The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 19, 2014, 04:11 AM   #26
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,320
Egret!

Brian Enos was an amazing master with the Egret stance.

Deaf
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 08:06 AM   #27
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
Isosceles.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 09:29 AM   #28
7Cedars
Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2014
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Posts: 28
I have always used a modifid weaver stance, it is the most comfortable for me.
__________________
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
7Cedars is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 07:58 PM   #29
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 8,178
Quote:
I would proffer not to get hung up on stances. Practice all of them. Practice shooting one handed. Practice shooting on one foot or in no stance whatsoever.
I agree with zincwarrior here. If you dont shoot all of them, including any or all bastardized versions of any them you might come up with, I dont think your being realistic in your expectations.

Using "one" stance, is like only having "one" knife for all occasions, an impossibility in the real world.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
AK103K is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 08:04 PM   #30
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 2,318
^^^ I agree. But that said, it's fine to have one stance you always fall back on if the situation allows it. My default stance is isosceles, but I'll use other stances if I need to.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is online now  
Old June 19, 2014, 10:31 PM   #31
4thPoint
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 120
I'm with Deaf Smith... I'll shoot however aligns my front and rear sights, including standing on one foot and rubbing my belly with my off-hand.
4thPoint is offline  
Old June 19, 2014, 11:52 PM   #32
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,320
Well 4thpoint,

Those other guys just don't do Zen.

Just Google 'Brian Enos egret stance' and go to images. On his forum they can we the true master showing proper stance.

But on the serious side, keep in mind in many defensive encounters you will be lucky to even have the time to bring the gun up to eyesight level much less Take a perfect stance.

Deaf
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old June 20, 2014, 02:16 PM   #33
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
I started out with isoceles but permanent damage to my elbow has changed it to halfway between iso and weaver !
Isocever! Thats generally what I tell people as well.
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old June 21, 2014, 08:57 PM   #34
Have gun-will travel
Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2014
Posts: 36
I shot Police combat and did very well using modified weaver.
Have gun-will travel is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 08:50 AM   #35
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,407
PPC and NRA action pistol matches are more suitable for the modified weaver than USPSA, IDPA, Speed Challenge, 'etc.
Both allow more time per shot and require more accuracy.
See why it pays to know how to do more than one.
Criticisms expected..........
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is online now  
Old June 22, 2014, 10:18 AM   #36
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
If I have all the time in the world for a shot, or get the choice of how I want to set up for a shot, usually weaver is my choice. As noted by James K's comment, this won't always be the case...

Quote:
Some years ago, I encountered some folks who had trained to always assume a "correct stance". They were students of those who followed slavishly the dictates of the "gurus". If the ground wasn't perfectly flat, with the proper feel, and they couldn't get into a proper position, they were lost and couldn't hit anything. I have to suggest (heresy!!!) that one never become wedded to some "correct" stance and position (even for the range) that one cannot respond to an emergency unless one can stand the "right" way.
I had a conversation along these lines with an instructor at Thunder Ranch. I was shooting COM groups that were 4-6" in size and most of my counterparts were shooting <4" in size. It was a turn and fire drill where I was not getting a "proper stance" but my shots were consistently the first on target in what I deemed to be good enough. My stand and hold varied depending on direction of turn and location of target relative to my position.

An ongoing discussion occurred that was educational and I was fed the whole biscuit about "fast is fine but accurate is final" and other such sayings. Personally, I am not going to worry about 2-3" of variance either way if I am on target unless I have to do so. For COM, it was not necessary. My thought is that good hits on target first are worth more than possible perfect shots on target second, which may be after I am shot which means I may not be making my perfect shot.

I shoot weaver, modified weaver, and isosceles depending on my relationship to the target and whether stationary or in motion. No one method works best for all situations for all people, but they all 3 work well for me.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 11:16 AM   #37
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 8,178
Quote:
An ongoing discussion occurred that was educational and I was fed the whole biscuit about "fast is fine but accurate is final" and other such sayings. Personally, I am not going to worry about 2-3" of variance either way if I am on target unless I have to do so. For COM, it was not necessary. My thought is that good hits on target first are worth more than possible perfect shots on target second, which may be after I am shot which means I may not be making my perfect shot.
I very much agree with your thinking here.

I think to much emphasis is made about shooting nice little groups, and often unrealistically so, when getting good hits on target and doing so quickly, is more important, even if they arent in a tight little group or perfectly placed.

Shooting groups simply shows you have the basics down. What comes after that is, you now have to apply them in an imperfect world thats constantly changing and evolving as your go through it. Thats something that tends to screw up the perfectionists dream world of perfect little groups.

