Well...maybe more along the lines of explaing how Hawaii being a 'May Issue' state is horseshit 

I liked the discussion about shooting stance(s) and reflexive reaction.   

I had my CCW in WA state, but since let it lapse.  I should have kept it up. 

I liked the discussion about shooting stance(s) and reflexive reaction.   

...
That's why I encourage interested shooters to try action pistol shooting.
The games will force you into less-than-ideal conditions.
Ever tried shooting flat on your back?

Ever tried shooting flat on your back?

Yes.

This is why I get irritated when I see EVERYONE getting taught only isosceles stance, and being told they NEED to stand this way. Different body types and/or other physiological limitations might not make that ideal for each individual; same goes for grip.

Personally, I prefer to shoot pistol in weaver and rifle in isosceles.

I recently coached someone who was most comfortable and accurate shooting their rifle in the WWII chicken wing, and can't for the life of them shoot in isosceles without feeling off balance.

Another individual I coached is more comfortable shooting in a more traditional European rifle stance for both rifle and pistol.




What irks my chain more is when people tell you to stand a certain way, and can't give you a scientific answer when you ask why.

...
That's why I encourage interested shooters to try action pistol shooting.
The games will force you into less-than-ideal conditions.
Ever tried shooting flat on your back?

Yep.  I've tried shooting from my back and other, uh, interesting positions.     I have some pics of me doing so in training, but it's on my home laptop (not on my phone). 

I very much agree with you on the "less-than-ideal" conditions part, including having your heart rate up and your mind and body not in the calm and controlled environment at the shooting bench/counter of a target range.  I also encourage people to try IPSC/USPSA and IDPA (where available).  I used to shoot IPSC and am planning on getting back into it.  It's really fun for me.  That said, if someone is getting into it for strictly the "gun games" part of it, fine.  If they are getting into that for defensive situation training, I caution people that there are aspects of gun games that they need to keep in context.  Stuff like dropping partially full mags, which I admittedly do, particularly to have a full mag going into the Texas star.    

Yes.

This is why I get irritated when I see EVERYONE getting taught only isosceles stance, and being told they NEED to stand this way. Different body types and/or other physiological limitations might not make that ideal for each individual; same goes for grip.

Personally, I prefer to shoot pistol in weaver and rifle in isosceles.

I recently coached someone who was most comfortable and accurate shooting their rifle in the WWII chicken wing, and can't for the life of them shoot in isosceles without feeling off balance.

Another individual I coached is more comfortable shooting in a more traditional European rifle stance for both rifle and pistol.




What irks my chain more is when people tell you to stand a certain way, and can't give you a scientific answer when you ask why.

I will teach both stances and encourage people to try both.  I just don't want them mixing and matching too much at first (bladed shoulder with square lower body and vice-versa).  After they've tried the "text book" isosceles and weaver, if they find themselves comfortable and shoot well in other stances, great.  Maybe not for me, but I'm also of the mind of "doing whatever it takes" for that person. 

One situation where I will advocate for isosceles is when someone is cross eye/hand dominant.  That said, if they try my way and they insist that they shoot better Weaver with their head/neck craned awkwardly, then 

In a way, that's why I enjoy working with new or women shooters.  They tend to be more open to trying different things and receiving suggestions.  I've had so many "I've been shooting longer than you've been alive son" and can't hit squat and insist on holstering their handgun while holding the slide because "that's the way they've always done it".   

I will teach both stances and encourage people to try both.  I just don't want them mixing and matching too much at first (bladed shoulder with square lower body and vice-versa).  After they've tried the "text book" isosceles and weaver, if they find themselves comfortable and shoot well in other stances, great.  Maybe not for me, but I'm also of the mind of "doing whatever it takes" for that person. 

With the people I've helped, it was only a matter of minutes to see which shooting position they felt most comfortable in, and I've never had anyone mixing stances. It's really simple really: either weaver, extended weaver or isosceles. If the student is extremely confused and has absolutely no idea what they are doing, then it is the fault of the coach, not the student.

With the people I've helped, it was only a matter of minutes to see which shooting position they felt most comfortable in, and I've never had anyone mixing stances. It's really simple really: either weaver, extended weaver or isosceles. If the student is extremely confused and has absolutely no idea what they are doing, then it is the fault of the coach, not the student.

Yeah, for the most part, people generally find a preference with isosceles or weaver pretty quickly.  That said, I've had people that I've tried to help where I've put them in the proper stances and tried shooting that way and then still insist on doing it their own way.  Like shooting weaver right handed with square stance or even left foot back.  You can lead a horse to water. . .   About it being the "fault" of the coach, I guess it can be so far as the extent that the coach allows it while under their watch. 

When I am helping friends, they generally get it.  However, I also am a volunteer instructor in a group where there can be 30+ students in a class.  With that amount of students, you occasionally get one that just wants to do it their way.  Yeah, most just need a reminder to reposition their foot placement, tweak their grip, etc.  But their are always "that guy (or girl)" in any class, even in shooting classes that I've been a student.  For me, as long as they are safe, I'll let them be.  People who don't want to change won't change. 

When I am helping friends, they generally get it.  However, I also am a volunteer instructor in a group where there can be 30+ students in a class.  With that amount of students, you occasionally get one that just wants to do it their way.  Yeah, most just need a reminder to reposition their foot placement, tweak their grip, etc.  But their are always "that guy (or girl)" in any class, even in shooting classes that I've been a student.  For me, as long as they are safe, I'll let them be.  People who don't want to change won't change.

