Why does my rangemaster get asshurt that I use weaver stance?

Why even argue it, isosceles is better. Naturally I wanna one hand or weaver stance when I grab a pistol.
If you are training or on the range it's better to try and do it with a better stance so you're more likely to do it as instinct.

>>31722699
>although admittedly more accurate,
It's only more accurate if that's the stance you shoot better with. I never see any difference when i compare the two.
Tell your RO he's a knob goblin.

>>31722699

Because it's a vastly inferiour stance. While how you shoot is your business as long as you're being safe, the earlier you switch over to Isosceles, the better. You're just widening your training scars at this point.

>although admittedly more accurate
Okay, now you're just confused. Isosceles is about transitioning and recoil management, not """accuracy""".
>makes you look like a giant faggot and isn't practical enough or quick enough to employ in self defense.
Now I'm wondering whether you're actually this retarded or just trolling.

>>31722768
You sound just like him.

>>31722758
I will. I'm starting to get better groupings with weaver stance anyways. I always draw faster with it when I practice.

>>31722768
>Because it's a vastly inferiour stance
>the earlier you switch over to Isosceles, the better

Wanna know how i know you only shoot guns in vidya?

>>31722791

Alright, go ahead.

>>31722778

Sounds like he's a top bloke then.

>>31722798
>bloke
>yurofag

This explains everything. You might as well go join the frogs that shoot one handed

>>31722817

So I don't know what I'm talking about, because... I write proper English instead of that bastardised version that's Burgerglish? Wow you really convinced everyone with your hot arguments.

>>31722849

>Burgerglish

You're really mauling yourself here pal.

>>31722858

Sure thing, love. Would you like to try actually arguing the points instead of ad homming like an idiot?

>>31722798
>Alright, go ahead.
Because if you actually used guns in real life, you'd know stance is an entirely personal thing. some people draw better with different stances.


>So I don't know what I'm talking about, because... I write proper English instead of that bastardised version that's Burgerglish?
That's exactly it, m88.


Shit, the way you shitpost i'd say you're an ausfat.

why can't you just use both, there isn't a perfect stance for everything

File: rising sun.jpg (46KB, 508x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 508x400px

In an actual defensive situation your foot placement means absolutely nothing because you should be either moving or behind cover.

Debating which stance is better to take when standing straight up completely exposed on an open plain is retarded and only has merit for competition (read: where all of the endorsement for iso comes from) and funsies.

>>31722894
What if I am in a park and some degenerate comes at me with a knife?

>>31722909
Turn around like you're going to run then bend over and shoot him upside down through your legs for maximum confusion.

>>31722876

>you'd know stance is an entirely personal thing. some people draw better with different stances.

That's true up to a point, however, you can't beat physics. I already said that how you shoot is up to you, but isosceles is better. With Weaver, you're asymmetric which means that recoil is directed more to the sides instead of straight back, and you being bladed prevents you from transitioning to your support side as fast as with Isosceles stance. Also, your upper body being squared towards the target means that you can rotate and still have the same recoil impulse, translating to better consistency and therefore better shooting.

Your stance has no impact on how you draw, and you assume your final stance as your muzzle is being pointed towards the target.

File: 67ei0WeYwB8.jpg (22KB, 604x332px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 604x332px

>>31722934
A true master...

File: average girl on the range gets all the attention.jpg (95KB, 600x518px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x518px

1. Just bring a girl along to distract him

2. If you don't know a roastie, hire a call girl, its just a leased roastie.

3. All baby boomers, including the range officers, at the range are thirsty as fuck so as soon as they start to swarm over this roastie do whatever stances and kungfu bullshit you want since no one will be watching you.

The one I used to go to had a requirement that you had to have both hands on the Handgun and arms must be fully extended.

I shot there once then just went back to shooting at the ranch. I didn't want to shoot in the snow, but fuck those kind of rules.

>>31722979
>All baby boomers, including the range officers, at the range are thirsty as fuck

They are?!

I don't know any girls, but I might try to meet some if I'm not too ugly. I want to see this in action.

>>31722945
>Your stance has no impact on how you draw,
Do you have no understanding of basic kinematics?

>>31722909
Wind up shooting him in a position that looks like something Fairbain and Sykes would do.

>>31722987
Why didn't you yell at them then?

>>31723010
If drawing is such an issue for you, you can assume your drawing stance and then change to your shooting stance.

>>31722699
You should tell him to mind his fucking business and that you don't pay range fees to listen to some old cunt's ramblings about things he's only learned through YouTube and pillow talk after getting fucked by Securitas rent a cops

>and I use isosceles

>>31723037
>implying OP wouldn't get kicked out for that

>>31722945
>you're asymmetric which means that recoil is directed more to the sides instead of straight
On on pen and paper maybe, There will be no noticeable difference in the real world

>you being bladed prevents you from transitioning to your support side as fast as with Isosceles stance.
again, more on paper shit. I've yet to see a speed difference at all from my shooting.

>your upper body being squared towards the target means that you can rotate and still have the same recoil impulse, translating to better consistency and therefore better shooting.
more vidya stats it seems. well two can play this. Having your two feet on the same plane horizontally will make balance shifts more noticable.


But in the real world, there is no appreciable difference.

>>31722699

If you are really good at shooting a pistol, participate in an NRA bullseye match. You shoot one handed.
Its fun to do during winter. Indoor bullseye. I prefer smallbore .22 rimfire, but they also have 3 gun matches. Not the kind you run around in operator camo and wear cool sunglasses.

>>31722945
Are you so weak that unbalanced recoil from a pistol is going to throw off your aim?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/terror-truck-lawsuit/

>he had FBI visits

Now surely our own govt is smart enough to know this isn't his fault right?

>>31722945
>Your stance has no impact on how you draw, and you assume your final stance as your muzzle is being pointed towards the target.

yes your stance does have an impact. the further your arms has to move even to get on target the longer it takes to line up your shot. yes it might be a tenth of a second. but that tenth of a second might save your life.

think about just standing facing a given direction to engage a target directly infront of you you need draw from your hip raise your weapon and move it over until both your hands are gripping the pistol.

if you are shooting weaver your body twists, so your arm needs to move ever so slightly farther as your right shoulder (assuming you are shooting right handed) moves back.

basically distance is proportional to the time it takes to move. so always think about getting your weapon on target in as little distance as possible.

>>31723068

You're in denial. Take any competent shooter, military or civillian, and ask which stance they prefer and why. All of them will choose Isosceles since it's flat out superiour.

You can prefer weaver, but you'd shoot better with isosceles.

>>31723075

Regardless of how strong you are, you can still improve with technique.

