Proper stance?

[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

Isosceles Style

The Weaver Style

Israeli Style

 

[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?



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