TargetTalk

Dear friends:

My coach has taught me that the best stance for standard pistol shooting is as follows: Boot feet parallel, body aligned with the target in straight line. Fingers of the feet pointing just to front, feet apart the size of the shoulders. However, I have found that the stance adopted by most of the bullseye shooters as shown at the USAMU guide (45 degrees aligned respect to the target, points of feet slightly opened in angle) more stable, and in my opinion, provides a faster sight alignment (at least for my self). Which is your opinion about it?

I have to say that I agree with you, the 45 degree position feels a lot more stable than the inline.

As with all shooting techniques though, what suits one person may not be right for another.

Anyone who preaches "the correct stance" as a standard for everyone is totally wrong.

look at where your feet are when you are just talking to someone. Do this consistantly over about two weeks. There is a reason why your feet assume this placement. This is where your ballance is easiest to maintain in an upright posture.where the metatarsal bones and muscles in the feet and legs function at their very best.I would suggest changing this relationship is for the vast majority of shooters.a mistake, Note that I am discussing stance. In AMU parlance this comes before position and establishing your natural point of aim. The earlier post suggesting a coaching error may not be correct as the coach may shoot in the position he is teaching. I hesitate to teach anythingI do not do personally. I find that to do so tends to degrade my own performance and may not solve the problem affecting the shooter. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Types of stances may broadly be classified as "balance-based" and "active".

Balance-based is the "natural" stance that Bill Horton has described. It is most "energy-efficient" and works well for most people.

The active stance that your coach has described is characterized by using extra muscle force to make the stance more rigid at the expense of spending more energy. I haven't heard it being widely adopted outside of Russia, however. In this stance we normally have feet parallel to each other and more in line with the target, weight a little bit more towards the toes, more upright spine position and often less of the rake in the grip. Normally this type of stance is less optimal but more robust.

I learned both stances and alternate between them depending on my condition.

Evia wrote:Dear friends:

My coach has taught me that the best stance for standard pistol shooting is as follows: Boot feet parallel, body aligned with the target in straight line. Fingers of the feet pointing just to front, feet apart the size of the shoulders. However, I have found that the stance adopted by most of the bullseye shooters as shown at the USAMU guide (45 degrees aligned respect to the target, points of feet slightly opened in angle) more stable, and in my opinion, provides a faster sight alignment (at least for my self). Which is your opinion about it?

If you are lucky enough to have a coach, why not ask the coach?

Spencer

Wow, this is an old thread.

An excellent article on stance, written by Mark McKean was published in the Australian Pistol Shooter's Bulletin (May 2007 edition).

APSB is published by Pistol Australia http://www.pistol.org.au

Cheers

Pete

"fingers of the feet" that just cracks me up! :)

http://www.pistol.org.au/Coaching/Articles.php

Im with spencer, ask!

there may be a reason he put you like this, if not, it may be hard to have confidence in other instructions he may have.

I started with shoulderwith spacing of my feet, pointing parallel, and square to the target. Then later I adopted a method of locking my hip to my right leg (I'm right hand shooter), 80% weight on that leg, left leg pointing 30deg in the opp direction and spaced wide enough apart to stop me from putting more than 20% of my weight on the left leg. Worked for a very long time but realised that it is beginning to hurt my right knee enough to probably wear off my cartilage in 1 year.

Now I stand 3/4 shoulderwith spacing and parallel, 60% weight on the left leg, or no more weight than it would put on the right leg such that I have to consciously use my thigh muscle on that leg. For some reason my right leg will want to relax when my sights are aligned and I am going for the trigger. When that happens it throws my off balance quite violently.

The reason I stand with my feet so close is that if they were any further apart, my hips being rather loose, will tend to want to lean on either sides. With the feet being closer together, the hip does not have to "take sides".

In this new stance, I am not totally square with the direction of aim, rather my feet are slightly tilted into the target area, while my hips are slightly rotated in the direction away from the target area. This arrangement retains my last working orientation of my upper body, reduces the wear and tear on my right knee, and is relatively stable as long as I do not start leaning front or back. With the last 80/20 stance I was able to shift my weight forward or backward with a huge margin.

That said, I have yet seen myself in my new stance in a mirror, I suspect I look like I am in need of the washroom.