I spent a lot of my military career training infantrymen to shoot. Both with the old FNC1 and the new C7 rifle. For both of which the official rifle training manual mandates holding the rifle by the handguard.
Before seeing this video today I had never heard of "C-Clamp." Which looks rather fatiguing and uncomfortable. Firing positions should be natural and comfortable. Indeed, part of my rifle coaching is to have the rifleman close his eyes and relax. When he opens his eyes again, is the rifle still pointing naturally at the target? If not, then it is time to move the entire body until the rifle is pointing naturally at the target. This is particularly important when firing in the prone position. Which infantrymen like to do because the enemy tends to have a nasty habit of shooting back.
I think that this started in the competitive shooting community and somehow this just transitioned over to the military because it looks cool. Seems pretty uncomfortable to me.
I tend to be a "by the book" type of guy, because the official training manuals are based upon the accumulated experience of many people over many years. It is possible to do the "C-Clamp" with a Lee-Enfield rifle from the First World War. So if there were any advantage to it, people would have been doing it a hundred years ago.
A military unit in which things "just transition over" seems undisciplined to me. One advantage of everybody doing things the same way all the time is that leaders know what is going to happen when they give fire control orders.
I hear you guys discussing it a lot without having done it at all...
There's a lot of stuff that looks uncomfortable that ends up feeling pretty natural and well controlled. Just as with any grip or firing stance there's a right way and a wrong way to do it even within that grip. I know a lot of people who fire with a traditional training grip and I learned in the military as well but I have definitely transitioned to using the c clamp grip for my range trips and don't really feel like going back to traditional. Nobody's watching me out there shooting so it's not about looking cool it's about having substantially better grip on my rifle for recoil especially on the move.
All of the rifle training I did in the military was when I was standing still in a line with nobody shooting back at me and no movement happening. Turns out you can get almost any grip to work at that point lol. We fought two world wars but only figured out that the Weaver stance is incredibly effective after those wars were over from competition shooting. Well this also comes out of competition shooting. Just because it's not something written down 200 years ago doesn't mean that it's not better.
I sure don't recall any discussion about my comfort whilst in the military. I certainly don't remember being issued my own personal Barco-lounger..I might have stuck around..lol
in my experience, on PWT 1 and PWT3 since most of the shooting is done prone or (ick) kneeling, the C-clamp is really secondary to accuracy - everyone sticks the magazine on the ground as an impromptu monopod, so offhand grip is a lot less important; as long as you're not putting undue force on the non-free-floated barrel of the C7 (and thus throwing of point of impact), ''C-clamp'' works really well.
it's also great when standing, giving a really ''deliberate'' feeling to your hold on the rifle. it's hard to explain (as i'm sure you know as a fellow shooter) but it gives very immediate feedback during transitions between low ready and threat ready. you ''know'' where the rifle is, so to speak. you can also maintain the rifle very steadily for the time required to lay down a grouping, where just cushioning the handguard feels more passive and gentle.
there may be a skill gap here since nearly all of our live shoots are done on a flat range at 100,200,300 yards - under stress and duress, the effects on accuracy may be different. but I can confirm that this is a common, widespread method in my corner of the army.
surprised someone else read the C7 PAM - of course it'd be an officer for one ,and an infantryman for two. Over here, we're all just nasties holding it whatever way works, and like someone else said - on a flat range, at the prone, nearly everything works. thank you for your service, Sir, I hope the retired life is peaceful and accomplished.
Yes, the retired life is peaceful. Thank you for your comment.
Yes, kneeling is not a very practical position for anyone who wants to continue breathing after a firefight. Sometimes there is no alternative to standing position, for example when clearing an enemy trench complex or FIBUA. Whenever I read of brave Ukranians doing just that, I have the most tremendous admiration for their heroism.
The best position of all is fighting from a trench. Particularly if the company commander has carefully positioned all the machine guns and other heavy weapons so that everyone is fighting together as a team with mutual support. It is my opinion that every range should have trench firing positions constructed to practice firing from a trench.
