That's odd, I don't see a reference to my favorite stance for dealing with an armed threat - sprinting in the opposite direction as fast as my nikes can carry me.
I kid, I kid. I do remember when I was first taught the Weaver, and told that the "bladed" stance would present a much smaller target to any opponent; and then I was taught the isosceles and told that the squared up stance would allow me to engage my target faster, and that if I was wearing body armor that I'd be more likely to catch any incoming fire on areas that were protected.
One of the things though that I'd like to address is this statement though:
I do have to take issue with that; as the isosceles is very balanced and stable, and is almost exactly as the stance that I boxed out of for 10 years. I also wouldn't say that it lacks mobility, since all the top game shooters uses isosceles, and they're pretty fast at getting around.
That being said, the best stance is the one from which you can effectively engage your targets in such a way that you live and they don't pose a threat.
I kid, I kid. I do remember when I was first taught the Weaver, and told that the "bladed" stance would present a much smaller target to any opponent; and then I was taught the isosceles and told that the squared up stance would allow me to engage my target faster, and that if I was wearing body armor that I'd be more likely to catch any incoming fire on areas that were protected.
One of the things though that I'd like to address is this statement though:
WC145 said:However, I can't get past the lack of balance and mobility (in isosceles)
I do have to take issue with that; as the isosceles is very balanced and stable, and is almost exactly as the stance that I boxed out of for 10 years. I also wouldn't say that it lacks mobility, since all the top game shooters uses isosceles, and they're pretty fast at getting around.
That being said, the best stance is the one from which you can effectively engage your targets in such a way that you live and they don't pose a threat.