M&P Shield and Shooting Stances

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I usually shoot isosceles, and I'm not too bad. I don't consider myself a marksman, but I can group pretty well shooting pistols unsupported. Anyways, when I shoot my shield in isosceles, I group tightly but slightly to the left around 10 yards. Yesterday I changed my stance to weaver, and my groups moved closer to center. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Also the apex carry kit makes a huge difference shooting that pistol. I love it.

Edit: I made an UPDATE post at post #22

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I also wanted to add I stick my trigger finger more into the trigger guard than I do with my other pistols. I'm right handed and my new sights are perfectly centered by a professional gunsmith. I just need more practice.

 

[Ballistic147]

I shoot using both stances and am pretty equal with both. Seems you've already found that finger position on the trigger can effect accuracy. Grip can also make for accuracy issues.

Dry fire practice would likely help you a lot. Focus on the sights and adjust grip and trigger pull until the sights don't move when the trigger breaks.

 

[TacticalReload]

My guess would be that the weaver stance changes the amount of pressure you are putting on the right side of the gun, either through the trigger finger or, more likely, because of the fact that you're bending your right wrist less. The Shield is a small gun with a small grip, a short sight radius, light weight, and a shorter reach to the trigger... all these things are probably making it more pronounced than it might be with a larger gun.

Personally, I find that when firing quickly, a modified isosceles helps keep the sights tracking up and down better. However, when slow firing the gun, things like grip / stance / etc. have a substantially reduced effect on accuracy, IMO.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

It's funny, but I shoot more center when I fire quicker than when I take my time between shots. I do dry fire it a lot and the sight barely moves when I squeeze the trigger. I think I need more trigger time using a weaver stance. I'm going to try small alerations to holding it, using my finger on the trigger, etc until I find that sweet spot. Once I do find it, then it's train, train, TRAIN!

 

[TacticalReload]

Yeah, in the past 20+ years of shooting, I've tried just about everything at some point or another. Most of what I've figured out has come directly from trying other stuff that didn't quite work out. I used to be all weaver stance, all the time. Now I rarely use it.

 

[Holmes375]

I'm an old Weaver shooter, learned in the late '70s as a deputy. Served well for handgun hunting, too.

I've tried the newer improved methods and have had trainers try to switch me over but after 35 years of shooting I just stick with what I know. If an event presents itself that's where I'll go unconsciously anyway.

 

[TacticalReload]

I'm an old Weaver shooter, learned in the late '70s as a deputy. Served well for handgun hunting, too.

I've tried the newer improved methods and have had trainers try to switch me over but after 35 years of shooting I just stick with what I know. If an event presents itself that's where I'll go unconsciously anyway.

Yeah... It's common now for LE trainers to shun weaver due to body armor coverage concerns.

 

[cleans up]

I usually shoot isosceles, and I'm not too bad. I don't consider myself a marksman, but I can group pretty well shooting pistols unsupported. Anyways, when I shoot my shield in isosceles, I group tightly but slightly to the left around 10 yards. Yesterday I changed my stance to weaver, and my groups moved closer to center. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Also the apex carry kit makes a huge difference shooting that pistol. I love it.

This somewhat applies to me, but since I don't have the same issue resolution when switching it up a bit I think it's more the gun...maybe I need to put more effort into making sure the gun shoots straight by bench shooting it! Good luck

 

[Rastoff]

...when I shoot my shield in isosceles, I group tightly but slightly to the left around 10 yards. Yesterday I changed my stance to weaver, and my groups moved closer to center. Anyone else have similar experiences?

Yes, I see it all the time, but it's not really related to the name of the stance. It has more to do with natural point of aim than anything else.

People complain a lot about how one stance is better than another. The argument is circular. What really matters is where the bullets go. If they're going in the center, who cares what stance you have? If they are not hitting the center, something needs to be changed. It could be grip, stance, trigger finger placement or a host of other things.

Natural point of aim is where the gun points when just naturally bringing it up. Try this:

• Unload your gun. Double check it's unloaded.
• Get in a stance you're comfortable with.
• Hold your gun at the ready.
• Get a hard focus on a spot on the wall (a 3x3 sticky note works great for this).
• Close your eyes.
• With your eyes closed, point the gun at the spot you previously focused on.
• Open your eyes. Are the sights perfectly aligned with the intended target? If not, are they off to the left? Right? Too high? Too low? Some combination of those?

If you're off to the left (the most common for a right hand shooter), move your feet clockwise. In other words, if your feet were parallel to the target, move your left foot forward about 2". This is a small change and won't take you out of the previous stance. It's just an adjustment of the stance you're comfortable with.

Go through the sighting procedure I listed above. Are the sights aligned on the target now? If not, adjust your feet again. Continue this until your body is situated such that the sights align with the target when your eyes are closed. This is your natural point of aim.

