[Josh45]

Hello everyone! I have a question about stance when target shooting.
After reading about why I shot left and put the knowledge I found to use, I started to hit more towards the center.

Also, I have overcome my flinching I have somewhat with my .357 magnum revolver. But there is one thing I always noticed I try to correct is my stance.

I am not 100% sure on how my stance should be when shooting.
I am right hand & right eye dominant if it matters any. I usually place my feet straight, Arms out and elbows locked with my back nose over my toes.

Is this more or less the right stance? Is there something else I should try? I heard something called " The Weaver Stance"? but also heard there is about three or four stances. I would like to try each one out to see which suits me better.

What I am going for is accuracy, The most I can obtain. I know constant practice is key, But I would like to know what am I doing wrong or what I am doing right for that matter when it comes to stance.

Any advice welcomed and thank you.

NOTE* Mods, I apologize if this is in the wrong area, I also tried to search for similar threads but came up somewhat empty as to my question.

Thank you.

[Fred Fuller]

Josh,

In defensive shooting, sometimes there isn't much of a choice as to stance. Since we don't talk a lot about target shooting here in ST&T, I'm moving your question to Handguns/General, where it will likely get more attention.

[Big_John1961]

I prefer the modified Weaver myself. But like Fred Fuller said, all bets are off in a social situation gone bad.

[1SOW]

Josh,
I practice action shooting, but this stance (when it can be used) gives accuracy also. This is a common stance, grip and trigger pull for two-hand shooting.
You have to watch the grip portion , but stance is in here too. TJ is using the proper stance, his student is leaning back a little tolo much.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4584332856867071363#

[Steve C]

Typical Bullseye target stance, one handed hold mandatory. Directions for proper stance can be found here Army Marksmanship Unit manual (http://www.bullseyepistol.com/chapter1.htm)

2 handed isosceles stance, IPSC targets can be seen on this video: Todd Jarrett IPSC Pistol Grip Instruction (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4584332856867071363)

Weaver Stance is kind of in between Bullseye and Isosceles with feet and body more like Bullseye and a 2 handed hold similar but not as rigid as the Isosceles. Here's Jack Weaver talking about how is stance came into being: The Real Weaver Shooting Stance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFq5Qkedl3Q)

[pendennis]

My response will likely draw some criticism, but you should be using a Weaver, or modified Weaver stance. I'll justify my choice.

First, it seems you're using an isoceles stance. It may be fine for some shooting, but overall, it's not the most solid of stances. You're not balanced very well, and the recoil will automatically take the pistol or revolver up, away from the target. The Weaver stance allows you, even in practice to maintain your sights on the target.

The Weaver does several things:

First, the feet are offset a bit, front to back. This gives you balance left-to-right-to-left, and front-to-back.
Second, the arms are slightly bent at the elbows, allowing for some recoil absorption, and not taking all the shock with your wrists and elbows. The rear sight is also a bit closer to you.
Third, your off hand more naturally gives you a firm two-handed grip.
Fourth, your left arm provides cover to your torso, potentially saving your life, in case you're hit in the torso.

I've had all manner of experts tell me how obsolete the Weaver/modified Weaver stance is. I've even had an instructor tell me that the natural position is isoceles, and I would revert to it when under stress, but I went through his stress test, and still used the Weaver every time.

Try it. And, give yourself a chance to like it.

[MrBorland]

What I am going for is accuracy, The most I can obtain.

My response will likely draw some criticism, but you should be using a Weaver, or modified Weaver stance.

No criticism per se, as the best stance is the one that works best for you, and the Weaver has going for it what was outlined. But whether or not it's an inherent part of the stance, it seems to me to invite the ol' "push/pull" grip, which, IMO, is less than ideal as far as accuracy, since it (the push/pull) is just one more thing the shooter has to apply consistently between shots.

For best accuracy, I prefer a neutral grip, which is easiest to achieve with an isosceles stance. Imagine firmly griping a sheet of tissue paper in front of you as if it were a gun - you can grip it hard, you can move it from point A to point B quickly, but as long as your grip is neutral, it won't tear. That it won't tear is an indication you're not applying uneven forces that can throw a shot. And if your grip is neutral, the muzzle will return to it's original point at the end of the recoil cycle.

