[NMS]

hello all-

out of sheer curiosity....which stance does everyone prefer. let me preface that i am not trying to start a long drawn out debate over which is better....just trying to get an idea what folks like.....

thanks

nms (isos btw)

 

[DOT The HALO Group]

When you say stance, you are referencing the lower unit? If that is the case, it really should not matter where you feet are placed, with in reason. The situation will dictate and your body will adapt to whatever terrain you are on. Being able to maintain your combat accuracy under any condition is paramount. It would be nice to have the perfect stance, but that is not always practical. Keep in mind we train on a square range, but live in a round world.

Later,


------------------
Director of Training

The HALO Group

 

[NMS]

hi DOT

sorry....i should have clarified....i actually was refering to grip...as in weaver or isos....or any of the many modern combos....thanks for the correction....

nms

after a quick re-read...another addendum...more interested in upper body position...

[This message has been edited by NMS (edited 03-08-2001).]

 

[JimH]

Originally posted by NMS:

sorry....i should have clarified....i actually was refering to grip...as in weaver or isos....or any of the many modern combos

No doubt this is the thread that will not die.

Getting late so I will be brief. Basically there has devoloped so much confusion over terminology and personal style that we have about given up on the old terms.

Ron Avery's "Modern ISO" looks almost exactly Like my "Weaver" but it will depend on the situation at the time. Not to be short but there is a lot of stuff in the archive about a month ago so we don't have to repeat it.

Essentially, we are now going to use the term "Dynamic Shooting Platform" instead of either. What I would never want to do is to change a guy who had a useable "stance" or "positon" And of course we advocate dynamic movement either during, before or after shooting so those words might give a wrong conotation except for learning the most basic of fundamentals.

Cordially,
Jim Higginbotham

 

[Billy Ray]

I have no idea what Mr. Higginbotham is talking about, but from his other posts, I'll venture to guess that he knows what he's talking about.

That said, I lock both arms straight out in front of me (I believe this is either an iso or modified iso). I was using a modified Weaver, but I found that by locking both arms out in front of me, my sights are right in front of my face for easy acquisition and aiming.

I practice with many assorted foot placements, but I prefer to have my left foot slightly (about 6") forward.

Billy Ray

 

[TRB]

I stand where my size 14s 'll fit, and I grip whatever way puts the sights on target! Is 'form' really relevant as long as we hit the target?

TRB

 

[shane45-1911]

Isoceles...feet, torso, and shoulders square to the target. TARGET, as in paper, being the key word.

If someone's shootin' at me, TRB said it best...feet where they fit, grip where I can, and sights on the bad guy. I would not suggest standing your ground and blazing away with perfect stance. You'll end up a dead guy who had great form.

 

[GLV]

Knowledge of all shooting platforms is necessary for the professional gunman. In a dymanic situation, you will find yourself shooting from the platform that fits the situation, IF well trained. GLV

 

[traevin]

Had an officer friend who always shot squared up to his target. I once asked him why he was exposing so much of his body; he said, since he always wears a vest, he'd rather take a bullet in the chest than risk exposing his less protected obliques. I never decided if that made sense or not.

 

[Nathan]

Combat Weaverish. The is a Weaver with your arms in close enough so you have the strength to resist a kick or punch at your gun. Also, a slight crouch is desired so I can move quickly and shoot moving. I think someone called this the FBI crouch.