Since we're talking about stances, try this: Rastoff's Challenge III - Different Positions

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I use (and teach to newbies) the Weaver stance. It's based on the classic boxing stance, which keeps one steady on one's feet, offering good balance and no necessary shift in foot position to move rapidly to any point on the compass. It's steady, natural and comfortable. But perhaps that's slightly rationalistic. The real reason is:

Jeff Cooper said so.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

In the context of defensive shooting and civilian self-defense in general, I feel the importance of movement cannot be stressed enough. *

Whether it's moving to escape, get to cover, getting off the X or line of attack, creating space or using footwork to gain positional advantage in an ECQ scenario, movement is often a key element for a successful resolution irregardless of the distance and specific scenario.

The term posture is preferred IMO because stance implies standing over moving. In terms of what constitutes an efficient defense posture, it must allow for spontaneous, dynamic mobility in any direction, allow transition between as well as simultaneous utilization of unarmed defense skills rather than just be a pure shooting stance. The individual details of an effective posture is not absolute since it could vary depending on the specific scenario. And it shouldn't be overlooked that many civilian defense encounters occur with no to minimal warning even with a high level of environmental and situational awareness, so you could initially be reactively moving and responding from a pretty much completely casual or neutral(albeit ready) posture.

* I would add the caveat that everyone differs in their physical abilities and adjustments and considerations must sometimes be made for those who have limited mobility or are physically handicapped in some way. One size does not fit all.

Caught on surveillance camera

.

The isosceles platform is great for static range, i.e. stationary targets.

The 'Jack Weaver stance'....in a modified version works well for me,
in a moving fluid 'the real world' kinda deals.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

[QUOTE=keith44spl;139047418

.

The isosceles platform is great for static range, i.e. stationary targets.




.[/QUOTE]

It works great for me because all I ever do is shoot holes in paper, tin cans and dirt clods. Sometimes I ride around the fields and woods on a golf cart and shoot holes in leaves but that is a sitting position. If I'm ever in a place where someone is shooting at me and I get shot it will be in the back because I will be using a running stance. Larry

Agreed. I regularly practice using two-hand strong-side, two-hand weak-side, one-hand right, one-hand left, crouching, kneeling, standing, prone, and from the seated position (as in while in a car). I also shoot at differing ranges with single and multiple targets. I also shoot in low light conditions and practice shooting with a flashlight to locate and illuminate the targets. I will mix in dummy cartridges to simulate stoppage and clearance problems.

About the only thing I don't have regular access to that I would like to have is moving targets.

Only when shooting for a score or accuracy-testing a handgun and/or ammunition will I use an "accepted" position of any kind.

I'm not a CQB/EQB expert. Never been in combat. Just a civilian trying to keep my skills up.

The last couple force on force classes I took (within the last year), taught by police trainers, advocated using a "wrestlers stance." Similar to a boxers stance with maybe a bit more crouch.

Their point was it was a natural position to assume if you're under attack. Provides good forward and lateral movement. Lowers your center of gravity. Shoot and move one handed or two.

Made total sense in the context of the course, but no real world shootouts on my part to back it up (thankfully).

Weaver works best for me after trying both for a couple of months. It feels more natural to me even though a friend told me everyone MUST shoot isosceles. He uses isosceles because Jerry Miculek says thats best. I say choosing one over the other just because someone else tells you to is wrong.

Much depends on the goal.

No offense to all the Miculek fans out there, as I think he's great, but as talented and phenomenal as Jerry Miculek happens to be at what he does, it should not be overlooked that he is a competitive shooter and has developed skills specifically geared toward excelling at that particular sport.

I've never seen him address the type of skills and techniques you would likely need in the most probable defense encounters, considering the vast majority of all civilian self-defense scenarios occur at contact distances out to a few yards(if you believe the published statistics are correct). The type of sport shooting skills I've seen him demonstrate, while no doubt are extremely impressive, just aren't all that applicable in actual defense situations. There is still an elemental degree of crossover in certain circumstances, it's just not very substantial IMO. That's not to say he doesn't have other skills or knowledge, I've just never seen him discuss them in depth or demonstrate them. If the goal is to exhibit proficiency at sport shooting skills or be successful as a competitor, it would be logical to look to the best competitive shooters for tips and guidance, but defensive shooting in realistic conditions requires different methods.