>>31723071
>smallbore
Stop making up words

>>31723093
further thoughts on isosceles versus weaver.

isosceles is better if you are wearing body armor as your armpits are a week point if your target is directly infront of you.

also if you do shoot weaver and you keep your holster slightly forward on your belt so you have a straight line to draw from across your body.

>>31723093

Bullshite. If anything, the distance between holster and target is only bigger with weaver when compared to iso, since you rotate more of your body between the target and your holster (assuming standard 3-o'clock holster position). If the target is that close, then you shoot one handed right after the pistol leaves the holster, then assume your proper grip and stance and finish the job.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about shooting stances.

>>31722699
That's not weaver, my man. That stance in the picture is the Chapman.

Isocelese: both elbows locked

Chapman: 1 elbow locked (pulled against, used as pseudo-stock)

Weaver (good): neither elbow locked, but both *nearly* locked

Weaver (bad): neither elbow locked, elbow angle 150 or smaller

Core Axis Relock stances: [redacted]

>>31722849
>proper english

Bloke is not proper english, bloke is a product of dialect. Even if we spelled things with unnecessary U's, we still wouldn't say 'bloke', because it is not a part of any US dialect.

>>31723164

The part about isosceles being better with trauma plates is just an added bonus, the real advantage is in transitioning and recoil management.

>>31723174
Oh boy, here we go. Anyways anon, that pic is the stance I use.

>>31722768
>Because it's a vastly inferiour stance.
t. somebody who doesn't understand how stances work

They exist because they serve a purpose. Isosceles is better for some things and worse for others than weaver, Chapman, macmillan, traditional bullseye, and other stances.

>>31723195

I'm speaking from a practical standpoint.

>>31723174
Chapman isn't a real stance. It's a degenerate case of Weaver.

File: firefox_2016-10-18_18-09-53.jpg (515KB, 1904x949px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1904x949px

>>31723195
>macmillan
You made that up

>>31723175

British English is the proper English, and that includes slang.

>>31723233
No you're not. If you were you would understand that "practical" is the opposite of controlled range conditions and a well refined traditional stance is a sign of not properly using cover, bracing, or moving.

>>31723235
>modified stances are bastardizations and don't have any useful purpose

alright, anon. Feel free to keep your pure aryan stances and wonder why you're shooting slower and getting looser groups than people who are more open minded.

>>31723237
https://books.google.com/books?id=8MNGOPcCDoYC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=macmillan+one+handed+massad+ayoob&source=bl&ots=R6V9HRuFq3&sig=-YyaHTHagw7MKBn6iHAJGAoZE0k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD5aP9veXPAhVFcj4KHfX0DOMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=macmillan%20one%20handed%20massad%20ayoob&f=false

pg. 170: please anon, tell me again how I made the macmillan technique up and how it isn't real.

>>31722699
>Why does my rangemaster get asshurt that I use weaver stance?
hes a goober
if you shoot well in weaver stance there isnt a raisin not to use it

>>31723326

If you're discussing stances, isosceles is the best there is. In a real situation, it's true that stance is a luxury, but when you have time and opportunity to use one, you use isosceles.

Stop backpedaling.

>>31723348
>In a real situation, it's true that stance is a luxury

So why wouldn't you train with the more practical stance since it would actually pay off?

>>31723362

Didn't I just tell you? Stances are a luxury.

IF you have time and opportunity to use ANY stance, you use isosceles.

>>31723326
>bastardization
No, dumbass. Look up mathematical degeneracy and come back. I'm saying it's just a limiting case of Weaver that doesn't warrant a faggot like you popping up and going "ackshually its tappman!!".

File: Revolver-02-600x372.jpg (85KB, 600x372px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x372px

Would an american RO poop his Wal-Mart Diaper if someone shot european-style, one-handed?

>>31723256
>slang

Slang is not proper language, period. You don't see English teachers saying that "ain't" is proper American english, and I highly doubt you'd see a UK english teacher saying things like "blimey", "bloke", or "cunt" are proper english either.

>>31723441
>European-style

You mean the style we literally invented in the 30's?

Anyway, no, OP just goes to a shit range. What about your ranges, Yuro?

Oh, right...you don't have any of those. Shame.

I guess this is another slam dunk for America, and a total loss for Yurope. Pretty much par for the course, I'd say.

>>31723459

Ain't is a proper word, and has been accepted as such for over a hundred years. The only people who think otherwise are 2 bit internet edgelords like yourself who never actually bothered to research it.

>"blimey", "bloke", or "cunt"

These are obviously real English words, given that they're used constantly by English speakers.

Today you learned, for the very first time it seems, that the way people actually speak is a lot more important than the way you uselessly and childishly demand that they speak.

File: Police_Officer_with_balistic_shield.jpg (129KB, 768x956px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 768x956px

>>31723348
It's the best stance unless...
>you are in a confined space and need to move around corners
>someone you couldn't see grabs your gun trying to take it from you and you need to retain it
>you have strong arms and your muscles can snap the sights back on target faster than rocking your entire body back on target because your isosceles stance transmits recoil into incomprehensible bone instead of springy muscle
>you are in a crowded space and need to move through a crowd or tight obstacles to get a better angle
>you need to rotate around to address a threat from 4 o'clock to 8'oclock quickly and reorienting your feet would create a dangerous lapse in your ability to address the threat
>you want to minimize the movement you must make to insert a fresh magazine from your belt
>you are using a heavy handgun or holding your handgun at the ready for an extended period of time (leverage lmao)
>you are using hard plates or have gear on the front of a plate carrier in your body armor and fully locking both elbows is uncomfortable or impossible
>you are behind a ballistic shield and want to minimize the area that bullets can hit you

I could go on, but you get the point

>>31723488
>ain't is a proper word

Ain't is not a proper word, you learn this shit in your first years at grade school. Although apparently over there in commieland, they don't teach you things like how to speak your own language like an intelligent human being.

>>31723488
>childlishly demand
I'm not demanding anything of anyone here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that slang is not in fact proper English, and using it in any scenario where a modicum of formality and education in one's language is to be expected will get you laughed out of the room. Also, nice ad-hominem you've got going on with berating me for making a point there, Mister Hypocrite.

>>31723428
A proper weaver stance is characterized by not locking either elbow in order to utilize muscular tension as a spring system to snap the muzzle back on target.

A proper Chapman stance is characterized by locking one elbow to create a more rigid and robust platform for first shot accuracy.

You seem upset that people realize your ignorance, anon.

This is a learning environment, and a teachable moment for you. You throwing a verbal tantrum is just unproductive.

