PDA

View Full Version : Shooting stance preferences?


howard bleach
August 20, 2006, 02:15 PM
After searching the archives, I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this, so if I missed it, my apologies.

I was trained to shoot in an isosceles stance, using both hands, crouching down slightly. But over time I became more comfortable leaning slightly sideways, tucking my left elbow into my chest and mounting my right hand on top of my left. This not only steadies my hand but it helps to avoid getting clipped on the thumb when using an auto, which happened to me alot when I first began shooting and I would clutch the barrel with both of my rather large hands. I know that the 'right' way is the way that's most comfortable, but, off the record, is this a goofy way to shoot? Any particular liability shooting this way?

I'd also be interested to hear how many of you hold your breath, close one eye, or do anything else indiosyncratic while shooting.

springmom
August 20, 2006, 03:11 PM
...You're just doing what is comfortable to you. Most people have physical differences, however slight, and I'm betting (this is a guess) that nobody does the isosceles, or whatever, exactly the same because of that.

Springmom

Shawn Dodson
August 20, 2006, 04:09 PM
I suggest learning and being comfortable with all shooting platforms, the predominant ones being isosceles, Weaver & Chapman. This way you can easily flow from one to the other without conscious thought. There are uncontrolled variables that will affect the platform you use (uneven/unstable terrain, your body position relative to the threat, cover/concealment, movement, etc.).

As an example, mount your pistol in an isosceles platform, then rotate at the waist to your strong side as if you're engaging a spontaneous threat from that location. You'll notice that your isosceles index becomes a Weaver index. Rotate at the waist to your weak side and you naturally assume a straight armed Chapman index.

stephen426
August 20, 2006, 04:46 PM
I like shooting with a modified Weaver since it presents a smaller target for the person shooting back at me. My front leg is slightly bent and my back leg is straight so that the weight is on the front leg. The idea behind it is I would fall forwards if shot and be able to continue the fight. Besides, having your weight forward enables you to counter the recoil forces.

I went to an IPSC shoot and one of the guys there made me reconsider that logic. He uses the isocoles stance since it squarely aligns his body to the target. This allows him to get on target more quickly and prevents him from having to hunt for his sights. The isocoles also gives you a slightly better sight radius since the gun would be further from your eyes compared to the modified Weaver. I feel slightly off balance with the isocoles, but the guy who showed me is an excellent shot (#2 in Guatemala and he competes internatinally).

wolfy692005
August 21, 2006, 05:25 PM
I think i do pretty much the same as you Howard... i tuck my left elbow ( when shooting right handed anyway) and lean a little to the right.. more cumfy for me and i shoot better either on the move or still this way.. left hand shooting i lean a little to the left but my right elbow is high and not tucked at all..
:cool:

Jeff22
August 24, 2006, 05:32 AM
THE TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE:
(1.) Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target (boxer stance)
(2.) Legs are locked at the knees.
(3.) Firing arm is slightly bent at the elbow (pre-lock).
(4.) Support arm elbow is sharply bent and pointing down at the lead foot.
(5.) Firing hand pushes out.
(6.) Support hand pulls in
(7.) Because the bent arms may lower the position of the gun, the head may have to be tilted to the side to achieve proper sight alignment.

The advantage of the traditional Weaver Stance is that the bent arms and isometric tension of the pushing and pulling muscles create a shock absorber effect that significantly reduces felt recoil and snaps the gun rapidly back on target. Since the gun is closer to the body, it feels lighter and in fact exerts less leverage weight on bent arms than it would on fully extended, locked out arms.

The disadvantages are that the stance is uncomfortable for many people. Shooters with shorter arms, greater upper body mass, or women with big bosoms (!) find it difficult to blade in relation to the target and reach across their chest. Sometimes the strong arm will over-power the weak arm, sending
bullets high to the left side for the right handed shooter. More often, the shooter may not lock the elbow of the support arm down enough, which results in the stance becoming unlocked and causes shots to drift low right for the right handed shooter.



