View Full Version : Pistol shooting posture
At a recent informal steel shoot, i ran the same course if fire a few times.
The runs that i hunched in a little and brought my head down slightly (like an inch) provided better accuracy/followups and much better times.
I dont know if its because my arms are more in line resulting in better recoil control, or if ive just been doing it so long im more consistent right now. Its not enough hunch to cause fatigue after an hour of practice, so its not major.
So my question for the experts (id say A class uspsa or better) is:
Is there enough gain to be had to start forcing myself to keep my head straight up, or if it works for me, just stick with it?
Edit, this is what my “hunch” looks like:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/okx1cnehmew9igt/Photo%20Jun%2026%2C%2011%2031%2010%20AM.png?raw=1
By any chance do you have a side photo showing feet to head?
Extending the neck forward of the shoulders to slightly lower the head while keeping the head erect in relationship to the target is fairly natural if you are semi-focused on keeping your head erect to avoid eye-fatigue - a cheat on the old 'bring the gun to the eye, dont bring the eye to the gun' thing.
It also allows you to thrust your shoulders forward a little more comfortably which you seem to be doing.
I'm just a lowly firearms instructor, though.
I'd like to see a side view as well. From the pic it looks like(could be wrong)you're hips, legs, and feet aren't quite in the "fighting stance." As far as your slight hunch; don't see a huge problem. You just want to make sure that hunch is as little as possible. Don't want to slowly creep to a bad position. I've seen plenty of BTDT's that could flat out shoot and several had a slight hunch.
No side view at this time. Stance depends on situation.
The steel shoot i mentioned had no movement, and i set my feet to be slightly offset shoulder width apart and rotate hips to aquire each target (major adjustment) and twist at the waist for minor adjustment.
If im moving, i get a much more agressive stance (boxer footing), and for long strings of fire i put more weight in the front foot. I dont seem to have any issue being pushed around by the gun, so i feel comfortable with all that ( but open to ideas/advice).
Thanks for the feedback so far on the slight hunch. Im not looking at my eyebrows so i guess thats a good sign.
Only other angle i have. Ill try to get more this weekend.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/84xeqwh2hbzyzgx/Photo%20Jun%2026%2C%2011%2037%2004%20AM.png?raw=1
At a recent informal steel shoot, i ran the same course if fire a few times.
The runs that i hunched in a little and brought my head down slightly (like an inch) provided better accuracy/followups and much better times.
I dont know if its because my arms are more in line resulting in better recoil control, or if ive just been doing it so long im more consistent right now. Its not enough hunch to cause fatigue after an hour of practice, so its not major.
So my question for the experts (id say A class uspsa or better) is:
Is there enough gain to be had to start forcing myself to keep my head straight up, or if it works for me, just stick with it?
Edit, this is what my “hunch” looks like:
In the real world, you won't have the luxury to get that "just right" posture. Focus on sight alignment, grip and trigger press. Everything else is bullshit.
In the real world, you won't have the luxury to get that "just right" posture. Focus on sight alignment, grip and trigger press. Everything else is bullshit.
Well, damn, guess I've wasted my time as well as a lot of other folks' doing drills on mock up stairs, around cars and so on. All bullshit, dayum.
Flavius was full of it, correct? Their exercises are unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises. Translation: Train like you fight and you will fight like you train.
SeriousStudent
06-26-18, 23:18
In the real world, you won't have the luxury to get that "just right" posture. Focus on sight alignment, grip and trigger press. Everything else is bullshit.
You tell 'em, Reverend Paul McCain! After all, you are the expert on bullshit, correct?
SeriousStudent
06-26-18, 23:19
Well, damn, guess I've wasted my time as well as a lot of other folks' doing drills on mock up stairs, around cars and so on. All bullshit, dayum.
Flavius was full of it, correct? Their exercises are unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises. Translation: Train like you fight and you will fight like you train.
Yeah, what did those old Roman dudes know? All they did was create the most efficient army of their time and conquer the known world. Bah.....
You tell 'em, Reverend Paul McCain! After all, you are the expert on bullshit, correct?
He never fails to bring the comedic relief.
...“In the real world”. :rolleyes:
I would say, if it works, it works. I just took a course from an extremely credible instructor that kinda echoed the sentiment from above. Draw, Grip, sight alignment, and trigger control are king. I kinda agree. Does that mean experimenting shooting behind cover/concealment, on stairs, from a vehicle is wrong? No. But if your grip is ****ed up it might not matter.