File: the_guns_mini_tutorial__center_axis_relock_by_phitus-d6tnks5.jpg (2MB, 1000x3400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x3400px

found this

File: 12030d3a-27f0-4cac-a1cf-4e645e624c1f.jpg (79KB, 640x852px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x852px

>>31723465
I have a range 5 minutes from my house, which has a 50m range for the 22 fudds and a a handgun range up to 44Mag. 10 minutes from my house there is a 100 Meter Range for up to 338 Lapua Mag and a pretty much unlimited range for handguns. 10 minutes in the other direction, there is a old Bundeswehr Range for shooting up to 300m with up to 50BMG and options for shooting steel, silohuettes, soda cans and all the other shit. I also have access to Trap shooting and IPSC shooting.
Can´t complain.

>>31723488

>"I just took my first linguistics course": The Post

Your professor forgot to tell you that "the way people actually speak" being "a lot more important" is a polite fiction borne of pragmatism rather than truth. The real world still judges you by the way you speak, and words like "ain't", "blimey", "bloke", and "cunt" place your dialect roughly on the same social level as an Alabama redneck.

>>31723441
Yes, because many ROs are there to powertrip and will find any excuse they can to remind you that they have the authority.

>>31723500
>you are in a confined space and need to move around corners
Isosceles is still best, because you slice the corners and keep most of your body mass behind cover. Look at IDPA.
>someone you couldn't see grabs your gun trying to take it from you and you need to retain it
How is this relevant to the discussion about stances? There is no "this guy grabs me" stance.
>you have strong arms and your muscles can snap the sights back on target faster than rocking your entire body back on target because your isosceles stance transmits recoil into incomprehensible bone instead of springy muscle
Wrong, you don't extend and lock your joints with Isosceles, you use your whole arms as shock absorbers and direct recoil straight back instead of skewing it towards either side.
>you are in a crowded space and need to move through a crowd or tight obstacles to get a better angle
Then you don't use any stance at all, you keep the weapon close to your chest, pointed down and use your support hand to keep other people away from the gun.
>you need to rotate around to address a threat from 4 o'clock to 8'oclock quickly and reorienting your feet would create a dangerous lapse in your ability to address the threat
That's absolutely retarded. 8 is behind you regardless of which stance you use. Iso is frontal 180, where you will have most of your threats, while weaver skews the angle towards your primary hand.
>you want to minimize the movement you must make to insert a fresh magazine from your belt
1) depends on your mag placement and 2) you want the pistol in your so-called workspace regardless, since you want to visually inspect the magwell as you insert a fresh magazine.
>you are using a heavy handgun or holding your handgun at the ready for an extended period of time (leverage lmao)
Extremely unlikely scenario, since if you have to pull security, you find something to brace against and save your muscles.

I could go on, but you get the point.

>>31722945
I shoot a variety of stances, but my default is modified weaver.

My dominant eye isn't in the middle of my head. It's a bit to one side.

So when I shoot modified weaver it seems more natural for me to aim with both eyes open. I believe this is because I see one gun more from the side and the other from the rear, so I don't have to remember which image to grab and then wiggle my gun into isosceles anyway or slide my head sideways to see down the sights.

Modified weaver really is the most natural way for me to properly use my sights and keep my peripheral vision.

>>31723618

Sounds like a training issue in all fairness if you can't immediately find your sights with your dominant eye.

You can find weaver the most comfortable for you, but isosceles is mechanically better.

>>31723500
You forgot the extremely basic one: unless you have to actually move.

Weaver also has the minor advantage of putting your face closer to the sights if your eyes are on the fritz.

>>31723541
>This is a learning environment
This is /k/, on 4chan. This board advised a man to pull the pin on a grenade and flush it down the toilet. It is not a learning environment.

>>31723686
>You forgot the extremely basic one: unless you have to actually move.

If you move, you still keep the upper body in isosceles and the sights on target, except if you have to run.

>>31723649
Yeah I use a relaxed isosceles and it's just the most efficient stance I've tried.
I don't lean in and tuck my head or anything.
Just stand square to the target, naturally and relaxed, and pull the gun up and my eye finds the sights.
Using no more muscle than what's required to hold the gun and pull the trigger.
Some people tuck their ears in their shoulders and lean in a lot and I just don't get it

>>31723602 (1/2)
>Isosceles is still best, because you slice the corners and keep most of your body mass behind cover. Look at IDPA.
I am a regular IDPA competitor, in narrow corridors your fully extended arms don't allow you to pie as much of the corner without exposing your shoulders and torso as a weaver does.
>How is this relevant to the discussion about stances? There is no "this guy grabs me" stance.
"What is retention/compression/compressed weaver stance?"
>Wrong, you don't extend and lock your joints with Isosceles, you use your whole arms as shock absorbers and direct recoil straight back instead of skewing it towards either side.
Massad Ayoob, Jack weaver, Clint smith, and everyone who's wrote a book worth reading about defensive pistol shooting disagree with you, anon. They define what you are describing as a proper weaver stance.
>Then you don't use any stance at all, you keep the weapon close to your chest, pointed down and use your support hand to keep other people away from the gun.
"What is retention/compression/compressed weaver stance?"
>That's absolutely retarded. 8 is behind you regardless of which stance you use. Iso is frontal 180, where you will have most of your threats, while weaver skews the angle towards your primary hand.
Anon, stand and adopt a proper isocelese stance. Now rotate your torso to address a target at 9 or 3 o'clock. Now that you've done that, attempt to rotate your torso further whilst keeping your feet planted until you can't rotate anymore. you will recognize that there is a sector behind you you can not address without moving your feet... or perhaps if you bent your elbows and moved your head you could shrink that sector significantly (or completely eliminate it) by shifting from your isosceles stance to a modified weaver or Chapman stance. Food for thought.

I had some faglord pissing in my ear about it before too. I've shot Weaver since I was a kid, and am better than most other "casuals" I've shot with. I'm not discarding 3 decades of muscle memory for some meme stance now.

Tell that guy to fuck himself.

File: Screenshot 2016-10-19 01.46.08.png (1MB, 871x1511px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 871x1511px

>>31723716

Sounds a lot like my stance desu.

Slight lean forwards, slightly bended knees, extended but not locked arms, keep everything as neutral as possible.

I tend to raise my shoulders more when shooting rifles though.

>>31722758

This. I was never trained with pistols at all, but I've always shot with weaver, probably because I was subconsciously emulating what I'd seen all my life up to that point, or maybe because I'd been shooting rifles since I was a kid and got used to one foot being forward. Then I found /k/ and over time found threads like these and learned that what I was doing was called weaver stance. So then I tried isosceles and didn't notice any real difference in accuracy, but weaver felt more comfortable so it's what I stick to

File: 1265413384144.jpg (45KB, 483x604px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 483x604px

There's a few old rules images that seem to be relevant here.

Hey /k/ no gunz here, what the fuck is this Medina shit


https://youtu.be/1RKISkjMtPU

>>31722699
I use teacup like a proper gentleman who controls his magazine discards.

