which "stance" do you use?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - which "stance" do you use?

Posted: 7/5/2017 9:10:21 AM EDT

are you a "squared up" stiff armed crouch shooter? or like me a one leg back "horse stance" body turned slightly shooter?
I trained with a few friends that are very robotic which is OK because they shoot very well like that, I have always gone for the semi relaxed fluid motion shooting. I have also been shooting like that for many yaers.. some of my friends only a few years and learned to shoot in classes.
so what's your preference?

Posted: 7/5/2017 9:25:28 AM EDT

[#1]

I've been shooting Modified Weaver for too many years to change now, so I guess I'm the "horse stance" you described.

Posted: 7/5/2017 9:50:06 AM EDT

[#2]

I'm pretty square and upright naturally with left foot slightly forward (right handed), but can shoot "wrong foot forward" or whatever.

In my experience, with handgun, shotgun or rifle, the robotic or "by the numbers," often "stiff" shooters are not nearly as proficient as they are at a "firing line" range in a dynamic situation, especially when quickness is important.

Posted: 7/5/2017 10:51:35 AM EDT

[#3]

I don't consistently have a particular stance. Probably too much USPSA and IDPA shooting where you have to shoot in a variety of awkward shooting positions/stances both stationary and moving. Get the sights on the target and squeeze the trigger at a rate appropriate for the target size and range.

Posted: 7/5/2017 10:55:33 AM EDT

[#4]

I shoot pretty squared up, but usually with one foot just slightly ahead of the other. It's less pronounced when I shoot pistols vs long guns. It just feels more...athletic I guess you could say?

Posted: 7/5/2017 11:03:42 AM EDT

[#5]

I've always shot with my left foot forward, body turned a bit sideways, right arm straight and left arm slightly bent. However, I've been watching some Kyle Lamb and Travis Haley videos so on Monday, I tried the squared-up, straight arms, lower head stance. Really thought it was an improvement, so that's what I'll be working on from here on out. Faster follow up shots and better accuracy (tweaked my grip a bit too, I think that helped prevent me from dropping shots low left like I normally did).

Posted: 7/5/2017 11:09:25 AM EDT

[#6]

Isosceles. 'Cause it ain't the 1950's anymore.

In before 'Grandpappy taught me how to shoot this way!'

Posted: 7/5/2017 12:16:21 PM EDT

[#7]

I think shooting is done best with an athletic, squared up stance. You are able to move much more effectively from this position as well. If you are bullseye shooting feel free to do whatever. I usually like to do "defensive" type shooting which incorporates at least some movement, speed shooting and recoil management type stuff which an athletic stance helps a lot. I shoot out in the woods so no RSOs etc to say what you can do.

Whatever floats your boat is cool with me though. An athletic stance doesnt have to be squared and robotic though. Think a default stance in football or basketball, or a boxing stance now incorporate your gun into it.

Squared stance is also useful if you ever train with armor.

Posted: 7/5/2017 12:41:36 PM EDT

[#8]

squared up if I can... thumb forward grip

Posted: 7/5/2017 12:42:25 PM EDT

[#9]

More or less Iso (I'd call it athlete's Iso if we're making up names)

Feet slightly wider than shoulder width
left foot slightly forward (left heel in line with right instep)
knees bent slightly
elbows bent slightly
head is generally upright (maybe a touch canted toward the pistol)
shoulders are relaxed and square to target
trunk is relaxed

From this default static stance I am prepared to move aggressively in any direction or transition the gun around within the cone of fire by using the legs, knees, and hips to swivel

Posted: 7/5/2017 12:51:08 PM EDT

[#10]

I find being COMPLETELY squared not quite natural. My shoulders are pretty squared but I put my left foot forward some. Some say right toe should be about where the left heel is.

I see Proctor and other guys teach you should bend your arms a bit for better recoil management. I'm trying to learn that.

Carbines and rifles I like to blade a good amount.

To me there are a lot of guys in the know that teach something a little bit different. To say there is only one good way to do it, within reason, is just kind of narrow minded. But obviously there are some things that probably won't help you and some things that will.

Posted: 7/5/2017 1:06:21 PM EDT

[#11]

Straight arm, walking.

Posted: 7/5/2017 1:25:39 PM EDT

[#12]

There are more than 2 stances.

Posted: 7/5/2017 1:47:44 PM EDT

[#13]

It depends ..... I can square up, I can do a modified isosceles where I have one food lightly forward like a fighting stance, leaning right or left around barriers, shooting left handed I tend to be more weaverish, but I try to mix it up or I move around. Honestly my feet my change position but my torso tends to be the same from the waist line up.