THE CHAPMAN MODIFIED WEAVER STANCE:
1.) Body slightly bladed in relation to the target.
2.) Weak side foot forward
3.) Strong side foot back
4.) Weight balanced slightly on the lead foot.
5.) Center of gravity slightly forward.
6.) The foot position should be like driving a punch -- the forward leg bears the weight and the rear leg is the drive leg.
7.) Elbow of the strong arm is locked.
8.) Elbow of the support arm is bent down and aimed at the lead foot
9.) Lead shoulder over the lead knee
!0.) Isometric Tension -- strong hand pushes out and weak hand pulls back.
11.) Bring the head down to the sights. If you bring the gun UP to your eye,
you may shoot HIGH.
12.) Cheekweld the side of your jaw on the strong side upper arm, just like
cheeking a rifle stock. This consistently positions your eyes in relation
to the sights, every time.
13.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base

(this position is my personal favorite by far. I find that bringing my head down to the sights, establishing a cheek weld with the upper arm on my strong side, and keeping the center of gravity forward works very well when firing multiple rapid shots or when engaging multiple targets. )

MODIFIED ISOCELES POSITION (aka the "turret" ):
(1.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base
(2.) Weak side foot forward
(3.) Strong side foot back
(4.) Weight on the lead foot/shoulders forward of the feet
(5.) Center of gravity slightly forward
(6.) Arms locked out
(7.) Slight crouch -- kneels unlocked
(8.) Lean into the gun

With the torso bent slightly at the waist and the gun straight out ahead in both hands, the body is balanced by the flexed knees, which automatically compensate for balance by lowering the center of gravity for the body in the pelvis. This technique can be made even stronger by taking a step toward the target with the weak foot and bending the lead knee, applying the weight forward. Think of it as leaning into the gun.

The body is now poised to move instantly forward or back, or side to side, and a considerable portion of upper body weight, coupled with the muscular tension of the locked arms, helps snap the handgun down in recoil.

(this position is essentially Isoceles from the waist up and Weaver from the waist down, and seems to be the most comfortable for many people)

Universal Fighting Stance (UFS)
(1.) lower unit (base)
(2.) shoulder width apart
(3.)Strong foot slightly behind the weak foot.
(4.) Body weight distributed equally on the toes.
(5.) Feet pressing out into the ground.
(6.) Knees slightly bent.
(7.) Hips square to the target

Upper unit (index)
(1.) Aggressive forward body position (feet, knees & head alignment)
(2.)Shoulders square to the target
(3.) Arms naturally extended, but not hyper-extended.
(4.) Muscle recruitment of the core muscle group to support recoil management.
(5.) Elbows directed down and not out.
(6.)Weapon brought up into the visual plane.

Firing grip or mount
(1.)a pistol, the strong hand is placed high on the tang of the weapon as possible.
(2.)The strong hand grips by applying pressure front to back.
(3.)The trigger finger is placed on the trigger index without making contact with the frame or slide.
(4.)The weak hand’s thumb is indexed towards the threat exposing the heel of the hand.
(5.)The weak hand’s thumb is indexed along the frame of the handgun and not the slide.
(6.)The weak hand’s heel is placed in contact with the grip panels of the pistol.
(7.)The weak hand grips the pistol by applying pressure side to side.
(8.) Equal pressure placed on all contact surfaces of the pistol causing as much friction as possible forming a neutral grip.

UNIVERSAL SHOOTING PLATFORM (USP) STANDING: (as taught by H&K)
? Feet, knees, Hips and Shoulders are all square to the target
? Toes are pointed toward the target
? Strong foot slightly back
? Shoulders are rolled forward
? Elbows are tucked in
? Slight upper body lean toward the target
? Flex in the knees
? Binocular vision of the target
? Body armor squared to the threat
? This fighting stance is a natural reaction in a fight or flight situation

There are many different variations of the standing position to shoot the handgun. Some people like one, and some people like another. In my opinion, there is no single "right" answer -- it depends on the shooter's size and the length of their arms and the amount of flexibility they have and other individual features

There is no "one true way" -- there are many ways. And here are a bunch of the commonly taught variations defined for your viewing pleasure . . . . :cool:

