1st defensive pistol training course, is stance important?

[mcjon77]

Hi guys,

I am planning on taking my first defensive pistol course either in April or May, but have a decision to make. I am choosing between a few different places. Some use Weaver, some use modified isosceles/natural action stance. Should I base my training decision at all on the stance the instructor uses.

A little about me. I have a little formal training (NRA basic Rifle, my Illinois CCW course). In my CCW course and for the test I used modified isosceles. However, that was primarily because I learned it off a Chris Costa DVD (Operation Z, a REALLY good beginners intro to pistol shooting). When it came time to take the test I shot a ragged hole through the X ring, having only fired a real handgun once before almost 20 years prior. So, I am pretty sure that technique works for me. The question is should I be married to it.

To give some more detail, the two programs that I am considering are these:
Defensive Handgun 1 - SAF Training Division

and

Introduction To Defensive Handgun ? Bonfield, IL ? 05/16/2015

Any help/feedback on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jon

 

[esrice]

As rhino so eloquently puts it, stance is a luxury (much like "grip"). We rarely have luxuries in a gunfight, so learn it, but don't learn to rely on it.

Don't sweat "stance". If the instructor makes a huge deal out of it, I'd look at other schools.

 

[esrice]

And good on you for continuing your education.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

esrice hits both points on the nose... Don't get hung up on "perfect" anything when it comes to stance and Bravo for continuing your education!

 

[Jackson]

Do not choose your trainer based on the stance they present. If that combines with a bumch of other stuff, and rolls up to a whole system that doesntdoesn't jive with what you do, then I'd say its part of the criteria. I would also say you should seek training from other perspectives. So if you take aclass now where they rock the modern iso, take one later where weaver is predominant.

Since we're talking about defensive pistol, I will say I think stance is important. Not so much for its inputs to marksmanship, but because we're talking about a fight. Position of the body, and the feet under the body is important when we're in a fight. Some stances and movement are going to be better for some tasks than others.

How your shooting stance/style integrates with your unarmed fighting style could be a potential consideration.

 

[VERT]

Should I base my training decision at all on the stance the instructor uses.

No.

I would probably choose the class based on my schedule. I looked at your links. Looks like $100 and $150 for the classes. Pretty reasonable. I would try to budget both classes. Do what the instructor asks and figure out what works best for you.

The 2nd amendment foundation curriculum is influenced by Tom Givens. A couple of us on this board have had the opportunity to spend time with Tom. He promotes a "Fighting Stance". I tend to favor a weaverish type of stance, while I know others who are all about the isosceles. I can't remember any of the instructors giving us grief about stance. I suppose there are benefits to either but in the end what matters is what works for you.

 

[David Rose]

I'll answer the question with a question. How much time, effort, and energy do you want to invest in learning a different way of doing things?

For some of us the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake makes chasing down everything we can find and trying it a joy. For others, they just want to better able to protect themselves and those they care about.

It it realy comes down to what are you trying to achieve.

 

[ModernGunner]

The 'stance' I've probably used most often in actual life experience has been 'dive for cover'.

'Curiously', not many Instructors seem to bother teaching it.

 

[VERT]

The 'stance' I've probably used most often in actual life experience has been 'dive for cover'.

'Curiously', not many Instructors seem to bother teaching it.

square range rules! Besides the paint job on my truck is too nice to let people shoot over the hood.

 

[iChokePeople]

square range rules! Besides the paint job on my truck is too nice to let people shoot over the hood.

I know someone on this forum who could tell a story about this. I'm not naming names, but if he chooses to speak up...

 

[jblomenberg16]

Mcjon-

First welcome to INGO...lots of great advice (and maybe a little not so good advice) to be had on this forum. I've shot and trained with several of the folks that have posted in this thread and you have been given good advice thus far. There isn't one right way to stand while shooting, but there are several things you can do wrong in preparing to take the shot. Going to training is a great way to improve your skills as a shooter. Kudos for taking that step!

Most of the competent trainers for a beginner class are going to focus first on safe gun handling and basic marksmanship techniques. That may include some grip and stance basics. Once those are established, there will be less focus on getting a perfect stance, and more on getting a good sight picture and getting a clean trigger break, so that rounds hit where you want them to hit every time. From there things like stance start to help you be more balanced, more mobile, better able to recover your sight picture for follow up shots, etc.


Personally I'm a bit more of an isosceles guy as I feel a bit more balanced and able to do both strong hand and weak hand shots, as well as move to strong or weak side. Admittedly it feels more natural to me and is probably an extension of how I'd already be standing if I had to quickly draw and fire my pistol in public.

 

[GIJEW]

my on stance are:

Choose one as your default method, learn others as options, but train and invest "muscle memory" in the one that works best for you

Your technique might evolve/change as you get exposed to other methods. Be open to experimentation

In my experience (when I could stand):
I started shooting modified weaver, using my bicep like a rifle stock. I found it gave me great stability and precision.
Experimented with modified isoceles and decided that it gave me more flexibility, traversing left & right. I made isoceles my go-to method and use weaver for shooting around corners, poles, etc.
Speaking of "stance" I chose to use a stance I picked up in aikido (similar to boxing but more squared-off) for balance and mobility.

There are pros&cons to everything. Experiment and have fun!

 

[rhino]

I would also ask, are you really talking about "stance" in the context it is used in "Weaver Stance" or "Isosceles Stance," or more about how your body is actually positioned when you are shooting?

