View Single Post
Old September 12, 2012, 01:02 PM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2006
Location: Alabama
Posts: 209
Quote: "I think the switch from Weaver to Isoceles has more to do with dynamic shooting issue than with body armour."
good point. There's lots of info on the web about shooting stances, like this one...

just too many sites to post links here. stance for body armor is not detailed too well in the Army manuals, and the problem with the arm pit is not specically listed per se. But here's a link that does mention using the Isoceles with body armor....

here's a quote from that site about the Isoceles stance....
"With either stance, the upper body is rotated left or right as needed, to aim at targets that are not directly ahead of the shooter. This stance provides good support to the shooter and either eye can be used to aim at the target, as the gun is held at the center between both eyes. Unlike the Weaver or Chapman stance, the shooter absorbs recoil using their entire body. Also, if the shooter is wearing body armor, then this exposes the full body armor to the enemy (unlike the weaver or chapman stances, which expose the weaker armpit area to the enemy)."

But what do I know? I'm no "expert"!!
oldgranpa is offline  
Page generated in 0.03076 seconds with 7 queries