• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Multiple Stances?

O

Optimistic Paranoid

Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
476
Likes
6
Location
Upstate NY
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Hi All.

I'm new here. Seems like a nice place. I've got a question I'd like to run past you. First, a little personal background to help explain it.

Early on in my shooting career, I fell under the evil influence of Bill Jordan and NO SECOND PLACE WINNER. "I'll take a revolver, YOU take your chances."

I was a wheelgunner for several decades, including several years when I worked as an armored car guard, and I used the Isosceles stance for most of them.

Shortly after we entered the 21st century, I decided that maybe these new-fangled flat guns WERE'NT just a passing fad after all, and I began to transition to them.

As part of this transition, I began taking courses with people like Chuck Taylor, John Farnam, and Louis Awerback; and due to their insistence, began using the Weaver stance.

Last year, I did a class with the Insights people over in Harrisburg PA, and they insisted I shoot it Isosceles. This was OK as long as I took my time and conciously thought about what I was doing, but every time I tried to speed up, I kept automatically reverting to Weaver.

I've done a couple of classes with Ayoob, and am familiar with his thinking on this, which is basicly that a good shooter knows all three stances (including Chapman) and uses the most appropriate one as needed.

However, I'm now thinking that if I want to take my shooting to the next level, fast, reflexive shooting at the expert/master level (or unconcious competence, if you prefer) that I need to pick one stance and do ALL of my practice and training with it. And since I hope to take the Expert level courses with Taylor, Awerback et al in the next couple of years - and I know they are going to demand Weaver - I might just as well not even consider any courses with people who want me to use the Isosceles in their courses.

Anyway, I was wondering how the rest of you handled this. Any of you shooting Expert/Master with more than one stance? Or have you found you need to pick one and stick with it?

Regards
John
 
John, welcome to the board.

I'll give you my stance (pun intended) on the subject. Keep in mind that all of my handgun shooting is aimed at one purpose, self-defense / personal protection. With that being said, you will never know what situation you will find yourself in if you ever have to use your firearm for real. I'm not sure what grading system you are trying to use when you say expert / master level. Ranking is usually reserved for qualifications or competition.

I personally believe it is wrong for any instructor to demand that you use only one stance when training for defensive shooting. I would truly love to see the folks at Insight get into an Isosceles while sitting behind the steering wheel during an attempted car-jacking. The point is, you may have to shoot from many positions - standing, sitting, prone, moving, etc. and that is how you should train.

One of the hardest habits to break is shooting like statues. It is something we've been conditioned to do from the beginning of our shooting experiences. I guarantee you will not be standing still for very long when bullets are inbound - you'll either be hit or beat Carl Lewis in the 440.

If you want ta take all of these courses keep one thing in mind, it's not gospel. Take things that work and file away the other.

Most importantly, train like you fight and fight like you train. The latter is a consistent, you WILL fight the way you have trained. How you train is up tp you.
 
I'm not even "that good" and have only taken professional training last year and this.

But Jim Crews, Randy Cain and Gabe Suarez are all of the mindset that Tony mentions. Learn what works for YOU and train with it. All three of these instructors told us things that they use and then said "try it, but use what you are most comfortable with".

There was one LEO and firearms instructor (langloisandy on this forum) who uses one of the strangest stances you'll ever see. But it works for him! He hasn't been back to this forum in a very long time. Check out some of what Andy and other said about shooting stances and instructors here:

http://northeastshooters.com/viewtopic.php?p=5616

http://northeastshooters.com/viewtopic.php?p=5795
 
I was actually looking for a good web site with pictures of the different stances. I saw one that sounded strange to me called the Theodore stance, but the article ended in this statement that made me think of this thread...

The proper handgun stance is the stance that allows the individual to deliver one aimed, controlled shot after another safely, efficiently, and comfortably.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about that statement?
 
Adam_MA said:
I
The proper handgun stance is the stance that allows the individual to deliver one aimed, controlled shot after another safely, efficiently, and comfortably.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about that statement?
Click to expand...