[Josh45]

Fred,

Thank you. I wasn't to sure as to where to put this thread. Looks like it was moved in the right area.

Thank you for everyones input. I will be practicing more as soon as I can get to the range. I would like to see if my stance would help tighten up my groups.
All good info.

[CWL]

Some things you can't solve by yourself, or just with the internet.

Josh45, I suggest that you get involved with local shooters and let them help you to figure out which stance(s) will work for you. An IDPa meet would be great, so would a basic intro class taught at your gun range. Shooters tend to be a friendly group and are always willing to give aid when asked.

Me? I tend to shoot a modified Weaver, but this changes if I am shooting on the move, or under differing conditions like when running a IDPA course.

You will have to experiment to find the right ones for yourself since there really isn't a "correct" or "right" stance for everyone.

[murf]

josh,

before you get to the range, try this little exercise at home: (with an empty gun) take your normal stance in front of a target (for example, a picture on the wall) arms at your side. close your eyes. now, point the weapon at the target (eyes still closed) using your normal shooting position. now, open your eyes.

if the sights do not point at the target, your stance is off and is going to affect your accuracy. you will have to twist, turn, pull, etc. your body to align the sights every time you shoot because the sights will return to this position after recoil. adjust your stance until your sights are aligned when you open your eyes.

if you perform this little trick every time you change your stance, your shots will be a lot easier and more accurate.

murf

[Josh45]

Murf,

Thanks for that. I will try that out before I go there. It sounds like something I should practice a bit.

CWL,

I would like to ask for help at the range I go to but the one I frequent here is a range that you self-police, I think that is the right word I am looking for.
Meaning, Every time I go there, I will likely be alone or with the people I went with.

No RO there. How ever, The one that I go to on Saturdays when I am in that area has several officers there practicing and RO'ing at the time. Maybe I can get them to help me?

Don't mind experiementing. Better off since I would be able to find out what is right for me.

Naturally, My right foot goes out and my left foot towards the back some. This is where I catch myself and try to put both feet an equal distance apart and leveled.

[David E]

First, it seems you're using an isoceles stance. It may be fine for some shooting, but overall, it's not the most solid of stances. You're not balanced very well, and the recoil will automatically take the pistol or revolver up, away from the target.

With the old PPC Isosceles, you're correct, but none of this applies to the proper execution of the Modern Isosceles.

The Weaver stance allows you, even in practice to maintain your sights on the target.


Sorry, that's impossible. What it can do is bring the sights BACK on target quickly. Then again, so does the Modern Isosceles.

Aligning your body with the target is known as the "Blind Swordsman" drill. Once mastered, you can rip off a fast 6 shots in a nice, tiny group with your eyes closed. It's handy to know how it feels when your body is properly aligned with a given target, but it's not worth much outside of static shooting.

Stance is great when you can get it, so get it when you can. But if your technique (notice I didn't say "stance") won't allow you to shoot from a myriad of positions, including seated, moving or standing on one foot, it's time to revisit the Modern Isosceles.

[W.E.G.]

Any comfortable stance that allows mobility and acceptable accuracy.

Don't over-think it.

The stance for competition bullseye target shooting will likely bear little resemblance to a stance that is appropriate for defensive training.

[S&Wfan]

Pay attention to MrBorland. He's a proven, high quality handgun competitor at the national level. Shooting with accuracy, and also shooting against the clock shows us all a LOT about what will give on the best accuracy possible.

Now for cops, a fighting stance like the Weaver is a great way to go . . . for you are hoping not to have to shoot the perp, while also maintaining a non-lethal fighting stance that allows one leverage when executing non-lethal moves.

I agree with Borland though, the Weaver doesn't give one the best results accuracy-wise for most folks.

Final point . . . in the real world, if you ever have to use your weapon in self defense and someone is shooting at you . . . you won't be standing still in either Isoceles, Weaver or whatever stance . . . lest you make a nice, stationary target to riddle with holes.

KEEP MOVING and stay in the fight . . . and thus, through practice, learn how to move and shoot well . . .

Finally, sign up and compete in handgun matches all you can. You'll initially discover how dreadful you are. It ain't like shooting paper targets on the range!!!

Compete, and you'll learn a lot from others . . . and learn how to win! In a gunfight, and in competitions . . . winning is important!!!