The natural point of aim will vary a little from gun to gun, but it shouldn't be dramatic. Test this with whatever gun you intend to shoot. Once the natural point of aim is found, and used, you'll see your groups get much better.

 

[TacticalReload]

I agree on what you are saying about natural point of aim, but saying "who cares what stance you have" is ignoring that not everyone is only concerned about where the bullets go... they might be concerned with split and transition times, too. As I mentioned earlier, I think that for slow fire darn near any stance will get them there as long as you don't disturb the sight alignment. However, when you ramp up the speed, you also have to be concerned on how the sights are tracking up and down during recoil in order to be able to rapidly reacquire the proper sight alignment for the next shot. Weaver stance, for most people, is not conducive to this aspect of fast shooting as there is too much asymmetry going on with pressure on the gun front to back, pressure on the gun from side to side, geometry of your body and movement, etc., etc. If you watch a vast, vast majority of top level action pistol competitors, you'll see that almost all of them have gone to an isosceles stance or some very close approximation thereof, unless the design of the stage forces an unconventional shooting position.

These types of concerns might be beyond the scope of what the OP is looking to achieve with their Shield at a static range. However, I think it's a good idea to start forming habits in the beginning that point you in the direction of a place down the road that gives you the greatest chance for progress and success.

 

[CBStuard]

The last video I saw where Jerry Miculic was showing how to shoot, he pretty much said that a special stance isn't needed. Something about just get the pistol sights aligned onto the target w/ minimal movement standing however is comfortable for you.
To the OP. For me, if you shoot all your pistols one way and it works well, but the Shield shoots left, then adjust the sights on the Shield. I don't see the point of grabbing the Shield and having to say to yourself, Ok now I need to shoot using the special Shield technique.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

The last video I saw where Jerry Miculic was showing how to shoot, he pretty much said that a special stance isn't needed. Something about just get the pistol sights aligned onto the target w/ minimal movement standing however is comfortable for you.
To the OP. For me, if you shoot all your pistols one way and it works well, but the Shield shoots left, then adjust the sights on the Shield. I don't see the point of grabbing the Shield and having to say to yourself, Ok now I need to shoot using the special Shield technique.

I was thinking that too. Just give the front sight a little tap and move it slightly to the left.

Aside from 1911s, this is my first single stack pistol. I think practice is probably the most important thing. I have 1k rounds arriving at my house on Monday.

 

[MichiganScott]

I started out shooting Weaver and progressed to Isosceles. I found the Isosceles to be more natural and allowed me to track further side to side. Since then I have torn my rotator cuff and several muscles in my weak hand arm. It's back to the Weaver stance for me.

We have to adapt to conditions.

 

[Rastoff]

I agree on what you are saying about natural point of aim, but saying "who cares what stance you have" is ignoring that not everyone is only concerned about where the bullets go... they might be concerned with split and transition times, too.

(My snip for brevity) With respect, you're placing this in too narrow a scope. Even when shooting controlled pairs, it's where the bullets hit that matters, right? So the goal is to figure out what works best for you, yes?

Yes, stance is all a part of shooting. I shoot from a modified Weaver because it's comfortable and I can place the bullets where I want, quickly. Yet, I don't preach that one stance. I try to find what works for the individual. I just think we put too much emphasis on that one aspect and not enough on the whole body.

In defensive shooting, stance means, be the guy standing at the end of the fight. OK, ok, I know that's just a cute statement, but it's really the goal; stop the threat. When the threat presents itself, we don't have time to get in a particular stance; you have to shoot from where you are.

You will fall into whatever stance you practice with. So, find the stance that allows you to hit the intended target quickly and practice a lot.

My goal here is not to champion one stance over another. It's to help a shooter find that happy middle point.

 

[TacticalReload]

I don't think we are really in disagreement here.

The context of my commentary on stance really is geared toward competition shooters (thus the reference to top action pistol shooters, split times, and transition times). In the competition world, the tiniest fractions of a second matter.

As someone helping a new shooter, I have never been one to push THE stance or THE grip or whatever. So many people believe that one or another is the preferred way to go and is the only answer to the solution. I'm not like that. However, there are certain facets of shooting that will ultimately allow MOST people a greater level of proficiency with less effort.

When the weaver stance is applied as it was originally designed, the recoil impulse is supposed to be tamed through active muscle tension of the push-pull of the strong and support hands, respectively. The isosceles, however, allows the shooter's body to be more relaxed -- allowing the recoil to get soaked up just as a byproduct of the body as positioned. It's far more symmetric and keeps the sights tracking straight up and down with little effort.

I look at it this way. If someone is trying to learn how to use a keyboard for the first time, they can hunt-and-peck all day, everyday until they are really, really good at it. And for that person's purposes, that might be sufficient for whatever they hope to achieve. However, if they choose to put in the work to learn to type "properly" using all fingers, they will probably ultimately reach a greater level of typing speed.

