Why Not The Bullseye Stance?

[Cosmoline]

I've been mixing it up a little at the range lately with stances other than my usual modified Weaver. One that interests me is the old-fashioned one handed bullseye stance. I'm finding I'm actually more accurate with it than the Weaver, particularly in single action mode. But the followup shots are slower. It has the advantage of narrowing your profile by a notch (depending how thin you are) and perhaps more importantly of moving your main organ bank sideways. For people shooting without kevlar vests, that would seem a good advantage. Also, shooting one handed permits you to expose less if shooting from the cover of a doorway.

So really, do we all *need* to be using Weaver or Chapman or some practical shooting stance?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

A penetrating broadside hit is likely to produce more severe wound trauma because your vital organs are, in effect, lined up, and more densely located.

One handed shooting may work well on the shooting range...

 

[AK103K]

How well does it work when moving, drawing and shooting, multiple targets from multiple directions, etc?

I think youre actually bringing up a good point too. Just what is "accurate" when it comes to how we shoot? Personally, unless youre shooting "bullseye" in competition, I think its a waste of time, and only shows/confirms you have the basics down. I'm not knocking youre ability to do so, its just I think your skills in other directions are more important, especially if youre carrying your pistol and thinking your a decent shot based on shooting bullseye targets at your leisure while you chat with your buddies.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

A penetrating broadside hit is likely to produce more severe wound trauma because your vital organs are, in effect, lined up, and more densely located.

This has me concerned as well. Any bullet of a decent caliber, hitting the side of your body between nipple and armpit level, seems likely to take out both lungs and your heart.

 

[ldsgeek]

Actually, the classic bullseye stance would expose your vitals with a typical vest as the arm opening has to be large enough for freedom of movement. There was an LEO killed in CT around 20 years ago responding to a gun store break-in. The perp, now injail for life without parole, opened fire with a semi-auto like a MAC-10 and one round found the arm opening, several others having been stopped by the vest. Google Terry Johnson for details.

 

[David E]

How well does it work when moving, drawing and shooting, multiple targets from multiple directions, etc?

Not to mention rapid follow-up shots.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I take the opposite position. Shooting one-handed is a fundamental skill. Master it, and you can do something else with your other hand...like opening doors, holding kids, etc.

 

[Jimmy10mm]

Forty years ago I learned to shoot with the bullseye stance and only began to use the Weaver when I started shooting 44 mag a lot. I mostly shoot Weaver stance now but like to throw my left hand in my pocket and do slow fire with the old bullseye stance just for old times sake. I still hit pretty good one handed but the eyes ain't what they used to be.

 

[Fremmer]

I like it for target shooting at the range.

I need more education on combat shooting, but from what I've read, you want to be seeking cover/concealment while shooting, which means you need to be able to shoot while moving. Which is hard to do standing still with you hand on your hip!

 

[bluetopper]

If you master the one handed bullseye stance to where you can shoot ten shot groups the size of a credit card at 25yds it will make other styles of shooting so much easier. Bullseye shooting is such an art and skill.

Heck, the old timers taught me that if a handgun was meant to be shot with two hands it would have two handles on it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's actually probably best to develop skills shooting from a variety of conventional and unconventional postures. Real life might not afford you the luxury of assuming any particular, classic stance.

Consider many IPSC and IDPA courses of fire. You might be engaging targets from behind cover, from your knees, strong hand only or weak hand only. You may be engaging targets strong hand only while carrying or manipulating something with your weak hand.

You have no way of know whether you might have to actually do those sorts of things in a real life situation, but it has happened. It's good to have some facility in your bag of tricks for shooting accurately from unconventional postures and positions.

 

[David E]

Shooting one-handed is a fundamental skill. Master it

Agreed, but that does not mean it's the best stance for gunfighting.

 

[Cosmoline]

Actually, the classic bullseye stance would expose your vitals with a typical vest as the arm opening has to be large enough for freedom of movement.

True, but how many non-LEO's are wearing vests? Almost nobody. CCW holders rarely even own armor. My point was that for a CCW holder to choose a stance based on VESTS makes no sense.

Any bullet of a decent caliber, hitting the side of your body between nipple and armpit level, seems likely to take out both lungs and your heart

That's a lot of inches to penetrate. Easy for a rifle, but a standard handgun? I'm not so sure. However, the larger point is that if you're facing chest forward with no vest, the attacker has as a viable target the entire length and breadth of your chest. If you're sideways the viable COM target is a much smaller area under your arm.

I think it's the speed of followup shots that's the biggest strike against Bullseye. But I do wonder whether that's *really* so critical to a shootout. For many decades now the instruction has emphasized speed and firepower over accuracy and the first shot. Before that, 100 years ago, it was the reverse. The off hand was to be kept out of the way, and the first shot was all important. When I hear about the sheer number of rounds poured towards criminals often to no particular effect I do wonder if things have gone too far. It happens so often now, I really don't think these officers are spraying and praying. I think they're just doing what they've been trained to do--getting into a modern stance and rocking and rolling one mag right after the other.

 

[dashootist]

I think most men today don't do manual labor, so they have wimpy upper body. So the norm is to shoot two hand nowadays. The grand masters of yore said two hands are for women.

