Chapman's Stance

[sonrider657]

Although not normally considered a tactical publication, Backwoods Home Magazine always has excellent gun articles by Massad Ayoob.

In the current issue (July/August 2010), Mas describes "Chapman's Stance" as developed by the late Ray Chapman whereby one uses the same basic shooting stance for rifle, shotgun, and pistol.

Anyone shoot this way?

[NMBigfoot02]

Tried to find the article you mentioned, but it doesn't seem available on their website. For reference, is this the stance you're talking about?

http://books.google.com/books?id=wii...0ayoob&f=false

[Dave Williams]

I believe that this is the stance taught at Frontsight.

Dave Williams

[BrianS]

It is absolutely bizarre to me that anyone would be writing about Chapman or Weaver stance in 2010 in any context other than "this is how some people used to shoot back in the 80s."

[NMBigfoot02]

Looking at the pics in the article I linked, it does look a little awkward.

[Business_Casual]

It is absolutely bizarre to me that anyone would be writing about Chapman or Weaver stance in 2010 in any context other than "this is how some people used to shoot back in the 80s."

That covers it.

[sonrider657]

That covers it.

Why does "old" mean "wrong"?

People squeezed the trigger with their index finger in the '80's, is that out of style too?

[NMBigfoot02]

My totally non-professional, take-it-for-what-you-will opinion is this: a stance that is designed to cover multiple firearms(pistol, rifle, shotgun) is going to do a mediocre job at all three while providing the marginal benefit that it remains the same for all platforms.

I think you'd be better off adopting a stance tailored to each activity and reinforce with training.

[vigilant2]

I used the chapman stance until I attended a Magpul Handgun class,
since then its been MT (modern isoceles) and I've never looked
back. I had become fairly proficient with the chapman, but the
isoceles took me to the next level. Much more stabile , and
more natural stance. I truly don't see any advantages in its
application to other weapons (long arms).

[John Hearne]

I've participated in the NTI three times. They generally videotape you and provide you with a copy of your work in their scenarios. Watching myself go through a fairly realistic, 360 degree world with simulated rounds coming at you, I was amazed at how many different shooting "stances" I used.

Depending on what I was doing, I shot everything from Iso, to Weaver, to CAR. The primary determinant was the problem I was solving. When the possibility of incoming fire is present, your use of cover really changes from "IDPA land." I found that for support side shooting, the CAR was really useful, I never did it intentionally, the problem dictated the stance.

I was brought up as a traditional Weaver shooter but now shoot semi-autos is a near text book modern ISO. I think that exposure to different stances is important because it convinces shooters that they don't have have some perfect position to deliver the hit. I do know of several people who swear by some sort of Weaver/Chapman when shooting heavy recoiling revolvers and the ability to transfer recoil to the ground makes it make sense. When I shoot shotgun, I tend to blade a bit more, I find my shot-to-shot sight recovery a bit quicker that way.