Posted: 7/5/2017 2:37:33 PM EDT

[#14]

Modified Weaver but I need to work on converting to an Isosceles.

Posted: 7/5/2017 3:24:58 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
I don't consistently have a particular stance. Probably too much USPSA and IDPA shooting where you have to shoot in a variety of awkward shooting positions/stances both stationary and moving. Get the sights on the target and squeeze the trigger at a rate appropriate for the target size and range.

View Quote

This. I can recall an Area match where you held onto a rope with your strong hand, leaned out around a barricade and shot weak-handed with your one foot barely inside the fault line. Is that Weaver, Isosceles, or Scalene?

Posted: 7/5/2017 5:01:24 PM EDT

[#16]

Chapman modified Weaver stance.

I'm too damn old to change now.

Posted: 7/5/2017 5:21:42 PM EDT

[#17]

For about 12 years I shot our quarterly firearms qualifications using a modified Weaver stance. One foot back, body at 45 degree angle. And then one day I thought about the old, Isosceles stance that police departments trained their officers back in the 60's. I thought I would give it a try just out of curiosity. My qualification score immediately went up by at least 10 points. I was impressed and have been using it ever since. I figured it is better to be able to hit my target more quickly and accurately than to "present" a smaller silhouette of myself for the bad guy to shoot at.

More recently I went through some training with a FAMs firearms instructor who was a former Delta Force team member. He encouraged me to use the Isosceles stance in his training. I already knew that this stance was more accurate than the modified Weaver stance and his input reinforced it even more.

Posted: 7/5/2017 5:37:27 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
I've been shooting Modified Weaver for too many years to change now, so I guess I'm the "horse stance" you described.

View Quote

Ha ha - same here

Posted: 7/5/2017 7:43:59 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Modified Weaver but I need to work on converting to an Isosceles.

View Quote

This. But not convert so much as get some practicing with it, don't wanna lock myself into one stance.

Posted: 7/5/2017 9:23:25 PM EDT

[#20]

I shot Chapman long before I knew what it was called. I just evolved into it and shot well with it. I resisted isosceles for years, but eventually worked at learning it. Now Chapman feels weird to me.

Posted: 7/7/2017 11:39:36 PM EDT

[#21]

Bladed for RH shooter.

Posted: 7/8/2017 2:00:18 AM EDT

[#22]

I thought most people just blade at 45...

Posted: 7/8/2017 2:53:30 AM EDT

[#23]

Modern isosceles

Posted: 7/8/2017 3:50:01 AM EDT

[#24]

Hillbilly flip flop modified Weaver, unless I'm barefoot, or wearing real shoes.

Posted: 7/8/2017 4:06:48 AM EDT

[#25]

I was tempted to say "buffalo" and throw in some song lyrics, but saw this was not GD,

I'm a fan of the whole "natural fighting stance" thing, but overall find stance purists and stance discussions to be nonsense. Reminds me of how Bruce Lee must have felt arguing with the old school Kung Fu masters as he developed Jeet Kune Do. SOmer instructors fixate on all the wrong things, either to develop their own niche or to let themselves focus on what they know at the expense of what might work better.

I've always found the "body armor" argument for straight on isosceles weak and unconvincing, as well.

Posted: 7/8/2017 5:02:50 PM EDT

[#26]

Modified Weaver/Chapman

The new-fangled "modern isosceles" is obviously faster, but far less stable.

Posted: 7/8/2017 5:46:22 PM EDT

[#27]

One handed, blindly, severely bladed opposite to my direction of movement, because I'm sprinting to cover, because if I'm down to my pistol, I'm fucked.

On a square range, I generally practice with a more or less "squared up" stance, arms and knees slightly bent, and leaning forward slightly (I'm sure that's considered some sort of "stance"), but that is pretty much primarily for pure practice. While I consider isolating shooting mechanics to be important, I try not to lose sight of situational factors--since carrying is not a realistic concern of mine, a pistol is never, ever my primary weapon, and not what I hope or intend to be using in a fight.

Going back to situational factors--I've seen lots of guys when it comes time to play "real" force-on-force revert to "rangisms," and just stop in the middle of everything to try to shoot like they do on the range, only to get popped real quick like from behind cover by someone with way sloppier technique, but with way better situational awareness and movement.

~Augee

Posted: 7/8/2017 5:51:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Modified Weaver/Chapman

The new-fangled "modern isosceles" is obviously faster, but far less stable.

View Quote

Go on...