>>31723776
Memes by a retarded instructor. Keanu knows how to shot already, and so he's going to put up with that instructor for a few weeks while he's at training and then ignore all of that meme tier new-age snappy bullshit.

>>31723793
This one is just retarded

>>31723750
>Massad Ayoob, Jack weaver, Clint smith, and everyone who's wrote a book worth reading about defensive pistol shooting disagree with you, anon. They define what you are describing as a proper weaver stance.
Alright, that's absolutely retarded. Learn from the boss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s

Isosceles does not involve locking your elbows. It involves you being squared to the target with the arms extended out as the sides of an isosceles triangle. That's it. Locking elbows is bad technique.

>>31723811

That below the waistband shit just makes me think of YO HOMIE! THAT MY BRIEFCASE?

>>31723602 (2/2)
>1) depends on your mag placement and 2) you want the pistol in your so-called workspace regardless, since you want to visually inspect the magwell as you insert a fresh magazine.
Visualize a triangle with one point on your mag well, one mount at your shoulders, and one point at your magazine (wherever you choose to store it). The length of the leg of the triangle between the spare magazine and the mag well decreases as you pull the gun from full extension closer to your chest. With less space to cover, all else being equal, your reload will be quicker. Additionally, moving the pistol to inspect the mag well is easier from a weaver stance, as one must cover less distance to bring it close to the face and does not have to bend their wrist as much to view the magazine well if they allow their shoulder and elbow to do some of the rotation instead of locking the elbow and shoulder joints to maintain a proper isosceles stance.
>Extremely unlikely scenario, since if you have to pull security, you find something to brace against and save your muscles.
Who's gonna hold the gun on the bad guy who you just caught invading your home until the police arrive to take him away, anon? Average police response time in the US is between 10 and 20 minutes, hold your pistol out in front of you on target in a proper isosceles stance for 10-20 minutes and I guarantee you leverage and why it is relevant here will become apparent.

>>31723701
because why would one ever feel the need to run during a gunfight, amirite anon?

>>31723766
>I was never trained with pistols at all
discarded

>>31723843

I don't even want to begin to address all this disinfo in your post.

Just watch the Miculek video and learn from it.

>>31723860

Now you're either trolling or retarded, and I can't honestly tell which.

>>31723256
the british dont speak english as much as they chew it and spit it out

>>31723532
contractions are a colloquialism and have no place in formal writing

>>31723871

Did you read the rest? I'm not a guy who's never shot pistols offering my opinion, I'm a guy who's shot a lot and thinks whatever's more comfortable is better. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion though

>Just flare up your tism I'll also let you know love revolvers too : ^ )

>>31723921
>4chan is formal writing
moron

>>31723896
Oi mate a proper knob-end you are then 'innit? Toss a shrimp on the bar-bee I will gov'ner. Beans on toast, spot of tea, bash yer 'head in swer on me mum.

>>31722699
I like to mix weaver and isosceles when navigating an USPSA stage. Sometimes, you just NEED weaver, because of how the stage is designed.

File: lookatallthebendsinACandAB.png (66KB, 639x405px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 639x405px

>>31723840
that's right, anon. All those desert eagles, race guns, shooting pistols with the pinky finger, shooting with a bandana over the eyes, etc is totally practical.

Jerry is an excellent shooter, but as a competition shooter his claim to fame is in perfecting optimization, not in down and dirty fighting Ayoob (a career cop), Jack weaver (US Army), and Clint smith (USMC) developed their techniques and teaching methods around.

We're agreeing in the proper technique, but not the name.

Whatever name you want to use is fine, so long as the technique is practical and good.

One must question the validity of calling a bent elbowed stance isosceles when they look at an isosceles triangle, however. The points represent the shoulders and the meeting of the hands. The two uniform length sides of an isosceles triangle do not have a bend or curve to them. They are straight.

>>31723599
I tried marksman style once, and my RO completely chimped out. Like jesus christ man, let me have fun with my firearm in peace. As long as I'm being safe it doesn't matter. I go to a different range now.

>>31723872
"I am not capable of rationally discussing and challenging the validity of your points so I'll just say you're wrong and that makes me right"
>allmyfirearmstrainingisyoutube.jpeg

Honestly I don't know what I expected.

Jack weaver created the stance because he had a fucked up shoulder and arm, and its easier for people with bad backs and shoulders to shoot with the weaver stance. that's the version of the story from Col. Cooper, who knew Jack Weaver.

>>31722968
the most OPERATOR GUNSLINGER of our times.

>>31724000

Miculek also trains clapistanian SOF guys in transition and recoil management, so he absolutely is an expert on the subject. Besides, even if he wasn't, time and efficiency are universal. What's faster is faster, and time matters even more when your life is in danger.

You are misunderstanding the point of this discussion. It isn't about tactics or practicality, it's about STANCES. Like I've said before, stance is a luxury in a real situation. There is no absolute stance for all of the super special snowflake scenarios you have, but isosceles works the best for when you use a stance.

And are you trying to get into a semantical argument? It's just the name of the technique, it doesn't have to be taken literally.

>>31723840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se3W-kV6d9g

Here is Jeff Cooper telling you the weaver stance includes slightly bent/nearly straight elbows.

Consider the validity of Cooper's opinion on this subject, given that he is the father of modern pistolcraft

>>31724127

this>>31724135 is also for you.

>>31724127
"isosceles stance is best, you guise"
>proceeds to not know what isosceles stance is and imagines that fact is somehow not important

>>31724135

Cooper was a pioneer, and I have the utmost respect for the guy. However, he's a relic of the past, and technique has evolved past him. Maybe one day people will think of isosceles the same way we now think of weaver, but currently the stance most efficient stance we know of is isosceles.

And you don't have to quote me twice, darling.

>>31724177
this.

What a retard

>>31724177

It's fine to admit when you're wrong, anon.

I can't do iso. It just isnt in me to stand that way with all the rifle shooting I've done.

File: one-handed-pistol.jpg (18KB, 288x343px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 288x343px

>>31722699
You should always act like your target has a bolt-action rifle.

>>31724282
fuck off

>>31724192
people have refined his techniques, but he still has a valid training curriculum for gunfighting with a handgun, even if its not the newest thing out there.

i wouldn't say he is Moses and the prophets and stone anyone who says anything other than his gospel, but its a good solid foundation to build on for anyone getting started. I wish COL. REX MOTHERFUCKING APPLEGATE, HIGH TEST ALPHA MALE would get more love in the gunfighting community at large. that man basically invented how to fight off groups of armed attackers and modern riot fighting, and was the only man to scare the living shit out of Otto Skorzeny, along with having a bounty on his head from the KGB, till the day he died, which was July 14, 1998.

I use the basic cop stance when I shoot, slightly squatting, legs even shoulders forward. This is how I shoot for my army qualification and I tend to shoot expert (its not impressive I know)

>>31724281

Your stance should be the exact same with rifles and pistols, the only difference is hand placement.