[9mmepiphany]

the recoil will automatically take the pistol or revolver up, away from the target. The Weaver stance allows you, even in practice to maintain your sights on the target.
While I may not agree with your belief in the superiority of the Weaver, I respect your right to use it. However the above statement is more than a little misleading and needs to be addressed.

Try a folks have and as much as they might believe it, holding a pistol on target as it recoils is physically impossible. The vector of recoil from the explosion of the powder to the rear is above the fulcrum of where your hand meets the grip frame. This causes the slide/barrel to lever upward around that fulcrum, causing the muzzle rise above the sight line...that is muzzle flip and your grip on the frame doesn't have the leverage to stop it

This is why all the top tier shooters have changed the technique they are using from the Weaver to the Modern Isosceles

[Cosmoline]

Get some video tapes and take notes of how the pros approach the stances, but don't feel that you need to copy the top target shooters or keep up with the most "modern" approach. For one thing if you're shooting a magnum you're coping with a lot more recoil than they usually do. And the "pros" may have utterly different considerations than you or I do.

You never know what will end up working for you and particular firearms. I've gone over to Chapman these past years and really like it for the speed and security sixes. I find it's easier to get into than classic Weaver and gives me a very stable platform to shoot from. My right arm functions almost like a rifle stock, and lets my whole upper body absorb the recoil thereby reducing the flip.

Try a modern isosceles vs. Chapman with a .44 or .454 and you may notice some difference in how much time you're losing between shots.

And mix it up, too. It's important to practice different stances. The classic off-hand stance is great for practice and can be very accurate when you get good at it. More modern single handed stances are also fun. I've been using Ayoob's punch-forward single hand stance a lot lately and find it's very useful for double action single hand work. For single action I still prefer the classic dueling stance, since it's more relaxed.

[sirsloop]

I use weaver while shooting IDPA/uspsa where I'm moving... But ususally shoot isosoles at the range plinking.

For your filch I suggest loading up 5 at a time, shoot single action, and don't let yourself know where the empty pipe is. Either that or get a .500 magnum, in which case .357 becomes a popgun!!!
Lol!

[9mmepiphany]

My right arm functions almost like a rifle stock, and lets my whole upper body absorb the recoil thereby reducing the flip.
using the arm like a rifle stock was Chapman's intent, however using the body doesn't reduce recoil flip as much as if you let the forces flow through you in into the ground. You shouldn't be pushing against the recoil, you should be accepting it.

For single action I still prefer the classic dueling stance, since it's more relaxed.
Were you thinking of this modern classic...this stance has closer ties to fencing
http://blogue.canoe-inc.com/mediam/bestduel_30512_lg.jpg


...or the older classic; this stance has closer ties to martial arts
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QP86Qz1AhSY/TxTPyd60S4I/AAAAAAAAAU4/Sg3qVRvnZKM/s320/Pistol+Duel

[fromthehills]

Typical Bullseye target stance, one handed hold mandatory. Directions for proper stance can be found here Army Marksmanship Unit manual (http://www.bullseyepistol.com/chapter1.htm)

2 handed isosceles stance, IPSC targets can be seen on this video: Todd Jarrett IPSC Pistol Grip Instruction (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4584332856867071363)

Weaver Stance is kind of in between Bullseye and Isosceles with feet and body more like Bullseye and a 2 handed hold similar but not as rigid as the Isosceles. Here's Jack Weaver talking about how is stance came into being: The Real Weaver Shooting Stance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFq5Qkedl3Q)
Thanks. Good stuff. I enjoyed those videos quite a bit.

[jeepnik]

Experience shows that you will shoot from whatever position you are in whenever you need to shoot. Taking time to adopt a "stance", besides possibly exposing more of your body, might make what stance you have decided to adopt moot, painfully so.

[9mmepiphany]

It is true that you'll eventually learn to shoot from many different positions...which is a good thing. If you want to continue to improve over time, it is better to start with a technique that is optimized for the style of shooting you intend to pursue. You need a stance and grip which provides the best foundation to learn trigger management.

For accurate shooting, with quick follow up shots, the Modern Isosceles has proven to be that technique

[Cosmoline]

I'm not sure about the origins of the first illustration--feet together and arm stiff. That's no fencing stance I've ever seen. The stance used in the early 20th century and 19th did favor a stiff arm. There are some good photos of it in "Burning Powder" by DB Wesson. But that stance also favored a relaxed leg spread and free hand on hip or even in the pocket.