Well there in lies the problem: you are attempting to teach 30+ people at one time. I find it highly unlikely anyone can give a group that size proper individual instruction, when training doctrine often emphasizes that the maximal limit for effective teaching is one instructor to no more than 6 people. You would probably need hours to do so with 30+ people, and by then everyone would already be pissed off and not care what you say.

And of course there are always people who want to do it their own way; those types of people get only a few passes before they get chewed out. If you have individuals with no experience attempting to do their own thing, then it is assumable that they really don't care about what you are trying to teach them, which makes them a safety hazard.

But again....most of the problems I've seen come from a lack of teaching ability, rather than individual error. If a coach cannot explain WHY we do something in explicable detail, all while making minute adjustments and corrections that the individual being coached can feel and comprehend, then it is the fault of the coach.

Well there in lies the problem: you are attempting to teach 30+ people at one time. I find it highly unlikely anyone can give a group that size proper individual instruction, when training doctrine often emphasizes that the maximal limit for effective teaching is one instructor to no more than 6 people. You would probably need hours to do so with 30+ people, and by then everyone would already be pissed off and not care what you say.

And of course there are always people who want to do it their own way; those types of people get only a few passes before they get chewed out. If you have individuals with no experience attempting to do their own thing, then it is assumable that they really don't care about what you are trying to teach them, which makes them a safety hazard.

But again....most of the problems I've seen come from a lack of teaching ability, rather than individual error. If a coach cannot explain WHY we do something in explicable detail, all while making minute adjustments and corrections that the individual being coached can feel and comprehend, then it is the fault of the coach.

I volunteer with a group of instructors. . . During live fire, the student to instructor ratio is usually not more than 2:1. 

I agree that if an instructor can explain the why's and information behind something that students generally are more receptive.  Generally. . . When I am teaching on my own, especially with friends, I do take the time to go into more depth on the theories, whys, etc behind it all.  As for the root of most problems being teaching ability as opposed to user error.  I'll say that may be true in some cases. 

Well...maybe more along the lines of explaing how Hawaii being a 'May Issue' state is horseshit 

Interesting stuff. 

I took a class this month and Ivan was in the class..............video started running and I was thinking........"Hey that guy looks familiar."

Yup. If we had CCW we could protect ourselves like Vince from "homies" taking our briefcases & wallets...

I volunteer with a group of instructors. . . During live fire, the student to instructor ratio is usually not more than 2:1. 

I agree that if an instructor can explain the why's and information behind something that students generally are more receptive.  Generally. . . When I am teaching on my own, especially with friends, I do take the time to go into more depth on the theories, whys, etc behind it all.  As for the root of most problems being teaching ability as opposed to user error.  I'll say that may be true in some cases.

Absolutely, the big one for me is trying to get students to shoot isosceles instead of weaver and while some are less open to the idea, I find that after I explain the reasons to shoot isosceles they at least give it a try.  Generally it's the older ex-military crowd that was taught weaver in training.

Absolutely, the big one for me is trying to get students to shoot isosceles instead of weaver and while some are less open to the idea, I find that after I explain the reasons to shoot isosceles they at least give it a try.  Generally it's the older ex-military crowd that was taught weaver in training.

Isosceles didn't start catching on mainstream until the Costa/Haley Magpul era dvds came out.

Initially, isosceles for both rifle and pistol were taught for those wearing body armor, as squaring up the plate to a target maximized the intended purpose of the plate.

Isosceles didn't start catching on mainstream until the Costa/Haley Magpul era dvds came out.

Initially, isosceles for both rifle and pistol were taught for those wearing body armor, as squaring up the plate to a target maximized the intended purpose of the plate.

Competition shooters like Jerry Miculek were shooting isosceles long before Magpul and Costa put out any videos.  I believe his exact quote was "we used to shoot weaver back in the day when we didn't know any better." 

Regardless of the origins, body armor is not one of the reasons I give my students lol. 

Competition shooters like Jerry Miculek were shooting isosceles long before Magpul and Costa put out any videos.  I believe his exact quote was "we used to shoot weaver back in the day when we didn't know any better." 

Regardless of the origins, body armor is not one of the reasons I give my students lol.

You can explain it however you want, but you should have an understanding as to the history of what you teach your students.

And i said magpul popularized the position. Most people have  no idea who miculek is, but haley and costa household names in the shooting community, and the techniques they showcased are well known. They provided the initial exposure to the isosceles position for many shooters since the late 2000s.

Finally, i and the people i have interacted with dont sport shoot nor have any interest in sport shooting, so i could  care less about what miculek says about weaver. The fact remains that different body types and different physiological factors dictate the shooting position; there is no one correct position, so miculek's statement can only be applied to himself.

You can explain it however you want, but you should have an understanding as to the history of what you teach your students.

And i said magpul popularized the position. Most people have  no idea who miculek is, but haley and costa household names in the shooting community, and the techniques they showcased are well known. They provided the initial exposure to the isosceles position for many shooters since the late 2000s.

Finally, i and the people i have interacted with dont sport shoot nor have any interest in sport shooting, so i could  care less about what miculek says about weaver. The fact remains that different body types and different physiological factors dictate the shooting position; there is no one correct position, so miculek's statement can only be applied to himself.

I'm sorry, but your perception of the Magpul guys popularizing the isosceles IMHO is off base.

As Drakiir84 has stated the competition shooters popularized the positions and there are a ton of really good shooters out there that are quite well known inside and outside of IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, etc.  Heck when I took my first LIFE cert back in 1994 they talked about weaver & isosceles.

 

Listening to Mas is like a breath of fresh air in a world full of crazy.