>>31724476
Ok now you can fuck off.

>>31724506

I will once I don't have anything left to correct.

File: firefox_2016-10-18_20-00-40.png (2MB, 927x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 927x640px

>>31724476
>feet spread apart in tandem
>while using a rifle

>isoceles stance
>rifle

What?

>>31724516
So. How do you iso a rifle? Or even a scatterblaster?

>>31723117
Is this bait?

>>31724575
no

>>31724560
>meme clamp

File: Screenshot 2016-10-19 01.45.46.png (4MB, 1804x1425px)

4MB, 1804x1425px

>>31724567

More or less like this.

>inb4 trust no-one, not even yourself edits

>>31724560

>>31724658
kill yourself bro

>>31724670

Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

>>31724683
its a dank meme infesting the innerbutz

>>31724658
>isoceles for a fucking rifle

You realize that goes against U.S. Army, NRA, and classical rifle training right?

Also, ineffective. The rifle has more recoil, and sight capture must be optimal. You need to lean into it for more stability and movement.

Vid related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc4ufirxmc&spfreload=1

>>31723957
Nice try, but the argument is over proper English, not the games played on 4chan

>>31722699
Wouldnt iscosoles make you more vulnerable to be hit if used for self defense?

>>31724781
Yes it would. It makes a higher profile too. I honestly would prefer WW2 one handed style over isosceles desu.

File: IMG_0297.png (202KB, 485x274px)

202KB, 485x274px

>>31722995
>I might try to meet some if I'm not too ugly

Anon...I just...that's like the saddest thing I've read all day

>>31724581
Then fucking Google search NRA smallbore

>>31724714

You're correct that it goes against classical rifle training, and that's because tradition places more emphasis on skeletal support rather than recoil management and transitioning. Neither is wrong per se, but skeletal support stances have less application for civillians.

You can still transition better with a rifle if you keep yourself squared towards the target, and it's easier to manage recoil. That's because keeping your rifle off centre directs recoil off to one side, translating to slower follow-up shots. The recoil management in the video you linked is nonexistent.

The distance between shoulder and pistol grip is shorter with an isosceles stance, so anything that shortens the distance (body armour. clothing) and fixed stocks designed around traditional stances make it difficult and uncomfortable, which is another reason why you see a lot of people using more bladed stances. If you have a collapsible stock, try collapsing it further to make it easier for yourself.

Haley had a good video explaining this, but it seems to have been taken off jewtube.

Weaver is fine if you're standing still and punching holes in paper but techniques evolve for a reason and as new, more efficient techniques develop the old ones become obsolete and are slowly phased out. That doesn't mean they don't work anymore, it just means that there are options that work better. The people I see using weaver are either new, untrained, or old enough to have started when weaver was the dominant stance.

>>31724940
Have fun getting shot up when you waste time getting into your horse-stance buddy

>>31724940
I shoot best with weaver and I've been shooting for 10 years. I'm 24. My groupings are excellent, and it helps for a faster draw for self defense so it is more practical. Keep being a judgemental asshole I guess.

>>31725040

You only think it's faster and more accurate since you've trained with it for all your life. You would be better off shooting isosceles, but it's a lot of work to get yourself on the same level. The thing is, the more you keep on shooting with weaver, the more training scars you build.

Choice is yours, anon.

File: Two-Hand-Revolver-Shooting-Position.jpg (17KB, 237x400px)

17KB, 237x400px

>>31724066
>Jack weaver created the stance because he had a fucked up shoulder and arm
This has been repeatedly disproved, most recently in a series of articles in the Blue Press. Weaver also didn't invent the stance which dates back to at least J. Henry Fitzgerald in the 20's, he just brought it to prominence by using it in competition.

>>31724658
Danny?

You would shoot isosceles and appendix carry.

>>31725181

No, sorry.

>>31724991
>>31725040
Well you can tell all the professional shooters in competition and combative roles that they're wrong and they should go back to using an outdated stance that's both slower and less efficient because you think it's better. Point being, you're dog fucking retarded if you think weaver is faster, more stable, and better for recoil mitigation than isoceles.

>>31722790
ask how i know you're shit with a pistol

>>31722768
this

>>31723010
somehow shooting ISO doesn't stop people from putting out sub second draws from concealment or retention holsters

aka you're garbage

>>31723558
these are all things retards point out about CAR as pros but actually are irrelevant or misleading

>>31725129
It's faster because the step forward shifts your hips and assists the draw from a 4-5 o'clock holster.

It is not more accurate, isosceles wins out there. But much like high thumbs, being more accurate does not make it better for self defense.

>>31725221
You see anon... you're arguing your Ferrari is a superior vehicle because on paper it fucking wrecks everything. But then you go to war and get assblasted by a jawa with an ak while the Toyota hilux technical tows your body to the scrap heap while missing a wheel and most of its body panels

>>31725207
Sorry for confusing you for a similar looking ultra-liberal then.

>all this Bullshit about stance
>learn weaver naturally first
>get to army and have isoscelese drilled into me
>have to cc in army
>SF SGM teaches us high speed low drag class on active shooter scenario
>back to weaver it is

Granted, he was now regular army and I'm not sure when he left sf. Obviously to make rank. But he did the crazy shit in Eastern Europe and South America.
Reasons were, weaver is smaller profile. Ability to walk while firing weaver. Weaver is inherently a"fighting stance" imitating a boxer allowing you to fight if necessary (I never really bought that reason desu). More balanced toward the threat, for when you get shot you are less likely to hit the ground like a bitch and keep shooting.

Those were some of his reasons. I figured if he was good enough to make sf and sgm then he probably knows a few more things than /k/ommandos just spit balling on a Thai rice farming forum.

>>31722995
>I don't know any girls, but I might try to meet some if I'm not too ugly. I want to see this in action.

I too would like to locate a female to use in such an experiment.

>>31725296

You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, you don't step forward with isosceles, you draw, establish grip, and shoot.

>>31725316

>great looking, proficient with firearms, thinks that people should have liberties and government should be small and unintrusive

Your friend sounds like a really great guy.

File: disgusting.png (749KB, 684x666px)

749KB, 684x666px

>>31722699
>mfw this entire thread
/k/ needs flags.
gas the eurotrash
nationality war now

File: img_5835-2.jpg (55KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x533px

>>31724000
Ayoob is a great guy but he didn't do very much cop shit. IIRC he's a reserve guy, never did it for a living.

Jack Weaver's claim to fame is in competition, ironically. Claiming weaver is good because of his army background is just as illogical as me claiming isosceles is superior because Shannon Smith (former 2/75th Ranger, USPSA National Champ) uses it.

