Longtooth, I like your reply. I can tell you're a real smart feller. Obviously, survival is at the top of your list as it is mine.
While I am coming more from an IPSC perspective, I get the impression that you think shooters using an Isosceles stance are not as fast as someone using a Weaver. If this is the case, I would have to suggest that you watch some of the better IPSC shooters as they are very fast and prove that you can shoot pretty fast on the move with Isosceles stance. Just which stance is the fastest is something I’m hoping someone else can settle. Hopefully, there are shooters who shoot both IPSC and IDPA who can jump in. I must admit to some bias towards Isosceles as I have not seen anyone shoot fast in any other stance. Mostly because that’s what everyone uses in the kind of shooting I do.
I think creating common ground is a good way to substantiate what would actually work best in a given situation. In this case, it seems like knowing all three of the major stances could be valuable.
txinvestigator: Great pictures, they are worth a thousand words each and will help make this a better learning experience.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “What Stance do you shoot from”
- Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:26 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: What Stance do you shoot from
- Replies: 34
- Views: 7161
- Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:54 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: What Stance do you shoot from
- Replies: 34
- Views: 7161
I don't mean to open a can of worms, I'm just trying to take my own advise. Which is as follows: "Be willing to change anything and everything if there is a better way".
Everyone in IPSC, that I know of, uses Isosceles. Why not list the benefts of both techniques? I can't honestly comment on Weaver as I have not used it since I first started shooting IPSC. I can, however, throw a few of my thoughts on Isosceles out there and see where it leads.
1). If your eye dominence changes it's easy to align the new dominent eye to the sights. Brian Enos mentioned this as he has recently had this problem. He said that it has taken very little adjustment to change eyes.
2). This one will be up for debate. It's more natural, at least for me, to extend both arms streight out. Maybe this is why I caught my self going into Isosceles when I used to use Weaver. At least when I wasn't thinking about it.
3). This one may be viewed as subjective, but my arms work like shock absorbers bleading off the recoil better. With Weaver, your arm is straight and the recoil goes back into your body shaking the beegeevers out of you.
Well, if that doesn't start an argument, nothing will. All kidding aside, I would like to see an honest discussion on this and other topics.
Everyone in IPSC, that I know of, uses Isosceles. Why not list the benefts of both techniques? I can't honestly comment on Weaver as I have not used it since I first started shooting IPSC. I can, however, throw a few of my thoughts on Isosceles out there and see where it leads.
1). If your eye dominence changes it's easy to align the new dominent eye to the sights. Brian Enos mentioned this as he has recently had this problem. He said that it has taken very little adjustment to change eyes.
2). This one will be up for debate. It's more natural, at least for me, to extend both arms streight out. Maybe this is why I caught my self going into Isosceles when I used to use Weaver. At least when I wasn't thinking about it.
3). This one may be viewed as subjective, but my arms work like shock absorbers bleading off the recoil better. With Weaver, your arm is straight and the recoil goes back into your body shaking the beegeevers out of you.
Well, if that doesn't start an argument, nothing will. All kidding aside, I would like to see an honest discussion on this and other topics.