The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

bds32 · September 14, 2012, 06:51 AM

The movement from the Weaver stance to the "aggressive isoceles" occurred in my agency in the late 90's. We were taught that the reason was that the latter was more in line with the nature of gunfighting, specifically that when under threat, the human tendency to respond back with gunfire is to squarely face the target and crouch down a little. When I shoot, I take more of a fighter's stance with my feet while at the same time my upper body is square. My arms form the isoceles triangle. When facing gunfire, the stance is very likely to all go out the window, depending on how you are forced to shoot while lessening the chance of taking a round (cover considerations). I do agree that the stance is not the most important thing. The hits are.

September 14, 2012, 06:51 AM	#20
bds32 Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 481	The movement from the Weaver stance to the "aggressive isoceles" occurred in my agency in the late 90's. We were taught that the reason was that the latter was more in line with the nature of gunfighting, specifically that when under threat, the human tendency to respond back with gunfire is to squarely face the target and crouch down a little. When I shoot, I take more of a fighter's stance with my feet while at the same time my upper body is square. My arms form the isoceles triangle. When facing gunfire, the stance is very likely to all go out the window, depending on how you are forced to shoot while lessening the chance of taking a round (cover considerations). I do agree that the stance is not the most important thing. The hits are.