The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

KNJoe · January 19, 2006, 01:09 AM

I already tried answering this thread once, but after I hit 'submit' it sent me to an invalid thread message, and the post had been deleted. Pissed me off enough that I didn't bother writing it again until today, which isn't too great because there was alot of info in that first message. Some stuff on the actual PROCESS of recoil obsorbtion, accuracy threshold validation, et cetera... So here's a summary.

I invariably use a modified Weaver, as do most military or equivelent non-civilian throughout the world. Essentially, everyone who requires impeccable mobility, accuracy, and sustained prominence. Few mainstream law enforcement agencies fall under this category, especially in America. In orthodox form, it has a very high accuracy threshold with minimal experience, which is what most people need. This may be why Weaver stances are so stereotipified; most people never exceed the accuracy threshold in will enable you.
Most shooting any of you will ever need to do is at a closer range, maybe a thirty metre maximum. After all, a distance greater than that and you have no reason to be nvolvedin the gunfight anyway. Tactical mobility is a great phrase, and refers to GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE. At that range, the Weaver stance will not impede on your shooting.
The stability offered by it allows for increased mobility--from standing to prone, from side to side, back and forth. I'll be damned if I'd ever draw my gun and then stand there; talk about a prewritten obituary. Neither will anyone with an ounce of training or understanding of tactical or strategic shooting would ever do such a thing.
You're also less likely to be struck directly in the COM area, unless you're being shot at by something that will travel straight through you.

Isosceles is an extremely good stance for training purposes--there is less margin for those horrible habits that veteran shooters develop over a period of time. It also has an extremely high accuracy threshhold.
Unfortunately, it lacks in all strategic or tactical benefits; good mobility, lack of perspective restraint (you wind up tunelling alot in high stress circumstances) though by then you're probably dead anyway because it takes SO LONG to draw it.
That's probably the biggest drawback, the clumsiness of the stance means slower drawing schism. The frontal form also means that a good torsal hit is extremely probably lethal. Not so if you're wearing body armor, but then, if you're wearing body armor and have your pistol already drawn, this can be a very promising method of fire.

The Chapman stance I have taught, on occasion, to women who only carry lower-recoil/smaller calibre pieces for personal protection. If you think that's stereotyping of me, head down to the range and fire a nice heavy calibre a couple hundred times from this. At the least, you'll sprain your elbow and it sure won't be too nice on the cartiledge. I have never seen any true tactical value in a Chapman form, but for civilian defensive use, it fits criteriae.

Yes, that was the short form. I'm not going to bother explaning much of any of that, nor am I (again) going to go link-hunting. Read and enjoy (or not, I don't care).

*edit* HAHA, it did it to me again, but this time I had copy-pasted onto notepad first...

January 19, 2006, 01:09 AM	#22
KNJoe Junior Member Join Date: January 15, 2006 Posts: 14	I already tried answering this thread once, but after I hit 'submit' it sent me to an invalid thread message, and the post had been deleted. Pissed me off enough that I didn't bother writing it again until today, which isn't too great because there was alot of info in that first message. Some stuff on the actual PROCESS of recoil obsorbtion, accuracy threshold validation, et cetera... So here's a summary. I invariably use a modified Weaver, as do most military or equivelent non-civilian throughout the world. Essentially, everyone who requires impeccable mobility, accuracy, and sustained prominence. Few mainstream law enforcement agencies fall under this category, especially in America. In orthodox form, it has a very high accuracy threshold with minimal experience, which is what most people need. This may be why Weaver stances are so stereotipified; most people never exceed the accuracy threshold in will enable you. Most shooting any of you will ever need to do is at a closer range, maybe a thirty metre maximum. After all, a distance greater than that and you have no reason to be nvolvedin the gunfight anyway. Tactical mobility is a great phrase, and refers to GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE. At that range, the Weaver stance will not impede on your shooting. The stability offered by it allows for increased mobility--from standing to prone, from side to side, back and forth. I'll be damned if I'd ever draw my gun and then stand there; talk about a prewritten obituary. Neither will anyone with an ounce of training or understanding of tactical or strategic shooting would ever do such a thing. You're also less likely to be struck directly in the COM area, unless you're being shot at by something that will travel straight through you. Isosceles is an extremely good stance for training purposes--there is less margin for those horrible habits that veteran shooters develop over a period of time. It also has an extremely high accuracy threshhold. Unfortunately, it lacks in all strategic or tactical benefits; good mobility, lack of perspective restraint (you wind up tunelling alot in high stress circumstances) though by then you're probably dead anyway because it takes SO LONG to draw it. That's probably the biggest drawback, the clumsiness of the stance means slower drawing schism. The frontal form also means that a good torsal hit is extremely probably lethal. Not so if you're wearing body armor, but then, if you're wearing body armor and have your pistol already drawn, this can be a very promising method of fire. The Chapman stance I have taught, on occasion, to women who only carry lower-recoil/smaller calibre pieces for personal protection. If you think that's stereotyping of me, head down to the range and fire a nice heavy calibre a couple hundred times from this. At the least, you'll sprain your elbow and it sure won't be too nice on the cartiledge. I have never seen any true tactical value in a Chapman form, but for civilian defensive use, it fits criteriae. Yes, that was the short form. I'm not going to bother explaning much of any of that, nor am I (again) going to go link-hunting. Read and enjoy (or not, I don't care). edit HAHA, it did it to me again, but this time I had copy-pasted onto notepad first...