Lurper
August 24, 2006, 11:02 AM
There are several problems inherent in the Weaver and Chapman stances. They both assume (incorrectly) that you can control the recoil of the gun through brute strength, you can't. The idea of isometric tension (pulling with the weak hand/pushing with the strong hand) is folly. You cannot consistently exert the same pressure for each shot which is essential for consistency. By locking your strong arm, you allow the recoil to effect your entire body, this results in longer follow up shot times. Also, with your body tensed and turned like that you cannot move/rotate quickly or easily. Ask a boxer what happens when they get tense in the ring. There are several more, but for brevity's sake I won't list them. FWIW I was taught to shoot Weaver by Ray Chapman himself back in the 80's.

It didn't take long to figure out the shortcomings. The best (and yes, I believe there is a best way to do things) stance to learn is what we call the natural stance. It is not a true isoceles because typically your weak foot will be slightly forward. You also need to learn your Natural Point of Aim. I don't want to explain it completely (again for brevity's sake), so I wil just hit some salient points. The key to shooting quickly is to be relaxed. You should be able to stand in your stance for hours without getting tired. Feet should be roughly shoulder width apart, knees slightly bent. You should be able to draw a straight line down your shoulder blades, butt cheeks and heels. You should be relaxed. Your arms should be extended but not hyper extended. Wrists should be firm, elbows relaxed. You should have a neutral grip (a long post in itself). Bring the gun to eye level, don't duck your head or hunch your shoulders.

This stance allows you to rotate/move quickly and freely. It also gives you faster follow-up shots (also a function of the grip). By relaxing your elbows and keeping your writs firm, you allow the gun to travel more rearward than upward. If you want to know what works best, see what the best shooters are doing. There is a reason that they are so good. FWIW, the legendary Rob Leatham and Brian Enos taught me this technique in the 80's as well.

Here is a link to a couple of drills with a friend's borrowed stock Kimber. Since it is a borrowed gun, I don't have a holster nor am I very familiar with the gun. I am shooting a 185 gr SWC @ 985fps. These times are not really fast, nor really slow. Look at the stance and recoil control.

http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k223/Lurper/?action=view&current=Kimberdrills.flv

TexasCop
August 24, 2006, 11:17 AM
Similar to Lurper's post, shoot what is comfortable to you, if it's a true weaver, chapman, or isocoles, or whether it's a modified one of them, or even if it's something completely out of the box. As long as you can shoot accurately from that position, have the ability to move from that position to cover/concealment/retreat, then you're doing what everybody else wants to be doing as well.

When I instruct, I don't tell students that THIS is the only way to do it, I show them and tell them MY way of doing it, if my way works for them, then great, if not, and their way works for them...great. The problem is when you have people who aren't interested in getting better and improvising or adapting new techniques or styles because "this is how I've always done it".

Be open to different styles that you are shown, and honestly try them out to see if it works better for you, then use what works best.

Jeff22
August 24, 2006, 01:20 PM
When I first began shooting in competition (1978) I used the traditional, highly bladed Weaver Stance.

Over the years my preference has evolved to being much more square to the target, with the weak side foot still forward. One benefit of squaring off is that it makes it easier to move forwards and backwards, which is more difficult if you are bladed to the target.

I personally find that the isometric tension effect of the Weaver/Chapman stance does indeed help control recoil somewhat, but I think it's counter-productive to over-muscle the gun.

I've found in training police recruits that people with shorter arms just can't do anything resembling a Weaver/Chapman stance, nor can shooters with a lot of upper body mass (weight lifters, well-endowed females (!) and etc. But it doesn't matter, because if one technique doesn't work, another will.

I heard an instructor once describe the difference between the Weaver type stances and Isoceles type stances as being between "recoil control" and "recoil management" -- his theory was that the isometeric tension of the Weaver-type stances kept the muzzle down, where as the more uniform body coordinates of the Isoceles type stances results in the gun returning to the same point in recoil.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with that description, but it's an interesting way to describe it . . .

