What is your "stance?"
This is a discussion on What is your "stance?" within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Looking around as I normally do, I have seen that shooters tend to take one of two stances (you can probably guess). These stances are ...
March 28th, 2013 09:50 PM
What is your "stance?"
Looking around as I normally do, I have seen that shooters tend to take one of two stances (you can probably guess). These stances are Weaver and isosceles, with all of their slight modifications. Now, I am normally a Weaver, but am finding more and more merit in isosceles. Let us go and explore this a bit.
Why I shoot Weaver:
1: This is the stance I naturally take. It is oddly similar to almost every ready position I have to take in any martial arts I have partaken in.
2: It puts recoil into your strongside.
3: It lets me use my cross dominance more advantageously.
4: It is the position I take when shooting longarms.
5: It is more stable, in so far and your base of balance is wider, thus making a push from front or back easier to defend against.
6: With this staggered stance, you make a thinner target.
Why I am finding merit in isosceles:
1: You are square to your target.
2: It shows almost equal emphasis on strong and support sides.
3: You can lower your center of gravity much more readily.
4: You can strafe a target much easier, making this seem much more tactically sound.
5: It is a much lower energy expending shooting stance.
6: Recoil management seems to be more innate.
These are just my observations, but I know that I am rather new to the whole handgun shooting scene. What stance do you take when you shoot, and why?
March 28th, 2013 10:09 PM
My stance is what ever it needs to be to get the shot off and make the hit the quickest I can. When you are in a gunfight you don't have time to get into your favorite stance, you just need to get the gun in action. Learn to make the hit from where ever you need, be that to the front, side or rear. Standing on one foot or two, on your knees or flat on your back. As the fight will be what the fight is. Learn to get it DONE!
Secret is center line, your center line is.. in line with your dominant eye. Whether you are looking at or through the sights, over the sights or the gun is below your line of sight keep the gun in line with your dominant eye and let your body do its thing.
It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45
"Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes
March 28th, 2013 10:19 PM
My CHL instructor told us that when you get into a situation that your heart rates jumps and you lose fine motor skills. According to him, the weaver stance requires fine motor skills and you will automatically take an isosceles stance as you can only activate major muscle groups. If you watch videos of police shootouts, they always end up using isosceles even if they train for a weaver. This was all according to him and I haven't looked at shootout video stances to verify it. Take it with a grain of salt but he seemed to know what he was talking about.
March 28th, 2013 10:23 PM
I try to balance my practice between both, but I tend to notice that I shoot weaver when I think about it, and isosceles when I don't. That leads me to believe that in a self defense situation, I would probably end up shooting isosceles, or even more likely, the "whatever it took to save my life" stance.
March 28th, 2013 10:26 PM
I am cross dominant. When aiming with both eyes, the sights tend to drift left (rear) to right (front). I tend to drift into Weaver, whether I want to or not. I don't really have opportunities to practice in different positions (on my back, prone, from cover, etc). I don't have that many instructors within a reasonable distance that I can train with, or anyone with land I can learn on my own. I do dry practice from various positions. Aiming with strong side only is..... let's just say I hope it's something I never have to do, if that time ever comes.....
Originally Posted by Bill MO
March 28th, 2013 10:40 PM
Super modified gangstah, demonstrated here, is my personal favorite:
Matt Steele Outdoors (3) Shooting Grip Essentials - YouTube
"Pick a ride, any ride, they all go round and round."
March 28th, 2013 10:59 PM
Oh dear God. I have seen this and it is TERRIFYING
Originally Posted by Mike1956
March 28th, 2013 11:01 PM
Yes, it is, which is what makes it so effective.
Originally Posted by hwarang54
"Pick a ride, any ride, they all go round and round."
March 29th, 2013 02:07 AM
The one that doesnt let me get shot and gets some lead into the BG
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
March 29th, 2013 02:11 AM
As low to the dirt as I can get. Because combat tested ground warriors know that ‘Earth is the Great Combat Multiplier’.
Actually, if there is an option, I like to move and shoot, but always present the smallest cross section to the opponent. Even a 3 inch pole/sign post can afford you extreme protection from an opponent who has no clue. As always, it depends. Regardless, in a moving fight, I am right!
Disclaimer: Not to sound like a wanabe (a, um, Gecko somebody, on the above text = I am basing that off of some OCONUS experiences in CQB Military style.......... just sayin..). I'm lucky. I shoot pistol expert with both hands. Rifle = same. I had to work very hard to get to the 'left' hand proficiency.
