Why Not The Bullseye Stance?

[SSN Vet]

Though I've never had any training in it, I also find that I shoot very well from the bullseye stance.

Just another tool in the tool bag. Not particularly useful from a practical stand point.

 

[alienbogey]

Think of the adrenaline dump you would experience in a gunfight. I know my pistol would be shaking in my two handed grip, but not nearly as much as it would one handed.

 

[shockwave]

Maybe I'm just bush-league, but I've always imagined that in an actual, real-life shoot-out type of situation, I'd be ducking, taking cover, running around, diving for the ground, etc. There'd be a lot of excitement and stance, as such, would be whatever my feet were doing at the moment.

It's my ability in the martial arts that teaches me how to move and how to be balanced with good posture at all times, and that's what I hope would kick in at a critical moment. That is, instinctively, I don't think I'd be adopting a bad stance at any time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are very good "practical" stances for shooting one-handed, either strong or weak side. They allow movement, unusual lower body postitioning, crouching, etc., and promote quicker follow-up shots.

They don't look anything like the old bullseye stance....

Most of the time though I bring the non shooting hand up to my chest clenched in a fist, with my torso as square as possible.

Now THAT's a good one-hand stance. Should be pretty much the same stance as your regular isoceles, except that the non-shooting hand is tucked in tight against the chest (and probably clenched).

Massad Ayoob demonstrating a one-hand stance at a MAG40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

​

 

[Deaf Smith]

I've been mixing it up a little at the range lately with stances other than my usual modified Weaver. One that interests me is the old-fashioned one handed bullseye stance. I'm finding I'm actually more accurate with it than the Weaver, particularly in single action mode. But the followup shots are slower. It has the advantage of narrowing your profile by a notch (depending how thin you are) and perhaps more importantly of moving your main organ bank sideways. For people shooting without kevlar vests, that would seem a good advantage. Also, shooting one handed permits you to expose less if shooting from the cover of a doorway.

So really, do we all *need* to be using Weaver or Chapman or some practical shooting stance?

Cosmo,

Ever see the painting of Gen. George Custer fighting off the Indians at Little Big Horn?

Well that was called, "Custer's Last Stance" (also known as the CLS method of shooting.)

See the tea-drinking stance is S-L-O-W and in combat do you know how you spell fatal? You spell it SLOW (pun intended.)

The one handed CLS tea-drinking stance may be more accurate slow fire, on a perfect day, rested, no stress, and a target that isn’t moving, but in all other occasions it is slow.

And that is why "Custer's Last Stance", the CLS, is not used much in defense (but it is mighty fun to use on the range.)

Deaf

 

[Sam1911]

However, I REALLY think some folks are too preoccuppied with self defense. There's a hell of a lot more to handgun shooting than "combat training" at 20ft.

Oh sure, and there's more to cars than simply using them to drive. Still, there's a fundamental raison d'etre for each, regardless of how else they may be enjoyed in some peripheral way.

In any event, the OP here took the question directly to the defensive/practical applications by comparing vital zone profile vis-a-vis armored and unarmored vulnerability and the use of cover -- topics which are of no importance to the more peripheral handgun uses (e.g.: bullseye target shooting, IMHSA, hunting, collecting, or just "plinking").

 

[sniper5]

The dueler's stance (the traditional bullseye stance) comes from an age of dueling with single shot flint lock pistols. The stance was taken with the idea of presenting the slimmest possible target to the opponent. Skilled duelers also wore loose fitting clothes with frock shirts and lots of lace in front to confuse the location of their body. With one shot and not the most accurate and reliable of weapons the strategy was to encourage a miss. With accurate reliable repeating firearms, large capacity magazines, two handed grip styles and close range gunfights those days have passed.

 

[Cosmoline]

*Followup* shots are slower, I'll admit. But the first shot can be as fast as you can draw with a bullseye stance.

I can see a problem with the length of the stance, in very close quarters you're sticking out too far. Also, the position is unstable if hand-to-hand grappling is involved.