If the former, then it's not just about stance, but also about how you hold the gun and manage recoil etc. Religious wars have waged for a few decades over this, but ultimately it boils down to person preference and what your goals are. If one feels better, some people with stick with it. Others will base their decision on more objective criteria such as which will allow them to fire six rounds into the A zone of an IPSC target at 10 yards in the least time.

In my observation, most people have bodies that lend themselves to getting better results with an isosceles hold. Your mileage may vary. Weaver is tougher to do correctly (in all of its incarnations) for people with stubby limbs and thick torsos. However, it also depends on the application. When shooting around cover or in other situations where the geometry of your upper body is constrained by the environment, a Weaver-like hold can happen naturally.

Stance in the sense of how your feet is placed and your body is oriented is a simpler matter. As others have noted, I frequently say that "stance is a luxury" and I'm talking primarily about lower body. Whether in self-defense, combat, or practical competition, you can't always choose how you will stand. You need to be able to fire rounds accurately and quickly regardless of your body position, whether you have the time and opportunity for your own perfect fighting stance or you're on the ground in some odd pile of human body parts after you fall or get knocked down, or you are moving while you are shooting.

That's why at some point you have to learn to do the shooting with your upper body and your moving/support with your lower body. The only aspects that will ultimately be consistent across the board is how you grip the gun (both two handed and with one hand), as that's your interface to the gun. Even that can change based on circumstances, but it's the thing you will generally be able to control the most under a variety of circumstance.

And, after you take those classes, come to see us for one of our defensive pistol classes. Our DP class on 21 March 2015 is full, but there will be other opportunties.

Hi guys,

I am planning on taking my first defensive pistol course either in April or May, but have a decision to make. I am choosing between a few different places. Some use Weaver, some use modified isosceles/natural action stance. Should I base my training decision at all on the stance the instructor uses.

A little about me. I have a little formal training (NRA basic Rifle, my Illinois CCW course). In my CCW course and for the test I used modified isosceles. However, that was primarily because I learned it off a Chris Costa DVD (Operation Z, a REALLY good beginners intro to pistol shooting). When it came time to take the test I shot a ragged hole through the X ring, having only fired a real handgun once before almost 20 years prior. So, I am pretty sure that technique works for me. The question is should I be married to it.

To give some more detail, the two programs that I am considering are these:
Defensive Handgun 1 - SAF Training Division

and

Introduction To Defensive Handgun ? Bonfield, IL ? 05/16/2015

Any help/feedback on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jon

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think I'm in disagreement with most here. I don't think stance and grip are luxuries. In most instances, how you practice is how you'll perform when it's game time. I adopted a modified weaver because I want to present the smallest target possible, even when I socialize with people, I find myself in that stance. My grip/draw is always consistent, drive the web into the grip, pull/turn close to the body, and drive out. I practice this constantly. Obviously, you need to do what works best for you, but whatever that is, master it. Once you've mastered how to do things the right way, in ideal conditions, then worry about the endless number of "what ifs."

 

[jblomenberg16]

I would also ask, are you really talking about "stance" in the context it is used in "Weaver Stance" or "Isosceles Stance," or more about how your body is actually positioned when you are shooting?

If the former, then it's not just about stance, but also about how you hold the gun and manage recoil etc. Religious wars have waged for a few decades over this, but ultimately it boils down to person preference and what your goals are. If one feels better, some people with stick with it. Others will base their decision on more objective criteria such as which will allow them to fire six rounds into the A zone of an IPSC target at 10 yards in the least time.

In my observation, most people have bodies that lend themselves to getting better results with an isosceles hold. Your mileage may vary. Weaver is tougher to do correctly (in all of its incarnations) for people with stubby limbs and thick torsos. However, it also depends on the application. When shooting around cover or in other situations where the geometry of your upper body is constrained by the environment, a Weaver-like hold can happen naturally.

Stance in the sense of how your feet is placed and your body is oriented is a simpler matter. As others have noted, I frequently say that "stance is a luxury" and I'm talking primarily about lower body. Whether in self-defense, combat, or practical competition, you can't always choose how you will stand. You need to be able to fire rounds accurately and quickly regardless of your body position, whether you have the time and opportunity for your own perfect fighting stance or you're on the ground in some odd pile of human body parts after you fall or get knocked down, or you are moving while you are shooting.

That's why at some point you have to learn to do the shooting with your upper body and your moving/support with your lower body. The only aspects that will ultimately be consistent across the board is how you grip the gun (both two handed and with one hand), as that's your interface to the gun. Even that can change based on circumstances, but it's the thing you will generally be able to control the most under a variety of circumstance.

And, after you take those classes, come to see us for one of our defensive pistol classes. Our DP class on 21 March 2015 is full, but there will be other opportunties.

Great post, and a +1 plug for training with the guys at ACT. A great training value with quality instructors.

 

[SMiller]

I think I'm in disagreement with most here. I don't think stance and grip are luxuries. In most instances, how you practice is how you'll perform when it's game time. I adopted a modified weaver because I want to present the smallest target possible, even when I socialize with people, I find myself in that stance. My grip/draw is always consistent, drive the web into the grip, pull/turn close to the body, and drive out. I practice this constantly. Obviously, you need to do what works best for you, but whatever that is, master it. Once you've mastered how to do things the right way, in ideal conditions, then worry about the endless number of "what ifs."

This! When it is go time you won't think, you will simply go back to the way you trained. I use a simple boxing stance, leaning into it, rolling the shoulders forward, tight grip.

Todd Jarret has some great YouTube videos showing proper stance, grip, shooting.

 

[Expatriated]

I probably would not take a class from someone that insisted on a particular stance.

It is probably indicative of other regurgitated crap I'd not agree with.