Clint Smith is also a great guy but his training methodology is considered dated in a variety of areas as well.

There are so many guys out there who have been shooting bad guys in the face with isosceles that you can't deny its validity in combat. Try asking around for what pistol stance is taught in OTC. I'm pretty sure it's been iso since the 90s. IIRC they don't even tell the new guys weaver exists anymore, because the longtime consensus in the unit is that it's fucking shit. Pic related, it's Kyle Defoor, former SEAL recce guy and one of the guys on the peak at Takur Ghar.

>>31723465
Where I live no one gives a shit about your stance as long as you hit the target and your gun is pointed in a safe direction.

Isn't the Weaver stance also designed to make the shooter a slimmer target (doesn't work with hambeasts), while isosceles maximizes armor coverage?

Implying the best stance isn't the Israeli stance and the isosceles isn't just a rip off.

>>31725362
>For starters, you don't step forward with isosceles, you draw, establish grip, and shoot.
I know, I was talking about Weaver. The step forward lowers and aligns the hips to facilitate drawing as you are making the step.

File: draw1-4.png (6KB, 656x199px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 656x199px

>>31722768
Hell sometimes there are reasons to use a modified Teacup...

I love the way the thread devolved into a English teacher argument...

File: img-banner-course-pistol-01.jpg (52KB, 900x506px)

52KB, 900x506px

>>31724714
Read TC 3-22.9 and come talk about army training. The army has had like 5 million scattered projects and videos from various initiatives and commands about how to shoot. TC 3-22.9 is the new definitive carbine marksmanship manual.

>>31724794
If you get shot anywhere in the upper chest with your fully bladed stance, the round is likely to punch holes in both lungs and your heart. No medic in the world is gonna save your ass from that. At least if you get shot frontally only 1 organ is likely to get hit at a time.

>>31725315
this doesn't even make any sense
Isosceles is used by almost anyone who can place GM in USPSA. There's nothing paper about it, it's results.

It's taught by a shit ton of SOF guys from SF groups, the SEAL teams, the Ranger Regiment, MARSOC, and CAG. It's also popular with many allied SOF organizations. Pic related, it's Mike Pannone, former recon marine turned Delta operator turned contractor

File: 1474941442835.gif (936KB, 245x180px)

936KB, 245x180px

>>31723964

>>31725334

His points are valid, but there are some counterpoints to be made.
>weaver is smaller profile
True, but IF you do get hit, you get less protection from your armour, and the bullet would be passing through more of your torso and doing more damage (if you lose one lung, you can survive, but good luck if the bullet pops both)
>Ability to walk while firing weaver
This also applies to isosceles. Think of your upper body like a tank turret, your hands keep the grip and stance regardless of what your legs are doing.
>Weaver is inherently a"fighting stance" imitating a boxer allowing you to fight
There is some truth to this, but I don't think it's good enough a reason to justify using it over Iso. If you have a pistol in your hands, you want to use it to shoot instead of hitting someone.
>More balanced toward the threat, for when you get shot you are less likely to hit the ground like a bitch and keep shooting.
This is also valid, however it only really matters in hand to hand combat. No bullet (short of a .950 JDJ) has enough kinetic energy to knock you over. What makes you fall is your reaction to being shot, in which case I don't think the stance would help all that much.

>>31725315
Actually I'm arguing that weaver stance is dated and less efficient than isoceles, because it is.

>>31725334
How is it hard to walk in isosceles? Just watch some USPSA vids, the GMs can tear it the fuck up and most all of them self-report using isosceles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1N2xiQ7V3Q

>>31725487

I'm disappointed that you haven't mentioned Proctor yet.

>>31725557
Everyone in USPSA and IDPA that isn't completely new is using isoceles. The ones that are using weaver are usually the slowest times with no gain in accuracy because every time they move they have to reposition their bodies into the stance before they can shoot and while I'm not going to say you can't shoot while moving in weaver it is absolutely not ideal for many reasons.

>>31725657
Haha, I would but honestly the weaver tards in here are so out of touch that it almost doesn't matter. The list of cool SOF guys who shoot isosceles is so long it's unreal. Meanwhile I can't think of anyone credible who's operated operationally in the last 2 decades (for a living, not reserve) who still teaches weaver.

>>31725670
I agree, it was a rhetorical question.

>>31725221
>Well you can tell all the professional shooters in competition
Come back when paper targets would be shooting back.

File: 1474473284485.png (29KB, 500x270px)

29KB, 500x270px

>Rangemaster
I shoot in a field. I don't know what a "rangemaster" is
Wew lad

>>31725682
S'cool, I was just agreeing with what's been my experience.
Also Pat McNamara uses isoceles and I'm pretty sure he has the credentials to back his choice of technique.

>>31725724
You realize that's a complete red herring, right? If you move quicker, shoot quicker using iso on paper, what specific portions of iso would cause that advantage to disappear when you are in a real gunfight?

>>31725724
You mean likeverything Travis Haley, Pat McNamara and literally every other professional whose job was or is to shoot at people who shoot back? You're literally arguing the superiority of a stance in a situation it is patently inferior in. The only situation weaver could be perceivably argued to be better is standing in a static position and shooting bullseye.

>>31722894
^^^^^^^This.^^^^^^^

>>31725774
Obstacles in the path of travel. Return fire. Doors. Attacker is at a different height than directly in front of you on a gong.

>>31725774
Specific advantage that you are dead no matter what stance you use. if you replace competition targets with something shooting back shooters would have zero chance to survive behaving like they do with paper targets. They knew exactly where targets are. Could run carelessly between stages and on stage they stand in the the line of sight of targets for long seconds engaging other targets. So what this shooting >>31725557 is supposed to simulate again? You death at 0:56 from two targets on the left?

>>31725881
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NPbpNX406U

>>31725820
You realize that in USPSA they put targets at all kinds of funky heights, right? You sometimes have to open doors to start swingers moving or to engage certain targets. Also there are awkward firing ports at funky heights as well. And plenty of obstacles like fault lines and those blue barrels. At some matches there are even weirder obstacles like stairs or shooting on a balance beam and other fun stuff.

All you've proven is you don't know what a competition stage is like.

>>31725881
So basically everything you do in training is invalid because you don't get shot with live rounds. Guess what, there are plenty of guys who have killed dudes using their isosceles stances while still applying their tactics. You are confusing range training (meant to hone specific skills) with scenario training (meant to hone execution of tactics). That's like complaining that a boxer is training wrong because he hits a bag and not a person all the time. Or telling a BJJ competitor to stop doing drills because you don't get to just trade positions after a move in real life.

>>31725923
>All you've proven is you don't know what a competition stage is like.
Correct, nor do i know what a nascar stage is like or what bullshit olympian shooters do.

All depends on what any stance is being used for.

