I’ve been watching the Magpul Dynamics carbine DVD’s and I like the direction and the stances that is being utilized today. Very efficient, and you are bringing the weapon to you and not you head to the weapon.
For sometime I have seen this stance come of age, but I’ve always be a modified Weaver shooter since the age of 9. I have adjusted over time in keeping with training. It wasn’t until my time as an LEO (at the rip at of 20:rolleyes:) when I was educated about the open gapes in Kevlar. Okay, adjusted, compensated, double-tapped.
Now I am adjusting again. i have slowly been making the transition over from Weaver to this new stance (what they heck is it called, now?), with the pistol. I’ll admit, it is a teething process, but it does feel more natural. However, as my friend who got me to the transition–feet and soldiers square, bend the knees, lower yourself to your weapon–he explained to me that it is meet to make more a of a target for body armor. Even the instructors on the Magpul Dynamics DVD said the samething.
Okay…what about us who aren’t in LE/MIL and don’t have access to such systems? Making yourself more of a target in that case, as simple logic says, is a bad idea. Why not blade off, become less of a target? Since the gap of the Kevlar is no longer there–because your whole body is exposed–when you get hit at center mass, I image it is going to suck all the same. In fact, after reading an article in this year’s AR-15 magazine about the same dilemma, they ask the question of why do you want to be a target, but instead shoot first?
I believe the correct name of the stance is ‘modern isosceles’.
I’ve actually wondered the same thing once or twice, but I always forget to ask in my classes. I’ve had a couple of former LEO/Mil criticize my stance based on pictures, saying I wasn’t ‘bladed’. I explained the reasoning, saying it was common modern technique, but I still think it’s a worthwhile question.
He’s my take:
You don’t compromise your shooting for the sake of being a slightly smaller target. Modern isosceles allows a much better management (note I don’t say control) of recoil, keeping the weapon in a linear plane so you are more quickly back on target from shot to shot.
In general, you should never be standing flat-flooted shooting in a real-life scenario, or any where other than the one-way range. If you’re shooting, odds are someone else is shooting and you should be behind cover, pieing out the absolutely minimal amount to make a shot. That or you’re moving laterally while shooting. Both of these mean your stance is fluid and while you may never be completely in the isosceles stance as you take your shots, hopefully you’re (momentarily) close
All these things combined, mean there are many other factors which would affect how good of a target you are and minimizing the need for the bladed stance. But I’m far, far from any kind of expert. Just my take/understanding. I’m sure someone else will be able to give much better answers.
I believe someone posted here a while ago that the FBI reviewed thousands of hours of shooting footage and they didn’t find any instance of someone actually using Weaver. Even those trained in its usage abandoned it when the bullets started flying.
I’ve never seen that study, but assuming it is true, you may as well train for what you’re likely going to do anyway.
What’s interesting is, if you go back and watch early videos of Jack Weaver back when he first started formulating his stance, it’s not nearly as exaggerated in terms of the support arm being bent/close to the body and standing perpendicularly to the target. He actually was not that far off modern isosceles. Not sure what he personally ended up doing later versus his disciples. Quite interesting, though.
Modern isosceles, combat isosceles, power isosceles. These are the most commonly heard for the stance, or a slight variation of words.
Feet approx shoulder width, primary side foot slightly to the rear (distance is shooter dependent). Forward lean onto the balls of your feet. Toes, hips shoulders pointing forward. Slight bend at the knees. Slight forward bend at the waist. Head and eyes up. Weapon up to the head, not head to the weapon. The benefits include a better type of recoil management, more consistent presentation, wider field of view to the front, but perhaps more important is the mobility of the stance. We like to think of it in terms of a stance that a linebacker or a modern fighter might take. From this stance a linebacker is in a good power, forward or aggressive stance. Their entire platform is more stable front to rear and side to side. They can quickly and easily move in any direction, so the mobility factor is high. It is an overall excellent power or fighting stance. Of course we will probably be moving or hauling ass but this is always a good default stance.