I would say, if it works, it works. I just took a course from an extremely credible instructor that kinda echoed the sentiment from above. Draw, Grip, sight alignment, and trigger control are king. I kinda agree. Does that mean experimenting shooting behind cover/concealment, on stairs, from a vehicle is wrong? No. But if your grip is ****ed up it might not matter.
Truthful.
It is hard to get multiple hits without a good grip, proper sight alignment, trigger control annnnnnd a good stance. You can say some elements may be more important than others, but that isn't to say all are not important.
You'll notice that I left draw out of the list required to get multiple hits. Is the draw important? Yes it is, but even the best draw will lose to an already drawn weapon. So more important may actually be being situationally aware so that you draw in advance.
To me equally important to a proper draw stroke is the impulse to move as you draw. That movement may just allow you to defeat the disadvantage of coming from slightly behind. Getting solid hits while moving is largely dependent on how much and how well you've practiced twisting and aligning your torso as you move, and how level your footwork allows you to keep the pistol.
Those things come from paying attention to and working on stance.
So I can't agree that stances is relatively unimportant.
Trigger control is the king daddy of pistol fundamentals, as it's been taught to me. Footing or stance is going to completely dependent on the situation you find yourself in during a gun fight. Maybe training drills involving proprioception are important, so you intuitively know how to move and gain proper footing.
Who knows...just what I've been taught.
Trigger control is the king daddy of pistol fundamentals, as it's been taught to me. Footing or stance is going to completely dependent on the situation you find yourself in during a gun fight. Maybe training drills involving proprioception are important, so you intuitively know how to move and gain proper footing.
Who knows...just what I've been taught.
I have to agree with your opening comment concerning trigger control. Although we train, rapidly acquiring a perfect shooting position and perfect sight alignment under stress is not always possible. You take what you can get, then manipulate the trigger consistently in a controlled fashion.
That being said, I was taught that the shoulders, knees and toes should be in vertical alignment for stability when shooting a handgun from a stationary position. The knees and toes should move parallel to the sight plane when shooting on the move. Both positions may make it appear the shooter is slightly "hunched", but not hunched to the point that it applies tension to the nerves and arteries running through the neck.
This is about as bad as it gets.
I tend to start more upright, and hunker down during longer strings(gets more hunched as i shoot.)
I think its a subconscious thing i just picked up on, maybe im trying to steady myself?
I first noticed it while running through a texas star.
Anyways, back on topic, if I keep myself more upright, are there performance gains to be had?
*Please ignore grip, trigger press, and sights. I know they are more important, this is not a thread about those.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbypp3l6hvfqwdx/Photo%20Jun%2028%2C%207%2009%2048%20PM.jpg?raw=1
If you can see what is above, below and to the left and right without moving your head, head position should be acceptable. If you can maintain good sign alignment and manage recoil while both shooting stationary and shooting on the move, body position is acceptable. Body position will vary based on build, mobility and what is comfortable while effectively manipulating a firearm.
Back in my LEO academy days the instructors stress to use the Isosceles stance due to the fact that you are wearing body armor and you want your body armor to offer you the best protection, weaver stance works well to but depending on the scenario and intended purpose. Personally, I have never heard of the "Chapman" stance... but I'm intrigued to know more about it... Learning is always a never ending process.
Chapman is basically a Weaver Stance with the shooting arm straight and the support arm bent ala Weaver. There is a tendency for some shooters to wing the support elbow out, the elbow should be down.
I think Isosceles is easier for most new shooters to grasp. Plus, there has been an evolution, if you would, in how we grip the auto-pistol. thanks to people way smarter than I.
In what state did you got to academy, if you don't mind me asking.
Back in my LEO academy days the instructors stress to use the Isosceles stance due to the fact that you are wearing body armor and you want your body armor to offer you the best protection
I was told that same nonsense as well. Such statements lack articulate facts of prior encounters which would support range instructor pet theories like these. Nothing against the Isosceles stance, I just hate that BS reason.
I believe people ahould use what works for them, tested through rigerous courses of fire over a period of time.
Also, look what pros do, and emulate them. Hence this thread.
I was told that same nonsense as well. Such statements lack articulate facts of prior encounters which would support range instructor pet theories like these. Nothing against the Isosceles stance, I just hate that BS reason.
Well, maybe if you studied the subject you could find data to support your 'nonsense' conjecture.
