Shooting Stance?

C

C5rider

New member
When a friend of mine goes to the range, he often offers tidbits of information and techniques about shooting. He's a good shooter so, they are welcome.

Recently, he suggested a different shooting stance. While I was shooting, he noticed that I had my body turned, one foot behind me slightly, shooting approximately 45-degrees from straight-on. Obviously, my body was 45-degrees angle from the target (I'm not THAT bad of a shot!) :D

Anyways, he suggested that I face the target directly, bend my knees slightly with both hands on the gun, pointed directly in front of me. My question is, are there simply different stances and this is another one, possibly for a different type of shooting, like competition? The reason I stand the way that I do is because when I "squat", even a little bit, I feel off-balance. I've got to think that affects how good someone can shoot, right?

I've seen his stance during competition shooting and, he also mentioned that another reason is because body armo doesn't cover the sides, only the front. I'm a wheelgun kind of guy, he's a Glock kind of guy. I THINK that makes a difference. Thoughts?

thanks.
 
It sounds like you have been using a variant of Weaver or Chapman stance, and your friend showed you an Isosceles. Each has pros and cons. You can search all three using the TFL Search function, or Google for that matter.
 
Most of us use what is called a "Relaxed Isosceles" stance and that sounds like what your friend showed you. It will help controlling recoil and in the case of a Glock when you extend your arms more your wrists roll down and bring the sights in line. As you get older it also puts the sights further away which helps older eyes see them better. Like reading the morning paper with your arms extended.:D
 
A good stance should never make you feel off balance. It is possible and preferred to have some stagger to an isoceles stance.

For a fighting stance, I still prefer weaver or a bent arm isoceles.
 
One must understand there is a big deference between competition "stance" and combat "stance"

Competition is simple. Get comfortable, natural point of aim, don't muscle the gun (rifle or pistol), keep head up right. That is the three critical parts. comfort, NPA, and head straight and up right head.

So we can't say what's best because we are all different.

Now to combat stance. What combat, home evasion, knocked on your butt at an ATM, car jacking, LE or military.

There is no one stance fits all here. Take a recliner to the range, shoot from the laid back propped up position. Shoot from your back laying on the ground up at the the target. Shoot from the drivers and passenger's side of your car.

Get a table and chair and take it to your range, practice your stance from setting behind the table.

Shoot one handed, left and right from different sides of a barricade.

Put your gun away, go to the barricade and point around it using your fingers. Use a two handed grip pointing on the left and right side. Then use our strong hand on both sides, use your other strong hand on both sides. Then right hand only on right side, left side only on left side.

See which method exposes less of your body.

Using the three categories I mentioned in competition builds a good solid stance.

There no one stance in combat or self defense. The only exception, if possible, is the stance which exposes the least amount of your body to the target.
 
I've seen his stance during competition shooting and, he also mentioned that another reason is because body armo doesn't cover the sides, only the front. I'm a wheelgun kind of guy, he's a Glock kind of guy. I THINK that makes a difference. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

kraigwy said it about as good as it can be said. the only times I go into a bent kneed crouch is because I am fighting high winds, otherwise you will find me 45 degrees to the target usually,
 
Being able to squat is important for all kinds of things, not just shooting.
If you can't do it without losing balance, it's something to work on.
 
A slightly bent-kneed posture should be more stable, better balanced, and therefore stronger than a locked-kneed posture. However, some people have trouble with bent knees - normally due to knee problems, excessive body weight, or a combination of the two.

But you generally don't see boxers or wrestlers moving around the ring or mat with knees locked; on those occasions you do, those fighters are normally tired and are about to be knocked down or taken down.

Slightly bent knees (partial squat) help lower the hips, and therefore the CG. This should result in better balance. If you apply force to a person or an object while you are off-balance, it tends to move you as much as or more than the person or object. (In fact, a lot of really cool throws result from taking a person's balance as they are attempting to apply a lot of force - IE let them throw themselves.)

Slightly bent knees allow for the quads to come into play, to allow you to move with more speed and power, IE they enable major muscles to apply some spring. OTOH, locked knees take the quads out, and mean forward leg movements are now powered pretty much only by the hips, and upward movement is coming pretty much only from the buttocks. (Edit: relying excessively on hip flexors and extensors, and buttock muscles, is a recipe for lower back pain.)

So, like g.willikers says, this is something to work on. It helps with a lot more than just shooting.
 
thanks guys. I figured that there were several views. Some google-fu on the different stance names shows that there has been discussion about this far longer than this thread will ever be able to resolve. Good to know, even better to know them all!

situational discretion seems to be the best way.
 
2 different issues here

you can shoot with your upper body/shooting arm in either Isoceles(2 straight arm) or Weaver(one bent, one straight) with lower part of body in square stance commonly associated with Isoceles stance.

You can also shoot Isoceles with footwork commonly associated with Weaver stance(bladed, boxer type stance).

You can also shoot Isoceles with locked straight arm or with relaxed elbow.

However, in general, you want the weight on the ball of your feet as you shoot with forward lean.