Boss Mcbeth, I think this may be a swing-and-a-miss or seeing something where there isn't something, unfortunately.
I'm a Canadian army reservist NCO. Combat arms, non-infantry. six years.
on the yearly C7 range this weekend, I noticed that a lot of my guys were using the same grip too. I noticed it because I've read our C7 BGL (doctrine) written in like the late 90s. it preaches the very classic, hold-your-handguard way, inherited from the FAL and Enfield days. but I may be the only enlisted dude in the CAF that reads and knows doctrine, so I'm fairly sure fellow instructors didn't read it, and didn't teach it to these fresh kids.
my point is we're reservists - ''advanced training'' doesn't exist. full stop. and most of my guys are shooting C-clamp. my guess is that my guys, and the Palestinian Militants, have picked it up from cultural sources (video games ,youtube, whatever) or maybe from cadre who they themselves picked it up from innocuous sources, not from high-speed-low-drag killers. if it's common enough to be widespread in my corner of the Canadian Army, it's definitely widespread enough to be picked up by militants knowingly training to go to actual war.
When doing what I do, a terrorist is a nonstate actor. A militant would be state, sponsored, or quasi-state sponsor. I have to be precise and unemotional.
Thanks for your response.. I just believe their actions define them. If they had just attacked military personnel, I could see the term militant. But since they DELIBERATELY (not incidentally/or accidentally) targeted civilians, they are terrorists, regardless of who sponsors them.
It’s an opinion. My opinion is : they are terrorists. By most accepted definitions they are terrorists. State sponsored terrorists or otherwise; Their sponsors are irrelevant. The truth seems self-evident here.
It doesn’t seem biased or unprofessional to call something what it is. You have a different opinion. Doesn’t mean I’m “wrong.”
Yeah I think you're still pushing too emotionally into it. They are an arm of an elected leadership of that region. When the United States committed the Mylai massacre the US military didn't suddenly become a terrorist organization. It's a state-sponsored wing that is the regular armed forces of Hamas which holds office in Gaza.
Are they terrorists? Some of them definitely are, but there are probably plenty that are just going to get drafted and called up to defend Palestine right now that aren't terrorists but they are all militants. It's the only word the applies to them all.
I respect your response and see your point; but again, regardless of sponsorship, those Hamas members that deliberately attacked defenseless civilians fit most universally accepted definitions of terrorists, literally. There is no emotion involved. They LITERALLY fit the definition. Those are the people featured in Ryan’s article and those are the people referring to. Again, my point is, I don’t see anything unprofessional or biased when pointing out something that literally fits universal definitions.
Right but you're basically taking offense at the fact that somebody doesn't call them that which is where the emotion comes in. Like I'm not upset if you call them terrorists and not militants but you're upset that he called them militants and not terrorists.
So even when you may have a point that they are terrorists our argument is that it's not a necessary distinction... they're about to be shot either way lol. Hamas are a recognized terrorist organization by the United States but even isis fighters were militants. Had you argued that they were militants not soldiers or terrorists and not soldiers that would be a non-emotional distinction based on opposed definitions but terrorists and militant are not opposed terms. One can be a militant and a terrorist so your distinction wasn't one based on definition but rather the level of respect you want to give to them.
Um... AREN'T they non-state actors? I mean, at least in the eyes of the West? Hell, do they even have uniforms? I see the qualifier "quasi-state sponsor," which, albeit, is a pretty-much universal CYA in this case, but... there's gotta be a reason the Geneva Convention defines a "combatant" by uniform, if only an armband, right?
Edit: Not judging or trying to diminish them in any way, you understand. Just trying to ascertain what status they're afforded. I get the history of why we recognize Israel and not Palestine as a formal nation (and likewise why a smaller but still non-zero number do the opposite), but literally everything I've heard thus far seems to grant parity of "state actor" status to both groups.
I think, in a case like this, since Quassam is the military arm of HAMAS, and the fighters either wear digital camo or a green headband, you can consider that a uniform.
