Shooting Stance

epic4444 · April 30, 2008, 08:28 PM

Im wondering what the best stance is for shooting...im talking in a range lane standing up with both hands on the gun...im assuming putting your weak foot foward and your strong foot back so you can absorb the recoil...but i'd like to hear everyones techniques...thanks

jhenry · April 30, 2008, 09:58 PM

Well, you have 2 basic choices, and one choice that is often ignored. You can opt for the Weaver or the Isosceles for any PD/Combat shooting. A Google search will give you a good rundown of each. Practice with dry fire and range time, then pick which you like best. I personally prefer the Weaver stance. The one most often ignored these days is the traditional one handed bullseye target shooting stance. Pretty poor stuff for any type of armed encounter, BUT the best thing going to teach trigger/breath/sight coordination.

exprt9 · April 30, 2008, 10:37 PM

I use the Weaver stance up to a distance of 7 yards and Isosceles for shots farther than 7 yards. I shoot with both eyes open on either shooting stance. When someone is shooting back at me I don't use any stance.

ISC · May 1, 2008, 12:19 AM

I've always preferred weaver because you present a smaller profile to an adversary and it just felt more natural and ballanced.

That was true for rifle and handgun.

Over the last couple years I've been forcing myself to shoot isosceles because of the body armor that that we use, but it just doesn't feel right. I do it cause it makes sense though, especially for MOUT. I still practice and train both ways because I don't have the armor on unless I'm on duty and I still think Weavor is better without a vest.

I've never done any serious shooting one handed with my weak hand on my hip AKA 1920 competition. There's a reason that no one shoots that way anymore.

ragwd · May 1, 2008, 01:40 AM

I am assuming that you are talking about target practice when you discuss stance. If so, I use a isosceles. Use to use a modified weaver, but took some pistol classes and they changed my mind. I think either is fine, its what you feel comfortable with, but try and learn both. If you are talking self defense, I use a running stance!!

Keltyke · May 1, 2008, 05:58 AM

I prefer the Weaver. When I use the isosceles stance with a large caliber, I tend to end up leaning back slightly at the end of a mag, and I feel very exposed. The Weaver brings the sights closer to my eyes, presents a (smaller) profile to the perp, and pulls the gun in to my body to protect it. For PD, it's good to practice one-handed and with the weak-side hand. That may be all you're able to do in a tactical situation.

Hook686 · May 1, 2008, 10:39 AM

I'm thinking, "Different stances, for different folks." Whatever gives one the best stability seems the 'Best' in my book.

Elephant_Man · May 1, 2008, 12:30 PM

epic, you have opened a can of worms

MLeake · May 1, 2008, 03:05 PM

... I like the Weaver for three reasons.

1) Some very helpful Marine instructors taught me, at the range, that it worked very well.

2) The stance is very similar, footwork and body position wise, to a boxing or kickboxing stance, so the balance feels natural.

3) I shoot pretty well from Weaver.

That said, you might find isosceles or some other method works best for you. Also, it's good to experiment and find out what works best under differing conditions.

Cheers,

M

James K · May 1, 2008, 03:16 PM

For the range and shooting fun, choose which stance you like best and suits you.

For defense, one simple question: What in hell makes you think the other guy is going to give you a chance to "assume the proper stance"? You would die right between your proper angle and your correct foot position.

Jim

ISC · May 1, 2008, 03:34 PM

The whole point behind training is to develop muscle memory so that you revert to it under stress. Every time I have every drawn on someone as a reaction to a threat I reflexively came to a weaver stance, regardless of what I was wearing or where I was at. I have never seen or heard of a real life situation where someone with any real training had to do a quick draw and shoot without time to assume at least a reudimentary stance of one sort or another. If you're in a threat situation you should be in a ready position in something close to a shooting stance.

When entering a building, I have more time to think ahead and consciously go in squared up, and do so.

OldShooter · May 1, 2008, 08:15 PM

My stance would be either cover or at least concealment if I didn't think running would be effective enough. Out of sight is best. Or you can stand out in the open using your favorite stance and control the situation with your command voice.

armedandsafe · May 1, 2008, 09:07 PM

My stance is based on my TaiChi training, so changes according to my position as I begin my draw and the position I plan to be in after the shot. The alignment of hand-eye-target is what makes for a hit on the target. What the rest of the body is doing at that moment is (almost) immaterial. It works for me.

Pops

MLeake · May 2, 2008, 11:05 AM

It seems to me some people are answering a question about firefight techniques; the OP asked about stances for range use.

