Which stance provides more accurate placement for you?

[Deaf Smith]

Egret!

Brian Enos was an amazing master with the Egret stance.

Deaf

[Skadoosh]

Isosceles.

[7Cedars]

I have always used a modifid weaver stance, it is the most comfortable for me.

[AK103K]

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.

[Theohazard]

^^^ 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.

[4thPoint]

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.

[Deaf Smith]

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

[Stevie-Ray]

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.

[Have gun-will travel]

I shot Police combat and did very well using modified weaver.

[g.willikers]

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..........

[Double Naught Spy]

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...

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.

[AK103K]

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.

[skoro]

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.

[sm]

I call it a bifocal Weaver -ish.

Live long enough and your eyes will change as well...

[Have gun-will travel]

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.

[jason_iowa]

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.

[DT Guy]

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

[ronl]

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.

[Fugit1ve Wizard]

In a target setting the weaver stance yields the best groups for me.

[Art Eatman]

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.

[4V50 Gary]

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.

[Jim243]

For me the most accurate is the "Bull's Eye Stance"

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

[AK103K]

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.

[Jim Watson]

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.

[AZ-Quailhunter]

Always been an isosceles guy.