The earlier "traditional" stance I've used is bent arm, legs hip width apart, head turned to the shooting arm, and free hand held in the small of the back. It's particularly nice with the Bisley grip. This stance doesn't absorb recoil much, but lets the revolver roll back. It's impossible to know for sure if this is truly traditional, but it seems to work well.

The more modern one handed stance I've used is from Ayoob and involves weight forward like a boxer and the shooting hand in a "punch" forward position. The free hand is held to the belly in a fist. It absorbs double action recoil better and permits faster shooting. But the tense muscles also make it a little more inaccurate.

[9mmepiphany]

That's no fencing stance I've ever seen.
Sorry for the poor picture choice...in regards to feet placement. I just quickly grabbed a couple of pictures to illustrate the straight arm as opposed to the dropped elbow.

I've been experimenting with arm geometry that relies more on structure than musculature. Trying to apply Tai Chi internal power principles to shooting and happened to come across pictures showing that folks used to shoot with the dropped elbow

[Cosmoline]

I've been experimenting with arm geometry that relies more on structure than musculature. Trying to apply Tai Chi internal power principles to shooting and happened to come across pictures showing that folks used to shoot with the dropped elbow

I think there's a lot yet to be mined from cross-over disciplines. Not the nonsense about wearing robes and bowing, but the emphasis in the Asian martial arts on breathing and stability. Yoga also has a lot to offer I suspect, as some are finding out. This is a very bold combination of the "warrior pose" and a handgun. This is just with a replica I believe, so I don't know how practical it would be, but it's always worth while to try new things.

http://sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/benefits-yoga-shooting_opt.jpg

http://sofrep.com/4576/womens-self-defense-weekly-yoga-benefits-and-shooting/

I'm not really sure where the bent elbow came from or if it was ever part of a formal stance, but I do find it helps with a heavy single action.

[drunkensobriety]

I think there's a lot yet to be mined from cross-over disciplines. Not the nonsense about wearing robes and bowing, but the emphasis in the Asian martial arts on breathing and stability. Yoga also has a lot to offer I suspect, as some are finding out. This is a very bold combination of the "warrior pose" and a handgun. This is just with a replica I believe, so I don't know how practical it would be, but it's always worth while to try new things.

Continuing that theme: I myself shoot aggressive weaver. Feet shoulder width apart with knees slightly bent and weight centered. Hips and shoulders squared to the target. It gives me excellent balance and stability and feels more natural because I've received a fair amount of training in Japanese swordmanship. This feels a great deal like chudon, or holding the sword in a middle prepared stance.

For me, drawing the pistol from the holster and presenting it to the target as I take a half step forward is as fluid a movement as drawing the sword from it's saya (sheath) and swinging it to attack in the same fluid motion (iai).

Plus, in weaver stance I can actually move at will. If you tried doing one of those tactical squatting isosceles stances and then move you'd have to move out of stance and back into it. With this form of weaver: I can move in any direction and maintain that same shooting posture. If you were to move and shoot isosceles you'd fail to do isosceles at all - so what would be the point? You can't walk with your hips perfectly square and have any semblance of stability, try it in a hallway with an unloaded pistol and tell me it's not so awkward that you don't start laughing at the idea.

Try maintaining your shoulders slightly crooked with gun aimed at a door as you do weaver down the hallway with nice fluid steps: most natural thing in the world.

Also: arms fully extended - what happens when someone grabs the gun and points the barrel away? Your arms are already fully extended - you'd have to recoil at least one of your arms away from the attacker just to be able to gain room with which to try at them. With weaver, my arms are never fully extended; someone who gets too close will take a very punishing OSS KISS palm strike to the face before I step backwards and fire.

The only real application I see for isosceles is competitive shooting. It's been proven affective in that department: anywhere else and it becomes inferior, imo. I may ad: I'm a certified NRA pistol instructor - I teach isosceles because that's what the NRA curriculum calls for.

I once made one very mouthy person a guinea pig to the values of those tactical squat isosceles stances when I made him repeatedly go into it and asked him to do different things. Like walking, for which he obviously had to abandon it just to accomplish. then i made him stand there and I had two others stand behind him just before I pushed him over. I then had someone else standing in weaver and watched them literally bend backwards almost 60 degrees without being knocked off their feet.