As far as Im concerned, there is no such thing as a "bad" hit, and ANY hit you put on an adversary is a "good" hit, and in your favor, especially when you consider that its not just a single shot, but one of many more to quickly come.

No doubt, precise hits are best, and what we strive for, but when you step away from the static world of broadside targets with repetitive, conditioned aiming points, and into the real world, where youre moving, and your adversary is moving, and you may be shooting from any conceivable position, at targets that offer varying 360* target choices, you need to be flexible and comfortable flowing into and out of what ever is necessary as things go.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
AK103K is offline  
Old June 23, 2014, 07:23 AM   #38
skoro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,794
Which stance provides more accurate placement for you?

My pistol training goes back forty years to my USMC days. I don't recall the terms "Weaver" or "Isoceles" being used, it was just "here's the shooting position" and it was the Isoceles. That's what I've used ever since.
skoro is offline  
Old June 24, 2014, 10:07 AM   #39
sm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2002
Posts: 1,810
I call it a bifocal Weaver -ish.

Live long enough and your eyes will change as well...
__________________
Use Enough Gun
TFL Alumni
sm is offline  
Old June 25, 2014, 09:17 PM   #40
Have gun-will travel
Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2014
Posts: 36
gwillikers posted:PPC and NRA action pistol matches are more suitable for the modified weaver than USPSA, IDPA, Speed Challenge, 'etc.
Both allow more time per shot and require more accuracy.
See why it pays to know how to do more than one.
Criticisms expected..........
More time? in PPC we shot revolvers. we shot 12 rounds from 15 yards .6 rounds ,reload and fire 6 more in 20 seconds. That is pretty fast ,but I managed to keep them in the 10 ring...I have learn to shoot other stances but still revert to a modified weaver.my stance changes when I shoot a semi auto.
Have gun-will travel is offline  
Old June 26, 2014, 02:27 PM   #41
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
In a combat situation weaver is more likely to get you killed. Shot placement in a combat situation is largely irrelevant. Putting lead on target and getting good penetration is all that really matters. That is my experience from close combat situations anyway.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old June 26, 2014, 04:54 PM   #42
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 725
I would expect that shot placement is absolutely critical in a defensive situation; most of the really vital areas of a human being are fairly small, and will be especially difficult to hit in a dynamic situation.


Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old June 26, 2014, 07:29 PM   #43
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 797
I originally learned the weaver stance, but isosceles is trending, so I was working on that. I shot my quals this year, and on my first round I found myself shooting from a modified weaver stance. Seems you revert back to how you're trained. I shot 98% so I'm just going to stick with what I learned. I practice every position I can think of, because in a real sticky situation, you may not get what you want.
ronl is offline  
Old June 26, 2014, 07:49 PM   #44
Fugit1ve Wizard
Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 67
In a target setting the weaver stance yields the best groups for me.
__________________
There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Fugit1ve Wizard is offline  
Old June 26, 2014, 09:05 PM   #45
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,594
skoro, here's some background on the Weaver stance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_stance

I pretty much gotta go along with the final paragraph of AK103K's Post #37.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 06:24 AM   #46
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 17,071
Depends on the user. Try both and find out which works better for you.

From a fixed position, I prefer weaver. If caught in the open, I'll use Isoceles.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 12:50 PM   #47
Jim243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Location: Just off Route 66
Posts: 4,652
For me the most accurate is the "Bull's Eye Stance"

Quote:
The feet are shoulder length apart, you hold the pistol in one hand with the arm outstretched, and place the hand not in use on your chest, hip, or even in a pocket. It is a single handed shooting style popularized by duelists. The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
Jim
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Jim243 is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 01:31 PM   #48
AK103K
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: PA -- In the shadow of the Shade
Posts: 8,178
Quote:
The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
In theory maybe, but it falls apart in reality. Yes, the target may be smaller, but its still a pretty easy target to hit, especially since its standing still, presenting itself.

Present that to an opponent who is accustomed to moving and shooting, and they will quickly be presented with a large, open, and still static target on either side, as they quickly move off the "X" and engage you.
__________________
“The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he is on.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
AK103K is offline  
Old June 27, 2014, 04:24 PM   #49
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 11,413
Quote:
The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
As one contemporary said, it also assured that if you were hit, the ball would pass through both lungs instead of one. Not that any lung shot had much of a chance in those days, but a double lung shot had none.
Jim Watson is online now  
Old June 27, 2014, 05:01 PM   #50
AZ-Quailhunter
Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 65
Always been an isosceles guy.
AZ-Quailhunter is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13332 seconds with 7 queries