Is this a viable way to aim a handgun?

[tipoc]

This was a subject of debate when bad manners might get you an invitation to "pistols for two, coffee for one" some fine morning. Blade yourself to the opponent to minimize the target. And ensure that if hit, you will have a pistol ball through both lungs instead of one.

As I recall, whatever the other benefits of the isosceles, it had alot to do with body armor. The "Modern Isosceles" was widely advocated as superior to the Weaver and it's variations (back when folks often hollered about such things 10-20 years ago) because when wearing body armor there was a gap in the armor on the sides which would allow a bullet to enter and do what bullets are rumored to do. While, the advocates advocated, the full on presentation of the Isosceles, where the full center of mass is presented to the damage of the aforementioned bullet, protected the shooter because of his body armor. The assumption was that some time in the future we would all be wearing body armor all the time and maybe jet packs.

Sadly I have neither.

I may just be mis-remembering something Massad Ayoob said.

But the body armor deal that was real.

tipoc

 

[Sam1911]

True. There are implications for body armor use with various apologetics/justifications for using the stances to benefit or compliment the body armor's coverage. Call it a happy symbiosis or congruence of purpose.

But those really don't apply to most defensive shooting purposes, and surely do not influence the choices made by the 99.9% of action/practical competition shooters who use some variation of the Modern Isosceles style.

 

[Gun Master]

Viable Way to Aim a Handgun

I think this works in most cases :
With unblinking eye contact, with a possible assailant, in a Weaver stance (or other if you prefer), aiming your muzzle down at 45 degrees, strongly and loudly state, "Hands up, or I'll blow your head off !"

 

[PRM]

Looks like a variation of the CAR (Center Axis Relock). I don't like the position, never been a fan, but there are those who like it.


http://www.sabretactical.com/html/center_axis_relock__car_.html

 

[strambo]

Call it a happy symbiosis or congruence of purpose.

That's what I call it. I frequently wear armor in the military including hard plates and have soft armor with a front plate under my bed that I can put on fast if needed and I've got the 5-10 seconds to spare.

My "stance" is the same for rifle, shotgun and handgun and would be the same for H2H except I'll be in constant motion for that and not stopping in a stance. Of course I'm in motion shooting too, just the arms look like an ISO with my torso generally squared to what I'm shooting at.

Advantages (over blading) are you can move equally in either direction, front to target so armor works or w/o armor a bullet doesn't blow through both lungs, and it is easier to hit with shoulders squared to target and gun on centerline.

Of course you can do the Weaver this way and it is how I was taught it @ Gunsite a few years ago...just like modern ISO only dip your support elbow down and push/pull.

 

[1911 guy]

Back before everybody had body armor, we were taught to shoot in the modified Weaver/Chapman stance for many reasons. First, it managed recoil well. Second, it presented a slightly smaller target to the front, presumably where the threat would be. Third, it allowed good mobility. Fourth, it allowed quick transition from rifle to handgun or vice-versa. Fifth, it allowed shooting and moving without overextending the arms and weapon, keeping the center of gravity very close to the feet and hips. This allowed a smooth transition to hand to hand if needed. The list goes on.

I attended a class once where I was derided for using an outdated stance. The smack talk stopped when the dry fire was over and actual shooting scores/times were tallied.

For the record, I use both the "dinosaur" and the modern Isosceles techniques. They both have advantages and disadvantages. But it is kinda sad that a "new and improved" technique has completely obliterated a very useful technique.

So, to answer the original question "Is this a viable way to shoot a handgun?" Abso- you bet your fanny- lutely.

 

[Mike J]

I am another that is right handed left eye dominant & the Chapman or Modified Weaver is a very natural way to shoot a hand gun for me. I have made an effort to switch to the isosceles stance but depending on what I'm doing I still catch myself slipping back into the chapman at times. Of course I'm not a competition shooter, just a plinker trying to learn.

 

[wadcutter45]

It's a movie thing to show the actor and the gun

It isn't a "shooting position" at all. The only reason he is holding the gun that way is because the director told him to, so the gun and the actor are in the same frame, and at a dramatic angle. The director called for it. It is called "scene blocking".

 

[ugaarguy]

It isn't a "shooting position" at all.

Perhaps you'd like to go re-read all the posts about how he's more or less in a Chapman stance.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It isn't a "shooting position" at all.