The gentleman didn't have much to say after he nearly fell on his keister from barely being shoved.

By the way cosmo, It's not my intention to be crude: but whoever the young woman is in that photograph, she has a particularly nice rear.

[barstoolguru]

Evolution of Combat Pistol Technique by D.R. Middlebrooks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5xLiDt3MpVo

[David E]

I myself shoot aggressive weaver. Feet shoulder width apart with knees slightly bent and weight centered. Hips and shoulders squared to the target.

With all due respect, that does not describe a proper Weaver Stance.

For me, drawing the pistol from the holster and presenting it to the target as I take a half step forward..

That isn't the fastest way to draw a gun. However, one should be able to draw while seated, moving forward, backwards and sideways.

If you tried doing one of those tactical squatting isosceles stances

Sounds like you're describing a two handed version of the old FBI crouch, not isosceles.

If you were to move and shoot isosceles you'd fail to do isosceles at all


Totally untrue.

Unfortunately, I don't think you understand what the Modern Isosceles truly is.

[owen]

Cosmo, the top picture that 9mm posted, with the feet together, heel to arch, is the starting position for western fencing footwork with a pointed weapon.

The next action would be to lift the strong-side toe, and glide the foot out, to about shoulder width.

[9mmepiphany]

I'm a certified NRA pistol instructor - I teach isosceles because that's what the NRA curriculum calls for.
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand what the Modern Isosceles truly is.
I think I'm, going to have to agree

squatting isosceles stances
I'm not sure what you are teaching, but that isn't the Modern Isosceles (MI)...we bend our kness, but we don't squat. The MI is very balanced and allows very rapid movement in any direction...that is why it is now used by the Military and is adapted to the carbine as well

[Cosmoline]

Evolution of Combat Pistol Technique by D.R. Middlebrooks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5xLiDt3MpVo

Thanks! Lots of good info there. I've never been able to flip my brain around to reverse the normal stances, but those guys are shooting at a whole different level. I'm a long, long way from repetitive stress injuries for one thing! He was probably shooting more in a week than I do all year.

Cosmo, the top picture that 9mm posted, with the feet together, heel to arch, is the starting position for western fencing footwork with a pointed weapon.

Before you actually start to do anything, though. I don't know that it was ever the accepted practice to shoot that way. It's not stable Your feet are locked, your arm is locked and a stiff breeze will blow you off target. But then I've never been able to find any kind of detailed "how to shoot a duel" manual from the period. They just used free form.

[owen]

well, there was only a single shot, and I'm confident that the "5 Ds of Dodgeball" would be frowned upon in the duelling environment, sooo...

[Pietro Beretta]

There are more instructors teaching about body position rather than calling it stance. In a real life situation, like walking up stairs, opening doors and we need to use lethal force -- we would all love to get in our preferred stance, but is it going to even be possible in the heat of the moment?

Training Body Position (http://www.youtube.com/user/RugerFirearms?ob=0&feature=results_main)

Isosceles Style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db7qpnph82Q&feature=relmfu)

The Weaver Style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9XllD-peE)

Israeli Style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFULv989a8M&feature=relmfu)

[David E]

As I said earlier, stance is great when you can get it, so get it when you can. But with properly executed technique, it's not essential.

[Ankeny]

There are more instructors teaching about body position rather than calling it stance. Yup. For instance, Ron Avery uses the term natural action stance. It is good for shooting from a static position, shooting on the move, shooting around barricades...oh wait a minute...that's just another description of the MI in action. :)

[Doghandler]

This aforementioned "cross discipline" business is where it's at for me. My static stance probably most closely resembles the Israeli Technique mentioned previously.

Luckily I have been blessed with a natural athleticism and was involved in team sports as far as into my 30s and have had some martial arts training. The key with stance for me is fluidity. I'm not a fan of firmly locked joints or death grips on the gun that introduce tension. Firm, relaxed and fluid is what I strive for.

What do we see in this photo?

http://sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/benefits-yoga-shooting_opt.jpg

I see a shortstop or a pitcher in the process of delivering a baseball. I see a wide receiver flying through the air to meet the ball. I see a hockey player cutting circles in the ice. I see a beautiful dance. I see a picture not so unlike how I might present a gun after whirling and twirling OFF the X.

