Personal Defense Network Forum » Topic: Defensive shooting positions.

Personal Defense Network Forum » Topic: Defensive shooting positions. http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:44:57 +0000 cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-243 Mon, 24 May 2010 21:51:02 +0000 cshoff 243@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ <blockquote>RobPincus wrote: Cshoff, We definitely are working from the basis that we are going to be more comfortable if we practice neutral in whatever position we end up in than if we are "forced" into the opposite extreme of some staggered preferred stance. That said, we also have an underlying expectation, based on observation of students in high level simulations and actually recorded events that we are likely to orient towards the threat when startled from a distance at which we will shoot. Also, don't forget that we are teaching to integrate "lateral movement" relative to the line of attack while presenting, which also lends itself to being squared off.</blockquote> Rob - I certainly understand the integration of lateral movement relative to the line of attack, but I've yet to see anyone move laterally while remaining in a squared off position, at least not more than the first step or two. If you want to move laterally in relation to an object or target in front of you, you will have to blade your body in order to do it efficiently, especially if you plan on moving more than a couple of steps. <blockquote>Lastly, before you worry too much about us locking people into one stance, check out this video from the past weekends APH course.. covering "unorthodox shooting positions": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/RobPincus#p/a/u/1/LksBJbjGP3A">USP Clip on Youtube</a></blockquote> I know the training you provide is very comprehensive and I hope you didn't construe anything I've said here to imply that you are somehow handicapping your students with the methods you are teaching. Everything I have seen on your training videos and heard from your students certainly points to the contrary. I'm pretty confident that if I were to spend 20 minutes with you on the range, you would be able to articulate and demonstrate to me why this method you teach is superior as it relates to the type of shooting we are talking about here; real life-or-death personal defense shooting. One thing I've noticed about you and the techniques you teach is that the techniques always make practical sense, and that you are always able to explain and demonstrate why they work. I respect your opinion, and the opinions of the others in this thread very much. ZenGunFighter on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-230 Sun, 23 May 2010 05:31:02 +0000 ZenGunFighter 230@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ Why are we standing around, when we should be fighting? :) I seperate arm position from hip down position. Whether your elbows are both locked, both bent, or one of each, has no bearing on what position the hips, knees, ankles and feet are in. You can have both arms locked straight out and have your feet together, spread laterally, right foot in front of left, left foot in front of right.... I don't know where the 'bladed' abomination came from, but I expect it was from the LE side of things and their 'interview stance' 'Stance' is not something we stay in. It's something we move through. If possible, its a good place to start. So, if I'm on the street and have to stop to talk to someone, my feet will be spread slightly latterly and front to back. But if the encounter turns into a fight, I'm not staying there. It's just a launch pad for my attack. Rob Pincus on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-212 Mon, 03 May 2010 21:39:15 +0000 Rob Pincus 212@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ Cshoff, We definitely are working from the basis that we are going to be more comfortable if we practice neutral in whatever position we end up in than if we are "forced" into the opposite extreme of some staggered preferred stance. That said, we also have an underlying expectation, based on observation of students in high level simulations and actually recorded events that we are likely to orient towards the threat when startled from a distance at which we will shoot. Also, don't forget that we are teaching to integrate "lateral movement" relative to the line of attack while presenting, which also lends itself to being squared off. Lastly, before you worry too much about us locking people into one stance, check out this video from the past weekends APH course.. covering "unorthodox shooting positions": <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/RobPincus#p/a/u/1/LksBJbjGP3A">USP Clip on Youtube</a> cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-172 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:54:19 +0000 cshoff 172@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ Don - I guess my point of dispute, so to speak, is with the assertion that the body "naturally wants to square itself with the threat". I'd say that is definitely accurate some of the time, but certainly not always. Sometimes people react to threats in different ways; the may square to it, they may blade their body like a boxer, they may turn to run, or they may freeze in whatever position they happen to be in at the time (and perhaps a host of other possible responses). Since we have no way to predict exactly how our body will react to a given threat under a dynamic set of circumstances, I don't know how we can claim that the use of one stance will be more prone to induce hesitation than another. Having said that, I readily admit that it is quite possible that statistical data