I think it sums it up pretty well. However, again I say, don't get hung up on stances. Unless you are trying to figure out a best stance for 'gaming' competitions, there are much more important aspects of combat / defensive shooting that you should concentrate on.
 
While Tony and Lens and I think alike on many things, This is one area where I must disagree. What we do on the square range is entirely different that what we may have to do in an actual shooting situation. In both cases the stooting stance must be balanced, and must be able to control the recoill pulse. In a real shooting situation, the stance must also be flexible enough to be able to move quickly. Where and how you plant your feet is not very important. What is important is that any stance must be well balanced and flexible.
On the subject of weaver VS. all of the other upper body stances, it simply does not matter. I do not know anyone that shoots a pure weaver or a pure isoseles. The best thing that you can do is to try variations of these two stances and find what is beat for you.
Lens mentioned that strange stance that Andy langlois used. All it is is a weaver with the gun brought back about half way toward the eyes.
Lens mentioned that he has had training for only 2 years and said that he is not that good. Maybe, he can explain how he got a very, very, very special reward ifor his shooting prowess in the Randy Cain course this year.
Len I still have several photos, suitable for framing, of you receiving the reward. The color photos show the level of your blushing very clearly. I have been requested not to tell anyone about the details of this reward by Len.. Maybe if you ask him nicely he will tell you.

You asked if there are any photos available. Jim Crews' Handgun manual provides very good photo coverage of the various stances. You can purshase all 3 of Jim Crews ( http://www.marksmans.com/sys-tmpl/door/ ) on a printable CD for about $50.00 or you could purchase just the handgun manual from me for $25.00 plus postage
 
I don't necessarily disagree with what Jim is saying. However, my position on stances may have been a little advanced without enough explanation. We (or, at least I) am speaking of real-life, no-shit combat self-defense shootings and the scenarios one is likely to encounter. I am not discussing standing on a 'square' range facing a paper target at 7 yards waiting for the buzzer to go off in order to deliver the range officers predetermined number of rounds on the target.

When first learning to shoot, and during the initial phases of marksmanship training, it is not a bad idea to learn by using a square stance, fighting stance or a variation of the two that is most comfortable to you in order to concentrate on the more important aspects such as proper grip, sight picture, breath control, trigger control, malfunction drills, reloading, etc.

Now, while it is prefferable to always have your feet squarely underneath your center of gravity in ANY act of self-defense, it is not always available to do so. In fact, IMHO, having your feet solidly planted on Terra Firma will greatly decrease your chances of bypassing the morgue on your way to the house after a gunfight. Why? Because statues make great targets! I maintain that it is imperative to practice and learn to deliver solid shots in 'off balanced' positions at ranges out to at least ten yards. If recoil is a problem, you are using the wrong firearm.

Statistics show that the vast majority of gunfights occur between three to seven yards. That means that your adversary only has three to seven yards to shoot you! Because of conditioning, poor instruction / training, etc, most people can't, or won't, shoot unless they are firmly planted in a good balanced stance - a statue. The exception being your gang-bangers and thugs that mostly rely on spray and pray anyhow.

Now, I ask you, would you rather shoot at a moving target or a stationary target? Why? Now ask yourself if you would rather have your adversary shooting at YOU as a stationary target or a moving target. I hope you are beginning to see my point. I'm not quite sure why the big name high dollar instructors demand a student shoot in a particular stance, or why they don't concentrate or more life-sustaining techniques. I have my suspicions, but maybe it's just a case of passing on learned bad habits that no one questions because they have a 'name'.

There are rarely any absolutes in anything, however, I will state this: You should never, ever be caught shooting while standing still unless you are behind solid cover with no way to farther retreat without breaking that cover. Likewise, you should never be caught standing still while reloading or clearing a malfunction.

Standing still in the good solid stance of your choice will get you killed in a gunfight.
 
