Chapman's Stance

[Rosco Benson]

The Chapman stance is basically a Weaver with the gun arm locked out. Cooper shot with a bent right elbow. Thus a controversy arose as to which was better. In fact, Cooper couldn't lock his right arm straight, due to an injury to his right elbow (he fell on ice and smashed it).

In my opinion, one's pistol shooting stance should look a lot like one's empty hand stance--just with the pistol raised to eye level. The situation is probably going to start with an empty-handed startle response. If one's default is American boxing, then the stance will probably look Weaver-ish. If one's training runs along other lines, then it may be more squared up and Isosceles-ish.

The notion of the Weaver-ish stances carrying over to long gun usage is kind of valid. Generally though, when armed with a long gun, one is on the offensive or, at least, acting in a more proactive way. Thus one can use whatever stance offers an advantage (such as the current support hand WAY out front). The handgun, carried because it is convenient and concealable, will most likely be used in a defensive, startle-response manner. Again, the stance taken will tend to mirror one's empty-hand stance.

Rosco

[az doug]

...Cooper shot with a bent right elbow. Thus a controversy arose as to which was better. In fact, Cooper couldn't lock his right arm straight, due to an injury to his right elbow (he fell on ice and smashed it)...

+1 When I attended Gunsite and was taught the stance by Cooper he said that the "strong" arm should be fully extended. He said that he could not straighten his right arm and that is why he shot with it bent.

I first learned the Weaver stance in the very early 70's, before Cooper opened Gunsite, and must admit I still primarily use it today. I tried changing to the "Modern Isoceles" but kept ended in a shooting stance that did not resemble either style. I finally gave up and stuck with the Weaver. After close to 40 years of doing something one way it is hard to change. I still teach firearms at an academy and we teach the MI.

As a Homicide Detective and Supervisor I also investigated police shootings for a little over a decade. My experience there tells me that if you are involved in a shooting you probably won't be in your perfect stance when it happens. It has also told me that sight alignment and trigger control are very important.

[Dirk Williams]

Son, have to agree with you, Use what works, Work what you use.

New school VS Old school is getting beat to death. Reading these posts it sounds like everybody learns a way, then a new way, then a new new way.

Ive lived this mantra my entire career. It's gotten to the point that it is simply silly.

If your a shooter, your body will tell you what shooting positions are right for you, and which are wrong for you.

If your a shooter the terrain and situation will dictate/mandate what is exceptable, OR you die.

Im not preaching that you shouldn't train or learn new stuff. Im just thinking out loud, how much is enough.

If your in the shit and your thinking to yourself , " How did Costa's say to do this, or Chapman, or Pennington" or any other trainer your in wayyyyyyyy over your head.

In fact your about to die.

Not knocking these trainers, just think people need to be more realistic if your a"Gunfighter" another term that is over used and way out of line. Try using that term in court and see what you get.

Respectfully,
D Williams

[gunnyscouts2]

I agree with Dirk, been shooting since we all carried wheelguns. I was taught by Chapman. I have been trained in all kinds of stances and whatnot. What I found is that they are all tools and when the stress is on, it is always good to have more in the toolbox. You go to what works, as long as you have practiced it. There should be no OLD SCHOOL/NEW SCHOOL. They were developed. Its what works for you at the time. Learn as much as you can, try it and use what works for YOU. Not because a certain person taught it to you and it is the current FAD.