Jeff22
August 24, 2006, 01:50 PM
And another thought just occurred to me (my caffeine level finally came up):

What works for a Master Class IPSC or IDPA shooter is interesting, but not necessarily conclusive in all circumstances. Brian Enos and Rob Leatham and those guys are gifted shooting athletes with unusual skills. What they do works for them, but it may not work for us mere mortals.

And what works for a Master Class competitive shooter using a gun with a compensator and a red dot sight may not work for a more "average" shooter using a "regular" gun. What a champion shooter can do with a single action Springfield or Kimber or a Glock with a 3.5 lb trigger is not necessarily relevant to what a soldier in Iraq can do with an M9 Beretta or what a citizen can do in self defense with whatever he/she has available at the time . . .

That being said, there is a lot to be learned from accomplished competitive shooters using equipment similar to what you are using. So, it's interesting to see what a skilled match shooter can do with a relatively "stock" gun, i.e. "production" class in IPSC/USPSA or "stock service pistol" class in IDPA, and interesting to see what variations of grip and stance they employ when using those guns.

I've had the pleasure of taking classes from Jerry Barnhart (1994) and Ernest Langdon (2005) and learned a great deal from both of them. They both had similar training philosophies, in regard to the kind of drills they shoot in practice.

At the time, Jerry Barnhart was considering writing a book. It's been 12 years, and it still hasn't come out . . .

Lurper
August 24, 2006, 06:02 PM
What works for a Master Class IPSC or IDPA shooter is interesting, but not necessarily conclusive in all circumstances. Brian Enos and Rob Leatham and those guys are gifted shooting athletes with unusual skills. What they do works for them, but it may not work for us mere mortals.

And what works for a Master Class competitive shooter using a gun with a compensator and a red dot sight may not work for a more "average" shooter using a "regular" gun. What a champion shooter can do with a single action Springfield or Kimber or a Glock with a 3.5 lb trigger is not necessarily relevant to what a soldier in Iraq can do with an M9 Beretta or what a citizen can do in self defense with whatever he/she has available at the time . . .

I have to disagree. The mechanics of shooting are the same regardless of the pistol. Once you reach a certain skill level, you can perform at that level with any pistol. That is why I filmed those drills with a stock borrowed pistol. To prove a point. The biggest difference between Rob, Brian, Todd, Burner, myself and others is what is in our heads. Anyone can be taught to perform at this level. It just takes drive, desire and belief.
Learning to shoot properly applies to any pistol, give a GM any handgun and they are going to excel. It doesn't matter what the environment is, they all will have exceptional shooting skills. They may not practice good tactics, but they still have superior skills. Which is why so many SPECOPS and LE agencies have used them as consultants.

While I'm on a roll, what works for them will work for everbody. It is self-defeating mindset to think that the great shooters have more inherent ability than anyone else. Skill is developed, not bred. IMHO (and not meaning to offend anyone) people use that as a justification for them not having to put in the time and effort to reach that skill level. I can teach anyone to reach that level if they have the desire to. Sorry, but that is one of my pet peeves - if there were 16 different best ways to do something, then there would be 16 different top shooters using 16 different techniques. There aren't. All of the top shooters use a variation of the same basic technique. That's because it works. For everyone. I can convert someone who shoots weaver to shooting natural stance and they will be faster and more accurate every time. Guaranteed. What makes this stance/technique so effective is that it is natural. It works the way your mind and body work. It works while stationary, while moving, seated, kneeling, standing, turning, up close, far away in every scenario.

To illustrate the invalidity of the concept of recoil control with Weaver/Chapman stances, try this:
Assume a Weaver stance without a pistol in your hand. Apply the same isometrice tension that you would if you were holding a pistol. The first thing you will notice is that your hands will begin to tremble, but that's not important right now. Have a friend push on your shooting hand relatively hard. You will see and feel the motion being transferred down your locked arm to your shoulder and exerting force on your entire body. Now, assume a natural stance without a pistol. Relax your grip, keep your wrists firm but your elbows relaxed. Have said friend again push on your shooting hand with the same amount of force. If you are in the proper stance, you will notice that all of the energy of the push is absorbed by the elbows. This is what allows for rapid follow up shots.