The ballistic vest and improvements to the EMS/trauma care system are the two main reasons that law enforcement officers killed numbers are as low as they are. Police officers still get dispatched to the same stuff they did decades ago, and if you've read the summaries of those incident, they are still making the same tactical errors that they did decades ago.
If you look at the LEOKA stats since vests became a common wear item, you'd probably find that, oh, over a third of the officers killed by shots to the torso while wearing vests were killed by shoots that entered through the armhole or shoulder area of the vest, or between the side panels of the vest. If you want, I could send you the handouts on such trends that I updated each year. Or you could look at the 2017 LEOKA, Table 38 data. https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/topic-pages/tables/table-38.xls
Maybe your instructor was just parroting what he had heard, but some of us look at the numbers and try to develop tactics to counter the trends.
Your argument is exactly the reason why I have trouble taking anything a firearms instructor says with more than a grain of salt.
The chart makes zero mention of the positional relationship between the shooter and victim. The importance of this as it pertains to the 'square up' argument is huge.
The term confirmation bias comes to mind.
Your argument is exactly the reason why I have trouble taking anything a firearms instructor says with more than a grain of salt.
The chart makes zero mention of the positional relationship between the shooter and victim. The importance of this as it pertains to the 'square up' argument is huge.
The term confirmation bias comes to mind.
Well, the term used was square into the threat which, would assume a known threat or a likely threat axis, so there is the possibility that all of the officers slain in those incidents were victims of ambushes or multiple assailant assaults, etc.
ETA: I do agree that in most confrontations the bigger thing should be movement off the threat axis, which should not be overly slowed by concerns about front panel orientation. Unfortunately not many officers get a lot of in-depth continuation training after their initial firearms training.
So imparting suggestions such as 'as you're approaching the vehicle, think about where the rounds would most likely come from and square your front plates with that threat' help make sure the protection which the passive protective device that is the vest provides is maximized.
Likewise, at some point I think it is important for any instructor teaching/suggesting tactics to challenge the student to think through the tactic and see if their are any pros or cons that weren't brought up and then make an informed decision on whether they are going to adopt the tactics.
For confirmation bias purposes, bp stands for Border Patrol, correct? :D
Good chatting with you.
Before the dick swinging contest, I think the point was there is no evidence shooting Isosceles is more survivable than shooting a Weaver or some other stance. But it would be great info to know if someone ever researched it.
Inkslinger
06-30-18, 20:34
Before the dick swinging contest, I think the point was there is no evidence shooting Isosceles is more survivable than shooting a Weaver or some other stance. But it would be great info to know if someone ever researched it.
What about the philosophy that a bullet going front to back will likely encounter fewer organs than one going side to side?
What about the philosophy that a bullet going front to back will likely encounter fewer organs than one going side to side?
What about the fact most folks have a smaller profile from the side than front/back?
This is my point, there are so many variables it is hard to say a specific street stance is more survivable.
Here ya go.
Every really good shooter I have ever seen looks like they are just standing there pretty much the same as if they were talking to you.. aside from their out stretched arms, which basically look like they are using both hands to take a cigar out of your mouth, for lack of a better description. If you get a copy of Bruce Lee's Toa of Jeet Kune Do you will not read very far before he stresses to only use the muscles necessary for the action you are performing. Which is pretty much what it looks like all the best shooters do when I watch them shoot. Not sure what that's worth to you. Just my observation. Relax if you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsfc79SSdDY
Before the dick swinging contest, I think the point was there is no evidence shooting Isosceles is more survivable than shooting a Weaver or some other stance. But it would be great info to know if someone ever researched it.
I was approaching it simply from using the ballistic vest as a 'weapon' rather than a passive protective device.
In terms of Isosceles versus Weaver, first of all let's talk degrees of Weaver:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/2016/05/rob-pincus-and-bob-owens-arguing-over-the-weaver-stance-a-critical-analysis-of-the-controversy/jeff-cooper/
I posted this because of the picture of Cooper in the Weaver Stance. The point is his body is slightly bladed. There were some excerpts from the article I'll mention later.
In the picture of the Weaver Stance below, notice how aggressively the body is bladed. This sharply bladed 'Weaver' is what I normally see in shooters that say 'I shoot Weaver. There is no doubt to me that a sharply bladed Weaver Stance provides more side exposure.
http://gunbelts.com/blog/3-basic-shooting-stances/
One of the arguments for the Weaver, and especially the aggressively bladed Weaver, could be that it presents a narrower silhouette, and it does.
