I did a search and came across just one other thread regarding the best body positioning when facing a threat.
The three basic pistol shooting stances that I am familiar with are the isosceles, the weaver and the modified weaver (aka Chapman) stance. I should probably also include the one-handed "traditional" shooting stance, but in this instance I will consider it a "half-weaver in reverse" position. More on that later.
I have thought about these three basic positions for some time now and have be considering the pros and cons of each with the biggest consideration being survivability. The second most important consideration being best shooting platform.
The two weaver positions require a certain amount of "blading". I have heard that the weaver stance uses the isometric "push / pull" forces provided by the arms to control and overcome recoil for faster follow up shots. In my own experimentation, I have never been able to show that it does this.
The isosceles stance has been derided as less stable, but again I haven't been able to disprove that claim based on my own experimentation. I did discover that I shoot far better from the isosceles position than from the weaver or the chapman stance.
The isosceles also easily allowed me to move either foot backwards or forwards if I chose to advance or retreat, while allowing me to move laterally simply by stepping off with either foot. The weaver stance, it seemed to me, somewhat restricted which foot I could lead off with and in what direction. This movement advantage seems to me to be quite debatable though.
In terms of survivability, my time with wearing body armor has taught me to square myself to a perceived threat as soon as possible. I soon found myself quickly turning to face a threat before I even realized I was doing it. It soon dawned on me that squaring oneself to a threat is instinctual, even without wearing body armor, and must be related to the fight or flight reflex.
One argument I have heard regarding the advantages of the Weaver stance is that it makes for a smaller target for the threat to shoot at. But it is my opinion that the chance of being hit as a result squarely facing a threat, and thereby presenting a 'wider target", is not significantly increased as much as one would think as if one had bladed towards a threat.
What did dawn on me was the potential of a bullet traveling through multiple organs if I was struck while blading a threat. If I faced a target squarely and was struck, the possibility of a bullet hitting just one organ is greatly increased.
Perhaps this is all academic and maybe it isnt, but I certainly believe it to be worthwhile to think about and to discuss.
The three basic pistol shooting stances that I am familiar with are the isosceles, the weaver and the modified weaver (aka Chapman) stance. I should probably also include the one-handed "traditional" shooting stance, but in this instance I will consider it a "half-weaver in reverse" position. More on that later.
I have thought about these three basic positions for some time now and have be considering the pros and cons of each with the biggest consideration being survivability. The second most important consideration being best shooting platform.
The two weaver positions require a certain amount of "blading". I have heard that the weaver stance uses the isometric "push / pull" forces provided by the arms to control and overcome recoil for faster follow up shots. In my own experimentation, I have never been able to show that it does this.
The isosceles stance has been derided as less stable, but again I haven't been able to disprove that claim based on my own experimentation. I did discover that I shoot far better from the isosceles position than from the weaver or the chapman stance.
The isosceles also easily allowed me to move either foot backwards or forwards if I chose to advance or retreat, while allowing me to move laterally simply by stepping off with either foot. The weaver stance, it seemed to me, somewhat restricted which foot I could lead off with and in what direction. This movement advantage seems to me to be quite debatable though.
In terms of survivability, my time with wearing body armor has taught me to square myself to a perceived threat as soon as possible. I soon found myself quickly turning to face a threat before I even realized I was doing it. It soon dawned on me that squaring oneself to a threat is instinctual, even without wearing body armor, and must be related to the fight or flight reflex.
One argument I have heard regarding the advantages of the Weaver stance is that it makes for a smaller target for the threat to shoot at. But it is my opinion that the chance of being hit as a result squarely facing a threat, and thereby presenting a 'wider target", is not significantly increased as much as one would think as if one had bladed towards a threat.
What did dawn on me was the potential of a bullet traveling through multiple organs if I was struck while blading a threat. If I faced a target squarely and was struck, the possibility of a bullet hitting just one organ is greatly increased.
Perhaps this is all academic and maybe it isnt, but I certainly believe it to be worthwhile to think about and to discuss.