proves the point you are making. I won't pretend to have knowledge of such real data that may exist. I am basing my assertion off of observations I have made in the behavior of others, as well as reactions I have had to different situations. DonWorsham on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-171 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:16:30 +0000 DonWorsham 171@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ Cshoff, You said "...it is most likely that whatever position we find ourselves in when we are confronted by a deadly threat, is going to be a compromised position of one sort or the other." What Rob and Grant are saying is that when this happens the body naturally wants to square itself to the threat thus those who practice that way have less to react to. You also said "Focusing on getting combat accurate hits under diverse conditions and under stress and time pressures, on the other hand, makes much more sense." And that is what matters regardless of stance or grip one-handed or two. cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-170 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:59:38 +0000 cshoff 170@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ But wouldn't the same thing apply to someone who has been conditioned by himself or others to go into a square stance? It seems to me that we create the potential for a decision making delay during a life-threatening encounter by locking ourselves into always starting from a given position during our training drills. There is a fairly high probability that the stance we've locked ourselves into isn't going to be possible when the moment of truth arrives, regardless of which stance that happens to be. Perhaps I am just not completely understanding the point you are trying to make, Rob. Forgive me if I am being dense here. Rob Pincus on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-168 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:32:53 +0000 Rob Pincus 168@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ I think Grant nailed it when he mentioned the idea of the student's starting point being something that has already been learned. If we get a student on the range who has been conditioned (by himself or others) to go to a bladed stance, they find themselves really "screwed up" trying to shoot in a neutral position. The problem is that we are trying to work with what the body does "naturally" in the absence of training, as that is always the instinctive move. for students who are EXTREMELY conditioned to go to a bladed stance, they have already learned to "convert" their natural response into a learned movement... unfortunately, that doesn't put them in the best position to work well with everything else that the body does naturally, or respond to everything in their field of view equally well. -RJP cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-167 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:23:28 +0000 cshoff 167@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ And I think you've nailed it this time! People that "lock" themselves in to any single thing; be it a shooting position, a certain threat response, a certain tactic, etc., will always be less adaptable in my opinion, simply because when circumstances beyond their control suddenly confront them, they are immediately out of their comfort zone. I spend very little time on "perfecting" various shooting stances with my students for a couple of reasons. One, it is nearly impossible to pull off a perfect Weaver or perfect Isosceles, or perfect anything else in any situation other than a controlled range environment. Two, it is most likely that whatever position we find ourselves in when we are confronted by a deadly threat, is going to be a compromised position of one sort or the other. Spending an hour of our limited training time "perfecting" a shooting stance seems to be a misuse of resources. Focusing on getting combat accurate hits under diverse conditions and under stress and time pressures, on the other hand, makes much more sense. When we teach students to "always" start from a certain position, be it a staggered position, or a neutral position, the potential for hesitation when confronted with a threat always exists because there are no guarantees how our body will be oriented to the threat when that moment arrives. If we "think" we need to be in a neutral position but we are currently standing in a staggered position, there is a possibility of hesitation. Likewise, if we "think" we need to be in a staggered position but we are currently standing in a neutral position, that same possibility for hesitation exists. That, in a nutshell, is why I asked the question regarding the material in the video. Again, Grant, thank you for the great response. GrantCunningham on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-166 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:37:24 +0000 GrantCunningham 166@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ I did a bad job of explaining myself. (Sometimes I get too caught up in the minutiae that I forget about the big picture!) The problems you identify in your students aren't due to defects of a particular stance; it's because the stance has been taught as an end unto itself. It doesn't matter if it's isosceles, Weaver, Chapman, or anything else. Once any specific stance has taken on a life of its own, the student has it in his/her mind that shooting can only be done from that particular stance (or small selection of stances.) This is how shooting is taught, by and large - people label the stances, encourage the students to adopt one (or possibly a couple), and then defend their choice(s) against the