Kind of a dumb vanity question for andy Army vets out there.

Saving Private Ryan | 6/14/13 | DoodleDawg

[DoodleDawg]

I walked into the family room the other day and my boyfriend was watching Saving Private Ryan for like the umpteenth time. It't the scene where they've left the beach and they're walking through the countryside just before the rain started. Then I noticed; all the soldiers are holding their rifles at about a 45 degree angle to their body, muzzle high and the butt lowered. But when you see modern day army troops walking patrol on the news it seems reversed; the muzzle of the M-16 is pointing down and the butt at or above the shoulder. When did the approved method of carrying the rifle change? And why?

[ArrogantBustard]

Bottom line, the actual combatant will carry any weapon based on the environment and type of danger likely to spring out of the foliage or countryside.

Yep ... and it's pretty obvious (to me, at least) when picking up and holding a weapon which way (muzzle up or muzzle down) to carry it will be more comfortable, less tiring, and quicker to aim.

[going hot]

8:44, gotta get ready for work, will check on this later.

[ArrogantBustard]

On patrol in Trashcanistan:

Try carrying a Garand or a Kar98 like that. (no, thanks!)

[ArrogantBustard]

Modern day Russians:

[noinfringers2]

My experience with arms in WWII as an infantryman was that the M-1 was an aim and shoot weapon. When on the move and having reason to believe a/the target could be anywhere it was much better and faster to have the the butt close to the shoulder and bringing the front sight down. Of course for different people and different situations and different weapons scenarios change. My favorite weapon was the browning auto.

[thorvaldr]

I’m not old enough to have carried a rifle other than an M-16 but part of it could be that the (evil, black) pistol grip makes an M-16 more comfortable to carry with the muzzle low rather than high.

[Steel Wolf]

Former military OIF/OEF here. It’s also a basic safety issue. An accidental discharge is less dangerous when the rifle is pointed into the dirt, or, at worst, at your buddy’s lower leg. If you can imagine a squad moving through a populated area, keeping the muzzle down and then snapped up when needed is both safer and easier to maneuver through tight or broken urban conditions. A careless trooper with a rifle held horizontally or at a 45 degree upward angle is a potentially lethal problem.

A rifle held upright is not only more dangerous, and more tiring, but it presents an aggressive posture that might not fit the scenario. For instance, in contemporary maneuver operations, a rifle would remain lowered until a potential threat was noticed. Raising your rifle and pointing is actually a silent indication to your unit that you’ve seen something suspicious. That’s very easy to notice when all rifles are down, and suddenly one goes up and points at a window.

[60Gunner]

It's actually a good question. As others have stated, weight and rifle length/design seem to be the logical explanations for the difference between "port arms" (barrel up, stock down) and "ready arms/ready up" or whatever that position is called these days.

But neither applied to me. My toy was the M60 machine gun- which I remember affectionately as "Big Ugly." It was a thoroughly kick-ass weapon. It was also heavy. So there was no "port arms" for me per se; I carried Big Ugly in a guitar-like fashion via a sling. Held thus, I was ready to send ball, AP and tracer downrange without having to do anything but brace for recoil and squeeze the trigger.

[Terry L Smith]

That carry position was originally adopted from the Rhodesian Army.

Any rifle that has an ergonomic grip, is more comfortably held that way, also, it is easier to come up to a firing position, with a ‘gripped’ rifle, since it is easier to do such with a pistol, as determined by the late Col. Fairbairn, and discussed in his book, “Shooting To Live”, while he was with the Shanghai Police, prior to WW2.

If the rifle ‘wrist’ is straight, as has been with the M1 Garand, the ‘port arms’ position was the standard method. Watch the YouTube videos of the guards at The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier, you will get the idea.

Lastly, the M1 Garand was designed to be used with a bayonet. The M-16, (now the M4), as I had issued to me, was not really designed for such a thing.

[oldsalt]

Russian with PPSh (I think) (May, 1942, Berlin) ..

I guess I'm just a real nitpicker today.

There were no Russians in Berlin in 1942...maybe a leftover who had a tearoom or something,but they didn't enter the city until the spring 0f '45

[ArrogantBustard]

Thank you ... my error.

[Hot Tabasco]

Like I said, it's a dumb vanity post.

I'm glad you asked that, I'm a vet and I've been wondering that for years. A couple years ago a retiree at the gym and I were on treadmills watching TV and even he asked me that question.

I'm anxious to hear the correct answer.......

[ansel12]

Second, just asking it indicates that you are possibly the awesomest girlfriend ever

Yep.

[ex-snook]

Well I had 17 weeks of WW II infantry training and I don’t remember it being discussed. The command ‘sling arm’ meant muzzle up. As a practical matter I would not want a bayonet anywhere near my legs. Don’t recall it it was any different with the carbine but the M1 seemed more balanced muzzle up. Anyway rifle platoons only has M1. My platoon commander had a carbine. I have a picture of a Lt carrying a carbine after the war. Officers were armed, EM were not. If I find it I will let you know where he carried it. Actually it only mattered for parades. Otherwise you could do what you wanted for the best access.

[Hotmetal]

Because that’s the way we are told to carry them.

[Arrowhead1952]

They are doing it wrong!!