Context is everything and your training methods, preferred shooting posture, stance, grip etc. should be specifically suited for whatever your goal is and for you as an individual. There is no one right answer for every person and every category.

So, what do you teach for a defensive shooting stance . . . ?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Just about everyone uses the Isosceles now. But then just about everyone carries a plastic pistol now, too. If you've been shooting a revolver for over 50 years and have been using the Weaver or a modified Weaver or whatever, then you might want to keep using it and shooting those revolvers. That is IF you can shoot well.

I use the Isosceles for hi cap pistols when shooting fast at multiple targets and drawing from concealment. But when shooting a magnum revolver for precision long range shots I go right back to the old modified Weaver I've used for decades. I also do not use the extended thumbs grip on revolvers because of the cylinder gap and the heavier recoil of magnums. With revolvers the off hand thumb is lapped over the strong hand thumb. For self-defense practice with a pistol I use the extended thumbs grip that trainers now teach.

When shooting a magnum revolver at longer range (shooting a deer or a hog at 50 plus yards) letting the gun recoil naturally is a common practice. Elmer Kieth didn't even use his left hand for more than steadying his shooting hand and din't try to control the recoil at all. But this is NOT what you would do in a self-defense shooting. You would do the opposite and keep the front sight on target as much as you possibly can so you can get more shots off. Two different types of shooting. Why would anyone limit their technique to only one?

I disagree. Anyone that can shoot the way he does has a huge advantage over the next guy. He obviously understands and practices target acquisition, trigger and recoil control.

You say that there is no one right answer for every person. If you believe that then why does Jerry needs to explain himself? Which by the way he has. You need to look harder.

Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Everyone? Where? Most people I see shoot Weaver.

And I agree. Putting limitations on yourself is foolish. Things simply will not unfold the way you think they will.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Well, he does wear glasses. He might be blind without them and they might be knocked off. There is at least one shooting school that still teaches the Weaver method, and they do get flack for it. If I remember correctly it's Front Sight.

Most people I see at ranges use the Isosceles. Most shooting instructors teach the Isosceles. Now, I'm not saying everyone should drop the Weaver. It's still my favorite for magnum revolvers. But then there are those who think anyone who owns a revolver is an idiot. I'm not one of them.

Front Sight and Gunsight teach Weaver or modified Weaver. However, both schools teach that you should use what works best. Some police departments require the use of Isosceles and I know Front Sight will work with that. The NRA teaches both.

These "most people" you talk about, what do their targets look like? Just because "most" that you see do something doesn't mean everyone should do it that way.

Just how many instructors have you seen? How many classes have you been to? Because this is patently untrue.

Why is it good for magnum revolvers, but not other guns?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Eh. I'd just take me, because I know how I'm going to react. Anybody else is just a crapshoot . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

My assertion is that the vast majority of civilian defense encounters occurr at close to extreme close-quarters. "Target acquisition, trigger and recoil control" in the context he trains and competes is most often irrelevant at those ranges and circumstances. At 3 feet, drawing and fully extending the gun with a two hand grip from a relaxed isosceles stance would most likely be a very bad idea against any type of attack.

I meant no disrespect or to insult Jerry Miculek. He's a magnificent sport shooter and that is his primary focus, but acquiring skills for being successful in IDPA and similiar sports will have virtually no applicability for defending against someone trying to shank you, a mugging, any type of ECQ assault whether it be against a weapon or an unarmed assailant(s).

Priority for the civilian defender should be on developing integrated skills that are appropriate and applicable for the most probable scenarios.

Gives new meaning to the words "No Muss No Fuss"

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

You seem to live in a different world, one where you find argument when there is none and everyone uses the Weaver stance, though in the real world most regard it as obsolete, just as most today regard revolvers. (Now you will argue that revolvers are still more popular than pistols, even in law enforcement.)

As I already posted, limiting yourself to one technique is not a good idea. As for why a shooter would use a different technique when shooting a heavy recoiling magnum revolver than he would a light-recoiling 9mm, that is self-explanatory for anyone who has shot much. The discomfort of shooting a heavy recoiling revolver is diminished greatly if you let the revolver recoil naturally, and many say it's more accurate than fighting the recoil. This is one reason the Ruger Super Back Hawk was so popular. The grip shape allowed the gun to slide in your hand and absorb some of the recoil. It left the muzzle pointed up into the sky, but who cared? You don't need fast follow-up shots on game.