I see. That's a sensible position to take. Do you think, by extension, the same reasoning will be used when trying to ascertain their respective rights were it to come to a war crimes trial? Either direction?
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about the Israeli judicial system to really comment. I have a feeling that very few HAMAS prisoners will be captured.
I was thinking more on the international stage. I'm curious what the Hague's position would likely be. Both sides have been flinging around the War Crime allegation pretty freely, so determining state status could alter that calculus rather profoundly.
"C-Clamp" is taught and used extensively by US SPEC OP community (Army Ranger (Scroll not Tab), MARSOC, GB, DEVGRU, DELTA ECT), it speeds the use of Barrell accessories, lasers, white lights ext with pressure pads and some switches. Below is a video from Some Retired DEVGRU guys using the C-Clamp and devices.
11B here, we don’t teach C clamp... it’s probably useful for very close range CQB situations where you’re not worried about pin point accuracy. But I don’t think it will give much accuracy at 10-25m+ due to the support arm being fully extended. The muzzle will wobble a lot as you fatigue.
It's been a looong time since I've been shooting. But I don't see the advantage of the c-clamp grip. Or at least what I see people calling a c-clamp grip. Then again, I never trained to clear a building nor did I train in a flak jacket. Yes, flack jacket; not even body armor.
Like Kevin Love, I never heard of the C-Clamp. I never taught that hold in my rifle coaching of the soldiers. We also taught the strap reinforcement - you wrap your nylon strap around your trigger arm to help stabilize the weapon against your body if you're in a defensive cover position and so that you also wouldn't drop the weapon when engaged in combat (the sniper method) - and a bunch of other handy features of a stabilized weapon.
This c-clamp method? WTH is that? Kind of reminds me of pistol holding sideways like a gangster - showboating. But maybe there is a benefit of it actually being helpful in CQC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
looking at these shots, i saw poster-boys , with variety of shooting positions / stances and mostly poor grips...
the so called C- grip have / had been seen / popularised by high speed influencers / sport shooters
in real life it has some use in confined space for quick carbine retraction but you could make do without it just fine.
there are large stock of youtube videos with all kind of fancy stuff, at the end of the day proper training requires skilled trainers and religious repetitions of all the little details on individual level / fireteam / squad / platoon
these guys have some training they still have a lot to cover luckily
C grip, tacticool, good for CQB and swapping shoulders. Naff or ought else. The forst shooter doesnt look like he has a clue. Partial C grip due to extending over grenade launcher. Leant back, gonna be interesting to see where the second shot goes. British Army does use C grip, not sure an operator with an AR and underslung GL would use it... Feels like these folks are watching vids and practicing in the mirror 😦
I have some questions from your video and reading the comments.
Is the c clamp (extended forward grip) indicative of shorter training periods? an expectation of a relatively short operation? an expectation that they would be able to rest their arms (moments of intensity with periods of rest after?)
The reason for suggesting shorter training periods is that trainees may have unrealistic expectations if they only train for 2 hours. They might think that they can use an extended grip for an entire day of operation.
this line of questions might be useless if all the footage is promotional/propaganda. I haven't seen the footage referenced and the two shown stills from go pro footage appear to be "documentary" style
I got banned from posting on youtube for sharing on Perun's video that Ryan had the video about captured docs. No, I didn't post links. They said I was SPAM, deceptive, etc.
I spent a lot of my military career training infantrymen to shoot. Both with the old FNC1 and the new C7 rifle. For both of which the official rifle training manual mandates holding the rifle by the handguard.
Before seeing this video today I had never heard of "C-Clamp." Which looks rather fatiguing and uncomfortable. Firing positions should be natural and comfortable. Indeed, part of my rifle coaching is to have the rifleman close his eyes and relax. When he opens his eyes again, is the rifle still pointing naturally at the target? If not, then it is time to move the entire body until the rifle is pointing naturally at the target. This is particularly important when firing in the prone position. Which infantrymen like to do because the enemy tends to have a nasty habit of shooting back.