In terms of survivability without wearing protective armor, I'd think someone associated with the IWBA would be able to answer that with some authority. Of course bullets don't behave in exactly the same manner all the time.
It seems to me that a square frontal shot is likely to do less damage than a shot into the side of the torso which could potentially involve the heart and both lungs.
It is possible to shoot with an upper body Weaver Stance and still be pretty much square into the threat. We never required shooters to use the Isosceles Stance, rather required them to be square into the threat. In reality, most of our shooters ended up in some form of an Isosceles stance.
When you look at what the joints and muscles are doing during both stances, it seems to me it should be apparent that Isosceles is easier for a new shooter to grasp. In fact, in the article I linked to earlier Grant Cunningham related this tidbit:
I’ve watched a ton of dashcam videos as part of an ongoing curriculum development project, and what I see time and time again is that, regardless of prior training, when police officers are surprised by a threat they thrust their pistols out in front of them, on their centerline, with their elbows locked (or generally as close to it as their armor allows), their shoulders rolled forward, and their head in a protected position. If this is the natural reaction then it seems only logical to train to use it to its greatest effect.
This is also consistent with the way that our visual systems work, with the focus of interest (the threat) on our centerline and the tool (the gun) brought to the “work”. Putting the gun off-center is non-intuitive by definition, since doing so doesn’t allow the visual systems to work as they have evolved to.
And finally from the same article:
Jack Weaver has long admitted, in at least a couple of articles I’ve read over the years, that he started shooting in his characteristic way in order to “game” the quick-draw matches he was competing in! Even Jeff Cooper indicated in a long-ago article that Weaver figured the slight time disadvantage he had in getting into his stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy.
A lot of current competitors and instructors have done a lot of work in grip development after analyzing the physiology of shooting. I'm not so sure that reasoning - slight time disadvantage....getting into (the Weaver) stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy - holds true today.
I was approaching it simply from using the ballistic vest as a 'weapon' rather than a passive protective device.
In terms of Isosceles versus Weaver, first of all let's talk degrees of Weaver:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/2016/05/rob-pincus-and-bob-owens-arguing-over-the-weaver-stance-a-critical-analysis-of-the-controversy/jeff-cooper/
I posted this because of the picture of Cooper in the Weaver Stance. The point is his body is slightly bladed. There were some excerpts from the article I'll mention later.
In the picture of the Weaver Stance below, notice how aggressively the body is bladed. This sharply bladed 'Weaver' is what I normally see in shooters that say 'I shoot Weaver. There is no doubt to me that a sharply bladed Weaver Stance provides more side exposure.
http://gunbelts.com/blog/3-basic-shooting-stances/
One of the arguments for the Weaver, and especially the aggressively bladed Weaver, could be that it presents a narrower silhouette, and it does.
In terms of survivability without wearing protective armor, I'd think someone associated with the IWBA would be able to answer that with some authority. Of course bullets don't behave in exactly the same manner all the time.
It seems to me that a square frontal shot is likely to do less damage than a shot into the side of the torso which could potentially involve the heart and both lungs.
It is possible to shoot with an upper body Weaver Stance and still be pretty much square into the threat. We never required shooters to use the Isosceles Stance, rather required them to be square into the threat. In reality, most of our shooters ended up in some form of an Isosceles stance.
When you look at what the joints and muscles are doing during both stances, it seems to me it should be apparent that Isosceles is easier for a new shooter to grasp. In fact, in the article I linked to earlier Grant Cunningham related this tidbit:
I’ve watched a ton of dashcam videos as part of an ongoing curriculum development project, and what I see time and time again is that, regardless of prior training, when police officers are surprised by a threat they thrust their pistols out in front of them, on their centerline, with their elbows locked (or generally as close to it as their armor allows), their shoulders rolled forward, and their head in a protected position. If this is the natural reaction then it seems only logical to train to use it to its greatest effect.
This is also consistent with the way that our visual systems work, with the focus of interest (the threat) on our centerline and the tool (the gun) brought to the “work”. Putting the gun off-center is non-intuitive by definition, since doing so doesn’t allow the visual systems to work as they have evolved to.
And finally from the same article:
Jack Weaver has long admitted, in at least a couple of articles I’ve read over the years, that he started shooting in his characteristic way in order to “game” the quick-draw matches he was competing in! Even Jeff Cooper indicated in a long-ago article that Weaver figured the slight time disadvantage he had in getting into his stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy.