In contrast, you do NOT go for high precision when shooting on a timer and training for close range self-dense because of the time factor, as you do with a magnum when taking all the time in the world and squeezing off a single action round and sending it 100 yards and into a deer's heart. The two kinds of shooting are so different, why not use a different technique if one works for one type of shooting and the other works for you for the other type? The advantage of the Isosceles is when you're shooting on the run and have multiple attackers to deal with. If you don't know what I'm getting at, go get some training. They will explain it to you.

As for what the targets of shooters who use the Isosceles technique look like compared to those who use the Weaver, that is a stupid question. If you can group well on a target using one method, you can using the other. Neither one is magic. It took me very little time to go from the Weaver to the Isosceles, and I go from one to the other as easily as I do from a revolver to a Glock or 1911. I DO prefer the Weaver for magnum revolvers, especially past 50 yards. Men who had never heard of either were shooting from the hip at close range and putting all their rounds into groups covered by their hand before any of us were born. They were also shooting bullseye matches one-handed just fine. Yet some will go into a fit of rage over the thought of shooting without using the sights or at least putting them between your eyes and the target before pulling the trigger. Others have a fit over the thought of shooting one-handed. Never mind the late Jeff Cooper could shoot from the hip and hit multiple targets with ease. That doesn't mean he taught that technique. Elmer Keith was shooting single action revolvers from the hip a century ago and he was also shooting targets at hundreds of yards using his own technique that was completely different from anything commonly used today. He was often called a liar over his long range revolver shooting, but people would go to his ranch and watch him shoot. They reported he was no liar. He also admitted he was no great bullseye shooter. Yet he could hit jackrabbits at 150 yards.

Go to the graves of these men and argue with them. You might hear the sound of laughter in the wind. Or you could just go shooting and use whatever technique you want. That's what I do.

The old "speed rock" is good for belly to belly defensive shooting. It's extremely fast.

The only problem I have with your posts is the use of blanket statements like you know it all. Doesn't give your posts much credibility at all.

Makes me wonder where you get your information. Do you just make it up as you go?

As far as revolvers. did you know that Smith and Wessons best selling revolver is the 642/442 series? They can't make em fast enough.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

That's not really much of a choice you're offering him. Why not make it a reasonable choice? Say, Jerry or a Ranger/SEAL/Delta soldier?
Now. Which would you pick; the champion target shooter, or the one with skill and experience under fire?

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Because this isn't about Rangers or Seals. It's about concealed carry and how we shoot. He set the parameters by bringing Jerry into the discussion. No offense to the above mentioned military guys but I'll take an experienced street cop any day.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Last week I had a "Use of force" class at my local PD. Their tactical instructor said he teaches Isosceles, because it provides for maximum protection by their vest - which only protects the front and back. The weaver exposes the side to potential fire on an unprotected area.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I think you tried to stack the deck by offering him a choice that was really no choice at all. I was just trying to make it a "real" choice.

I think I know what the thread is about - I started it, and we've been well off target for a while now.

Interesting choice in who you'd pick to walk that alley with. Given the same choice I wonder how many cops would even make that pick?

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

I wouldn't . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Just pick one and practice it. I don't think either is inherently better.

Sight, grip, trigger are more important. In a shootout, it's unlikely you'll be standing up in the open.

It's more likely you'll be touching your attacker and not considering the sights at all . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

You and the other poster seem to be reading things in my posts that simply aren't there, and in his case, missing some things that are. I own more revolvers than pistols and shoot them a lot more. But that doesn't change the fact younger shooters absolutely hate the revolver and laugh at older shooters like me who still prefer them. I also still use the Weaver method every day, but it's dying out. Your statement about S&Ws best selling REVOLVER is neither here nor there. How do revolvers compare to pistols in sales numbers? That would be more to the point. I'm guessing there are still enough older shooters who like revolvers that sales aren't that bad. But I'm also guessing (because I never checked into it, after all, I really don't care) that pistols are on the rise and revolvers are losing interest and sales. You can buy two plastic pistols for what one Smith revolver costs. To a young shooter price is going to matter a lot. Then there's capacity and weight.

As far as what I know, you don't have to be a pro shooter to see what's been going on in recent decades and the changes that have come to the shooting world, especially in law enforcement and training, not to mention competition. I certainly never earned my living as a competitor, but I've been shooting since 1961. I reread my posts and cannot find where I claimed to be an expert or know any more than anyone else. This stuff gets boring fast and it's why I don't post much on these forums.