K40 592 576
Captain (retired) Kevin C. Love, CD, UE
The Royal Regiment of Canada
I think that this started in the competitive shooting community and somehow this just transitioned over to the military because it looks cool. Seems pretty uncomfortable to me.
Uncomfortable = missing what you shoot at.
I tend to be a "by the book" type of guy, because the official training manuals are based upon the accumulated experience of many people over many years. It is possible to do the "C-Clamp" with a Lee-Enfield rifle from the First World War. So if there were any advantage to it, people would have been doing it a hundred years ago.
A military unit in which things "just transition over" seems undisciplined to me. One advantage of everybody doing things the same way all the time is that leaders know what is going to happen when they give fire control orders.
I hear you guys discussing it a lot without having done it at all...
There's a lot of stuff that looks uncomfortable that ends up feeling pretty natural and well controlled. Just as with any grip or firing stance there's a right way and a wrong way to do it even within that grip. I know a lot of people who fire with a traditional training grip and I learned in the military as well but I have definitely transitioned to using the c clamp grip for my range trips and don't really feel like going back to traditional. Nobody's watching me out there shooting so it's not about looking cool it's about having substantially better grip on my rifle for recoil especially on the move.
All of the rifle training I did in the military was when I was standing still in a line with nobody shooting back at me and no movement happening. Turns out you can get almost any grip to work at that point lol. We fought two world wars but only figured out that the Weaver stance is incredibly effective after those wars were over from competition shooting. Well this also comes out of competition shooting. Just because it's not something written down 200 years ago doesn't mean that it's not better.
I sure don't recall any discussion about my comfort whilst in the military. I certainly don't remember being issued my own personal Barco-lounger..I might have stuck around..lol
hey Capt,
in my experience, on PWT 1 and PWT3 since most of the shooting is done prone or (ick) kneeling, the C-clamp is really secondary to accuracy - everyone sticks the magazine on the ground as an impromptu monopod, so offhand grip is a lot less important; as long as you're not putting undue force on the non-free-floated barrel of the C7 (and thus throwing of point of impact), ''C-clamp'' works really well.
it's also great when standing, giving a really ''deliberate'' feeling to your hold on the rifle. it's hard to explain (as i'm sure you know as a fellow shooter) but it gives very immediate feedback during transitions between low ready and threat ready. you ''know'' where the rifle is, so to speak. you can also maintain the rifle very steadily for the time required to lay down a grouping, where just cushioning the handguard feels more passive and gentle.
there may be a skill gap here since nearly all of our live shoots are done on a flat range at 100,200,300 yards - under stress and duress, the effects on accuracy may be different. but I can confirm that this is a common, widespread method in my corner of the army.
surprised someone else read the C7 PAM - of course it'd be an officer for one ,and an infantryman for two. Over here, we're all just nasties holding it whatever way works, and like someone else said - on a flat range, at the prone, nearly everything works. thank you for your service, Sir, I hope the retired life is peaceful and accomplished.
- An Armored Mcpl
Yes, the retired life is peaceful. Thank you for your comment.
Yes, kneeling is not a very practical position for anyone who wants to continue breathing after a firefight. Sometimes there is no alternative to standing position, for example when clearing an enemy trench complex or FIBUA. Whenever I read of brave Ukranians doing just that, I have the most tremendous admiration for their heroism.
The best position of all is fighting from a trench. Particularly if the company commander has carefully positioned all the machine guns and other heavy weapons so that everyone is fighting together as a team with mutual support. It is my opinion that every range should have trench firing positions constructed to practice firing from a trench.
Hamas guys have been watching Garand Thumb videos.
Boss Mcbeth, I think this may be a swing-and-a-miss or seeing something where there isn't something, unfortunately.