Also, measure the amount of rotation you can comfortably get with the Weaver from the waist, then the amount with a natural stance. Finally, when moving it is much more difficult to shoot from a Weaver, but more importantly using the Weaver, you have to get "set" in your stance when you stop before can shoot. With a natural stance, you just shoot.

Watch the video I linked in the previous post. Pay attention to the muzzle flip and the extension of the arms. Remember, this is a stock gun w/no modification and full power ammo.

Lazarus777
August 24, 2006, 11:32 PM
Pretty interesting video...this is called a natural stance, huh? I usually target shoot, I'm just starting out, only been shooting for around 3-4 months. Every know and then I let off a few using the weaver stance and I have to admit...you have to position yourself before getting started, up to a point. I'll have to try this "natural" stance. Is it alright to use a single action revolver? I understand this kind of shooting is geared towards automatics but that doesn't mean person can't test some of the stances with a wheel gun...correct? I can get off six shots quicker than most guys think, as quick as an auto if I fan the gun, but the accuracy isn't there when fanning, at least not yet. I'm still concentrating on the fundementals of shooting, I only play around to keep things fresh and fun.

I just checked out an Army training manual on the fundemnatals of shooting last night on some web site. It teaches pretty good stuff, I improved very quickly after learning some of the techniques offered in the manual. It is geared towards bullseye shooting though, not combat type shooting. Any advice you could give me would be very appreciated. Every little bit of advice tends to help. I'm eventually going to get me a 1911, maybe a Springfield or a Kimber, depends on which one I like better. I tend to shoot better groups with the Kimbers I've tried but to be fair I haven't shot any Springfields of the same class. The only Springfield I've shot to date was their milspec fixed site model. I was all over the place! With the Kimbers I was gouping pretty good, very consistantly. I fired a few shots off today on one of those new Springfield XRP's or whatever they're called, 13+1, pretty nice gun. The guy thought something was wrong with it, said it was shooting to the left. He let me try it out, nothing wrong with that weapon! It shot fantastic for me, I shot a less than three inch group with it.

Laz.

OBIWAN
August 25, 2006, 09:44 AM
Unless all your shooting is going to be on the square range and/or in competition, it is a good idea to develop the basics of grip and trigger manipulation and be able to actually shoot from a variety of positions.

The world is not flat, and if your training is all based on a specific stance you will be at a serious disadvantage when you suddenly need to defend yourself while standing on the side of a hill or on a set of steps...as an example

There are no time outs in a gunfight while you look for somewhere you can "engage your stance"

It comes down to the difference between training to shoot....and training to fight

They are related skills ....but very different in application

And decoupling what your hands are doing from what your feet are doing pays huge dividends when you start trying to shoot while moving.

I have seen some very skilled shooters suddenly unable to hit their target....simply by being asked to stand with one foot on a 4x4

Or both feet on a tire

Or both feet in a tire

Lurper
August 25, 2006, 11:08 AM
Laz,
The only thing different w/wheelguns is your grip. This technique will work with any handgun, with any sight, in any situation, on any terrain.

Jeff22
August 27, 2006, 07:00 AM
"And decoupling what your hands are doing from what your feet are doing pays huge dividends when you start trying to shoot while moving."

Or, as Jeff Gonzales puts it "Try to disconnect your upper unit from the lower unit". If I think too much, I have trouble doing that. Don't think, just do . . .

I would suggest that if you shoot some recognizable variant of the Weaver Stance, you need to square off to the target significantly -- don't blade sharply in relation to the target because that significantly interferes with your ability to move forwards & backwards. It also adds a bunch of complicated body coordinates to your shooting platform that results in inconsistencies. (I learned the traditional sharply bladed Weaver Stance and every once in a while slip back into it if I'm not paying attention).

