Best stance to face an armed threat?

[Creature]

Excellent post and pics, NRAhab. Thanks for posting them.

Great points you bring up as well. Those illustrations (especially as demonstrated by Jim) are exactly what I was talking about. To me, the isosceles seems to offer the best of all worlds: good balance, maximum protection from multi-organ bullet traversal, and ability to move in all directions.

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by NRAhab

There also appears to be a general misconception about what the isosceles stance actually is with regards to foot placement. The feet in isosceles are not placed side by side, but the weak side foot is placed forward of the strong side foot, which gives the shooter the balance and speed that you're looking for.

I see where you're coming from. Most isosceles stances that I've seen have their feet almost squared up to the opponent. The strong side foot may be 1/2 foot length forward. The description that you posted feet wise I can understand, but for personal preference I don't like my body squared to the assailant.

Actually, in the pic of Gruhn, he is still slightly bladed on his upper body.

Thanks for the explaination.

[NRAhab]

Most isosceles stances that I've seen have their feet almost squared up to the opponent

That's the "classic" isosceles, iirc. The article that I snagged that picture of Jim Wilson from also shows him demonstrating the "classic", which does have the feet squared up like that - and I would agree 100% that it's a lousy way to fight, because you don't have that balance or speed.

[WC145]

My assumption was that the discussion was about the "classic" isosceles and that is what my responses were based on. I was unaware of the new "modified weaver footing with isosceles grip and shoulder positioning" isosceles stance. Modifying your stance in such a manner will certainly make a difference in your ability to maintain your balance and move effectively.

[BikerRN]

This is a very interesting topic, and one I've been wrestling with myself for years.

For years I've shot at the Range in a Weaver Stance. One night, when the SHTF I went in to an Isocoles Stance. I guess there is some truth to what they say about "squaring up to the threat".

Since that night, and because I can't get in to my Weaver Stance when I'm wearing my IIIA BRV, (Bullet Resistant Vest), I shoot in Isocoles now. No, not the Isocoles of old, but the Isocoles that Sheriff Wilson is pictured doing.

There is truth to the Weaver Stance providing some protection for your torso, and offering a smaller target to your opponent if you don't wear a BRV. If you do wear a BRV you are offering your opponent a viable opportunity to put a bullet in your heart. The BRV is designed to take bullets facing the target, and the "weak spot" is the side panels. I won't go in to more detail than that in a public forum.

When the SHTF, I'm moving. I'm no longer young and dumb and I'm getting to cover before I concern myself with shooting back.

Biker

[AZAK]

Note that the fighter is squared up towards the target

His body is still slightly "bladed", including his hips. Difficult to make much power with hips squared before starting a technique.

I have been shot at before, and my first "best stance" was always to find cover now!

I have always believed that you can't do much more good in this world if you aren't in it.

I personally don't want to "swap lead" mano e mano. If anything needs shooting, I want the advantage. I kind of have gotten used to sleeping in my bed.

To directly answer the OP, I practice different stances, but still tend to start out "bladed". The further out the target, the "squarer"/more static I get; the closer in the target, the more "bladed"/mobile.