I'm a Canadian army reservist NCO. Combat arms, non-infantry. six years.
on the yearly C7 range this weekend, I noticed that a lot of my guys were using the same grip too. I noticed it because I've read our C7 BGL (doctrine) written in like the late 90s. it preaches the very classic, hold-your-handguard way, inherited from the FAL and Enfield days. but I may be the only enlisted dude in the CAF that reads and knows doctrine, so I'm fairly sure fellow instructors didn't read it, and didn't teach it to these fresh kids.
my point is we're reservists - ''advanced training'' doesn't exist. full stop. and most of my guys are shooting C-clamp. my guess is that my guys, and the Palestinian Militants, have picked it up from cultural sources (video games ,youtube, whatever) or maybe from cadre who they themselves picked it up from innocuous sources, not from high-speed-low-drag killers. if it's common enough to be widespread in my corner of the Canadian Army, it's definitely widespread enough to be picked up by militants knowingly training to go to actual war.
still love your stuff, boss.
You meant *Hamas terrorists* using c-clamp...
When doing what I do, a terrorist is a nonstate actor. A militant would be state, sponsored, or quasi-state sponsor. I have to be precise and unemotional.
Thanks for your response.. I just believe their actions define them. If they had just attacked military personnel, I could see the term militant. But since they DELIBERATELY (not incidentally/or accidentally) targeted civilians, they are terrorists, regardless of who sponsors them.
It’s an opinion. My opinion is : they are terrorists. By most accepted definitions they are terrorists. State sponsored terrorists or otherwise; Their sponsors are irrelevant. The truth seems self-evident here.
It doesn’t seem biased or unprofessional to call something what it is. You have a different opinion. Doesn’t mean I’m “wrong.”
...and before some smart a** chimes in, no, Israel does not appear to be specifically targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians.
ter·ror·ist
/ˈterərəst/
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Yeah I think you're still pushing too emotionally into it. They are an arm of an elected leadership of that region. When the United States committed the Mylai massacre the US military didn't suddenly become a terrorist organization. It's a state-sponsored wing that is the regular armed forces of Hamas which holds office in Gaza.
Are they terrorists? Some of them definitely are, but there are probably plenty that are just going to get drafted and called up to defend Palestine right now that aren't terrorists but they are all militants. It's the only word the applies to them all.
I respect your response and see your point; but again, regardless of sponsorship, those Hamas members that deliberately attacked defenseless civilians fit most universally accepted definitions of terrorists, literally. There is no emotion involved. They LITERALLY fit the definition. Those are the people featured in Ryan’s article and those are the people referring to. Again, my point is, I don’t see anything unprofessional or biased when pointing out something that literally fits universal definitions.
Right but you're basically taking offense at the fact that somebody doesn't call them that which is where the emotion comes in. Like I'm not upset if you call them terrorists and not militants but you're upset that he called them militants and not terrorists.
So even when you may have a point that they are terrorists our argument is that it's not a necessary distinction... they're about to be shot either way lol. Hamas are a recognized terrorist organization by the United States but even isis fighters were militants. Had you argued that they were militants not soldiers or terrorists and not soldiers that would be a non-emotional distinction based on opposed definitions but terrorists and militant are not opposed terms. One can be a militant and a terrorist so your distinction wasn't one based on definition but rather the level of respect you want to give to them.
Respectfully you're wrong. These are state actors
Their tactics may resemble terrorists but they're not.
Name that state.
The only "good" terrorist is one that's swinging in the wind; at the end of a rope!
Um... AREN'T they non-state actors? I mean, at least in the eyes of the West? Hell, do they even have uniforms? I see the qualifier "quasi-state sponsor," which, albeit, is a pretty-much universal CYA in this case, but... there's gotta be a reason the Geneva Convention defines a "combatant" by uniform, if only an armband, right?
Edit: Not judging or trying to diminish them in any way, you understand. Just trying to ascertain what status they're afforded. I get the history of why we recognize Israel and not Palestine as a formal nation (and likewise why a smaller but still non-zero number do the opposite), but literally everything I've heard thus far seems to grant parity of "state actor" status to both groups.
I think, in a case like this, since Quassam is the military arm of HAMAS, and the fighters either wear digital camo or a green headband, you can consider that a uniform.