JimConway said:
While Tony and Lens and I think alike on many things, This is one area where I must disagree. What we do on the square range is entirely different that what we may have to do in an actual shooting situation. In both cases the stooting stance must be balanced, and must be able to control the recoill pulse. In a real shooting situation, the stance must also be flexible enough to be able to move quickly. Where and how you plant your feet is not very important. What is important is that any stance must be well balanced and flexible.
On the subject of weaver VS. all of the other upper body stances, it simply does not matter. I do not know anyone that shoots a pure weaver or a pure isoseles. The best thing that you can do is to try variations of these two stances and find what is beat for you.
Lens mentioned that strange stance that Andy langlois used. All it is is a weaver with the gun brought back about half way toward the eyes.
Lens mentioned that he has had training for only 2 years and said that he is not that good. Maybe, he can explain how he got a very, very, very special reward ifor his shooting prowess in the Randy Cain course this year.
Len I still have several photos, suitable for framing, of you receiving the reward. The color photos show the level of your blushing very clearly. I have been requested not to tell anyone about the details of this reward by Len.. Maybe if you ask him nicely he will tell you.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Jim. You need to be able to react to the situation and do it in the best way you can. Stance, as long as it's firm footing, doesn't matter...you do what you need to do in accordance with the situation. Which basically means practice everything, and do it with both weak hand and strong hand.

And Len - way to go champ!! [lol]
 
Len's Award/reward

Len
I was told by TonyD to always to tell the truth. That is all that I did. You got the award and we were all happy for you. Why do you insist on hiding the truth? You should be proud. You did it and beat the whole class. In a recent conversation with Randy Cain, he told me that you were only the second person to be raised to such an exalted level.

Remember that I have 8" x 10" photographic copies (signed and dated by Randy) of the event any time that you think of giving me a hard time. It has taken a major effort on my part to not post and ontherwise distribute these graphic images. the only thing that has held me back, other than your shameless begging, was that some would the photo "R" rated.
 
Tony, though I rarely, if ever, comment on training, I do frequently read the posts.

I feel that I am not qualified to comment (I have NO formal training with handguns), but, this time I'll make an exception. I agree that what you do on the range and what you do "in the heat of battle" has to be different. That is due to the different situations that you will encounter in the real world.

Jim, if it was up to me, I'd post the pics. Though I've only met Len once, I have found him to be modest, sometimes apparently, too modest.
 
Nickle, thanks for the post and you bring out a point that I've been trying to bring to light.

I agree that what you do on the range and what you do "in the heat of battle" has to be different.
Click to expand...

What you do on the range is exactly what you will do on the streets. It has been proven tima and again that you will revert to what you have trained your mind to do through repetition. That's why you must train like you fight. That is another reason personal protection is an entire package and not just slow firing at a static range.
 
Nickle
"Jim, if it was up to me, I'd post the pics. Though I've only met Len once, I have found him to be modest, sometimes apparently, too modest."

I would realy like to post the photo of Len in his glory. But, for the time being, I will go with Len's shameless begging. Actually, the begging is rather refreshing and fun to watch. It is my intent to milk the photo for all that it is worth . When Len stops begging and paying into my new gun fund, I may then reconsider my options.
 
I agree Tony. I didn't really make that statement, but, the Army calls it "Battle Focused Training", and is a requirement to train like you will fight.

Some people think that you rise to your best under pressure. WRONG, you drop to your lowest level of training.

For weapons qualification, we do timed pop-ups (up 2 to 4 seconds) at different ranges, out to 30 meters, with magazine changes, frequently starting a phase with a 1 round mag (and always start Double Action). They give us more ammo than targets as well, teaching us to shoot again, if you miss. I usually manage 21 out of 30, which makes me "Sharpshooter".
 
Those of us that know Jim know that he's 98% BS! [wink]

There were no pictures taken of the event in question, as everyone was very focused on the task at hand (everyone was on the firing line) and Andy had "retired" from his picture taking duties.

Yup, Jim is suckering others on this forum . . . now back to the topic at hand please!
 
Len
I agree that Andy had left the firing line, BUT he had not left the range. He knew exactly what Randy was planning. if you did your part (and you most certainly did). Do I now have you permission to post the photo? If I remember your mental state at the time correctly, you could have been standing next to a full marching band and you would not have noticed.

