Stances and Sights??

[Gabe Suarez]

1). Your shooting stance. I think that as long as you have balance, mobility and stability it doesn't matter whether you shoot from any traditional type pf stance/posture. When the real shots begin to fly you will mneed to move. What say you?

2). Moreover, as long as you can see what you need to see to make the hit, you do not need a traditional sight picture. Again, what say you?

Gabe Suarez
Suarez International USA, Inc.
http://www.warriortalk.com

[LiveWire]

Agree on both counts. Real-world gunfights rarely fit the textbook model. One must control the outcome with assertive intent, even if that means bending the rules a bit.

[45 Fu]

If I have the distance and time I will take a modified Weaver stance. I agree that balance is a good thing and as long as you have it it really doesn't matter.

A crisp textbook sight picture is also good to have but time and movement come into play. As long as I can, at least, index my front sight on the target (at social distances) I can hit. At contact distance (contact to three feet, approx.) this doesn't matter since, if you can't hit then, you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive much less carry a handgun.

[Kirk Keller]

Concur Gabe with one notable exception. What you're speaking of requires enough time behind the trigger to figure out what works best for each of us. Beginners, I believe, should be taught the fundamentals including a proper stance and sight picture in order for them to get to that point where they can begin to adapt their training to a personal, functional style.

[Sleuth]

My take is that we use the sights to 'train in' or build muscle memory. We fire shots to confirm that our sight alignment, sight picture, and trigger control are adaquate for the target/distance involved. This allows us to focus on the situation as it unfolds, and to verify the sight picture/sight alignment as we press the trigger once we make the decision shots are needed. The greater the practice, the better the outcome. This is why much training can be accomplished without fireing shots. Also, why shooting (hitting)while moving must be practiced.

Once the shooter has mastered the basics (usually shown by shooting groups), the other elements can be brought into the mix. Stance, refined sight picture, etc. are all means to obtain the end of hits on target. Stances have evolved to speed up the learning process, and are used because they work well for most people.

Illustration: A new Agent came to our office, and I took him to the range to qualify. On the shoot signal, he turned 90 degrees to the line of fire, dropped into a deep crouch, and fired one handed. He did this at all ranges back to 25 yards. He completed the course, turned to me and asked what I thought. He had cut the center out of the target. He commented that, while he was living in Alaska, he taught himself to shoot. I looked at his target, and said "Don, don't change a thing."
I would not teach that stance to anyone, but it worked, and worked well, for him. If it works, don't fix it!

[Dave3006]

If you read the gun rags or spend too much time at the silly (stand there and shoot the paper target) gun schools, you would think you are supposed to pose while you shoot the bad guy. In any dynamic training that I have done (airsoft/paintball), you are moving and hiding behind things in all sorts of contorted positions. No one even thinks about "stances". People think about hits.

There is no such thing as a stance in a fluid, dynamic fight.

[Dwight55]

My $.02, . . . just 2 notes:
1. We will do what we trained to do, . . . some of the cops shot up several years ago in the Miami, Fla shootout were found dead with MT brass in their hands or pockets. Instead of concentrating on the gunfight, they reverted back to their training: "police up the brass before you leave". Build good habits with good training, . . . when you fall into that training mode, it will serve you well.
2. Get some good, professional training. Do it yourself is great for building the back deck or changing the spark plugs: this is life & death, literally. If you can only afford books & backyard practice, then go with it, but your family deserves the best you can give them, . . . and that includes protection.
May God bless,
Dwight

[FrankDrebin]

I like the Isosceles stance because that's what most people will revert to when the heat is on, many despite combat training to the contrary. The Weaver or modified Weaver, while in vogue, are not as natural as the Isosceles.

[litman252]

I agree. I have a shooting partner that has "shot 1k's of rounds learing how to shoot." He always wants me to take a proper Isosceles stance- at any distance. I am most comfortable with a mod. Weaver. I have screwed up shoulders and it helps to keep them back and tight, first time in IDPA it worked and the bullet went where I wanted it.
Tony

[pax]

Dunno why I'm bothering to post -- Kirk Keller's post said most of what I would say, and Dwight55's second point covered the rest.

pax

I've interviewed a lot of people after gunfights, both police and private citizens. Not one has ever said to me, "You know, I wish I hadn't shot quite so well." -- Tom Givens

[Double Naught Spy]

Logic inconsistencies....

As long as you see what you need to see to make the hit, you do not need a traditional sight picture. Okay, so what if you need a traditional sight picture to make the hit.

Okay, following the reasoning that if you see what you need to make a hit, you don't need a traditional sight picture, then why would it not be that if you have the ability to make the shot that balance, mobility, and stability?

Also, what is the reasoning that when the real shots fly, you will need to be on the move? What if when the real shots fly you are already behind cover? Are you suggesting that folks need to abandon cover and go on the move? Granted, in many/most situations you will need to be or should be on the move...as more often than not most citizens are not behind cover when the shots start.

[Marty Hayes]

Gabe;

Disagree on #1. Your stance needs to facilitate your natural pointing instict, cohesively blendng hand size, gun size and eye dominance into a stance that will allow you to get hits at close and intermediate range, (0-10 yards) with out the use of the sights. This means that weaver may work great, or isosceles may work great, or perhaps some hybrid, (which is more likely).

Then, one has tactical/use of cover/use of flashlight consdierations.

Isosceles behind cover doesn't work, unless one wants to expose up to half your body.

Harries flashlight technique doesn't work with isosceles, Rogers/surfire doesn't work with Weaver.

When searching, blading your body when slicing the pie is required unless you want to lead with your foot/shoulder.

Stance does matter, just like the foundation of your house matters, and varies depending the type of house you build.

[Mushinto]

I agree with #1, excet that as stated before, beginners must drill on basics before they learn flexibility.

#2 gives me some concerns. I believe in getting a sight picture whenever possible, no matter what position you are forced to use. My danger zone is when the target is close enough kick. Shooting has never been instinctive to me and hitting has always been more important to me than missing quickly.

ML

[Quartus]

Regarding your point #1, please reference your source for the empty brass in the pockets of the FBI agents involved in Miami shoot-out. That was found to be the case in the murder of four CHP officers in Newhall, CA in the seventies.

Wrong incident, but right point. Training counts.