And I suppose in face-to-face encounters you're liable to be face to face, not shoulder to face. However, if you DO happen to be shoulder to face, why not just shoot bullseye with a head turn instead of turning your whole body as the modern locked-in stances require? In other words, it's a useful tool for the arsenal.

With accurate reliable repeating firearms, large capacity magazines, two handed grip styles and close range gunfights those days have passed.

Have they really though? Or has conventional wisdom and training just shifted? In gunfights it's still that first shot that matters most, and the modern stances require some pretty complicated footwork and hand positioning.

 

[AK103K]

Well that was called, "Custer's Last Stance" (also known as the CLS method of shooting.)

LOL.

I always thought it was the "STLBFY" stance....(Save The Last Bullet For Yourself)

 

[dashootist]

On horseback, I would think one-hand is the only option.

 

[GLOOB]

I think for one thing that hasn't been mentioned, you can't change your POA quite as quickly in such a stance. With a 2-hand grip, you can quickly zip those sights around where they need to go as conditions change.

 

[Sam1911]

why not just shoot bullseye with a head turn instead of turning your whole body as the modern locked-in stances require

Not that it would matter a whole lot in a very quickly developing situation like a gunfight, but the draw stroke to come from a standard 4:00 strong-side holster position to a bladed (er, reverse-bladed?) bullseye stance with the gun hand pointed directly to the side and rotated vertically is a lot more awkward than a forward presentation.

'Course, we don't practice that draw, either, so it would seem more awkward. The four-count isosceles draw stroke is pretty refined for fluidity and to allow you to fire the gun with effective hits at any point after it is rotated horizontal.

I'd think the equivalent "reverse-bladed" one-hand draw stroke would look something like this:
1) Hand on grip
2) Raise gun until it clears holster (most shooters would probably lean away from the gun and the target to aid clearance).
3) Lift elbow and extend arm out to side. When you reach full extension the gun will be horizontal and can be fired at the target, though "gangsta style" with the left side of the gun (if you're right handed) facing the ground. This would be a form of point shooting, sighting more or less over the knuckles.
4) Straighten your stance, rotate hand to right gun, obtain sight picture, and fire.

Until you've finished step four, you're really not in a bullseye stance.

 

[1SOW]

David E: +1

Speed:. Shot recovery, target transition, and multiple shots are much faster with two hands in a stance that works for you.

A shot timer will make you a believer.

 

[dashootist]

This is like arguing whether chopstick or fork is better. It depends on which one you grew up using. What is very awkward for one group may not be for another, and vice versa.

 

[Sam1911]

It depends on which one you grew up using. What is very awkward for one group may not be for another, and vice versa.

That's one way of looking at it, but if the question is, which style has more conducive to the kind of "practical" shooting indicated by the opening post -- assuming equal experience with each -- then the isosceles stance is more effective.

Someone trained from birth to use the bullseye shooting position may find it awkward to assume the isosceles stance, at first, but he's not going to outshoot (from a "practical accuracy/speed" viewpoint) an equally skilled isosceles user. The bullseye method is just more limited or limiting.

In any event, the original post asked only two things: 1) is the precision accuracy edge some shooters feel they get from the bullseye stance a benefit in a gunfight, and 2) does the profile-reducing (or organ stacking) aspect offer benefits.

IMHO, the answer to both is no. 1) If you can dress your sight picture for a precision bullseye shot, you can dress your sight picture for an equally precise isosceles shot -- beyond any level that would be beneficial in a gun fight. 2) The benefits of a slightly reduced target profile might be outweighed by presenting an "all-organs-in-one" shot to the opponant whereby any torso hit will damage multiple important squishy bits.

 

[Archie]

This discussion is getting both silly and juvenile.

Both hands are NOT always available in a gunfight. One's off hand may be involved in holding a person or need object, may be disabled or the physical situation (being seated in an automobile for instance) may proclude use of one hand or the other. This also applies to the strong hand, by the way.