A lot of current competitors and instructors have done a lot of work in grip development after analyzing the physiology of shooting. I'm not so sure that reasoning - slight time disadvantage....getting into (the Weaver) stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy - holds true today.
But has anyone ever looked at shootings to see if Isosceles is more survivable? For example, in X police shootings, y% were shot while using Isosceles, and z% survived. As opposed to i% were using Weaver (or something else), and j% survived.
Before the dick swinging contest, I think the point was there is no evidence shooting Isosceles is more survivable than shooting a Weaver or some other stance. But it would be great info to know if someone ever researched it.
I think there is a little too much emphasis on using the isosceles technique. If your tactics rely on using soft body armor to stop an incoming round you have already lost the fight.
I think there is a little too much emphasis on using the isosceles technique. If your tactics rely on using soft body armor to stop an incoming round you have already lost the fight.
And I think that was point #2.
OP, watch this video and check out especially 8:50 to 8:55. Notice how relaxed and basically just standing there he is. eta: I forgot to finish my thought. At that instance he had maximized his potential in his technique of creating distance. That is when he relaxed his posture. No longer were all the muscles needed for other purposes. Same thing Bruce Lee said. If you watch enough videos and I don't care who it is. They all do it. The muscles are used are for purpose. The stances. The tensions. The relaxations. The stance is determined by the situation. Not the other way round. ETA2: rather than "stance" you might want to consider learning body mechanics and I would expect someone like will Brink on this forum could fix you up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjMpn7JCJ0
Here ya go.
Every really good shooter I have ever seen looks like they are just standing there pretty much the same as if they were talking to you.. aside from their out stretched arms, which basically look like they are using both hands to take a cigar out of your mouth, for lack of a better description. If you get a copy of Bruce Lee's Toa of Jeet Kune Do you will not read very far before he stresses to only use the muscles necessary for the action you are performing. Which is pretty much what it looks like all the best shooters do when I watch them shoot. Not sure what that's worth to you. Just my observation. Relax if you can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsfc79SSdDY
Thanks. Ive noticed that too. I hunch more than they do, in your opinion, do you think its worth addressing? I feel i shoot better hunched, but I wonder if its because Im deficient somewhere else.
Any insight?
As for stance, does anyone really think weaver is going to produce better results?
I dont wear a vest, so I use what the most efficient stance is.
and finally... from 0:15 to 0:21 --- that is the most important part of any stance you will ever use.
Don't read the title of this video. Just accept the very simple thing he is saying. All the great shooters can hold the gun still and pull the trigger. How simple is that.... In concept very simple. In practice I have no idea because I still can't do it.
So you might ask yourself. What stance will allow me to hold the gun still so that I hit my target. That's the stance you want to use. Regardless of it's name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0rGtXh23I
So my question for the experts (id say A class uspsa or better) is:
Oops.... Ignore my posts. I missed that key point. I'm more akin to the class clown.
Thanks.
Any insight?
I am just an average person. You could probably out shoot me with a blindfold on. I pay attention to what pros do and say though.
but yes... you said the tension was no big deal for an hour. Tiger Woods changed his golf swing. I doubt when he did that he felt comfortable right out of the gate.
You are basically telling us you think something is wrong. My insight tells me that your brain enjoys winning in the hunched position, but is conflicted with the possibility of it being a 'short term posture'. So if you had to shoot for 5 hours lets say would you fall apart. I don't see how you could possibly overcome that except through strength and relaxation. Even if you see an initial decline doing it on your own. There are probably instructors that could minimize that transition.
It's hard to look at a static photo of someone and say ok that's tense. But your asking and describing your comfort zone and placing time limits on your ability. That suggests to me you feel like you are at some sort of plateau and need an instructor to get you to the next level.That's not me for sure. All I know is every one of them I've ever come in contact with is either intense with purpose or relaxed by nature. How the hell they do it I do not know. The fact you are concerned or feeling something else can be done tells me you are right. It might be more mental than geometric at this point.
ETA: Tiger woods changed his swing and kept winning. His wife changed his swing and he lost it. Have you ever read any of the "inner game of... books?" They deal with the mental aspect of performance. You don't have to understand the topic fully to gain something from them. That address things you might be thinking about in your performance and didn't realize it.