arguments of proponents of other stances. (It would seem that I may have flirted with that in my first response, which wasn't my intention. Gotta stop writing late at night!) I wrote in my blog about this very topic a month or so ago. I likened the stance to a scaffold (not unlike the way Rob calls them a "convenience"): a structure which we use because it makes building something (in this case, the skill set of alignment and trigger control) possible. Once the skills have been built, the scaffolding should be thrown away - discussion of stance ends, and the student is allowed to shoot from whatever position he/she happens to adopt in the moment. The emphasis shifts from doing the stance "the right way" to getting hits on target by whatever means necessary/available. The student needs to come to the understanding that as long the gun is aligned on target and the trigger is properly controlled, then the rest of the body just doesn't matter - the hits will be there. To get to that point, I've found It's easiest to start with a square/neutral stance. It's simple to teach, it's stable, repeatable, and doesn't force the student to focus on anything except aligning the gun on target and smoothly triggering the shot. It's a good starting position for teaching lateral movement, is relatively non-demanding in a physical sense, and is tolerant of a wide variety of foot positions. The last point, which I made so badly, is that it's also relatively immune to problems with surfaces and gradients. This gives students the necessary confidence to shoot on something other than flat asphalt. All of the foregoing advantages disappear if the square/neutral stance, like any other stance, is taught as dogma. Frankly, I've even stopped referring to stances by any names, preferring instead to think/teach in terms of physical adaptation to a particular situation. Once stances are labeled, people can pick favorites, and that's not what I want to encourage. Instead I encourage thinking about what it's going to take to get the hits needed, and just doing that. (Now that's a lot closer to what I intended to say!) -=[ Grant ]=- cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-165 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:59:49 +0000 cshoff 165@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ A "severe" foot position (one where the feet are positioned too far apart), whether in a neutral or staggered stance, is going to hinder a persons ability to, A) remain stable on slick/loose surfaces, B) transition into purposeful movement. In fact, depending on the movement that may be necessary, a neutral position in which the feet are positioned too far apart may be harder to transition from than a staggered position in which the feet are positioned an equal distance apart. I too have witnessed the proverbial "working of the feet" back and forth on the range, as if they are a batter in the batter's box at a baseball game, but I have seen both neutral stance and staggered stance shooters do this. In most cases, I believe it has to do with the typical shooting range mentality that a lot of shooters tend to have, in which everything in their environment (shooting position, target, battlefield) remains static, but no doubt a portion of it is due to shooting stances that are being used with the severe foot placement mentioned above. But I digress, when executed properly, I don't believe the foot position of the Weaver places the shooter at any inherent disadvantage to a properly executed Isosceles foot position under general circumstances. That said, there are definitely times where one stance or the other clearly has an advantage over the other, and some where one must be used out of necessity. And while your reasoning above sounds logical, it seems to overlook the fact that human beings who are in a upright, not-static mode of operation, find themselves in a staggered foot position at a much greater percentage of the time than they find themselves in a neutral position. With that being a "known", I'm not sure how a neutral position would necessarily make one more versatile. I have noticed a somewhat different trait among shooters. Some who have "locked" themselves in to the "triangular" arm position that is synonymous with the Isosceles generally require more time and training to be able to master techniques that involve shooting on the move, shooting from certain prone positions, and shooting around cover and concealment. Some who are more practiced in using a slightly "bladed" upper body, on the other hand, generally pick those techniques up a bit quicker. And of course there are others who are just naturally better at picking up new and different techniques regardless of which position they tend to favor. Grant, as always, I appreciate your well thought out response. I learn something from you every time I read one of your posts. GrantCunningham on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-164 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:41:28 +0000 GrantCunningham 164@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ We first have to agree on what we mean by "staggered." What I consider "staggered" is one foot significantly behind the other, toe-to-heel at a minimum, with a pronounced weight bias on the forward leg. (Some go a bit further, with the forward leg noticeably bent and the back leg straight.) This (or a variation) is commonly taught as a "fighting stance" at many gun schools around the country. I reflect back on a class I taught last year, one in which several of the students had learned that kind of stance. We were on a range which had just been treated to a fresh layer of very nice gravel, and it was still a bit soft. Without exception, before