Wrong. I simply pointed out what YOU put in writing. Nothing more. Like I said, blanket statements don't work if they are simply your opinion. Since you don't seem to understand that, we'll just call it good and move on.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Problem with the Isoceles stance is that it leaves your testeclese vulnerable to that nasty crotch double tap spoke of earlier.

__________________
Forum consigliere

I expect that during a self defense situation my size 8 sneakers are going to be beat feeting as fast as possible to get behind cover out of the line of fire .. so my feet placement in those first shots will in no way resemble either the Weaver or Isosceles Stances ..

I may well be lying on my back if I am rushed by someone with a knife or other weapon and my only avenue to avoid being stabbed or clubbed is to fall on to my back as I draw and fire to get space between me and an attacker !!

Though I do practice both or variations of them ..

I am of the mind that it really doesn't matter where your feet are other then they are behind cover and not in the line of fire or in the way to trip on them as your moving ..

As long as you are able to shoot the object you are shooting at as you are moving ..

I wear bifocals. The most likely stance I'm going to use in a hurry or under stress is the old FBI one-handed draw, point and pull, as seen on that old training film from the fifties and now on Youtube. As long as I can see the slide peripherally, my horizontal dispersion is quite good at close ranges and my vertical isn't bad. Only if I have time to hunt for the front sight in the lower left lens of my glasses will I then use a modified Weaver, because it's very natural for me.

Did some competitive shooting a while back. Learned the Weaver method and have stuck with it as to me it seems the most stable. I taught this method to my wife and four kids all of them took to it easily.

__________________
John

Some folks here have been rightly criticized for being too rigid.

The gent who mentioned an article about stress has a great point. Decades ago OPOTA (Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy) taught only Weaver. They had/have a very elaborate shoot house and the students were video taped when the ran it. Someone did a study after thousands of students and discovered that despite being trained exclusively Weaver/2 hand, when under stress the students fired isosceles over 4 yards and one handed under 4 yards. After the study, they changed their training to reflect reality.

The tendency under stress is to square off to the target and slightly crouch to improve mobility. This is way many have gone to a modified version of isosceles in training. Yes, the armpit is a very weak spot even if wearing armor. This has also driven departments to move away from Weaver-unless you have cover. Feet can be staggered for better support and arms can be flexed for better recoil control and/or to accommodate rigid armor.

I will agree that classic isosceles (feet squared, body rigidly erect over feet, arms fully extended) is a lousy shooting stance with virtually anything.

I think Jack Weaver would find this discussion funny. He didn't use that stance because it was the best, he used it because it was what worked for him. He won a bunch of shooting matches. As is common, people thought that if they copied him, they would shoot as well as he did.

The truth is, not everything works the same for everybody. Find what works for you and practice it a lot.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I tried textbook stances, but found I can shoot best with a comfortable position(s) I went to starting with a modified "textbook stance" as a baseline. The other miracle with shooting for me was when I discovered to "focus on the front sight". I'm too old for "run and gun" events, or "tactical scenarios", and just want to put rounds on target where I'm aiming.

Isosceles. That's the way I was trained and that's the way I shoot best. Weaver came along after I'd been on the job for a while and was suddenly the new "thing". Then I went to another combat shooting class where the instructor was again pushing isosceles. He said the research showed that in a stressful shooting situation, people tend to "square up" to the threat and face it head-on, which would dovetail into a isosceles stance. Also, it stands to reason that as a cop, in a Weaver stance, you're presenting more of your unprotected side to the bad guy if you're wearing a vest.

We also learned a nifty way to combat reload an 870 in that class that I still used today. Used to be, we were instructed to hold the shotgun in our right hand, in firing position, still facing the threat, cup a fresh round in the left hand, go under the receiver and dump it into the chamber.

New method was to hold the shotgun sideways with the open chamber facing up, hold a round in your left hand, palm down, slap the round into the chamber, and in the same motion, shotgun still sideways, close the action and then return to "regular" firing position or a low ready and load 4 more in the magazine. If you fumble the round a little, you're more likely to still get it into the chamber this way than the old way, where it's more likely to wind up on the ground.

I will have to give that a try. Thanks for sharing!

