Which stance provides more accurate placement for you?

In a combat situation weaver is more likely to get you killed. Shot placement in a combat situation is largely irrelevant. Putting lead on target and getting good penetration is all that really matters. That is my experience from close combat situations anyway.
 
I would expect that shot placement is absolutely critical in a defensive situation; most of the really vital areas of a human being are fairly small, and will be especially difficult to hit in a dynamic situation.


Larry
 
I originally learned the weaver stance, but isosceles is trending, so I was working on that. I shot my quals this year, and on my first round I found myself shooting from a modified weaver stance. Seems you revert back to how you're trained. I shot 98% so I'm just going to stick with what I learned. I practice every position I can think of, because in a real sticky situation, you may not get what you want.
 
Depends on the user. Try both and find out which works better for you.

From a fixed position, I prefer weaver. If caught in the open, I'll use Isoceles.
 
For me the most accurate is the "Bull's Eye Stance"

The feet are shoulder length apart, you hold the pistol in one hand with the arm outstretched, and place the hand not in use on your chest, hip, or even in a pocket. It is a single handed shooting style popularized by duelists. The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
Click to expand...

Jim
 
The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
Click to expand...
In theory maybe, but it falls apart in reality. Yes, the target may be smaller, but its still a pretty easy target to hit, especially since its standing still, presenting itself.

Present that to an opponent who is accustomed to moving and shooting, and they will quickly be presented with a large, open, and still static target on either side, as they quickly move off the "X" and engage you.
 
The advantage of the stance was that it allows the shooter to make himself a smaller target by turning his body to the side thereby presenting the minimum target possible
Click to expand...

As one contemporary said, it also assured that if you were hit, the ball would pass through both lungs instead of one. Not that any lung shot had much of a chance in those days, but a double lung shot had none.
 
Stances?

"Stances" as a starting (learning) point, or an end within itself?

Stationary or moving? Standing, kneeling or sitting? Barricade/cover or moving & stepping up/down inclines, curbs, stairs, etc? How about prone or supine, including get down and up?

Situational and tactical context is needed. Some flexibility in application, too.

I remember working hard on learning to master many stances as a young martial artist. Had to move sometime, though. ;) Couldn't always predict where I'd be moving into a stance, either. Seemed natural to eventually carry over experience gained in the arts regarding body positioning, balance and body awareness/kinesthetics to my shooting.

Joking aside, discussions of one-size-fits-all-situations-and-persons "stances" in shooting reminds me of the frequent debates in my early martial arts days, when lots of practitioners felt the need to argue that their style and technique would work better against the average "street fighter" than any other style.

What looks good on the tatami, mats or hardwood - standing in front of mirrored walls - might not necessarily work out to best advantage in actual real world conditions.

The same thing might be said for shooting stances and techniques that work well on slow-mo static ranges, for leisurely plinking or in carefully controlled drill/comp venues.

Not everyone seems to stop to consider that fighting with a handgun and doing target shooting with a handgun might not overlap to the degree thought.

I seldom burden the folks I help train with any names of stances for shooting. Different things work at different times, for different people and under different conditions. Results matter, in the end.

Gotta start learning somewhere, though. Getting locked into something which hinders versus helps makes things harder.
 
In theory maybe, but it falls apart in reality.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't and I use it all the time during a IDPA match while moving or going for cover. But I guess there will always be some that don't understand and stand flat footed making themselves a bigger target. (LOL)

Some people never learn and can't shoot one handed, they should be going for a rifle instead of a handgun then. (LOL) And I guess there will always be jerks around that want to tear down what others do.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Pretty much stand Weaver as that's all I shoot anyhow, unless I'm shooting 1 handed 19th century style for my cap and ball revolver! :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top