TargetTalk

Today, in a discussion about coaching, we were talking about stance. I wanted to know what is an open stance and what is a closed stance. It seems that no one present was sure.
I've been told conflicting information. So, I'm looking to a wider audience for a consensus.
Consider a right-handed shooter in the old "traditional" alignment with his feet at 45 degrees (that is, the line joining the tip of his right foot to the tip of his left foot is at 45 degrees to the firing line). If, while pivoting on his right (forward) foot, he swings his left foot clockwise about the pivot (ie forward, towards the firing line), is he opening or closing his stance?
Mike T.

He is closing his stance.

Taking the 2 (normal) extremes, facing the target is closed, facing the next shooter along the firing line is open.

David, I tend to gravitate toward an open stance, however, are there some advantages to be gained with a closed stance? I shoot mostly air and free pistol, and I would love to find five more points, even to the point of trying a different stance. Thanks, Dwaine.

dhurt wrote:David, I tend to gravitate toward an open stance, however, are there some advantages to be gained with a closed stance? I shoot mostly air and free pistol, and I would love to find five more points, even to the point of trying a different stance. Thanks, Dwaine.

There is a definite tendancy for top international shooters to use an inline (open) stance.

It must be remembered however that stance encompasses so much more than just the foot positioning. Every aspect of their stance will have been worked through with their coaches, and probably bio-mechanicians, to ensure the most efficient muscle use and platform stability.

Unfortunately the fact that everyone is built differently and has different physical attributes mean that, like most things in shooting, there is no single "best" stance.

You ask if there are any advantages to be gained from a closed stance in Air and Free. I doubt whether you would find many top coaches saying there were. Most would agree however that if you only feel happy with a closed stance then that is the one for you.

Couple of schools of thought here. Assume 45 degrees to be "neutral."

1) Yur'Yev hooked up some electrosensors to the shoulders of his shooters and measured electrical output at various degrees of closed vs. open. The machine indicated that as the stance became more open (closed), less (more) electrical activity was measured. This implies that as you close (open) your stance, you are using more (less) muscles to control your hold. Opening your stance then (the reasoning goes) would be potentially more stable, since you are using fewer muscles to hold the sights in the aiming area.

On The Other Hand

2) Is using more muscles to hold the gun in the aiming area necessarily a bad thing? If you are using fewer muscles to hold the same weight, the onset of fatigue will happen earlier. Are some muscle groups better than others for fine motor control? With a totally closed stance, you are mainly using frontal deltoid; at a totally open stance you are using mainly the side deltoid and some of the anterior deltoid depending on your body structure. Which is "Better?"

You Must Define Better

3) What you want is a settled wobble inside the aiming area with some stability, free from fatigue for reasonable period of time. Perhaps (it can be argued) that a slightly "wider" but more "settled" wobble is preferred over a slightly "tighter" but less "predictable" hold.

One school of thought is to use the stance that gives you your Natural Point of Aim . . .

. . . but with training you can move your Natural Point of Aim back and forth!

Steve Swartz

(p.s. I used to use an "ultra-open" stance [negative angle] and did very well with it. I also tried a closed stance and didn't feel comfortable with my head alignment. Right now I have settled on my NPA alignment, wich for me is neutral +/- 4 degrees depending on time of day/fatigue/etc.)

Thank you for the clarification, David. That is how I thought it was but I had received a contrary opinion. Through reading your posts on TT, I have confidence that your statements are based upon sound knowledge and extensive experience. That, plus the corroborative support from Steve Swartz and dhurt, has provided the "consensus" for which I was searching.

Hi

In my currently lost Leatherdale book on pistol shooting, they mention Natual Point of Aim as being everything in pistol shooting. I would quote, but like I said, it's lost... Personally, I shoot bullseye at about 60 degrees from fully closed...

Mike
Wichita KS

I got the distinct impression from reading your posts (esp the second one) that you are trying to settle a disagreement by marshalling up as much support for your position as possible. After seeing the responses you got, I can easily see why there would be a disagreement.

While the movement you describe has been characterized by the esteemed vox populi as CLOSING the stance - I would bet that more than a few shooters who also play baseball, basketball and tennis would emphatically disagree - or - at the very least would become confused.

In baseball, basketball and tennis for instance, the more squared the shoulders are to the objective we are watching (the pitcher, the basket or the tennis ball) ------the more OPEN the stance is considered.

If Messrs. Levene and Swartz are correct, I'm sure there must be a sound reason why the shooting sport has chosen to reject and reverse the much more widely accepted definitions.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile (in the interest of communications) to note that subscribing to what has been proposed in this thread as the definition of these terms in the shooting context is likely to create substantial confusion on the part of many shooters. This is because of the apparent conflict with the way these very same terms are universally used in the more common and popular sports I mentioned.


This is a case where clear and unambiguous communications may become the red headed step child to being "right"


F. Paul in Denver

In re-reading the posts, I think David Levene's use of the term "inline" is a far clearer way of communicating the position of the feet relative to the firing line. It's gives a good mental picture and it avoids the pitfalls involved in how the terms "open" and "closed" are used in other sports.