If some son-of-a-bitch is shooting at you your stance should be whatever makes you return fire, move, get to cover best. Stand still, become dead.

If you're shooting at a static range from a fixed spot, it's whatever stance creates the best recoil absorbance, and accuracy.

Mobility is huge if it's a gunfight.
Stability is huge if it's marksmanship display.

>>31725958

So you choose to stay ignorant instead of making yourself a better shooter. That's your choice, but don't be proud of it.

>>31723602
>you are in a confined space and need to move around corners
>Isosceles is still best

Confirmed for never having kicked in a door and cleared a room.

Isosceles is a guns101 training method.
If you rely on it or use it as a main target stance after you've become proficient, than you're not proficient.
Period.

Not only have you increased the surface area to a potential threat, bu you would also be a liability to every member of your team, unless your intent is to be a meatshield to those you've blocked in the hallway behind you.

>>31725923
>That's like complaining that a boxer is training wrong because he hits a bag and not a person all the time. Or telling a BJJ competitor to stop doing drills because you don't get to just trade positions after a move in real life.
They also do force on force training and competitions to check reality and further polish their skills.

>>31726008
I guess you can go tell that to all the former Tier 1 guys who still do it then?

The best way to shoot is to draw and fire the first shots with one hand, then switch to two hands.

>>31726018

Exactly, as do the guys who shoot isosceles in competitions. You didn't watch the Proctor video? He talks about how he became a better rifle shooter by shooting in competitions.

>>31726018
That's true. That being said drilling is still part of the equation.

Plus so called "tactical" guys usually overestimate how much force on force they do. I'm willing to bet most of the weaver faggots in this thread have never even taken a hit with sims.

>>31726019
Tier 1 what? "Competition" shooters? New York police? Wild west reanactors?
Watch some bodycam FOIA footage, not a single soldier will be in isosceles unless target is neutralized and they're standing guard over the body/prisoner.

>>31725890
Where is the point? I tired after mag stuff.
>prolonged fight
>you only have half-empty magazines left after tactical reloads
>is not windows are handy to pick most full magazine for next reload or for the knowledge you only have one magazine with 5 rounds left?

>>31726030
>Exactly, as do the guys who shoot isosceles in competitions
Force on force competitions?

>>31726060

Watch the video.

>>31722699
What business is it of his how anyone shoots, as long as it's in a safe fashion?

>>31726075

No, SF guys who work in the military for a living. They all use isosceles.

>>31725820
At this point there's nothing you could say that would convince me you have any idea what you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=YlzI_X323yE

File: images (3).jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>31725990
Well look who's ignorant now. I guess i can't talk battle tactics either because i dont airshit or paint ball.

>>31726094
Bull fucking shit.
I was attached to a SF unit on my last deployment.
Gtfo basement dweller.

>>31726115

Guess you know more than the certified ex-SOF guys who teach firearm manipulation then.

>having your torso square on and presenting a larger target to an attacker when you are not wearing body armor because thats how the people who do wear armor do it

retarded desu senpai

>>31723068

you're wrong. maybe there's a reason why everybody good in USPSA, where recoil recovery/repeatability is king, shoots isosceles

>>31722733
t. OP's rangemaster

>>31726132
Apparently, yes.
Probably because I was actually there and not just pulling bullshit out of my ass like you are.

>>31726157

Did you skip over the whole thread? Proctor, Pannone and Defoor were mentioned. You've done nothing except fling shit in here.

>>31726138
>everybody that's never been in a real world experience and only shoots at paper

Ftfy

>>31725670
>because every time they move they have to reposition their bodies into the stance before they can shoot
If they're leaving the stance just by moving they have bigger problems, you don't see boxers and fencers having to retake their stance after moving.

>>31725682
I don't know, man, I've got a friend on a SWAT team, he shoots Weaver and they teach Weaver.

Well since being military and or a competitive shooter is all the qualifications you need i guess I'll start parroting the olymic sport and thumping my chris kyle bible.

>>31726164
Look up their military records and you'll see they're basically pogs with patches.
I have more brass on my chest than all of them.

>>31726195

Would you like some more straws to make men out of?

>>31726214
Go ahead, go look up their service.
I'll be back in about an hour after you've become exhausted from finding jack shit other than stateside duty stations or cushy 6 week deployments where they did nothing.

>>31723825
Makes sense tho

>>31724658
Go to bed Bald Head Fred

>>31726138

so tell me about how your stance that has your pistol recoil in two axes in an uneven and unpredictable manner and relies upon carefully controlled tension helped you kill that guy that one time.

File: IMG_8675.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>31722979

>bring a girl to the range
Done

>married fudd chewed me out for shooting canted even though I was grouping +8

>>31724658

Is this the kojack reboot?

>>31726293
Congo rats. You managed to group a rifle at what looks like 25 yards. You could shoot it upside down and still group that close

>>31724658

That looks so fucking uncomfortable

>>31726319

She wanted it at that range?

And I was talking about with a CZ, homie.

>>31726330

How many (you)s are you going to give me?

It might look uncomfortable, but it doesn't feel that way.

>>31723750

try addressing targets to your weak hand side with chapman/weaver.

>>31726055
As in dudes from the SMUs. If you don't know what that means then google it.

>>31726172
And regional SWAT teams usually teach whatever bullshit the team commander likes, it's a tyranny most of the time. If you get some good leaders it can be fantastic because they'll push everyone to a high standard, but sometimes you get a dinosaur who teaches outdated methods like they're the 10 commandments and won't let anyone try anything else.

>>31726244
>Defoor
>literally has a Bronze Star with V for what he did during Operation Anaconda
>pog

>Pannone
>Recon Marine, SF man, CAG operator
>was in Bosnia hunting war crims
>deployed to Iraq multiple times doing PSD work
>pog

>Proctor
>SF man
>multiple deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq
>doesn't say timespan but has pics ranging from early 2000s to 2012 or so of him deployed.
>pog

Proctor-senpai rocking dat isosceles with raifu and pistol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKijRpi8Oc

Also demonstrates moving and shooting with isosceles which was questioned by some people ITT.

>>31725040

i'm 30 and have been shooting pistols since i was 18. i started competing last year and had to redo my stance from the ground up and made major strides in calling shots, recoil management, and tracking sights throughout the recoil cycle.

so shut up junior.

>>31725748

even Larry "I founded IDPA" Vickers uses Isosceles.

>>31726278

dammit that was for >>31726169

>>31726382
Super easy, that's the point he was making with that post.

>>31726394

also
>Proctor
>USPSA Limited GM
>says competition humbled the fuck out of him because it showed him how little he actually knew about shooting effectively.

>>31726552

weird, because i can only rotate about 30 degrees to my weak side in a bladed stance, while in an isosceles i can get my pistol to ~120 degrees.