At one time, blading that much made some sense if you also had to employ a shotgun or rifle with a non-adjustable stock -- your stance & foot position would be fairly consistent. This is not so true nowadays since multi-position adjustable stocks have become commonly available for the AR-15/M-16 series of weapons and the M870 shotgun. Using an adjustable length stock on the long-gun allows you to collapse the stock and use a shooting position where you are much more squared off to the target.

(This has become an interesting discussion :cool: )

burnera
August 27, 2006, 05:56 PM
even as a novice shooter i feel confident in saying RELAXED is the way to go.

Not lazy stance, but no tension. Locking my knee's makes me uneasy, and as most probably know, if you lock your knees long enough you'll pass out :p
legs straight works better for me, with the key being 'not locked'.

Locking my elbow's makes setting up the next shot take much longer than letting my wrists/elbows absorb the shock. I let my strong arm bend a bit.. maybe around 15*. When i first did it i noticed it was much easier to put he bullet in the same place again.

Arizona Fusilier
August 29, 2006, 10:12 PM
Well, I'll say I learned a bit from this thread.

I basically shoot a "chapman" style, but I am amenable to experimenting. It would seem with fatigue I might fall into the "natural" stance; I guess that only helps make your point, Lurper.

One thing I insist on, though; I think the generic posture of anyone's stance should be a reasonable response to a close encounter sans pistol as well. What I'm trying to say is, I do not want to find myself instinctively assuming a stance that has no utility in hand-to-hand or other close combat situations. I like to spread my center of gravity fore-and-aft and side-to-side, and be reasonably prepared to take on an enemy from any angle. My weak side foot thrusts forward prominently, earning much commentary from pure pistolero types. If it slows down my draw, I would become very concerned. But I ain't that good yet, and I also reserve the right to instinctively and quickly respond with a rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in my hands.

But as several have said here, to each his own.

Jeff22
August 30, 2006, 06:46 AM
And which stance you use may change over time.

I have a shooting buddy who shot a modified Weaver/Chapman type stance for YEARS. He got into his mid 40s, and had to get bifocals to adjust to changes in his eyesight. He found that he couldn't get a crisp, clear sight picture on the front sight with the stance he was using, so he transitioned to an Isoceles Stance. The front sight is a few inches further out, and he can sight clearly on it.

I know two cops who have had rotator cuff injuries on the job. One guy found that he had to switch from a Chapman type stance to an Isoceles after his surgery, because he lost some flexibility. The other guy shot with the Chapman, and stayed with it because he found Isoceles to be a little painful to achieve -- and he never had that problem before.

I am constantly amazed that anybody would be so arrogant as to claim that there is only one answer to question of technique involving a physical skill, whether it be swinging a baseball bat, throwing a football, or shooting a handgun. There are endless variations, and no "one true answer".

Lurper
August 30, 2006, 10:16 AM
I am constantly amazed that anybody would be so arrogant as to claim that there is only one answer to question of technique involving a physical skill, whether it be swinging a baseball bat, throwing a football, or shooting a handgun. There are endless variations, and no "one true answer".

Arrogance or confidence sometimes depends on the perspective of the receiver of the message. I am also amazed that people argue that there is no best technique in spite of the fact that reality shows otherwise. Be it swinging a bat, club, throwing a football or shooting. The top athletes all use slight variations of the same technique. Are there amatuers who use different techniques? Sure and they have some success with them too. But to a man, the top pistol shooters all use the same basic technique. So my question would be: If all of the best shooters in the world use the same technique, why would anyone think it was not the best one to use?