Like for instance you said you were shooting steel. Have you ever found yourself contemplating what your trigger finger just did when there were more targets to be cleared? Performance time is not reflective time. You should be contemplating what you will do next as you are doing something. You can't change the done. You can't stop the doing. You do the next thing. So if you are thinking about your body mechanics in the moment maybe it's not performance focused. ... and if you are being shot at even more so. Perform. Count the chips when the dust settles.
01:50 -:2:05 -- listen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3o04Cxdb0E........
Notice that at the end of this vid Todd has no concern that this guy is standing straight up like a pole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa50-plo48
So you have your Weaver, Turtle, Pole, Zero, ...
You have to do your thing. There is this concept known as graduation. You simply need to experiment. Why don't you shoot an entire match left handed?
Questions I have asked students to ask themselves while experimenting with subtle changes in their shooting positions.
1) Do I have stability?
2) Do I have mobility?
3) Am I making maximum use of my visual window with my head position?
4) Is my shooting position efficient? Does it require the least amount of physical effort to maintain?
I think there is a little too much emphasis on using the isosceles technique. If your tactics rely on using soft body armor to stop an incoming round you have already lost the fight.
I get what you are saying about tactics, but why not take advantage/maximize what most officers bring with them?
No one technique is going to be perfect for every shooter. Under stress, the normal shooter (vs. the highly trained pro) gravitates toward a general Isosceles. The fact is that the Weaver diehards I've taken note of during FonF don't stay in their hard Weaver when sim rounds are flying.
Most folks that have done enough FonF to form opinions will tell you that their hands get beat up because rounds are punching into them - same phenomenon seen on photo targets with firearms - most folks focus on the threat, which in this case is the firearm, and the rounds cluster there. All the more reason to have vest coverage in the area.
But has anyone ever looked at shootings to see if Isosceles is more survivable? For example, in X police shootings, y% were shot while using Isosceles, and z% survived. As opposed to i% were using Weaver (or something else), and j% survived.
I have no knowledge of anyone gathering that data. UCR doesn't list stance used anyplace in the LEOKA.
ETA: Looking at stance taught by agency/academy is probably not going to bring useful data, anecdotal video evidence seems to indicate a generalized Isosceles response, sometimes one-handed.
Does anyone suspect if stance / behavior is different when the situation is defensive vs offensive?
Does anyone suspect if stance / behavior is different when the situation is defensive vs offensive?
Yep!
Every sport, art, whatever has fundamentals. Best practices. But in performance you are constantly compensating for that less than ideal situation that is known as real life.
practice, practice, practice, ... perform. Other than something like Bullseye how could you ever know what your stance will be.
I believe great shooters simply constantly compensate off what they know to be their personal ideal basis and the physics of the weapon manipulation as it relates to their body/abilty.
How do you swing a baseball bat?
What is the correct posture at a piano?
What's the correct way to get pulled up on a water ski?
How do you correctly hold drum sticks?
There are answers to all those questions... but.... everyone does it just a little bit differently and sometimes a lot differently.
Does anyone suspect if stance / behavior is different when the situation is defensive vs offensive?
I believe you will see the difference between defensive/offensive vs competitive.
voiceofreason
07-20-18, 11:40
My initial training was a very aggressive isoceles stance. I was able to control recoil very well and moved my upper body like the turret of a tank. Did this for years.
Was shooting with a USPSA Grandmaster and he asked me why I shot that way. I told him and he challenged me to try it his way.
I got 3 runs for each style on a course that included movement and multiple targets in different directions. I walked the course a few times, then we started recording times for each style back and forth.
My times were faster for all 3 runs shooting with the gun up to my face over the hunched/aggressive style. I think I was able to see/move better when I wasn't moving in & out of the rigid aggressive isoceles position.
He explained that the "heads up" position allows for greater peripheral vision and overall awareness whereas the aggressive isoceles promotes tunnel vision "3rd eye" and is too tense overall which slows people down.
And he laughed at the concept that so much upper body weight and rigid skeletal was needed for 9mm. (It was a pretty funny moment)
I realized that the greater situational awareness/peripheral vision improvement alone was worth switching over.
I train with my gun coming up to my eyes, with a slight forward tilt of the head now as that works better for ME.
Run and try everything that doesn't create an unsafe situation... and see what works for you.
You guys may find this video from Aaron Barruga of Guerrilla Approach pertinent to this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCtEcdL23Mw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.