F. Paul in Denver

Paul,
You wrote (in part):
"I got the distinct impression from reading your posts (esp the second one) that you are trying to settle a disagreement by marshalling up as much support for your position as possible. After seeing the responses you got, I can easily see why there would be a disagreement."

Not really what I would class as a disagreement. Over the years I had read/heard the terms "open stance" and "closed stance" and had assumed they meant what David Levene described. Then, last year, in conversation with another shooter of some experience, I learned that he thought that the terms meant just the opposite of what I thought. This past Sunday, I was present at a meeting of British Columbia target-shooting coaches and took the opportunity to ask about open and closed stance. None of those present were familiar with the terms. All but one were rifle coaches, so that might explain the lack of familiarity. They suggested I research the terms and report my findings in the newsletter of the British Columbia Target Sports Association. So...I thought,"There are a number of experienced pistol shooters and pistol coaches, from around the world, monitoring and contributing to Target Talk. I'll solicit opinions there."
I had hoped to find wide-spread agreement within the bullseye (ISSF) pistol community (particularly coaches) as to what is meant by "opening" or "closing" one's stance. After your revelation, I first thought it little matters that the definitions could be at odds with other sports. After all, the Brits and Aussies are quite comfortable in driving on the "wrong" side of the road - yet readily adapt to the change when in America :-) However, if that agreement is not there, as you suggest it may not be, then there is going to be confusion. Even if the pistol community agrees, there is the chance for confusion because coaches from other sports are often consulted in aspects of our "game" that have parallels in those other sports.
Have I opened a can of worms?
Mike T. (closing off, but open to attack)

Mike T. wrote:Have I opened a can of worms?
Mike T. (closing off, but open to attack)

Not at all MikeT - I thought the topic was extremely interesting esp when I read the answers from David, Steve and Darrell. It certainly opened my eyes to the fact that the terms have a very different meaning in the shooting sports.

My only point was how confusing a simple term can be even when used properly.

Good stuff all the way around.

F. Paul in Denver

The terms (mis)used in shooting sports are many - and often by people who should know the difference.
One could forgive journalists for misusing terms (low expectations?), but...

My 'favourites' include:
- Berm / Berme - a pathway, not a bank of earth
- Point Blank - does not mean at close range; for a 30/06 point blank would be well beyond 300 yards
- weapon (when used for target pistols or rifle) -

Any others?

Just to add to Spencer's observation and F. Paul's notes:

What about the extremely common term of "releasing the trigger" when we are in fact increasing the activity of the trigger to "release the hammer/striker" (or shot)? When I release the triggers on my guns, it is because I have decided to abort the shot, or it has already happened...

But, then again, as comedians have observed for decades:

(at least in the US)
we drive on the parkway,
park in the driveway,

and say, "Here's to you!"
but drink it ourself...

As to open vs. closed stance and inline vs. firing line, there is also confusion. The firing line is most commonly considered to be a line parallel with the benches that a competitor is not to cross during competition.

F. Paul's

In re-reading the posts, I think David Levene's use of the term "inline" is a far clearer way of communicating the position of the feet relative to the firing line.

and, David Levene's

There is a definite tendancy for top international shooters to use an inline (open) stance.

seem quite opposite to me.

Take Care,
Ed

Ed Hall wrote:As to open vs. closed stance and inline vs. firing line, there is also confusion. The firing line is most commonly considered to be a line parallel with the benches that a competitor is not to cross during competition.

F. Paul's

In re-reading the posts, I think David Levene's use of the term "inline" is a far clearer way of communicating the position of the feet relative to the firing line.

and, David Levene's

There is a definite tendancy for top international shooters to use an inline (open) stance.

seem quite opposite to me.

I am not sure where the confusion is Ed. When I refer to an "open" or "inline" stance I am talking about a right handed shooter facing the shooter to his left, with his right side facing the target.

Hi David,

I got that from your quote, as well. But, look at what F. Paul has:

In re-reading the posts, I think David Levene's use of the term "inline" is a far clearer way of communicating the position of the feet relative to the firing line.

I'm fairly certain he isn't meaning that the feet are inline with the firing line, but that's what I read in his quote.

I, too, agree with your (and others') definitions of open vs. closed, and inline works if in reference to "line of fire" but not if in reference to "firing line."

Take Care,
Ed

Terminology is still confusing me.
Paul wrote, "In baseball, basketball and tennis for instance, the more squared the shoulders are to the objective we are watching (the pitcher, the basket or the tennis ball) ------the more OPEN the stance is considered."
Does not the term, "square to" mean "perpendicular to"?
Thus, to me, if a shooter's shoulders are square to the firing line (that line of shooters parallel to and 25 meters from the line of targets), the line through his shoulders is perpendicular to the firing line. That is an open stance, according to Paul's definition and according to David's definition. There seems to be no contradiction then between pistol shooting and the other sports mentioned by Paul.
Mike T.