Whats your favorite shooting stance for pistol???

AlexS said:
There you have it, boys and girls. The pure, ultimate, and perfected expression of your classic, textbook Mall Ninja. You know, that strange species of animal that usually lives in mom and dad's basement, though sometimes the more adventurous ones live by themselves surrounded by posters of women because they can't get any real ones. They usually play a lot of video games, when they're not daydreaming about shooting someone. Sometimes this beast flubs it's way into a profession, sometimes even the police force. They buy a lot of tactical gear, and dress up in it a lot. Sometimes they venture out and play paintball. (It's more real that way...)
Todd Jarrett, step aside. The US and Canadian gov't will ditch you for Mr. Shootshells for sure as soon as they figure out they've got it all wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you should save this posting.....print it off and frame it.....
You put into words what I couldn't.;)

Or, put a link for this instead of a "smiley".....
 
Interesting thread. But there has been a digression since the original question, "What shooting position do you use".

There are plenty of different competitions out there that require a one handed stance. I find that I get a clearer sight picture when I use one hand,(better depth of focus further from the eye) AND a lot of feedback if my trigger control is bad. Useful.

For IPSC I am sure that the modified Isoceles (obviously not really an Isoceles if I remember my trigonometry correctly) is the way to go for the reasons stated previously. Can Todd J and the other top IPSC boys be wrong ?

I also have heard that when the SHTF cops tend to regress to some sort of isoceles whatever else they may do at other times. I am unsure of this fact as I firmly believe you do what you have been trained to do. However, I can see definite advantages for LEO's to use a modified Weaver.

True, you show slightly more body area which is unguarded by body armour. But, not only is that spot partially protected by the supporting arm, as the body is at an angle you show less total target, AND what about the head, arms, neck and legs that are always without body armour ? What about an assailant using a weapon powerful enough to defeat your armour ? I think the extra uncovered you show is insignificant in the circumstances.

Also try to shoot from behind cover using an Isoceles position. You will find that Weaver/modified Weaver gives you a MUCH smaller area outside cover. (And cover is probably what you need most in these situations !)

Personally I use a modified Weaver, I'm trying to get to grips with a modified Isoceles, and the Turnipseed looks like I have to learn more about it.

TJ
 
maurice said:
I think you should save this posting.....print it off and frame it.....
You put into words what I couldn't.;)

Or, put a link for this instead of a "smiley".....
Click to expand...

Glad to be of service.....
Simply put, when the top names in IPSC, namely Jarrett, Leatham, Barnhart, Grauffel, Butler, Voigt, et al. are busy training the world's elite military units, as in Delta and above, including our own JTF2, what they're teaching is what is universally accepted as the most efficient and repeatable way to put rounds on target. Any target. Period. Delta's shooters are some of the world's best, and that's because they're still taught rifle and pistol by the IPSC crowd. I would think that trumps what some hayseed LE guy thinks....
 
I guess it depends what you're shooting and what you're shooting at - in LE you need to hit an 8" circle, in IPSC you need to hit the A zone (a lot) and in Bullseye they have those ugly little Bullseyes to hit, as Epoxy7 said the gun comes into it too - Weaver is almost a necessity with a heavy kicking caliber and an unprepped gun, but it's overkill with a Hammerli shooting 22 shorts on an electric 2 oz. trigger.
 
and lets not forget studies by the late Jim Cirrilo (sp) and other high end LEO trainers who have survived numerous gun fights. the human reaction to a threat is to square off to that threat. anyone who's done any amount of martial arts knows that. so working with what the body already wants to do, means the isosceles stance is the way to go.
 
ian_in_vic said:
I guess it depends what you're shooting and what you're shooting at - in LE you need to hit an 8" circle, in IPSC you need to hit the A zone (a lot) and in Bullseye they have those ugly little Bullseyes to hit, as Epoxy7 said the gun comes into it too - Weaver is almost a necessity with a heavy kicking caliber and an unprepped gun, but it's overkill with a Hammerli shooting 22 shorts on an electric 2 oz. trigger.
Click to expand...

An 8" circle is wider than an IPSC "A" zone. But that's not the issue. Physionomy and body mechanics dictate the most efficient shooting position, and that's the position used by the better IPSC and IDPA competitors. The guys in Delta shoot lots of LE type targets, ones armed with real AK's and RPG's on a regular basis, and all with carbines and full power pistols, same ones in LE use.
There's only ONE better way. Although other positions may be adequate, competition determines the mechanics and real life demands their use.
 