As for the body position with a full frontal presentation and no body armor, here is something to think about. If I get shot straight from the front through a lung, I am going to be hurting no doubt. But if I take that same hit from the side, I may be taking that same round through one lung, through my heart and out my other lung.
If you watch most “traditional” martial artists who were trained in specific “fighting stances” - they all tend to vanish when they go up against a non-traditional fighter who is trying to rip their head off:)
The human body does a much better job taking direct hits VS taking them from the sides (as the odds of the bullet getting both the lung and heart are much greater).
In any gunfight, you are going to be moving (no matter your level of training). So no, you won’t be offering that easy of a target to hit.
Why do you assume that Civy’s don’t have armor? I have soft armorer and ceramic plates. I wear the soft armor A LOT.
Why do you assume that Civy’s don’t have armor? I have soft armorer and ceramic plates. I wear the soft armor A LOT.
C4[/QUOTE]
Some of us are in college, wasting our money to get pumped up full of liberal garbage at times. For the amount of money I have to spend on books, I could get a soft armor system and still have money to spare for ammo.
I can’t comment on the FBI’s study, but a department in my area has had done some extensive research on their officer involved shootings. Since that department trains it’s officers in the modified weaver the question came up: what happen’s to the officer’s stance during combat? Well, to no one’s surprise: The officers shot in whatever stance they trained in. Most (except one officer who transferred from another department) shot in modified weaver. Most didn’t recall ever thinking about how to stand; muscle memory took over. One officer did a tactical reload and didn’t remember doing it: it was only when he realized that his pistol had a completely full magazine did he realize that he changed magazines (his number 2 pouch had the original magazine). And as a side note: all officers were successful in their engagements (and the bad guys were not!).
Their are pro’s and con’s for both the modified weaver and the modern isosceles and the best platform to shoot from is the one that your most trained in.
As far as officers abandoning their training…it has been my experience that most officers don’t train as much as they should and don’t train as much as they claim. Most officers receive between 40 and 60 hours of firearms training at their academy at the beginning of their career and then only conduct an average 8 hours per year after that. Contrary to popular belief: most LEOs are not gun nuts (although it would be better if they were!)
In my opinion every cop should conduct a minimum of 8 hours of firearms training a month. But this is not realistic as I don’t know of a single department that can afford to purchase enough ammunition to make this a reality.
The great thing about isosceles is that it requires far less training and comes more naturally to most students to become proficient with. Most novice shooters will end up using a bastardized (and sloppy) isosceles form if they are pushed to shoot quickly and under stress.
I’m would not be surprised if your information about the FBI study was true. But I would be hesitant to say that isosceles was they best way to shoot just because the FBI said so. For those of you who are more familiar with the FBI will understand why I say this.
I wouldn’t get into a debate about which one is better, that is like arguing about Ford vs Chevy. Both modified weaver and modern isosceles are great platforms to shoot from. If a shooter prefers one over the other…great; maybe they will practice with it more often.
The bottom line is no matter what platform you shoot with train, train, train!
I do not believe that blading at 45 degrees versus squaring off to your adversary increases, or decreases, the risk of a projectile deflecting off of the humane skeletal structure.
I am an older fella and I was definitely weened on a weaver and then progressed into a Chapman-esque style. I now use a modern combat isosceles stance and I have no doubts or reservations that this stance is more beneficial and makes me a better combat shooter than the prior stances. I am not saying that is the end of my learning progression as times and techniques change, but right now I feel without a doubt the benefit of a this stance increases my mobility and my overall stability and makes me better.
Doug, do what you gotta do my friend. If you chose to blade, more power to you. Just get the hits before the other guy and be first to stop the threat and the stance and “deflection” argument will mean less.
Don’t get to tied up on the “stance” I like to call it a natural stance, your body tells you alot in regards to movement, balance and positions. Alot of things you do on the range, you do in everyday life without thinking of it, don’t over think it on the range like a robot.
The human body is naturally armored, however you want to conclude why we have a breast plate and thicker bone in our foreheads, it’s our natural reaction as well.
Training time-hours don’t count, on paper they do for certifications, etc. Mindset of the person, being focused on certain applicable task whenever and train with a purpose.