Note: I am an expert in nothing, other than the stuff I learned to stay alive/or pure real dumb luck (not sure)......getting shot at is highly over rated, but it is terribly exciting. Especially when you have M-82s on CAP for returning the 'love' to your military opponent (ANGLICO, Baby!).......... Semper Fi!
March 29th, 2013 08:21 AM
I used to shoot Weaver, but these days I've found I shoot better in Isosceles. I can lean forward a lot more and manage recoil better. This is for handguns. For my shotgun I still shoot Weaver for sure.
This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
March 29th, 2013 08:39 AM
Weaver, mostly because I was trained that way and have most of my experience doing it that way. Have used isosceles. Both have merits, as you've indicated. With handguns, training with a variety of techniques, positions and situations is the only way to find what works well and what doesn't. Can't exactly being doing Weaver one-handed, for example.
And, regarding shotgun, I too haven't found a way around Weaver for that one. Can't imagine isosceles being very effective with a half-dozen loads of hot 2-3/4" 00 Buckshot ... no matter how good the recoil/buttpad is. My sternum ain't that stout.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: Why the Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
March 29th, 2013 08:56 AM
I've been working on "getting off the X" and still putting rounds on the target. Not as easy as it sounds. Don't get to train as much as I like, lack of ammo does it...
March 29th, 2013 02:33 PM
I'm firmly in this camp, too.
Originally Posted by Bill MO
However, I would like to caution newer shooters from reading too much into Bill MO's very wise words here.
Remember that it is of utmost importance that, as a new shooter, you become grounded in the fundamentals.
Shooting while moving is akin to what Bruce Lee described as fighting without form. However, to be able to successfully execute your marksmanship skills while on-the-move, you *MUST* have mastered how to execute those skills in the most fundamental manner. If you cannot hit a target while standing still and the target static, how do you expect to hit a target while you're moving and it is moving, too? Sure, such a shooter might get lucky and land a few shots or even make one clean run...but it's guaranteed that he/she won't be able to reproduce that kind of performance cold and on-demand. A person can't accomplish the triple-jump without having first learned how to walk. A racing driver isn't automatically accepted onto the grid at a Formula 1 race without having earned their racing license.
The fundamentals MUST be mastered.
And towards that end, adopting a truly set and sound "stance" is a must. It's literally the bedrock of that foundation.
Once you've mastered being able to shoot static, then only then will it be the right time to look at positions and movement.
Please do not think that I'm preaching from a high horse, here. I'm definitely not. I actually make this plea for new shooters because as a newer shooter myself, this was a pitfall that I unfortunately found myself in, more recently. And guess what? Those sayings about it being "twice as hard" to work backwards? it's absolutely true.
When I started shooting back in November of 2010, I put in *_A LOT_* of time and rounds on self-guided practice. By the time I started taking my first professionally-taught classes, I'd actually reached sufficiency in static shooting that my instructors pushed me immediately towards more dynamic skills. Towards this end, several of these instructors pushed me to divorce my lower body from my upper body.
No, that was not a bad thing: I learned to shoot on-the-move as well as learned to not let my lower body dictate my shooting capability, and I'm forever grateful to these instructors for their knowledge - but as it would turn out later, this "push" occurred without any of them having truly first pushed me to the limits of static marksmanship. Last summer, when I was for the first time really pushed to the limits of my fundamental marksmanship capabilities, it was revealed that among my two main weaknesses was that I do not have a consistent stance. That lack of consistency translated into tossed shots at-distance as well as noticeably slower response times in transitions to widely spread targets. Since then, I've been trying twice as hard to break some of these old habits.
Remember that the fundamentals are "fundamental" for a reason. Don't overlook them.
Stance-wise, I favor a more aggressive "fighting" base - the same foundation as my H2H "fighting stance." What I really don't know is whether if I've come to this shooting stance (which is what I shoot from, regardless of the firearm) because of my many years of martial-arts training as a youngster, or if this truly is my personal "natural default" when surprised with a threat. What I do know is that my natural-point-of-aim coincides with this stance, and that gives it an inherent advantage.
This stance also allows me to immediately drop to one knee, as well as the flexibility to really move-off-the-X at a moment's notice.
March 29th, 2013 03:28 PM
I can shoot from the isosceles stance and have practiced it but I just naturally come back to the Weaver stance. With my right arm extended and locked out I suppose it's actually what's known as the Chapman stance. It's what feels natural for me and I tend to do better shooting that way.
Be reasonable. See things my way.
Search tags for this page
squating while shooting, vc
what is center of gravity on a man in a boxers stance
Click on a term to search for related topics.