any of them could shoot they had to scoot their feet back and forth to get down to a solid layer. With the staggered stance (as I've described above) the feet are subject to a fore-to-aft shearing pressure. In other words, with a staggered stance the feet are pushing away from each other, and kept in place by the friction of the shoes against the ground. Imagine standing on an ice rink in your street shoes; now get into a staggered stance. What happens to your feet? I can almost feel them sliding away! This situation wasn't quite that extreme, but just a little gravel and these students suddenly found themselves without stable footing and couldn't shoot. Had they adopted a neutral/square stance, it wouldn't have mattered - the feet, and the rest of the body, sit on top of the gravel quite naturally. (For even more fun, add a slight side incline to the ground and watch what happens!) The ground isn't the only issue. Because the upper body comes to expect (and adapt to) the unique muscle tension required to hold such a stance, any significant change in foot position (say, reverse right and left positions) typically causes a large decrease in hit potential. I've observed that those who train primarily in a square/neutral stance are much more adaptable, meaning that shooting from compromised or unorthodox positions is easier for them. Those who have adopted a more "severe" stance are much less adaptable, and often perform poorly when forced out of their comfort zone. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not arguing that one stance is better or worse than the other when on a nice, flat range. It's no different than arguing 9mm vs. .45! It's not the stance itself, it's the student's habituation to a unique shooting position that's at issue. What I *am* saying is that training in a neutral stance better prepares one for the inevitable situation where there is no "stance." In the midst of a violent encounter (what Rob calls a dynamic critical incident), when one doesn't have the luxury of picking a "perfect" stance of any kind, which person is more likely to perform well? I contend that it's the person whose practice is done from a neutral position, because they are more adaptable. -=[ Grant ]=- <a href="http://www.grantcunningham.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.grantcunningham.com</a> cshoff on "Defensive shooting positions." http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/defensive-shooting-positions#post-163 Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:33:30 +0000 cshoff 163@http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/ After watching one of the recent videos posted here on PDN (<a href="http://video.personaldefensenetwork.com/video/Stance-and-Movement">Stance and Movement</a>), I wanted to ask a couple of questions, primarily of Rob since he is the one presenting the material in the video, but I'd certainly like to invite everyone else to join in on a discussion regarding this topic. Rob - First off, right off the bat in the video, you make the statement that, "stance is a matter of convenience". I couldn't agree more, and that is something I try to communicate with my students as well. You then talk about keeping the orientation of the firearm consistent with the orientation of the head; again making valid and logical points. In fact, I find that all of the points you presented in the video are well reasoned and in line with having consistency in your training. My question concerns the portion where you talk about a "staggered" foot position; the kind of position that would be synonymous with the Weaver or Chapman positions that many shooters prefer. You mention in the video that if we "believe we need to shoot" from a staggered foot position, we may "hesitate" to address the threat if our feet aren't already in a staggered position at the time. While I understand the concept you are trying to convey, I have to wonder how likely it is that we will be in a "neutral" foot position at the moment we are confronted with threat out on the street in the first place? My guess is that it is much more probable that we will find ourselves in some type of staggered position rather than a neutral position. After all, a staggered foot position is necessary for movement; ie: if we want to walk, run, jog, back-step, etc., we must place our feet in a staggered position, and we are most likely going to be engaged in one of these above actions at the time we are confronted by a threat, rather than standing still. We must also consider that we will have to use a staggered foot position when shooting around cover or concealment as a matter of necessity. So with this understanding, wouldn't we find ourselves with the same kind of hesitation problem if we believe we must have our feet in a neutral (squared to the threat) position before we address the threat? There are a lot of people who tend to naturally place their body in the "fighter" stance when confronted by a threat which, ironically, uses the same staggered foot position as is used with the Weaver or Chapman positions. Are these people better off to try to unlearn the positions they are now using in favor of learning to shoot from the neutral position presented in the video? For the record, I'm not trying to start the old "Weaver versus Isosceles" argument. I am legitimately interested in professional opinions from folks who can articulate quantifiable reasons as to why one method is measurably better than the other and why one method wouldn't be subject to the same type of tactical problems as the other. I'd also be interested in any other relevant discussion anyone would like to interject here regarding this subject. Thanks in advance for any replies.