 

[Jimmy10mm]

I think it's the speed of followup shots that's the biggest strike against Bullseye

Back in my younger days I shot NRA competition bullseye a little bit. I was never very good, marksman was my highest level , but I shot around some who were phenomenal shooters. In timed and rapid CF and 45 at 25 yards it is pretty fast shooting and accurate to boot. ... for the good shooters.

 

[owlhoot]

I would agree that for the majority of possible scenarios a two handed grip is preferred. But an individual should be proficient shooting with one hand - and either hand.

 

[Oyeboten]

If one is used to it, plenty rapid and on-Target follow up shots are possible in Bulls Eye Stance, and I mean with full power loadings in .45 M1911 or other Standard medium to larger Caliber, of course.

Might not be as fast as Weaver or other Two Hand, but, can be not far behind.

 

[CWL]

I think it's the speed of followup shots that's the biggest strike against Bullseye. But I do wonder whether that's *really* so critical to a shootout

Don't forget that the Weaver/modified Weaver stance is not just good for shooting while stationary, but also while on the move, AND for making sudden direction changes.

Bullseye shooting stance plants you into a position that is slower for responding to threats from all directions.

 

[RobMoore]

If all you need to do is fire one slow round at a non-moving piece of paper, then you can pick whatever stance you want that allows you to hold the gun steady. It doesn't matter. You can be accurate standing on one leg, using your pinky to pull the trigger, aligning the sights with a mirror............you can be accurate doing all of this for ONE shot.

For all other scenarios, you might want a stance that allows movement, a rapid change in firing direction, rapid follow up shots, a natural pointing of the weapon, and the dozens of other benefits of a weight forward, squared up fighting stance.

 

[Sam1911]

I take the opposite position. Shooting one-handed is a fundamental skill. Master it, and you can do something else with your other hand...like opening doors, holding kids, etc.

This isn't the opposite position. There are very good "practical" stances for shooting one-handed, either strong or weak side. They allow movement, unusual lower body postitioning, crouching, etc., and promote quicker follow-up shots.

They don't look anything like the old bullseye stance.

Heck, the old timers taught me that if a handgun was meant to be shot with two hands it would have two handles on it.

Sometimes it amazes me that we ever learned to learn to walk upright, considering all the "wisdom" the old-timers liked to pass along.

I think it's the speed of followup shots that's the biggest strike against Bullseye. But I do wonder whether that's *really* so critical to a shootout. For many decades now the instruction has emphasized speed and firepower over accuracy and the first shot. ... I think they're just doing what they've been trained to do--getting into a modern stance and rocking and rolling one mag right after the other.

That's a gross misstatement of practical instruction. The truth is that, regardless of the best accuracy you can wring out of a handgun (hey...shouldn't we all just drop to the Creedmoor position?), people in gunfights instinctively react and move certain ways. They DON'T stand erect and tuck their off-side hand behind them, regardless of what they might have done on the range. So teaching them that that's the "right" way to shoot is silly.

Further, that "6 shots on a playing card stapled to the moon" accuracy falls apart pretty quickly if your opponant landed a "somewhere in the center of mass" shot ... or three ... while you were squinting at your sight picture. Absolute accuracy really is irrelevant to gunfighting. Accurate hits count, but only if they get there FIRST.

If your opponant "sprays" six rounds in 1.2 sec, and the first five MISS completely ... but the sixth doesn't, he just triumphed over your methodical bullseye stance with a beautifully placed shot you MIGHT have gotten off around the 2.0 sec. mark.

 

[ForumSurfer]

That's a lot of inches to penetrate. Easy for a rifle, but a standard handgun? I'm not so sure. However, the larger point is that if you're facing chest forward with no vest, the attacker has as a viable target the entire length and breadth of your chest. If you're sideways the viable COM target is a much smaller area under your arm.

I don't know about you, but my lung is directly beneath my rib cage. It doesn't require much penetration at all to get there from the side. Any standard handgun caliber is capable of penetrating into at least one lung from a good range. Most of them can zip right on through, taking out an artery or two on the way.

I see your point about presenting less of a target, though. Still, I'll stick with weaver. I do use the bulls-eye to practice one handed sometimes, just for kicks. Most of the time though I bring the non shooting hand up to my chest clenched in a fist, with my torso as square as possible.


Obviously, I need to take a class or two.

 

[Sam1911]

Most of the time though I bring the non shooting hand up to my chest clenched in a fist, with my torso as square as possible.

Now THAT's a good one-hand stance. Should be pretty much the same stance as your regular isoceles, except that the non-shooting hand is tucked in tight against the chest (and probably clenched).

 

[ForumSurfer]

Should be pretty much the same stance as your regular isoceles, except that the non-shooting hand is tucked in tight against the chest (and probably clenched).

Yeah, that's what I observed during a training class. I was the IT consultant guy on that particular site and I tried to soak up as much as I could by over hearing and observing when I could. That silly work stuff kept getting in the way, though.

 

[CraigC]

I think we should train to shoot from as many positions and stances as possible and with both hands. However, I REALLY think some folks are too preoccuppied with self defense. There's a hell of a lot more to handgun shooting than "combat training" at 20ft.

 

[David E]

If one is used to it, plenty rapid and on-Target follow up shots are possible in Bulls Eye Stance, and I mean with full power loadings in .45 M1911 or other Standard medium to larger Caliber, of course.

Might not be as fast as Weaver or other Two Hand, but, can be not far behind.

Get a shot timer and go out and compare them. They are not close at all.