It also appears that they have a payroll.
I see. That's a sensible position to take. Do you think, by extension, the same reasoning will be used when trying to ascertain their respective rights were it to come to a war crimes trial? Either direction?
Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about the Israeli judicial system to really comment. I have a feeling that very few HAMAS prisoners will be captured.
I was thinking more on the international stage. I'm curious what the Hague's position would likely be. Both sides have been flinging around the War Crime allegation pretty freely, so determining state status could alter that calculus rather profoundly.
It's a charged word, militant is more appropriate in a more objective perspective, in my opinion
Same thing in gaza
"C-Clamp" is taught and used extensively by US SPEC OP community (Army Ranger (Scroll not Tab), MARSOC, GB, DEVGRU, DELTA ECT), it speeds the use of Barrell accessories, lasers, white lights ext with pressure pads and some switches. Below is a video from Some Retired DEVGRU guys using the C-Clamp and devices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjdBod-ZMM
Raises the question; what does Wagner train and what does Iranian special forces train?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the guy in the image is using a regular grip, just way too far forward for comfort.
Yeah, it's not clear to me that this is a C clamp grip. If it is, he doesn't seem to have large enough hands to do it fully.
11B here, we don’t teach C clamp... it’s probably useful for very close range CQB situations where you’re not worried about pin point accuracy. But I don’t think it will give much accuracy at 10-25m+ due to the support arm being fully extended. The muzzle will wobble a lot as you fatigue.
You illustrate the attention intelligence analysts give information, Ryan.
GRIP CLAMP C
Polenaar tactical.
It's been a looong time since I've been shooting. But I don't see the advantage of the c-clamp grip. Or at least what I see people calling a c-clamp grip. Then again, I never trained to clear a building nor did I train in a flak jacket. Yes, flack jacket; not even body armor.
Like Kevin Love, I never heard of the C-Clamp. I never taught that hold in my rifle coaching of the soldiers. We also taught the strap reinforcement - you wrap your nylon strap around your trigger arm to help stabilize the weapon against your body if you're in a defensive cover position and so that you also wouldn't drop the weapon when engaged in combat (the sniper method) - and a bunch of other handy features of a stabilized weapon.
This c-clamp method? WTH is that? Kind of reminds me of pistol holding sideways like a gangster - showboating. But maybe there is a benefit of it actually being helpful in CQC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
MCpl (retired) Edward Reddy
Comms & Electronics
looking at these shots, i saw poster-boys , with variety of shooting positions / stances and mostly poor grips...
the so called C- grip have / had been seen / popularised by high speed influencers / sport shooters
in real life it has some use in confined space for quick carbine retraction but you could make do without it just fine.
there are large stock of youtube videos with all kind of fancy stuff, at the end of the day proper training requires skilled trainers and religious repetitions of all the little details on individual level / fireteam / squad / platoon
these guys have some training they still have a lot to cover luckily
C grip, tacticool, good for CQB and swapping shoulders. Naff or ought else. The forst shooter doesnt look like he has a clue. Partial C grip due to extending over grenade launcher. Leant back, gonna be interesting to see where the second shot goes. British Army does use C grip, not sure an operator with an AR and underslung GL would use it... Feels like these folks are watching vids and practicing in the mirror 😦
I have some questions from your video and reading the comments.
Is the c clamp (extended forward grip) indicative of shorter training periods? an expectation of a relatively short operation? an expectation that they would be able to rest their arms (moments of intensity with periods of rest after?)
The reason for suggesting shorter training periods is that trainees may have unrealistic expectations if they only train for 2 hours. They might think that they can use an extended grip for an entire day of operation.
this line of questions might be useless if all the footage is promotional/propaganda. I haven't seen the footage referenced and the two shown stills from go pro footage appear to be "documentary" style
I got banned from posting on youtube for sharing on Perun's video that Ryan had the video about captured docs. No, I didn't post links. They said I was SPAM, deceptive, etc.
Just fair warning to other active posters.