How odd, because it doesn't look much different that this

[resize=400] [/resize]

For those who don't recognize the shooter above, it is Jack Weaver...yes, that Weaver

...or perhaps an instructor from Gunsite showing how they teach it

[resize=400]

[/resize]

 

[Gun Master]

CSI Miami "Stance" Training

In all sincerity, is this a viable way to aim a handgun? I realize that arms shouldn't be "locked-out", but is there any advantage to have this much bend in the arms? It's almost as if he cannot see the front sight so he's moving it closer to his eyes?

Or is this position just pure television fantasy? Thanks.

Horatio, you are starting to look better, in your modified Weaver stance.

 

[Iggy]

He's just got short arms....

You fellers wait until you get old.. You'll be amazed at the adjustments you have to make to see the sights.

 

[Gun Master]

Sad, but true.

 

[Jaymo]

Isosceles doesn't work for me.
Neither does the wannabe commando rifle shooting technique of tucking both elbows down into your ribs.
Iso hurts my shoulders and the commando wannabe rifle stance doesn't allow the butt to properly engage the shoulder.
I can see why it would be used with an M4 or some other pistol gripped carbine/burpgun when wearing body armor or a load bearing vest that gets in the way of holding the rifle correctly.

9mmepiphany, is it just me or does Don Johnson have huge hands? His hands look huge in that first pic.

Also, I remember the episode in the video.
We talked about that episode at the range around 1991, because we recognized the IPSC starting position.

 

[Nom de Forum]

9mmepiphany, is it just me or does Don Johnson have huge hands? His hands look huge in that first pic..

Average hands attached to scrawny wrists and arms, and the camera angle make them look huge.

 

[jhb]

Yep a variation of an exaggerated weaver is what it looks like to me. Are with the others who pointed it out already.

I prefer the isosceles stance myself. I always shot this way naturally before I learned it was a proper shooting stance. Course i do my own variation of it. I guess like Tv character is doing a variation of a weaver like stance.

 

[9mmepiphany]

9mmepiphany, is it just me or does Don Johnson have huge hands? His hands look huge in that first pic.

It is just the perspective based on the location of the camera lens...the hands are much closer to the camera.

You get a hint from the watch size...which is ~40mm

 

[strambo]

Isosceles doesn't work for me.
Neither does the wannabe commando rifle shooting technique of tucking both elbows down into your ribs.
Iso hurts my shoulders and the commando wannabe rifle stance doesn't allow the butt to properly engage the shoulder.
I can see why it would be used with an M4 or some other pistol gripped carbine/burpgun when wearing body armor or a load bearing vest that gets in the way of holding the rifle correctly.

...

So any stance that works with your particular physical limitations, shooting style and/or hardware and gear choices is "correct" and something that doesn't is "commando wannabe?"

...interesting.

Weaver/Iso, especially sans armor, is tomato/tomahto, but the commando wannabe rifle stance has other benefits in a CQB environment extending beyond use with armor and load bearing gear.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

So any stance that works with your particular physical limitations, shooting style and/or hardware and gear choices is "correct" and something that doesn't is "commando wannabe?"

...interesting.

Weaver/Iso, especially sans armor, is tomato/tomahto, but the commando wannabe rifle stance has other benefits in a CQB environment extending beyond use with armor and load bearing gear.

Ummm...let's be fair about this. He only gave a couple specific examples, colored within the context of his physical limitations, whatever they may be.

There are lots of other stances out there which could be described as "commando wannabe" which would probably work OK with whatever his limitations are.

Perhaps his words aren't the best, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's speaking from his own limitations, not strictly emotional biases.

 

[AKElroy]

I think the most important point we are all overlooking is this; Horatio never misses, and he kills one or two in every episode. Can't beat real-life stats like these. The man has killed more men than Cecil B. DeMill.

 

[strambo]

RetiredUSNChief
Ummm...let's be fair about this. He only gave a couple specific examples, colored within the context of his physical limitations, whatever they may be.

There are lots of other stances out there which could be described as "commando wannabe" which would probably work OK with whatever his limitations are.

Perhaps his words aren't the best, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's speaking from his own limitations, not strictly emotional biases.

I hear you Chief and am with you on non-judgment re: physical limitations, but he only said his limitations applied to the Iso shooting a handgun not the stance he calls "commando wannabe" as opposed to whatever he thinks is "correct." That is what I find truly interesting.

I wonder where the bias is coming from and wonder what the "correct" rifle shooting stance is and what operational environments it is the correct stance for?

 

[toivo]

After taking another look, I suspect he has no real idea what to do on his own and maybe the show doesn't have a technical adviser?

I agree with The Lone Haranguer that the shooter depicted is left-eye dominant.