Come on, Len, fess up. You enjoyed it, didn't you. Winning is a lot better than the alternate.
 
Mod Hat On!

Seriously Jim, you are hijacking the thread on training techniques. As Tony and I posted up a few, it doesn't belong here.

The banter has a proper location (Off Topic). Any further banter in this topic will be deleted without warning.

Thank you.

Mod Hat Off!

NOW BACK TO THE TRAINING TECHNIQUES . . .
 
TonyD said:
John, welcome to the board.
Click to expand...

Thank you

TonyD said:
I'll give you my stance (pun intended) on the subject. Keep in mind that all of my handgun shooting is aimed at one purpose, self-defense / personal protection. With that being said, you will never know what situation you will find yourself in if you ever have to use your firearm for real. I'm not sure what grading system you are trying to use when you say expert / master level. Ranking is usually reserved for qualifications or competition.
Click to expand...

OK. Nevertheless, most schools/trainers have a progression of courses ranked basic, intermediate, advanced, master; and so forth.

I've done LFI 1 and LFI 2 with Ayoob, Basic and Intermediate Handgun with Chuck Taylor's school, Handgun I with both Farnam and Awerback (neither is truly a "beginners" course, and I was happy to have had Ayoob and Taylor's courses under my belt when I took them).

I feel comfortable with describing myself as an intermediate level shooter, and feel I'm ready to move up to taking Taylor's Advanced Handgun, Farnam's and Awerback's Handgun 2, and so forth.

Or, to put it another way, I think of myself as conciously competent and want to take it up to the next level - unconcious competence.

TonyD said:
I personally believe it is wrong for any instructor to demand that you use only one stance when training for defensive shooting. I would truly love to see the folks at Insight get into an Isosceles while sitting behind the steering wheel during an attempted car-jacking. The point is, you may have to shoot from many positions - standing, sitting, prone, moving, etc. and that is how you should train.
Click to expand...

At the beginning level, they are trying to teach you fundamentals - good marksmanship, and good, safe gun handling skills. Sitting and prone are usually covered in Intermediate level courses, and many instructors, I think, consider shooting while moving to be an advanced topic.

That said, there is a real fundamental disagreement between instructors over whether Weaver or Isosceles is the "correct" or "best" way to shoot two-handed.

Clint Smith has said that he is AMAZED at the number of people who want to come to HIS courses and pay HIM good money to teach HIM the way THEY shoot!

So I'm not troubled by schools in the beginning and intermediate levels expecting you to do things THEIR way. After all, you're paying them good money to teach you what they believe are correct, fundamental techniques.

TonyD said:
One of the hardest habits to break is shooting like statues. It is something we've been conditioned to do from the beginning of our shooting experiences. I guarantee you will not be standing still for very long when bullets are inbound - you'll either be hit or beat Carl Lewis in the 440.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

TonyD said:
If you want ta take all of these courses keep one thing in mind, it's not gospel. Take things that work and file away the other.
Click to expand...

Also Agreed.

I don't beleive any ONE teacher has "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

But I am beginning to think that one criterion I need to use when deciding on WHICH trainers to study with is the compatability of their fundamentals. Training with one who insists that Black is Black and White is White and one that insists that Black is White and White is Black strikes me as a confusing waste of my time and money.

TonyD said:
Most importantly, train like you fight and fight like you train. The latter is a consistent, you WILL fight the way you have trained. How you train is up tp you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Agreed.

Regards
John
 
Guys - and Lynne:

Apparently my question wasn't clear.

I'm not trying to determine whether Weaver or Isosceles is the better stance. That question has been beat to death in numerous books, articles, and forum threads. I'm pretty sure it's indeterminate.

I'm asking:

If you've done multiple courses with different trainers who emphasized different stances, how did that work out for YOU? Were you able to shift back and forth effortlessly between them on demand, or did you think one was normal and natural and the other awkward and hard to do without slowing down and thinking about it?

Or, to put it another way, do any of you feel you've mastered both of them, and feel that you can do either, at speed, on demand? And feel you can comfortably take an advanced level course with ANY instructor, regardless of which stance he insists you use?