[Jim K]

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of "combat" shooting as it involves some "proper stance". Dumb question: How do you get the other guy to wait until you assume the "proper stance" before he shoots you right between your Weaver and your isosceles?

Not to mention that when bullets are flying around, one has to be a damfool to stand around assuming the "proper stance" instead of taking cover.

Jim

[Cosmoline]

How do you get the other guy to wait until you assume the "proper stance" before he shoots you right between your Weaver and your isosceles?

A really good question. Lots of folks have spent many years trying to answer that very question. Often as a result of tragic encounters between well-trained police and untrained thugs which ended in a dead officer. Many approaches have been tried from point shooting to stressfire, but all have the same tendency to get mired in too much complex technique and too many safety concerns. There are even socio-legal concerns overlaying the approach. Which gives rise to training that mandates a yell of "STOP" prior to shooting.

Of course, with enough training it can work. At the high end, trained competition shooters can perform almost superhuman presentations with any number of formal stances. They move so fast they look like sped-up film and no bad guy could beat them, even with a weapon drawn already. But that takes many years of daily practice most of us don't have time for.

I don't think there is, as yet, a simple and reliable presentation and stance for letting us ordinary schlubs get the drop on some mugger who has a pistol aimed at our heads. The best I've come up with in trying to parse it out is to use diversion and simply shoot. Shoot shoot shoot as soon as you have hand to trigger and even a crude aim. Right through the pocket, even.

Otherwise any presentation I attempt is far too slow to work. But the pocket might work, assuming I could hit. It's a no-presentation presentation. A no-stance stance. But it also breaks a number of accepted protocols, if not actual safety rules. And it could end up leading to self-inflicted injuries. So I doubt anyone is going to ever endorse it.

Still, it's my plan A in that situation. There's no way I'm going to try a five point draw unless I have the luxury of time. Facing a barrel I'd be dead, no question. I couldn't even get to the second or third point for a fast shot in time.

[9mmepiphany]

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of "combat" shooting as it involves some "proper stance".
It is really quite simple.

First you need a position to learn to shoot accurately from. The idea is to start with a position that is the least likely to introduce outside factors to distract from learning to shoot accurately...and also one that is easy to adapt to later movement.. Once you learn to shoot accurately from that first position, the same fundamental skills of grip, trigger control and alignment can be used in any position that the shooter finds themselves in.

Learning that proper stance is just the first step in learning how to shooter well (accurately and quickly)...it is like learning to crawl, before learning learning to walk and then run. It is the same concept as learning point shooting by learned sighted shooting first.

A really good question.
Yes it is, but not on this subject.

Tactics, which is what movement is, is a complimentary, but different subject than learning to shoot well

[David E]

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of "combat" shooting as it involves some "proper stance".

Perhaps not. I've been talking about "technique," not stance.

Dumb question: How do you get the other guy to wait until you assume the "proper stance" before he shoots you right between your Weaver and your isosceles?

I think this is part if what you're not understanding. Proper technique, properly executed can be pretty fast. As I've said many times before, defending your life is a competitive activity. I'd rather take a "good" shot NOW, than a "perfect" shot 1/2 second later.

Not to mention that when bullets are flying around, one has to be a damfool to stand around assuming the "proper stance" instead of taking cover.

Jim

Cover is nice when you can get it, but it's not the be-all end-all. More than one person has been shot in the back as they ran for "cover."

[9mmepiphany]

Not to mention that when bullets are flying around, one has to be a damfool to stand around assuming the "proper stance" instead of taking cover.

Jim
This reminds me of the story told by Jim Cirillo (NYPD's famed Stakeout Squad), who I think still holds the record for surviving the most NYPD shootouts, who told the story of standing in a perfect PPC stance and trading shots with two holdup men.

His point was that his competition experience allowed him to make accurate shots under the pressure of incoming rounds

[Cosmoline]

Tactics, which is what movement is, is a complimentary, but different subject than learning to shoot well

Learning to shoot "well" (proper accepted modern stance, proper trigger pull, proper presentation, etc) will not matter at all if you don't shoot soon enough. And there are times when you need to dispense with it and just get rounds out there immediately. That's the core conundrum.

