Welcome to the Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
Choosing A Correct Stance
This is a discussion on Choosing A Correct Stance within the Pistols and Revolvers forums, part of the HandGuns, Pistols and Revolvers, Long Rifles, Shotguns, SKS, AK, AR category; I was watching another firearms instructor teaching a small group of students today. And he was teaching the common forward stance were your shoulders are ...
Choosing A Correct Stance
I was watching another firearms instructor teaching a small group of students today. And he was teaching the common forward stance were your shoulders are more or less square to the target. After he was done with his class I proceeded to train a few of my own students. Once finished this instructor approached me and asked “ why are you teaching that older side stance” and for those who don’t know the side stance was taught for many years. Its were the side of your body faces the target more or less.
I thought this brought up a great issue. Most now days are trained in the newer forward stance. This stance is most common and comes from the military and police training. The older side stance was taught when we didn’t have bullet resistant vests. The idea is to make yourself a narrower target. The forward stance is for when you have a bullet resistant vest. Thus putting the part of your body best protected by the vest toward the aggressor and this makes sense.
But barring the addition of a bullet resistant vest a side stance in my opinion should be taught as well. Just as I believe one should be taught to step right, fire and step right and fire. This is because most aggressors and people are right handed. And it has been shown that right handed shooters tend to shoot high and right when under stress. Thus by you stepping right the aggressors rounds will likely fly over your left shoulder.
Anyway, I digress, my point here is we should consider the merits of the stance we take and train in both. If your wearing a vest then take the forward stance. If you don’t have a vest then fall back to the older side stance. Just my thoughts and thought I would share….
I’m sure you noticed I don’t call it a bulletproof vest, that’s because there is no such thing. Its just a pet peeve of mine…
Last edited by BamaBoy101; 12-12-2013 at 09:33 PM.
Reason: Pet peeve added
I was a firearms instructor for many years before moving up the ranks into supervisory roles with the federal government. I worked at FLETC and with agents at the stations with requalification's and I agree with everything you say. The older shooters will fall into a weaver style stance and the new shooters will go with the Isosceles. I wouldn't correct the older shooters because they were qualifying for years in that stance so why change it. My own opinion, I think the weaver is better for revolvers and the isosceles is better with autos. As for the better use of armor I would argue that a glancing blow is better than a straight on hit because their is no guarantee that the vest will stop the round. It's bullet resistant not bullet proof. A smaller target is better and using cover/concealment is best. New advances in vests have improved and the argument that the sides are vulnerable have been greatly reduced although exposing a shoulder is never good, just ask a deer.
I thought the most common defensive shooting stances taught take advantage of a persons natural instinct to hunch when startled. If we all hunch when startled then recovering and assuming a stance would take more time than incorporating that initial reaction into the stance. It is also a natural reaction for a person to turn towards what ever it was that startled them. Which might also explain the more squared up to target posture that seems to be common.
I could be wrong...
Common with the Israelis. It is called the Israeli Lean.
Originally Posted by Seneca
Last edited by Meangreen; 12-12-2013 at 09:57 PM.
I had a conversation with my father regarding this and training was a big part of his job in the SF. Because most vests leave the sides unprotected it is thought that a direct hit is better than risking the side impact when wearing amour. That’s the way he explained it to me and it seams to be perfectly logical to me. But hey, I could be wrong….
Originally Posted by Meangreen
With many vests the sides are thinner or fold over front over back that could catch and direct a round inward. Also many vests really only have protection in a small breast and back plate. The newer armor that is being issued has more of an overlapping protection using lighter stronger materials. When I was working out in Ajo, AZ there was a young Park Ranger named Kris Eggle that was killed. Short story is he went up against a Mexican gunman armed with an AK-47, he with a shotgun. He was struck with a single round that hit his service radio bounced off and slipped between the plates in his armor cutting a major artery and he died before we could get to him. This was back in 2002.
Here is a pretty good article on the Israeli Lean.
Originally Posted by Meangreen
The "Israeli Lean" | Homeland Security News Wire
This issue was brought up during a class I took a few years ago. The people taking the class were not LEO or military and did not wear any bullet resistant vests. The thoughts of the instructor were that while you are a smaller target with a weaver stance, the odds of a survivable injury from a gun shot would were far less with the weaver stance. The reason being that you may very well suffer a double lung shot in that position. It makes sense to me, but personally I would prefer to not get shot in the first place.
I do what's comfortable at the time, but I was taught the Weaver stance, then the Modified Weaver. Though I do find myself gravitating toward Isosceles because it's generally more comfortable and I'm more relaxed, especially now that I'm getting older and things just don't move like they used to. I also like Isosceles when I'm on the move, I get a better "radial swing" where Weaver makes me feel more constrained, inhibited by the need for good footwork and favoring coverage toward the strong side. Isosceles is more forgiving, at least for me.
Cover and concealment. Moving is also a very good thing to. I really like shooting on the move drills.
Originally Posted by Go2ndAmend
By PrepConsultant in forum General Talk
Last Post: 11-11-2013, 02:33 PM
By PalmettoTree in forum Pistols and Revolvers
Last Post: 10-03-2013, 09:03 PM
By Not Crazy Yet in forum General Prepper and Survival Talk
Last Post: 04-14-2013, 01:24 PM
By survival in forum HandGuns, Pistols and Revolvers, Long Rifles, Shotguns, SKS, AK, AR
Last Post: 07-02-2012, 09:58 PM
By RalphS in forum HandGuns, Pistols and Revolvers, Long Rifles, Shotguns, SKS, AK, AR
Last Post: 06-11-2012, 07:33 PM
Search tags for this page
choosing stance within an issue
Click on a term to search for related topics.