Regards
John
 
BTW, aside from the fact that they insisted on Isosceles, I found Insights to be a solid course, good teachers, good explanation of the fundamentals.

While I probably won't do any more handgun training with them, I would definitely consider them for shotgun or rifle courses, and am intrigued by their offerings in defensive folding knife.

Most probably I WILL train with them again in either Harrisburg PA of Rochester NY. Just probably not handgun.

Regards
John
 
John - I think you can see that the topic has flourished since your original post. Now I understand what you are referring to as intermediate, advanced, etc. Not knowing you, or your skills, personally I'll repeat what I've stated many times in the past concerning these high dollar schools and instructors before I'm finished.

As I stated, it's not necessarily a bad thing to require a new shooter to have a solid foundation when first learning basic marksmanship fundementals. However, I believe that as soon as a person demonstrates competent firearm safety they should be required to practice those fundementals during realistic training. This is one area where I differ from the big name instructors. Why? It loses revenue. It requires the student to pay more money to come back for yet another class and can become never ending.

You have apparently spent a great deal of money attending a number of courses with some very recognizable names in the industry. For anyone has never had professional training as part of their vacation I recommend they seek out competent instruction. The problem comes into play when instructors try to reinvent the wheel, or soaking students for cash by actually slowing their progression.

Clint Smith has said that he is AMAZED at the number of people who want to come to HIS courses and pay HIM good money to teach HIM the way THEY shoot!

So I'm not troubled by schools in the beginning and intermediate levels expecting you to do things THEIR way. After all, you're paying them good money to teach you what they believe are correct, fundamental techniques.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by the above statement. Are you saying you should, or should not, be required to do things the way the instructor demands?

The fundemantals of marksmanship is not an ever changing animal. And, advanced marksmanship, personal protection, self-defense combat handgunning is merely the praticed refinement of the fundamentals as applied to a given situation. This refinement is up to the individual to practice the fundamentals they've been taught. Too many folks never practice what they've been taught and simply pay more money to go to another course. Some folks are not allowed to practice what they've learned because of range restrictions, etc, and that's what makes these type schools so lucrative in certain areas.

I feel I'm starting to ramble without making my point so I'll leave it at that. Please continue to discuss.
 
TonyD said:
Statistics show that the vast majority of gunfights occur between three to seven yards. That means that your adversary only has three to seven yards to shoot you! Because of conditioning, poor instruction / training, etc, most people can't, or won't, shoot unless they are firmly planted in a good balanced stance - a statue. The exception being your gang-bangers and thugs that mostly rely on spray and pray anyhow.
Click to expand...

I agree that square range techniques are for mastering the fundamentals. Gotta learn how to walk before you can run

Once you've mastered the fundamentals, there's a whole nother world of training to progress to. Some really good Force on Force courses are starting to pop up around the country.

I've been watching a DVD from FistFeetKnifeGun www.FFKG.com titled LEGITIMATE TRAINING WITH AIRSOFT

Interesting concept. You find yourself being chased around a gym trying to shoot a guy who's trying to brain you with a plastic baseball bat, or leaning out around a corner to shoot at someone who's shooting at YOU as you lean out.

TonyD said:
There are rarely any absolutes in anything, however, I will state this: You should never, ever be caught shooting while standing still unless you are behind solid cover with no way to farther retreat without breaking that cover. Likewise, you should never be caught standing still while reloading or clearing a malfunction.

Standing still in the good solid stance of your choice will get you killed in a gunfight.
Click to expand...

Missing because you haven't been trained to hit while moving will also get you killed. Farnam's Handgun 1 course taught us to move, stop to shoot, then move again. All reloading, malfunction drills, etc. were also done while moving.

I'll have to see if the Handgun 2 course get's us shooting on the move.

(By contrast, Awerback's Handgun 1 course dealt primarily with three dimensional targets, sometimes at strange angles, and towards the end, bobbing and weaving. But we were stationary while shooting it. Still at the walk before you run stage, I guess.)

Regards
John
 
Back
Top Bottom