JAFO Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 I was doing some dryfire practice this weekend, concentrating on being able to draw the gun to a natural POA. With a little practice, I was able to draw with my eyes closed and open them to find the sights aligned by themselves. I then moved to drawing, dryfiring a shot, then reload and aim again. I was still able to have the sights come back up on target, but I noticed something peculiar. On the draw, I was coming up in a fairly balanced (right-to-left) isoceles position with my arms. After the reload, I found myself in sort of a modified Weaver. My left arm wasn't bent downward, but my arms were shifted so that I was sighting down my straightened right arm (I'm right-handed). The sights were still coming up on the target, but as I know consistency is one of my biggest problems, I feel the need to correct myself so I'm always holding the gun the same way. The question is - is one method significantly better than the other? I haven't been able to try this at the range and pay attention to how the gun will recoil, but it seems the isoceles would be balanced better for straight up-and-down tracking during recoil, since I can apply almost equal extension with both arms. On the other hand, I was unconsciously going to the modified Weaver after the reload. Should I be changing my draw stance, or focusing on maintaining the isoceles? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 When I started I had a picture in my mind (and somehow burnt into my physical nature) that had me in some variation of a weaver stance. I took quite of a bit of time to get out of that and into more of an iso stance. Knowing what I know now, it wouldn't need to take as much time to adjust. I'd clearly visualize the desired stance (watch the top shooters and watch yourself in the mirror). And, I'd then burn the new stance in with super slo-motion movements and repetitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 When I started I had a picture in my mind (and somehow burnt into my physical nature) that had me in some variation of a weaver stance. I took quite of a bit of time to get out of that and into more of an iso stance. Knowing what I know now, it wouldn't need to take as much time to adjust. I'd clearly visualize the desired stance (watch the top shooters and watch yourself in the mirror). And, I'd then burn the new stance in with super slo-motion movements and repetitions. Good stuff, Flex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyZip Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Been there with this one. Flex is right. And loads of repetition of the proper stance to burn it into your natural index after the reload. This is no bash against Mr. Weaver! But I did find that going all iso helped me with more consistent regrip after the mag change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMAJOR Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I know I am in the minority opinion here, but after trying them all over the years, I think the Grip comes first and stance should naturally follow whatever grip method works best for you. I think if you try to focus on any particular stance, it forces grip errors. I think when you have your have your grip 100% down, the body position becomes secondary and will naturally assume what is best for you. Some grip styles are much more forgiving of stance than others. That being said, once you get your grip down, I find most shooters have what I would call an athletic stance, that is it is naturally athletic for them. I think the whole Point of Aim theory for aiming starting with stance is actually counterproductive to racing and advanced tactical shooting. Probably it is good for beginners, LEO or Professional Carry folks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ck1 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 +1 What Flex said. Just like a good thumbs-forward grip, or keeping both eyes open, what feels counter-intuitive at first will feel "right" once it's "burnt-in". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Brian has a thread around here that asks "where does your stance originate from?" Some of the opposing ideas/answers to that are ...the gun...the feet. In my mind, we are the transport system that takes the gun around the course of fire. The gun has to be in certain places so that it can engage certain targets. We are also part of the recoil system for the gun...along with being a platform that provides stability while executing the shot. So, try to imagine a magically floating gun...you don't have to hold it, it just floats a couple of feet in front of your face. As you move around the course of fire, you transport this magical floating gun around as well. You get the gun to the place it needs to be to have a clear line of sight to the target. Now that you have the gun where it needs to be (the magic stops for a moment ), it needs to have some stability to keep it on target through the execution of the shot...this is where the grip and stance come in. We need to grip the gun in a manner that allows us to break the shot without disturbing the alignment of the gun/barrel/sights on the target. The grip and stance have another important job, and that is to be a stable platform during recoil, which will allow the gun to return to the target quickly and efficiently for the next shot (or target transition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastmtnbiker33w Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm not one to lend any expert advice by any means, but I like what MrMajor has to say in regards to an athletic stance. Having played basketball and having been a pro cyclist for a few years, my stance is related to maintaining balance and being able to move quickly from that stance. The Isoceles seems too "vulnerable" to me. It's not a ready position like I've learned from court sports or even from mountain biking. Being really tall probably doesn't lend my style to isoceles either. I like to keep my center of gravity a bit lower. After your mag change, it sounds like you are moving into a more comfortable and relaxed position....less tense maybe. Isn't that as good thing? And if your sights still go back to the target after the mag change, isn't that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm not one to lend any expert advice by any means, but I like what MrMajor has to say in regards to an athletic stance. Having played basketball and having been a pro cyclist for a few years, my stance is related to maintaining balance and being able to move quickly