A deliberate, well directed shot may stop the whole event. Gunfights are normally determined by the first well placed hit, not the first loud noise. I've heard the argument fast shots will disorient and confuse an opponent, but that does not seem to be borne out in actual gunfights, AND those first wild shots are still the shooter's responsibility.

There's nothing wrong with either 'style' of shooting - one or two handed; presuming competence. Nothing wrong with two handed shooting, unless one becomes so dependent on two handed one cannot hit one handed.

Two handed shooting allows quicker 'follow up' shots. Good solid hits with suitable caliber firearms do not require 'follow up' shots. Peripheral hits and misses require 'follow up' shots.
I suggest one handed shooting is useful for very close reactive or 'point' shooting and longer range deliberate shots. But only if one knows how. Emptying a full magazine at a target at fifteen to twenty yards is not much in the way of marksmanship training.

The argument about frontal or bladed stances were argued in the duel era. Sniper 5 touches on the 'controversy'. Some argued it safer to turn sideways to present a smaller target, some thought it best to face square on in order to minimize damage from a hit. I see it's still going on. (My plan is to render my antagonist incapable of shooting me.)

I find a single shot fired from a deliberate position is typically more accurate than a two handed volley attempt.

I ask all to not fall victim tothe idea that 'tactical' means firing a bunch of shots and missing a lot. There is nothing un-tactical with making a hit with one's first shot. What ever that takes.

Finally, marksmanship must be learned prior to worrying about strategy, tactics and volley fire. Stated another way, marksmanship skills are required prior to gunfighting skills.

 

[Boris bush]

While I would never use it myself, I have seen it used one time.

At an IDPA match we had a stage where the targets were set horizontal instead of verticle. It was to simulate wild dogs at 35 meters. Only headshots counted. One shooter shot the 'dogs' with the bullseye stance. He was the only one to get a perfect score on that portion of the stage. I have seen more than enough wild dogs around my place at that distance. I would consider that a combat situation because them critters can cover some ground right quick!

It does have a place. You just need to know when to use it....

 

[1SOW]

. I suggest one handed shooting is useful for very close reactive or 'point' shooting and longer range deliberate shots. But only if one knows how. Emptying a full magazine at a target at fifteen to twenty yards is not much in the way of marksmanship training.

I understand your point. "You can't miss fast enough..etc...."

Innacurate fire is not what's being advocated. Controlled, accurate and fast fire is the goal

In your statement you mentioned one hand shooting, that's not 'bullseye' stance.

One example is on a draw for a close in target, "indexing" the hand and gun to a part of your body is often taught--it works--it's one hand shooting and it's fast and accurate with practice. Where you look is where you shoot. It is not bullseye type shooting.

No one is belittling "Bullseye type shooting". It's a shooting sport just like 'Action Shooting" is a sport. The developed skill sets are different. In one, the shooter is stationary and the target is fixed. In the other the shooter must be mobile and the target(s) may move. Both develop highly accurate shooters with great skills that I WOULD NOT want shooting at me.

In whatever situation that may arise, the ability to be flexible and to adapt to the situation as best as your abilty will allow is the key. If it works, it's right.

 

[RobMoore]

I find it very funny every time someone equates two handed fast firing to an "inaccurate volley". We started off talking about two stances that have ridiculously small differences in accuracy. This isn't a matter of being able to make an accurate shot vs spraying and praying.

If you can't fire fast AND accurate, cancel your highspeed internet for a few months, go buy some ammo, and get to practicing. If you think all you need to do is slow way down, turn your body to the side, and go one-handed to fix that issue, you're only fooling yourself.

 

[Trebor]

I know a retired MSP Trooper who put down a "fleeing felon" (it was allowed back then) at about 60 yards (IIRC) firing one handed from the Bullseye stance. He was a serious Bullseye competitior, when he needed to make a precise shot at long range, he automatically took up the stance he'd practiced with and used he most in that situation. He made the shot, the guy lived and was captured.