So while I'd always advise learning a variety of accepted techniques, stances, grips, etc., it's a mistake to become too wedded to them. Or to assume they are anything more than ongoing efforts towards various goals--some of which you may have no interest in. So if you're not in competition shooting, aping the complex methods of the top tier shooters makes no real sense. And if you're not an LEO you're much more likely to have problems in extreme close range. You won't be going into an area, weapon drawn, looking for suspects. If there's a problem it's more likely to land smack in your lap and have a weapon pointed at you. Few trainers really emphasize this.

You have to pick and choose what works for you, and always be practical about it.

[Ankeny]

It is really quite simple.

First you need a position to learn to shoot accurately from. The idea is to start with a position that is the least likely to introduce outside factors to distract from learning to shoot accurately...and also one that is easy to adapt to later movement.. Once you learn to shoot accurately from that first position, the same fundamental skills of grip, trigger control and alignment can be used in any position that the shooter finds themselves in. Worth repeating.

[Jaymo]

Isosceles is useless as udders on a bull if you have shoulder problems.
I loved isosceles when I was in my 20s and 30s.
It doesn't work for me now, with my shoulder problems.
It's great for uninjured athletes, though.

[9mmepiphany]

Learning to shoot "well" (proper accepted modern stance, proper trigger pull, proper presentation, etc) will not matter at all if you don't shoot soon enough. And there are times when you need to dispense with it and just get rounds out there immediately. That's the core conundrum.
I don't think it is a conundrum at all.

It is like saying, if you don't understand how to corner in a car, but you need to get somewhere quickly, you can just drive faster and hope that you'll make the turn. Doesn't work well, unless you lower your goal of getting through the corner to surviving going off the road.

If you look at a babe when they first start walking, they will usually try to run because they lack the patience to coordinate their balance correctly...it makes for a lot of failure (falling).

I'm reminded of the saying, You can't shoot fast enough to make up for a miss and the oft quoted phase, Spray and Pray

There are times when you need to get rounds down range immediately, but they aren't going to be of much use if they all miss...unless you are counting on a lucky shot; I'm not usually that lucky.

If you learn to hit first, the speed will come. If you don't want to practice shooting accurately and want to count on the speed of getting rounds off...I hope you're feeling lucky

[Cosmoline]

Shooting in defense of your life is not like driving a car or learning to walk. The methods and techniques that have developed are really a hodge-podge of ideas that have a mix of purposes. In many cases the purpose is to win competitions. Or stop suspects.

When you're talking about how to score high at matches, there are indeed tried-and-true ways of doing that over and over again.

But when you're talking about surviving a point-blank encounter with an armed assailant there are no tried and true ways of coming out on top. Sticking too closely to accepted practices such as a five point draw, focus on the front sight and a warning yell may be the worst possible thing you can do.

It's critical to remember that nobody, as yet, has the ideal solution to this problem. There are lots of thoughts and suggestions. Some have been including Asian martial arts. Others suggest just shooting from earlier in the draw. Mas, who has studied this issue probably more than anyone, has used dynamic boxing stances in an effort to help. It's all educated guesswork though, because there are no competitions where men repeatedly kill each other in point blank encounters. We just have to keep trying and learning as much as possible.

[9mmepiphany]

Shooting in defense of your life is not like driving a car or learning to walk. The methods and techniques that have developed are really a hodge-podge of ideas that have a mix of purposes.
I would suggest that driving a car and walking follow the same development pattern. We just practice it more often as we use the skill everyday...and yet many still can't execute it correctly.

I've had a movement teacher observe, "There is a correct way of moving naturally with your body, any other way is wrong." The problem is that many people have developed different ideas of how to move and natural movements have become counter intuitive. Shooting correctly is very counter-intuitive when people want to control it through fear.

That is the common thread through great warrior cultures though the ages...moving through their fear

[David E]

Shooting in defense of your life is not like driving a car or learning to walk.

When you're talking about how to score high at matches, there are indeed tried-and-true ways of doing that over and over again.

Shooting in defense of your life is the ultimate competition.

But when you're talking about surviving a point-blank encounter with an armed assailant there are no tried and true ways of coming out on top.

So look at consistencies where good guys have prevailed. Wyatt Earp said "take your time in a hurry," while Jim Cirillo proved successful doing just that.