After all, if we just tell newbie shooters to shoot however they want by going with whatever is most comfortable, then what's the point of teaching them anything. We can just hand them a gun and say "be comfortable". I know this is an exaggeration, but I think guiding someone in the direction of what will give them the best chance of success while still keeping their goals in mind is generally the best way to go. To me and many, many others, this is the modern isosceles.

Most of this argument is academic for a majority of shooters anyway. As is the case with a lot of different aspects of shooting and firearms ownership, a bulk of the conflict about the minutia only takes place on internet forums.

 

[Rastoff]

I don't think we are really in disagreement here.

Agreed. I think most of what you and I are seeing here boils down to preferred stance.

However, I would like to address this comment:

When the weaver stance is applied as it was originally designed, the recoil impulse is supposed to be tamed through active muscle tension of the push-pull of the strong and support hands, respectively. The isosceles, however, allows the shooter's body to be more relaxed -- allowing the recoil to get soaked up just as a byproduct of the body as positioned.

I see this reasoning used a lot when discussing these two stances, but I don't agree with it. Allow me to explain...

When gripping the gun for the Weaver stance, the barrel is lined up with the forearm; like this:

With this grip the recoil is inline with the forearm. This allows the forearm, upper arm and shoulder to absorb the recoil in a straight line. If gripped properly (based on the stance) the muzzle will rise straight up. Drop the support hand and the muzzle will still rise perpendicular to the ground.

With the isosceles the gun is not in-line with any body part:

In this stance, the muzzle will also move straight up, but only if gripped equally with both hands. Take the support hand away and the muzzle will rise up and to the left for a right hand shooter.

Also, notice that it's not really an isosceles triangle, but slightly biased toward the shooter's dominant eye. Not an issue, but as a person who uses mathematics as a regular part of my regular job, it's always been at the back of my mind.


Now, it's important to note that I'm not picking one stance over the other. This is just a discussion of the physics involved. I've said it many times, in a defensive situation, you need to be able to shoot from the stance you're in and it's very unlikely you'll have time to pick either of these. This being the M&P forum, it's not directed specifically toward defensive shooting. It's true that in competition a lot of the best shooters use isosceles. However, the Shield is truly a defensive gun so, I tend to bend my discussions of it toward defense.

I think what many call the modified Weaver is really also a modified isosceles because it's half way between both.

 

[McE]

For a carry gun, you need to practice MANY stances. On a knee, on the ground, around cover, on your back.
Also there are far too many people talking about a few inches difference in group sizes, from a tiny carry gun. So you shoot a 3" 7yd group using isosceles but a 5" 7yd group using Weaver. What's the group size when you're on your butt shooting one handed actually shooting at panic cadence? Splitting hairs over isosceles and Weaver didn't help you out there at all.

 

[TacticalReload]

I understand what you're saying and I think that what you said *should* be true, but I find that it's not.

No matter how lined up the gun is with the forearm, it will naturally recoil up and toward the thumb-side when held one handed. It's very rare that anyone who is not a novice will ever end up consistently shooting one handed with the gun in a position that is not generally lined up with the arm, like in the picture you included. The gun will still recoil toward the center-line of the body... especially if the elbow isn't tucked inward. (Because of this, a lot of people suggest canting the gun inward slightly to angle the arm in a better position to ride the recoil back down and to the right for a right-handed shooter.) Unless you're taking an old-school one-handed target shooting stance, the full drive of the recoil will not be in a straight line into the shoulder... it's incredibly difficult for most people to keep their elbow inline with the wrist and shoulder when standing in any manner except the completely bladed one-handed position that I mention above. When the wrist / elbow / shoulder aren't lined up, the recoil is going to tend to go inward.

Of course, like I said, we seem to differ in our opinion of the amount of effort it takes to keep the gun tracking straight up and down in each position. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. ;-)

 

[OKFC05]

All else aside, it makes a difference where the trigger finger goes on the Shield trigger. I noticed how sensitive the little gun is to finger placement, and practiced a couple of days before shooting the Shield in an IDPA classifier.

Here's a drill that can be very revealing:
From 10 yds, shoot one magazine freestyle. Make a little colored mark on the holes.
From 10 yds, shoot the same target STRONG HAND ONLY. Mark the holes with a different color.
From 10 yds, shoot the same target WEAK HAND ONLY.
You now should have a target with 21 holes, all in one group.

ANALYZE THE TARGET:
NO GROUP, shots scattered all over. Leave your sights alone and practice the fundamentals until you can shoot a group, not a pattern.
ONE GROUP, noticeably off center. Adjust sight to bring group on center.
MULTIPLE GROUPS, off in various directions. You are not pulling the trigger straight back, and need to work on finger placement.
TWO GROUPS TOGETHER, one off. Work on the one that is off.