Not claiming this "proves" anything, just tossing it out there because it is relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Sam1911]

At an IDPA match we had a stage where the targets were set horizontal instead of verticle. It was to simulate wild dogs at 35 meters. Only headshots counted. One shooter shot the 'dogs' with the bullseye stance. He was the only one to get a perfect score on that portion of the stage.

He had the highest accuracy. How did he do when the scores were calculated? 5- point misses and 10 point FTNs can rack up fast, so you do have to make hits -- just curious if his accuracy made up for whatever speed differences there were.


And, of course, IDPA has to present some things in black and white that never really can be so. Like only head shots taking out a dog ... or the idea that you'd have time to engage more than one or two before the rest had covered the ground and gotten to you ... or the very real, possibility that the rest of the pack would flee when you fired at the first dogs. Meaning I'm not asking you to judge the validity of the stage as "realistic" -- just curious what the corrected time scores were.

 

[Old Fuff]

During my lifetime I have had the privilege and (usually) pleasure of knowing a small number of men who were genuine gunfighters (meaning they had been in shooting situations and survived). Some of them had names that would be instantly recognized by many if not most members of this forum. Others were equally experienced, but not known beyond they’re own associates.

One of the more important things I learned from them was that there is no single “best way” to do things. Concerning stances, many of them were involved in exploits prior to the arrival of Jeff Cooper and his “modern techniques.” In any case, all of them were capable of shooting with one hand or two, and several considered that one hand was faster, and therefore better. So far as accuracy was concerned, all of them could break stationary clay birds at 50 yards regardless of what stance (or complete lack of one) they were using.

Cosmoline is correct in saying that one-handed combat shooting is a viable option, and may be the only one if the second hand, for whatever reason, isn’t available. On the other hand two-hand holds or stances also offer advantages under some, but not necessarily all conditions.

The bottom line to all of this is that one can’t be too skilled when it comes to being able to use alternative techniques. The biggest mistake would be to know only one way, and then find yourself in a situation where it didn’t work, or at least work well.

Last but not least, the current crop of “combat gun-games” often do not represent the realities that one may encounter in real life. None of the men I mentioned at the beginning of this post were ever serious competitors or even participants in combat games, and one (Jeff Cooper) quit when the games became too much of a game.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

A few years back I shot in a few combat matches just to get comfortable with my handgun. One of the target stations would be disignated at random "switch to weak hand", the scenario being your dominant hand had been wounded (switch to left for righties, to right for lefties).

One should at least try all techniques in practice, and see what works.

 

[Slamfire]

My near vision has gone to hell in a handbasket so I am shooting all iron pistols Bullseye style. That extra couple of inches out sharpens the iron sight picture.

It takes a lot more work to shoot Bullseye style than two handed. Your trigger pull, grip, and follow through errors are really magnified with a one hand hold.

It is difficult and hats off to those who are Distinguished and Master class Bullseye shooters.

The style is of course obsolete for combat shooting. The military combat course from 1900 was shot with one hand because that was the way it was always done. They shot on round black bulls because that was the best combat simulation target they could think of. The Horse Cavalry was the primary user of the pistol, and they shot with one hand, when that hand was not holding a saber. The US Horse Cavalry was disbanded just around 1941. Troopers practiced pistol and sword exercises in the US while Panzers roamed the steppes of Russia.


Took a long time before Jack Weaver showed everyone that two hands are better than one.

 

[Old Fuff]

Took a long time before Jack Weaver showed everyone that two hands are better than one.

I knew pistol shooters that regularly used two-handed holds during the middle 1940's, which was long before Jeff Cooper's writing popularized the Weaver stance. Elmer Keith once told me that during his youth (just before World War One) that many cowboys he knew would hold their single action six-shooters in their strong hand, while using the weak one to support the revolver, and weak hand thumb to cock the hammer. Using two hands isn't something new.