the wear. Especially compared to those that have not used the mag as a firing platform.
And while I appreciate your unit conducting testing, I'd rather see an weapons engineer from say "Colt" conduct those same "tests" and see what they have to say.  |
Not only I rest mag on the ground, with that rocking motion, I jam the mag to the ground then pull it to my R shoulder with both L hand (on the mag well) and R hand creating a solid platform that moves as a single unit with each recoil. It's like opposite of loading the bipod. That rack grade A2 with issue ammo gets an "upgrade" in accuracy with that technique ( visual example at 0:33, also various weapon systems with mag on the ground and no malfunction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rXykqvVHmkO ) . I made a believer of folks at various units after they see the groups at 25, 100, and 200. Still, that "flimsy catch" worth merit to investigate. I admit I never shot thousands of round ( only < 300 in a single session) with that technique and observe wear and tear. Let me ask my contact at Colt and the head armorer at Barrett
In the meantime, some empirical testing (having anti-tilt follower helps)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcBGtoH_uSc
We need Longrange1947 and Gene Econ to chime in