Posted: 7/8/2017 6:07:50 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
One handed, blindly, severely bladed opposite to my direction of movement, because I'm sprinting to cover, because if I'm down to my pistol, I'm fucked.

On a square range, I generally practice with a more or less "squared up" stance, arms and knees slightly bent, and leaning forward slightly (I'm sure that's considered some sort of "stance"), but that is pretty much primarily for pure practice. While I consider isolating shooting mechanics to be important, I try not to lose sight of situational factors--since carrying is not a realistic concern of mine, a pistol is never, ever my primary weapon, and not what I hope or intend to be using in a fight.

Going back to situational factors--I've seen lots of guys when it comes time to play "real" force-on-force revert to "rangisms," and just stop in the middle of everything to try to shoot like they do on the range, only to get popped real quick like from behind cover by someone with way sloppier technique, but with way better situational awareness and movement.

~Augee

View Quote

I love shooting in the woods where I can move from cover to cover shooting at multiple targets while keeping an eye out for roots, etc.

Ever since a concealed handgun became my primary I try to focus on using it as well as possible. I can't carry a rifle through the super market or art festival with my wife. Handguns in the military are a tertiary system. Even when it was my primary I wasn't even close to being as competent as I am now.

Posted: 7/8/2017 6:43:03 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Go on...

View Quote

You disagree that it is faster? Or less stable?

Posted: 7/8/2017 10:33:53 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Isosceles. 'Cause it ain't the 1950's anymore.

In before 'Grandpappy taught me how to shoot this way!'

View Quote

+1

I'm a millennial asshole if it matters

Posted: 7/9/2017 4:45:54 PM EDT

[#32]

Im boring i just use a fighter stance

Posted: 7/9/2017 7:02:26 PM EDT

[#33]

I make no conscious effort for a specific stance. I shoot in a manner that I naturally stand, is comfortable, and that I shoot accurately from...

Posted: 7/10/2017 9:44:06 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
Modified Weaver/Chapman

The new-fangled "modern isosceles" is obviously faster, but far less stable.

View Quote

explain?

the bolded portion is contradictory.

Posted: 7/10/2017 10:00:49 AM EDT

[#35]

I just shoot like this

CCW drills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ez8Qud8c1k

Posted: 7/10/2017 10:24:56 AM EDT

[#36]

I've always used Modified Weaver, or some version of it, as it just comes natural. Sort of like a Hickok45 stance. I've read about the pros of Isosceles, but when I try to do it, I feel like I'm going to fall over backwards because my feet are in a straight line. Also feels like the gun's recoil starts tilting me back like one signs in front of a gas station with the springs at the bottom advertising Pennzoil. I've never had any formal firearms training though. That would probably help with that.

Posted: 7/10/2017 7:42:44 PM EDT

[#37]

Modified isosceles for sure with me. Use whatever works for you!

Posted: 7/16/2017 12:22:48 AM EDT

[#38]

I use a very highly modified isosceles.

Posted: 7/16/2017 1:22:31 AM EDT

[#39]

Both. All. Depends on terrain and goal. Moving or not. Pace, barricade, view of target .. ?
Everyone feels more or less comfortable in different situations. Experience is the only way to get through it and find what works best for you. Only thing that matters is rounds on target.

Posted: 7/16/2017 2:06:56 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
More or less Iso (I'd call it athlete's Iso if we're making up names)

Feet slightly wider than shoulder width
left foot slightly forward (left heel in line with right instep)
knees bent slightly
elbows bent slightly
head is generally upright (maybe a touch canted toward the pistol)
shoulders are relaxed and square to target
trunk is relaxed

From this default static stance I am prepared to move aggressively in any direction or transition the gun around within the cone of fire by using the legs, knees, and hips to swivel

View Quote

Pretty much identical to my shooting stance as well..

Posted: 7/17/2017 11:04:59 AM EDT

[#41]

For me it depends on whether or not I'm wearing body armor, if armored you want squared towards the target,
that way the armor works better, due to the armor protecting your center of mass which is the primary aiming point for most shooters.
Unarmored modified Isosceles that way you present a smaller target to the enemy.

Posted: 7/20/2017 8:15:37 PM EDT

[#42]

I'm a hipster.

Posted: 7/20/2017 10:17:30 PM EDT

[#43]

Attached File

Posted: 7/21/2017 11:25:45 PM EDT

[#44]

isoceles. Non dominant foot slightly ahead of the dominant one.

Shoulders typically rolled forward, but depends on the context. aka square range vs. shooting from cover/concealment

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - which "stance" do you use?

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us