Sticking too closely to accepted practices such as a five point draw, focus on the front sight and a warning yell may be the worst possible thing you can do.

If you consciously work your way sequentially thru each of the 5-step draw, you need more practice. A lot more.

It's critical to remember that nobody, as yet, has the ideal solution to this problem. There are lots of thoughts and suggestions..... just have to keep trying and learning as much as possible.

That appears to assert that nothing has proven successful and that just isn't the case. Start with what's proven, then fine tune it if you must, but in the process, make sure you don't erase essential key elements.

[Cosmoline]

Shooting in defense of your life is the ultimate competition.

A competition without rules (including safety rules), where the guy who "cheats" may be the one who wins.

Cirillo addressed this in part by teaching the silhouette method where he'd tape up the sights of the student's firearm and force them to shoot at the silhouette rather than taking the time to aim carefully.

If you consciously work your way sequentially thru each of the 5-step draw, you need more practice. A lot more.

The problem isn't counting off 1 2 3 it's that the draw time is too slow. Far too slow. I'm sure with tons of practice I could be faster, but still maybe not fast enough.

I would never say don't bother learning how to shoot from the pros. All I'm saying is take all of these lessons with a grain of reality and remember that the only measure of success in a real world encounter is surviving. Best of all never get in the encounter to begin with. And don't get too locked into a set method. You may have a very nice draw and get top scores, but you should always be willing to shoot a hole in your pocket if needed.

That appears to assert that nothing has proven successful and that just isn't the case.

There's a difference between what seems to work and what's been "proven successful." I know of no technique truly "proven successful" against a deadly force assault against a man without armor who's operating alone and has only a concealed short gun for defense. It's the nightmare scenario. Maybe that's the most important lesson to impart in this discussion--there is no combination of stance, presentation, or movement proven to be reliably successful against someone actively trying to kill you. There are methods that seem to work better than others depending on various factors. These usually involve tactical teams, armor, and carefully thought-out approaches. And even then there's no guarantee of safety. There's only a best guess and a hope. For a lone man in a point blank encounter with someone determined to kill, all bets are off and you have to be willing to do whatever is needed to survive, instantly.

The only one that's guaranteed to end with you alive is the method that keeps you from ever being in that situation to begin with. Don't assume you're prepared or that your training will save you. Assume the contrary.

[David E]

Well, I don't know what you're after.

Cirillo proved using sights works in deadly encounters, as have others. I took one of his classes where he discussed the "geometric point" and the silhouette sighting method, among other useful things.

Relying on a fast draw to get out of trouble is utterly foolish, but refusing to practice your draw to the point of non-thought is flat out stupid.

Not practicing at all, or thinking you'll instantly pull a viable technique out of your hat when confronted in a rapidly unfolding lethal situation betrays a total lack of understanding of such things. Or trying every technique possible in every conceivable combination won't work as well as mastering a proven technique or two.

[Jim K]

OK, on the stance.

But what if you are getting out of (or into) a car, one foot in and one foot out, and something goes bang. Just how do you get the proper stance?

The fact is that you are NOT talking about combat shooting. You are talking about a game called "combat shooting" where you know what is going to happen, the target never shoots back and you can have a lot of fun and go home afterwards, not to the ER or the morgue.

Fortunately, I have never been shot at, or fired a shot at anyone. But I have known and spoken with plenty of people who have been there and done that, military, police, and a couple of plain citizens who had to use their guns. All have pretty much agreed that 1) whatever happens is NOT what you prepared and trained for, 2) you can never really be "ready", 3) standing up in the open in a proper stance in a gunfight is plain stupid, 4) there is no proper training for crapping in your pants.

Jim

[David E]

I have been talking specifically about TECHNIQUE, not stance.

I've made that clear several times, yet folks want to harp on things nobody ever said.

No one in this thread said the correct way to act in every gunfight is to "assume the proper stance before shooting the badguy(s)at your leisure, since mastery of your stance will make you invincible," so find something else to disagree about.

[9mmepiphany]

But what if you are getting out of (or into) a car, one foot in and one foot out, and something goes bang. Just how do you get the proper stance?
As David E has repeated a number of times, it is about correct technique....not some set in stone stance.

However, in answer to the above question, I shoot in exactly the same way I would in competition.

As I've said already, the stance I am referencing is simply a optimized base to learn that technique from