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

No prob. The beneficial part is to get the round in and action closed in one fluid and fast motion. Also, if you have to fire that single round in the chamber as soon as you get the action closed, to have your left hand grip firmly over the barrel/foregrip, palm down, so you don't lose control of the shotgun. That's always fun!

One thing I noticed a lot of shooters doing when I was a firearms instructor was this: Not only do they get hunched over too much, but they unconsciously bring their heads/eyes down to the gun instead of bringing the gun up to their eye level. Almost as if they were using their gun for "cover or concealment"! I notice myself doing the same thing sometimes and consciously try to remember, in my isoceles stance, to stand up reasonably straight and bring the sights up to my eyes instead of bringing my head down to the sights. Especially when "shooting for score" instead of just putting some rounds on target in a hurry. When shooting for score, like in qualification, the range officers would say: "You have plenty of time, use all your time." When "training", as opposed to trying to win a bet with my buddy, I would generally have all of my rounds on target, albeit not in a pretty little group, in less than half the time.

I'll use Weaver, Chapman, Isoceles, or some "stance" or flow of martial arts positioning and balance, depending on the situation and circumstances involved.

I don't limit myself to always using the same single, static posture or stance for my martial arts practice, and I don't intentionally limit my options when using a handgun or long gun, either.

I like to think of my options regarding shooting techniques (including "stances") as tactical options, if necessary.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

When at the range I use an isosceles stance. I figure if I ever have to use my gun to defend myself, all stances go out the window, though


Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

__________________
Mike

He is the one person that I think could out shoot someone who is holding a gun on him and win .. I wouldn't bet against him !!

You must not have watched many different video of him shooting .. not just his many records where he is the fast person with a pistol .. and a revolver at that !!

I shoot modified weaver. It is natural with good forward/backward and lateral movement. Shooting and moving in the modified weaver privides the most stable shooting platform.

__________________
Semper-Fi

Nobody has a gun pointed at him when he's doing that shooting.
That changes everything!
Jerry is the best at what he does, but what he does is not "defensive shooting".

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Because unavoidable gunfights at distance are relatively uncommon in the context of cases of civilian self-defense, most sport-shooting and traditional range skills are not often applicable or of much advantage. And in the rare event that it does occur, I would still assert that the dynamic between sport and actual defensive shooting is still very different.

And it isn't always(if not usually) gun vs gun, but rather gun vs knife, vs bludgeon, vs physical assault by one or more unarmed assailants. In that context, an integrated approach is key and it is usually advantageous for there to be as much commonality and compatibility between skill-sets(and postures/stances) as possible.

An analogy from Rob Pincus...

"Fighting is not a sport.. that is kinda the point...

Shooting can be a Sport... but defensive shooting during a dynamic critical incident?? No.

For my students, I use the analogy of an Indy racer Vs. car owner in a big city.... The urbanite MUST develop the skill to parallel park if he wants to own and operate a car in the city.. The indy driver doesn't need to have EVER done that, but must have other skills developed to a high degree (shifting, cornering at high speeds, etc)... They both use the same tool (a car), but they are doing very different things.

I hope that makes sense... too many people confuse mechanical target shooting skills with defensive skills.

What you "can" do in a controlled environment like a range might have very little to do with what you NEED to do during a dynamic critical incident.

It's not the degree of skill... its the skill itself. The Indy driver is NOT more skilled than the urbanite when it comes to Parellel Parking, just because he can corner at 180... two different things."

I shoot in a Weaver stance at qualifications, and I can attest that all the youngsters shoot from an Isosceles. They also do odd and mysterious things like pointing their pistols from side to side then bringing the gun to the center of the chest and oh so slowly reholstering.

When we do one handed shooting, they hold their other arm across their chest, fist clenched. I get it - it must be better to get shot though the arm and chest than just the chest alone. But if I could hold my arm there, I'd just go ahead and use it.

I've also heard the "side not covered by the vest" argument against the Weaver. Two things - if your side is facing forward, you aren't doing it right, and I've been issued at least 8 vests over the years and all of them overlapped at the sides. Some really fat guys had gaps, but they just needed bigger vests or smaller meals.

Times change, and I'm fine with that. I'll be out of the game soon. I think the Weaver will die away, then years from now someone will rename and reintroduce it as the newest thing.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I shoot more of a combat or fighting stance: https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...right-for-you/

It is just what I learned lately and am comfortable with. I am always open to new developments and improvements