You could also shoot accurately one handed with straight arm or bent arm, as long as sight alignment is correctly maintained as trigger is pulled w/o disturbing the sight picture.
 
Another way to look at it, if in a fight you are using a proper stance; You are either not moving or using cover properly.
 
My stance sort of evolved over the years, usually used in the field hunting. I shoot single action revolvers, more often than not a .44 Magnum.

I face nearly ninety degrees away from the target, right arm (gun hand) nearly straight, left hand gripping shooting hand and pulling back slightly, my feet firmly planted. My cheek nearly rests onm my shoulder, sort of like shooting a rifle. This is good for long range shots out to a couple hundred yards or so.

Bob Wright
 
While its good to know the different stances out there , don't get hung up on this one or that one . Use what works for u. Personally I am cross eye dominant (rh le) I shoot both isolese and bladed. Depending on the circumstance.... find something that feels comfortable and still provides accuracy.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
 
many years ago in the military we used a Weaver, almost 90deg stance and shot one handed. The military now mostly use an Isoceles, due to wearing body armor so that an enemy shot will not hit you in the arm pit where the armor is not covered.
For SD there isn't time to think about the "stance" so just shoot with whatever way seems natural, that hits the target.
 
I think the switch from Weaver to Isoceles has more to do with dynamic shooting issue than with body armour.

L/R upper body turn shooting is much easier/faster with Modern Isoceles than with Modern Weaver.

Also, most folks should learn to shoot:
- one handed, L/R (wounded, when one hand/arm is occupied)
- two handed shooting for recoil control

Also, know at least the basics of one stance.

FWIW, it doesn't always make sense to take cover/concealment and then shoot.

Depending on circumstance, sometime, it makes more sense to just shoot, even with increased exposure.

You need to balance the exposure time with how fast you can make the first accurate shot.
 
Stances are great for initial learning of trigger control and other fundamentals. Stances can also facilitate accuracy and follow-up speed in certain conditions. However, as others have noted, stances may not always be suitable for conditions.

That said, training in trigger control, sight alignment, point shooting, etc can all be put together in different ways.

In my dojo, one aikido instructor occasionally likes to have us execute throws and techniques while balancing on one foot. This is not something one would deliberately do in a hand to hand scenario, but as a training exercise, to prove that one can control one's center while in weird positions, it is pretty interesting.

So, to see if this would translate to shooting, I decided to try something odd today while breaking in a new Kahr MK9. The following group isn't great for 5 yards, but it's not bad - considering it was shot with my left (weak) hand, while balancing on my left foot, and firing from a flash front-sight picture:

12%252019%253A25%253A45.jpg


That said, the shooting fundamentals involved were primarily derived while shooting from more formal stances, and the balance involved was from training in MA and some yoga.

Going back to my earlier post, developing balance is useful in lots of ways; keeping knees slightly flexed, and weight on the balls of the feet, is also useful for many applications.
 
Quote: "I think the switch from Weaver to Isoceles has more to do with dynamic shooting issue than with body armour."
good point. There's lots of info on the web about shooting stances, like this one...

http://loadoutroom.com/2396/pistol-training-the-basics-part-2-shooting-stance/

just too many sites to post links here. stance for body armor is not detailed too well in the Army manuals, and the problem with the arm pit is not specically listed per se. But here's a link that does mention using the Isoceles with body armor....

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2012/05/handgun-shooting-positions-isosceles.html

here's a quote from that site about the Isoceles stance....
"With either stance, the upper body is rotated left or right as needed, to aim at targets that are not directly ahead of the shooter. This stance provides good support to the shooter and either eye can be used to aim at the target, as the gun is held at the center between both eyes. Unlike the Weaver or Chapman stance, the shooter absorbs recoil using their entire body. Also, if the shooter is wearing body armor, then this exposes the full body armor to the enemy (unlike the weaver or chapman stances, which expose the weaker armpit area to the enemy)."

But what do I know? I'm no "expert"!!
og
 
Like most things I tend not to be a purist. A good shooting stance will naturally align the weapon with the target. Expedite your recovery and place follow up shots on the target/attacker.

Work with the pure stances, adapt them until you find the one which allows you to accomplish your shooting objectives.

Once you get your trigger control, breathing and site picture down, then follow Kraigways advice and practice shooting from a variety of unorthodox positions and light levels.
 
I once heard from a combat shooter (and it makes sense to me) that blading your body makes it possible for a bullet to encounter more vital body structures as it passes through, versus an in through the front and out the back type of wound.
 
The movement from the Weaver stance to the "aggressive isoceles" occurred in my agency in the late 90's. We were taught that the reason was that the latter was more in line with the nature of gunfighting, specifically that when under threat, the human tendency to respond back with gunfire is to squarely face the target and crouch down a little. When I shoot, I take more of a fighter's stance with my feet while at the same time my upper body is square. My arms form the isoceles triangle. When facing gunfire, the stance is very likely to all go out the window, depending on how you are forced to shoot while lessening the chance of taking a round (cover considerations). I do agree that the stance is not the most important thing. The hits are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top