from that stance. The Isoceles seems too "vulnerable" to me. It's not a ready position like I've learned from court sports or even from mountain biking. Being really tall probably doesn't lend my style to isoceles either. I like to keep my center of gravity a bit lower. I'm not sure that your vision of ISO and mine are the same. Then again, I'm not big on titles. But, I don't think of any type of ISO stance as having a high center of gravity (high or low, for that matter). To me, ISO mostly refers to keeping the shoulders squared up and the spine from twisting. For the sporting purposes, I like to use a medicine ball (think 10lb basketball) to simulate recoil with people. I pass them the ball at chest level and have them pass it back. I can usually adjust the speed and power of the throws and they will tend to settle into an athletic stance all on their own. We are often going to be moving, and getting into an out of awkward positions...so at some point the "stance" becomes less meaningless anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted November 2, 2010 Author Share Posted November 2, 2010 Perhaps saying "stance" wasn't quite the right wording. My feet are in more of an athletic position, weak side foot slightly in front of the strong side foot, and they pretty much maintaining that orientation. It's my arm position that's shifting from being fairly evenly centered to bringing the strong-side arm toward the centerline of my torso. I go from sighting down the gun over the empty space between my arms to sighting down my strong-side arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloha Robert Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 (edited) I like what Flex says about the magic of moving the gun around the course, and also teaching folks an athletic position with medicine ball. Also I have heard the technique of the instructor saying fight me as in getting into mock punching. Edited November 2, 2010 by Aloha Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Seems to me that the "fight me" line leads away from an iso and into a Weaver. Unless the idea is that a horse stance is the way to punch. It ain't, except for masochists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Seems to me that the "fight me" line leads away from an iso and into a Weaver. Unless the idea is that a horse stance is the way to punch. It ain't, except for masochists... Yeah...that is why I use the medicine ball and the chest pass. People have a pre-determined mental picture of their "fight me" stance. Many would assume a boxers stance (jab)...or some other defined "stance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MemphisMechanic Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I would find any attempt to "weaver" your way through this stage very entertaining... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skqjxHUm9LU Weaver falls apart much more quickly than a modified Iso in a match. Just hold the gun out in front of you with the both elbows slightly bend, and shoot it until you run out of targets. Once you get in the habit of staying low and weight-forward, your body takes care of the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck s Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 it seems to me that my natural tendancy during longer focused shots is towards a modified weaver type of stance, but during the fast paced shooting of most of a match I just let my body find the fastest position to pull off the shot with accuracy. So in reality, the shot and stage design dictate my stance for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Antichrome Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 The Isoceles seems too "vulnerable" to me. It's not a ready position like I've learned from court sports or even from mountain biking. Aren't there strong similarities with your Mtn Bike stance and a modified isoceles? (at least when you're flying downhill) Feet are evenly weighted, strong foot back (pedals level) knees bent, shoulders 'even' and the head up and level. If you take sitting, pedalling and turning out of the equation, you're in a modified iso stance, only bent over more;-) Here's a short, basic, and good video on stances by Doug Koenig: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben b. Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 ...so at some point the "stance" becomes less meaningless anyway... Indeed. Can there be 110% less meaning than none? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Brian has a thread around here that asks "where does your stance originate from?" http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5230 be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosa Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I know I am in the minority opinion here, but after trying them all over the years, I think the Grip comes first and stance should naturally follow whatever grip method works best for you. I think if you try to focus on any particular stance, it forces grip errors. I think when you have your have your grip 100% down, the body position becomes secondary and will naturally assume what is best for you. Some grip styles are much more forgiving of stance than others. That being said, once you get your grip down, I find most shooters have what I would call an athletic stance, that is it is naturally athletic for them. I think the whole Point of Aim theory for aiming starting with stance is actually counterproductive to racing and advanced tactical shooting. Probably it is good for beginners, LEO or Professional Carry folks though. I was thinking of something similar as read through the op's question.. i kind of think of it as "grab the gun and go!" who gives a hoot about the stance weaver/iso they don't mean much to me any more.. all i care is that my grip is constant so that my support hand is not shifting during recoil, and that i can explode into any direction when i need to I try and let the flow of my line dictate where my balance, weight distribution, and feet are. you have to let those things work them selves out based on the flow of the stage... i see to many guys losing valuable time because they're getting into position. anyway that's just like my opinion, man.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinj308 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I like this pic of TJ for thinking of a well balanced neutral position. He's moving, but centered and ready to engage a target as soon as it's available. Great shot by Brit too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now