Stance and performance

A section to discuss marksmanship issues: techniques, equipment, experiences, etc.

Also, a place to ask marksmanship related questions to seek information from the vast knowledge base of this forum's membership.

Moderators: Bullseye, Moderators

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Stance and performance

Post by Bullseye » Tue Aug 16, 2005 2:19 am

First, I believe all shooters should track their daily scores and performance. I personally have scores plotted all the way back to the early eighties. I keep a scorebook and record all the daily particulars like: ammo lot, temp., grain/type powder for reloaded ammo, wind direction/speed, light direction, string scores, etc. Not all of these data points apply in each circumstance, like if one is shooting indoors. Temperature is a major factor and can play a significant role in a shooter's overall performance indoors or out. When the mercury dips below 40 f. then firearms tend to have malfunctions from lubrication getting sluggish. Above 80 f. and perspiration can affect a shooter's grip and vision. Later, I take my scores from the scorebook and plot the strings or type firearm on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. (Not everyone would find this necessary but I can do an at a glance trend analysis on my performance and my equipment over long time periods.)

Next I'll discuss setting up a shooting position. In order to have consistent shot placement one has to reduce muscle positioning and rely on one’s natural body position, or what is known as NPA (Natural Point of Aim.) Here a shooter uses his/her own body structure to find a natural center for bone positioning. People's body types and bone structures are different, so a position that works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Arm length, leg length, trunk structure, all will have a different effect on one's natural body positioning. There are also some people who have had an accident or some natural difficulty which requires them to compensate or adapt their natural position to maintain a good shooting stance. In any case, a shooter wants to reduce muscle use to a minimum. Muscles tend to fatigue and when they do they begin to tremble. Trembling, especially in the forearm can have a significantly negative impact on shooting performance.

To set up a NPA stance a shooter must relax. Position the feet so the body is lightly turned, approx. 45 degrees towards the target, feet very slightly canted outwards for stability. Raise the shooting arm so the sights are on the target. Next is one of the most important steps - close your eyes and visualize the target in your mind. Relax and even pivot back and forth on you hips slightly, all while your eyes are closed. This way when your body centers back into position, you're at your natural center and not holding the pistol's sights on the target using muscle positioning in your hips and back. Because when your shooting, your muscles will relax as you concentrate on the sights and you will tend drift back to your natural center point. If that center is not aligned with the target, then you'll be fighting to keep the sights in the center of the target and fatigue yourself.

If you find that when you relaxed, center your position and opened your eyes that the pistol's sights are not aligned on the target, then adjust one foot's position so the sights are aligned on the target. Next, close your eyes and do everything again until you can open them and find your pistol is on target all by itself. After you've established this position, don't move your feet! If you do, then you'll upset your NPA. Very important, I see people shuffling their feet all the time to glance in their scope or adjusting their equipment - this is bad. Sometimes people will bring a little piece of chalk an trace out their foot placement once they've established their NPA.

In any case, set up your shooting equipment to compliment your NPA position not ruin it. Here is where establishing a routine comes into play, have everything laid out as you need it, ready to go. Once you get set into position, don't move around. Before each string when I'm about to start, I'll close my eyes and relax, when I open them I'll be on target and ready to go.

All in all, it comes back to what I said before, find what works for you and only vary it slightly. Otherwise it is impossible to analyze the impact of the change, because there's more than one variable to examine.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye
Image

allendavis
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm

Stance & Performance

Post by allendavis » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:12 pm

I don't do EVERYTHING you do, but i coach everyone who goes to the range with me.

I HATE the isocolese (sp?) hold. I'm a BIG advocate of a modified Weaver stance. In other words, I hate seeing locked elbows!!!!!!!! Those shoud be bent, the left foot slightly forware (if you're shooting right-handed) the head should be bent down and attention should be on the FRONT SIGHT.

My eyes gave out years ago, and now, about 35 yards are all I can do, and I score pretty badly at that range. At 21 feet (3 yards), I can still do a auadruple tap --- 2 to the chest and 2 to the head.

I graduated from the KLEAini 1978, and my sole job, inintially, was to get the Sherrif's Department to transition from the revoler to the semi-auto. This is almost 30 years ago.

Some of the choices were good, some weren't. Some were amusing - one guy wanted to carry a 9mm alright, but it was a LUGER his Dad captured during WWII.

I just track my loads with my logs and chronogarph. I use unconventional powders and loads, it seems.

Take temp and other weather specs if you need. I'd like to read them; even if I go to the range when it's -15° Farenieit., which we do and don't evem think twice about it.