Cheers,

M

April 30, 2008, 08:28 PM	#1
epic4444 Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2007 Posts: 188	Shooting Stance Im wondering what the best stance is for shooting...im talking in a range lane standing up with both hands on the gun...im assuming putting your weak foot foward and your strong foot back so you can absorb the recoil...but i'd like to hear everyones techniques...thanks __________________ "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." -- William Shakespeare

April 30, 2008, 09:58 PM	#2
jhenry Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Location: Ozarks Posts: 1,840	Well, you have 2 basic choices, and one choice that is often ignored. You can opt for the Weaver or the Isosceles for any PD/Combat shooting. A Google search will give you a good rundown of each. Practice with dry fire and range time, then pick which you like best. I personally prefer the Weaver stance. The one most often ignored these days is the traditional one handed bullseye target shooting stance. Pretty poor stuff for any type of armed encounter, BUT the best thing going to teach trigger/breath/sight coordination. __________________ "A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer

April 30, 2008, 10:37 PM	#3
exprt9 Senior Member Join Date: June 2, 2005 Location: Buckeye State Posts: 286	I use the Weaver stance up to a distance of 7 yards and Isosceles for shots farther than 7 yards. I shoot with both eyes open on either shooting stance. When someone is shooting back at me I don't use any stance. __________________ FREEDOM IS NOT FREE! Don't take it forgranted!

May 1, 2008, 10:39 AM	#7
Hook686 Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2005 Location: USA The Great State of California Posts: 2,090	I'm thinking, "Different stances, for different folks." Whatever gives one the best stability seems the 'Best' in my book. __________________ Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides.

May 1, 2008, 12:30 PM	#8
Elephant_Man Registration in progress Join Date: December 10, 2007 Location: The Sticks, Colorado Posts: 45	epic, you have opened a can of worms __________________ Blam

May 1, 2008, 12:19 AM	#4
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	I've always preferred weaver because you present a smaller profile to an adversary and it just felt more natural and ballanced. That was true for rifle and handgun. Over the last couple years I've been forcing myself to shoot isosceles because of the body armor that that we use, but it just doesn't feel right. I do it cause it makes sense though, especially for MOUT. I still practice and train both ways because I don't have the armor on unless I'm on duty and I still think Weavor is better without a vest. I've never done any serious shooting one handed with my weak hand on my hip AKA 1920 competition. There's a reason that no one shoots that way anymore.

May 1, 2008, 01:40 AM	#5
ragwd Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2006 Posts: 925	I am assuming that you are talking about target practice when you discuss stance. If so, I use a isosceles. Use to use a modified weaver, but took some pistol classes and they changed my mind. I think either is fine, its what you feel comfortable with, but try and learn both. If you are talking self defense, I use a running stance!!

May 1, 2008, 05:58 AM	#6
Keltyke Junior member Join Date: April 6, 2008 Location: Spartanburg, SC Posts: 2,933	I prefer the Weaver. When I use the isosceles stance with a large caliber, I tend to end up leaning back slightly at the end of a mag, and I feel very exposed. The Weaver brings the sights closer to my eyes, presents a (smaller) profile to the perp, and pulls the gun in to my body to protect it. For PD, it's good to practice one-handed and with the weak-side hand. That may be all you're able to do in a tactical situation.

May 1, 2008, 03:05 PM	#9
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	It isn't the only way, but... ... I like the Weaver for three reasons. 1) Some very helpful Marine instructors taught me, at the range, that it worked very well. 2) The stance is very similar, footwork and body position wise, to a boxing or kickboxing stance, so the balance feels natural. 3) I shoot pretty well from Weaver. That said, you might find isosceles or some other method works best for you. Also, it's good to experiment and find out what works best under differing conditions. Cheers, M

May 1, 2008, 03:16 PM	#10
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	For the range and shooting fun, choose which stance you like best and suits you. For defense, one simple question: What in hell makes you think the other guy is going to give you a chance to "assume the proper stance"? You would die right between your proper angle and your correct foot position. Jim

May 1, 2008, 03:34 PM	#11
ISC Junior member Join Date: August 5, 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,982	The whole point behind training is to develop muscle memory so that you revert to it under stress. Every time I have every drawn on someone as a reaction to a threat I reflexively came to a weaver stance, regardless of what I was wearing or where I was at. I have never seen or heard of a real life situation where someone with any real training had to do a quick draw and shoot without time to assume at least a reudimentary stance of one sort or another. If you're in a threat situation you should be in a ready position in something close to a shooting stance. When entering a building, I have more time to think ahead and consciously go in squared up, and do so.

May 1, 2008, 08:15 PM	#12
OldShooter Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2006 Location: Maine Posts: 846	Stance My stance would be either cover or at least concealment if I didn't think running would be effective enough. Out of sight is best. Or you can stand out in the open using your favorite stance and control the situation with your command voice.

May 1, 2008, 09:07 PM	#13
armedandsafe Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2005 Location: Moses Lake WA Posts: 1,001	My stance is based on my TaiChi training, so changes according to my position as I begin my draw and the position I plan to be in after the shot. The alignment of hand-eye-target is what makes for a hit on the target. What the rest of the body is doing at that moment is (almost) immaterial. It works for me. Pops __________________ Armed and Safe: Not just a theory If it time to bury them, it is time to dig them up. Remember, "Behind every blade of grass."

May 2, 2008, 11:05 AM	#14
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Drifting a bit It seems to me some people are answering a question about firefight techniques; the OP asked about stances for range use. Cheers, M