Last edited:
Slavex said:
and lets not forget studies by the late Jim Cirrilo (sp) and other high end LEO trainers who have survived numerous gun fights. the human reaction to a threat is to square off to that threat. anyone who's done any amount of martial arts knows that. so working with what the body already wants to do, means the isosceles stance is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with Slavex on this one..... But personally, I do like to shoot from a modified weaver, too.... :redface:
 
AlexS said:
An 8" circle is wider than an IPSC "A" zone. But that's not the issue. Physionomy and body mechanics dictate the most efficient shooting position, and that's the position used by the better IPSC and IDPA competitors. The guys in Delta shoot lots of LE type targets, ones armed with real AK's and RPG's on a regular basis, and all with carbines and full power pistols, same ones in LE use.
There's only ONE better way. Although other positions may be adequate, competition determines the mechanics and real life demands their use.
Click to expand...


I think your argument is a little simplistic. For example the best shooting position may be different depending on your goal. Are you shooting bullseye?, IPSC? or just shooting for groups? What ranges are you shooting at?

Each position has trade offs. You generally lose speed for accuracy and vice versa.

Now we get into the LE section. Delta force is a bad example. First off all their primary weapon is a rifle, carbine or SMG. Their secondary is a pistol. Their vests are all top of the line and fitted. The stance you would use would reflect all of these factors.

For the average police their primary 95 percent of the time is their pistol. Now add in that the average street cop is carrying 30 pounds of equipment, generaly has a non fitted vest and has a pistol with a heavy trigger, and sometimes questionable accuracy. Plus the resources for training are less, so they have to be taught a stance that not only accounts for the weaknesses of their equipment but also one that can be applied to as many of the common situations the officer might run into as possible. Plus a stance that will lend itself to trianing as many different people as possible as quickly as possible. Again remembering that the pistol is their primary weapon and not a secondary.

I would argue that the best stance is dictated by the type of shooting, the equipment used and situational factors. In otherwords there isn't any one best stance for every situation.
 
Last edited:
Do you have time to get into a proper stance? Most in LE realtime situations would probably not, at least for the first "HOLY F*&K" round. Also, it is taught to most LEOs to contact people in an "interview stance", that puts the firearm away from the individual being spoken to, and tends to "blade" the body slightly.

I find that if reacting fast to targets, I tend to start from this "bladed", or perhaps "modified weaver" stance, but will move to the squared off shoulders asap if the engagement is lasting longer than two rounds, as I find it much more stable and accurate (with 9mm and .45ACP - dunno about other handgun calibers). That said, if the battle ain't over with my first two rounds, my stance would probably change into whatever shape my ass could most closely conform to the curb on the ground / telephone pole / other solid and apparently bullet-resistant material....

If I am in the drive through lane at McD's, I find it all depends on whether or not I have the clutch in, and the transmission in gear, and whether or not I've had a chance to get my straw into the drink yet.

You should just shoot and shoot and shoot, and try EVERYTHING.... stong hand / weak hand only, strong eye / weak eye only, weak hand only reloads / stoppages.... Stance won't matter as much, if you are thoroughly practiced, and if you are thoroughly practiced, you will probably adopt what works best, without even thinking about it consciously.

Just my thoughts - I am no expert, but I have been paid to carry a pistol for about 17 years.

Neal
 
Epoxy7 said:
I think your argument is a little simplistic. For example the best shooting position may be different depending on your goal. Are you shooting bullseye?, IPSC? or just shooting for groups? What ranges are you shooting at?

Each position has trade offs. You generally lose speed for accuracy and vice versa.

Now we get into the LE section. Delta force is a bad example. First off all their primary weapon is a rifle, carbine or SMG. Their secondary is a pistol. Their vests are all top of the line and fitted. The stance you would use would reflect all of these factors.

For the average police their primary 95 percent of the time is their pistol. Now add in that the average street cop is carrying 30 pounds of equipment, generaly has a non fitted vest and has a pistol with a heavy trigger, and sometimes questionable accuracy. Plus the resources for training are less, so they have to be taught a stance that not only accounts for the weaknesses of their equipment but also one that can be applied to as many of the common situations the officer might run into as possible. Plus a stance that will lend itself to trianing as many different people as possible as quickly as possible. Again remembering that the pistol is their primary weapon and not a secondary.

I would argue that the best stance is dictated by the type of shooting, the equipment used and situational factors. In otherwords there isn't any one best stance for every situation.
Click to expand...

All excellent and valid points. The thread morphed into what's best for "real/LE" situations. Nevertheless, all the sought after trainers for LE/MIL are from the civilian shooting sports, namely IPSC. They all pretty much teach the same pistol handling and shooting techniques used by IPSC competitors. Stance included. They wouldn't be booked solid and make top dollar if there were so many variances to the basic techniques. The difference from practical to tactical is very small.....
 