>>31722699

I know people say iso is "better" but weaver feels more natural for me.

Different strokes, I guess.

>>31726634

y'know what i've learned from doing BJJ for a few years?

what feels natural often is wrong and can get you badly hurt.

>>31726647
You know what I've learned?

>most people in this thread think weaver just means relaxing your left arm a bit or standing bladed

>>31726394
In fairness to him, he did just get back from cross-training with Delta/Nightstalkers. the rough takeaway was that Delta are laid back dudes who waste your money by letting dumb cops play with their cool gadgets and OMG Nightstalkers can parallel park. With a Helicopter. At night. Under power lines.

>>31726736

and that your feet must be slightly more than shoulder width apart and on the same 3-9 line when you shoot isosceles.

File: Blog54-3.png (302KB, 640x380px)

302KB, 640x380px

I prefer to just square up with the target(s) and shoot with me feet kinda a little wide apart. Is that bad form? it feels most comfy to me, pic related what I do. Some older guy at the booth next to me last week said that some military/leo do it because they wear body armor, is that just some fudd boomer shit he was telling me or do they do it for a legit reason?

>>31726736
Weaver originally meant bladed, with push and pull, and Miculek-ossan explained pretty well why that is a bad idea in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s
video.

>>31726770
>>31726807
i don't want your definition of weaver, stupid faggits. i'm just saying, it's pretty obvious that all the 17 year olds in here saying "i prefer weaver" don't know what the fuck they're talking about

>>31726795
This is fine. You can bring one foot slightly back (like a foot length or so) for more front-to-back stability. This will help during stuff like bill drills. Weight on the balls of your feet, not on your heels and you'll be fine.

>>31726795

No, that's pretty good technique. Feet about shoulder width apart, on the same line or support side leg slightly forward, chest squared to the target, arms extended but not locked, slight bend to knees, slight lean. That's 90% of isosceles stance right there.

>>31726736
I'm not sure that anyone really uses Weaver anymore so much as various forms of modified Weaver.

I'm not sure that was ever not the case to be completely honest.

>tfw Seagal shoots modifed Weaver
>tfw he actually knows how to handle firearms
>tfw he just can't be bothered to put in effort in current movies
>tfw you're going to have to snatch every motherfucker birthday
Feels meh bruh.

>>31726849
>>31726854
Thanks anons. I'll make some slight adjustments next time.

File: 1476370480225.png (306KB, 500x504px)

306KB, 500x504px

>>31726877
>seagall actually knows how to handle firearms
topkek m8 somebody please post the appropriate webms

>>31726877
I mean, you could argue that even Cooper shot a modified Weaver stance cause of his gimpy elbow.

>>31726895
>>tfw he just can't be bothered to put in effort in current movies
It's even worse because you know he knows what he's doing and just doesn't care. The man is, or at least was, legit when it came to pistol shooting, and now he's a fat has-been who doesn't want to put the effort in.

Thank God we still have Keanu.

>>31726938
He's currently being ruined by some incompetent retard though.

>>31726397
Lmao
>watch video.
>he's literally just standing in the middle of the doorway shooting 10 targets in the room.

Do you really think that's how a tactical situation goes down?
Perfect example of why these guys are on par with wild west shows.
Pathetic training that will get students killed in a real world event.
These guys are garbage- trying to impress you with how many hits within x amount of time- while ignoring the fact that they would have been shot 10 times because of their procedures.
Go ahead and tell me this is what they did when deployed.
They didn't.
This is an act to make money from chumps like you tools now that they're retired.

BTW, pannone has two completely different styles he seems to train people in- military he teaches weaver, weekend warriors he trains isosceles.
Go ahead and compare his gallery's.

>>31726975

>why does this guy shoot IPSC in a IPSC competition? lol what a retard X-DD

>>31723441

Just tell that you don't know shit instead of trying to make things up. Shooting one-handed is not "European". I'm European and shooting pistol with two hands from variety of stances is the standard here unless one shoots only such sports in which shooting with one hand is a requirement. If you intent being proficient with pistol, you should practice shooting from all possible stances. As far as shooting one handed is concerned, it is a good skill to have, what will you otherwise do if are in a firefight and get hit to either of your hands - stop shooting and die or continue with one hand only?

Little bit of history: Shooting pistol with only one hand was still basically standard operating procedure in practically all countries during World War 2. British Sykes's and Fairnbarn's "Shooting to live" was probably the first manual to teach shooting with two hands, but it trained shooter to grab wrist of his strong hand with weak hand. US Army WW2 era training films also introduced shooting pistol with two hands - with grip that is now called "tea cupping".

>>31722699
Isosceles is great for maximizing the area of your soft body armor or plates. Otherwise, it's an argument of what is best from there. Some would prefer to minimize their profile with another stance while others worry that may increase the chance for a "critical hit". Really it is what everyone has been saying; whatever makes you shoot the goodest.

>>31722758
>Tell your RO he's a knob goblin

Fucking bingo.

>>31723256
>semi-aspirated r's are proper English
Fock off. Neutral American English is closer to pure English.

"I sawr it" should never be uttered.

>>31729519
My mobile posting typos are getting very bad.
*fuck off

File: Jedpistolrange45s.jpg (115KB, 790x574px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 790x574px

>>31727225

File: SAS pistol training-edit_zpsc8wwuqxr.jpg (128KB, 640x413px)

128KB, 640x413px

SAS guys at the range.

While we're on the topic of handgun shooting stances, what exactly is that one handed stance where your off hand is clutched at your chest?

And why is your off hand clutched at your chest?

>>31722699
I just use one hand and stand kinda sideways. Nobody's said anything about it to me yet.

>>31726975
>BTW, pannone has two completely different styles he seems to train people in- military he teaches weaver, weekend warriors he trains isosceles.
>Go ahead and compare his gallery's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aINiaGKj6A
>literally pannone teaching recon marines to shoot isosceles

>>31729614
There are a couple reasons. Mostly it keeps your hand out of the way. If you try to shoot accurately, one-handed, at 25 yards, you'll notice that just letting your other hand dangle actually contributes to your wobble.

>>31722934
>as if I'm about to take advise from a member of the Ginyu Force.

>>31729640
So applying tension to your body for precision activities then? Like how you clench your asshole?

>>31729715
>clinching your asshole

Whatever helps you shoot better.

File: 1461485049737.png (454KB, 953x597px)

454KB, 953x597px

>>31723558
I enjoy the googly eyes.

File: 1463750932366.jpg (106KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1366x768px

>>31725681
This image is just like the Facts globe.

>>31722699
Isosceles is perfect if you wear BA... that's it. Otherwise comfort is king, you shoot better when you're in a comfortable stance and the quicker you snap into it, the better. Weaver stance actually makes you a smaller soft target. Tell your RO to stfu.