This technique deveolped over time and led to a quantum leap in shooting skill. The beauty of it is that it is simple and natural. Shooting is simple. It is 98% mental. But being human, we tend to make it more than it is. What shooting boils down to is point the gun at the target and pull the trigger.
However, over time people got the idea that they could control the pistol through strength or that by using a stance that makes the pistol closer to a rifle you gain more control. Neither notion is correct. The biggest problem with the Weaver/Chapman/Isoceles stances are that they are not natural. They contort the shooter into odd positions which is why some people are as uncomfortable in an isoceles as a Weaver. A natural stance melds the mind and body and makes the pistol an extension of your arm. That is why it works whether you are sitting, standing, moving, shooting with strong hand only, weak hand only, over, under, around barricades, on any terrain. All of the other stances dictate that your feet must be like this, your arms must be like that. The key to a natural stance is to relax. The problem for some is that they have been conditioned through TV, magazines, culture and other sources to believe that you control a pistol through strength. You don't! The best analogy I can think of is a hammer. Watch a rookie use a hammer, he will tire out after driving a handfull of nails. A journeyman however can drive nails all day long without getting tired. Because he allows the hammer to do the work, the rookie tries to make the hammer work for him. That is another problem with the other stances, they all try to force the pistol to work for them. The pistol is what it is. It is going to recoil and you can't overpower it.
So learn to make it work for you. That is what the natural stance does.

So, call it arrogance if you like, I call it reality. The best of the best use this technique and it works to a person. I have taught it for 25 years and have yet to have someone say it doesn't work for them. That makes me completely and unwaveringly confident in my statement that this is the best (not the only) pistol shooting technique.

DonR101395
August 30, 2006, 10:53 AM
Use what you are comfortable with.

Not to hijack but, does anyone know why Jack Weaver came up with the stance?

Mikeyboy
August 30, 2006, 12:09 PM
Stance??? It's more about overall upper body and hand positioning. Do you see a professional Mixed martial arts fighter or a Marine in hand-to-hand combat get into a "STANCE" like an 8 year old in Karate class? I can't help but to laugh when I see these people overly serious about their tactical stance, we call them "Trippers" or "Squaters" because their rear leg stick out at the range, and they look like their doing lunges. If someone is attacking you our if another attacker comes at you in a different direction, how quick are you going to move while tightly holding a stance? How well are you going to shoot if you need to come out of your stance? They may look like the cover of some Rainbow 6 game but these guy just look too uncomfortable at the range to enjoy shooting. Simply relax, get the basics of the hand and arm position, head straight, relax the shoulders and shoot.

That being said, I usually fall back on Weaver and Traditional one handed shooting, but I've tried them all.

Lurper
August 30, 2006, 12:33 PM
Don,
IIRC it was back in the old "leather slap" days, lots of people were clearing leather quickly, but not hitting targets consistently. Weaver tried a different technique and it evolved from there. I never met Weaver, this is what Ray Chapman told me 20 years ago.

KingofAttendance
September 5, 2006, 02:47 PM
I prefer Weaver: I'll probably only fire a few shots in a real combat situation, which I can do just fine in a Weaver. But also, with Weaver I don't look like the guy on every paper target ever made, with my body straight and my heart on the middle/right. I'll use Isoceles if I know I'm going to be shooting something that's not going to be shooting back right away (or at all), but if theres a chance whatever I'm going to be shooting at is gona throw lead back at me, I'd rather be in a little bit lowered, sideways profile, especially at night.

DonR101395
September 5, 2006, 05:02 PM
Don,
IIRC it was back in the old "leather slap" days, lots of people were clearing leather quickly, but not hitting targets consistently. Weaver tried a different technique and it evolved from there. I never met Weaver, this is what Ray Chapman told me 20 years ago.

I was looking for the link to quote and I'll continue the search, but I've read he had surgery on his arm prior to the season that year and was unable to get full extention so he modified his stance to compensate. Since it worked and he won the championship that year the FBI adopted it. I'm not sure if it's fable or fact, so I'll do some more research.

Lurper
September 5, 2006, 05:59 PM
Try this Don, it is from the official Weaver Stance website:
http://weaverstance.com/history.htm

DonR101395
September 5, 2006, 06:16 PM
Thanks, now I know for sure:)

rhino
September 6, 2006, 12:10 AM
I don't think I've worried much over a "stance" in a few years. When I'm shooting, I don't always know what kind of position I'm going to be in, especially if I'm moving while I'm doing it. So I'm more concerned about sight picture, trigger control, and follow through. I just sort of let how I am standing handle itself and since rarely topple over (when I'm shooting), it must work okay.

I can see the utility for a specific stance and hold for teaching people how to shoot, though.