I don't think I was totally clear on what I meant by centered or neutral stance. I tend to think everyone knows what's in my head but it doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, I am specifically NOT referring to a modified isosceles stance...necessarily...unless that is where your center happens magically to align. Any martial artist needs to be able to deliver effective techniques from any organic angle in a fight, and that an adherence to any mechanical construct is going to get them their clocks cleaned. They certainly train for this but always return to the base-line structure of technique, which is keyed to the body's center from which all power and accuracy derives. In any free-form pugilistic exercise, flexibility is necessary in order to win, and IPSC skills function in exactly the same way. One can no more shoot from Weaver stance while shooting prone than they can from a shooting around a left side barricade from cover with the right arm locked solid in a Chapman. No one stands flat footed in a machine-like perfect stance in a fight and no one does it in IPSC either.

If you train to shoot from the center then it won't matter where your feet are or what position your body is in; you will be always striving to align your center with the axis of your gun and that in turn with the target surface. Call it any label you wish, but this is what IPSC has proven to work in fluid, ever changing and high-stress situations, and this is why various LE and MI agencies are starting to see the light..
 
Last edited:
Epoxy7 said:
I think your argument is a little simplistic. For example the best shooting position may be different depending on your goal. Are you shooting bullseye?, IPSC? or just shooting for groups? What ranges are you shooting at?

Each position has trade offs. You generally lose speed for accuracy and vice versa.

Now we get into the LE section. Delta force is a bad example. First off all their primary weapon is a rifle, carbine or SMG. Their secondary is a pistol. Their vests are all top of the line and fitted. The stance you would use would reflect all of these factors.

For the average police their primary 95 percent of the time is their pistol. Now add in that the average street cop is carrying 30 pounds of equipment, generaly has a non fitted vest and has a pistol with a heavy trigger, and sometimes questionable accuracy. Plus the resources for training are less, so they have to be taught a stance that not only accounts for the weaknesses of their equipment but also one that can be applied to as many of the common situations the officer might run into as possible. Plus a stance that will lend itself to trianing as many different people as possible as quickly as possible. Again remembering that the pistol is their primary weapon and not a secondary.

I would argue that the best stance is dictated by the type of shooting, the equipment used and situational factors. In otherwords there isn't any one best stance for every situation.
Click to expand...


given all the above, the best stance is still modified isosceles, not Weaver, or modified Weaver. dropping the support arm is more detrimental to your ability to engage multiple targets, move, and check your 360. RElliot is correct in that you want a neutral position, and grip for that matter, and over time you'll learn where your neutral position is. For 99% of the shooters it's very very very close to modified isosceles, and no where near a Weaver stance of any kind.
for Olympic Free pistol, the single hand grip, turned sideways to the target, may be the best, but I believe the rules also dictate that position and not a two handed grip standing straight on. There is the argument that having two hands on the gun means you've now got two things influencing the gun's movements, which perhaps when you're trying to make one hole groups at 10-25yds, is a factor. I don't know for sure on that, as I don't shoot that type of competition. but for fast groups in an action environment, I stand by my above, until someone teaches me better.
 
I shot at a practice night just this past tuesday, it seemed the majority of guys were shooting squared up to the target,....or some type of modified stance...at 20yards distance on bullseye targets. I shot the way I usually shoot and it made no difference on my hits. Even strong hand I was pretty squared to the target.
 
Depends on circumstances.
Self preservation: Draw, point, bangers until the BG stops.
Target: One handed quarter sideways stance
Range Target: Two handed triangular stance.

Many different stances have their applications under varying conditions and requirements. For instance our target league requires a one handed stance. IPSC will have a one handed weak side stance and shoot at some point, etc. Do I have a favourite? Definitely... has to be the stance that works under the given circumstances.
 
saskgunowner101 said:
Wow!! Did I get a storm going here!
Click to expand...
You did that alright, but look at the 'fun'. Also it's made for some interesting and informative reading.:) Years ago I did a very little amount of combat type shooting but most of my shooting has been the traditional bullseye variety. Now its mainly plinking and testing from a bench and rest, with one exception, long range 'plinking'. Back to the thread, if I had to list a pistol shooting stance or position as my favorite it would be the Keith prone long range stance.:D Laying on my back with back & head resting on a log or something along that line, and holding the handgun with both hands and supporting the hands between drawn up knees.:sniper: Let the games begin! I realise this is a deviation from the main type of shooting being discussed here, but this is my favorite. I don't think my Chito-Ryu experience offers much influence in this style of shooting.;)
Good thread and some great points of interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom