Pistol shooting posture

[26 Inf]

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?

Good chatting with you.

[Renegade]

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]

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?

[Renegade]

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.

[tb-av]

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.

[26 Inf]

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/...y/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.

[Renegade]

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/...y/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.

[T2C]

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.

[Renegade]

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.

[tb-av]

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.