Regards,

Allen

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:22 pm

I guess I should've mentioned that the stance I was describing is the one-handed bullseye shooting technique. There are two-handed options and the sighting information I posted will work for those but the stance part must be adapted for whatever style you're using. There is no one stance, everyone's body style is unique, so you 'll have to experiment and find the one that works for you.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye
Image

allendavis
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm

Stance & Performance

Post by allendavis » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:47 pm

I couldn't use the one-handed bullseye stance when I was a kid if you gave me all the tea in China and half the money in the Federal Reserve Bank!!!

I'm one of those disciples of Col. Jeff Cooper, who believes that BOTH hands should be used in shooting a handgun.

I never had the honor of going to Gunsite, but I did complete a course at the Chapman Academy down in Missouri back about 20+ years ago, and I've taken two of Massad Ayoob's courses.

I'm slowly getting my son to adopt my stance and his shooting is improving accordingly. I know what I know, and what I know works. When someone can show me something better, I'll drop what I'm doing and adopt the new thing.

I'm not nearly as good as I was 20 years ago, but I'm not a young man anymore, either. But I can still put 4 shots in the 10x ring at 21 feet in less than 2 seconds.

Allen

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:58 pm

Well, Col. Cooper and I disagree on that point. I used to believe a long time ago that I'd never be able to shoot as well single-handed as I can dual-handed, but that really wasn't the case. Once I learned how to shoot properly one-handed, and believed I could do it, I could never go back. Now-a-days I cannot shoot as well with both hands as I do with a single. So I'd have to say, "If pistols were made to be shot two-handed, they'd come from the factory with two pistol grips." :D

R,
Bullseye
Image

allendavis
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm

Stance and Performance

Post by allendavis » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:49 pm

Bullseye:

You do make an amusing point:
I used to believe a long time ago that I'd never be able to shoot as well single-handed as I can dual-handed, but that really wasn't the case. Once I learned how to shoot properly one-handed, and believed I could do it, I could never go back. Now-a-days I cannot shoot as well with both hands as I do with a single. So I'd have to say, "If pistols were made to be shot two-handed, they'd come from the factory with two pistol grips."
Mickey Fowler, a big IPSC champ back in the mid-1980s, was my hero, mostly because everyone thought I bore a strong resemblance to him, even though he had nice, muscular arms and I still had toothpicks in those days.

Just this weekend, my best friend was unsuccessful in teaching his 11-year old nephew how to shoot his 9mm Glock. The kid was in dread of the recoil, and couldn't hit a gallon jug at 25 feet. I modified his locked-elbow stance and he was hitting those jugs at 50 feet with my 1911 with very, very great regularity after only a couple of magazines!

His greatest fear was recoil, of course. Once this kid was convinced that the 1911 wouldn't put a new part in his hair, he went back to the mini-Glock his uncle had.

BTW, this kid no longer lusts for a Glock. He doesn't like the trigger. ;-) He wants a 1911 in .45 with Bo-Mar sights and the inserts like I have.

Oh, he also LOVES the Hi-Power now. It fits his hands better. I walked out of the range feeling like my Johnson needed to be tied in a knot to keep it from dragging the ground! It is gratifying to teach young people in a meaningful way -- after all, he wasn't learning anything from the uncle.

And the uncle is grateful to me, too, another gratification in knowing that what I know works.

Just my two cents' worth.

Allen

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:31 am

Allen,

I agree, it's always rewarding to help a new shooter along the path. I've really enjoyed working with the Scouts and 4-H shooters over the years. Many of those kids are either Distinguised themselves, or out in the big sand box hunting the BG's today. I still get to work with the juniors but not as much as I'd like. I try to stay with the .22s for the junior shooters, especially the younger ones. All the bang, but only a little of the buck.

Getting over the big bang is half the battle. I used to to a demo with a 45 and two fingers to prove the gun won't jump up and slap you. Really effective for the shy ones to see that the big bad 45 won't dent your forhead with the recoil. Ball and Dummy drills help the timid too.

Glocks have uncomfortable triggers for target shooting. Combat situations that long trigger travel is comforting, but out on the range, it doesn't enhance accuracy. I got nothing against Glocks, I got one of my own, but the 1911 has the style trigger I like. HPs are great for the small to medium sized hands, but the stock trigger is really nasty. That magazine safety really adds a lot of grind to the pull. That was the first thing I took out of my HP. The feel of the pull improved tremendously and the mags all drop free without it. That mag safety stay in its little plastic baggie where it'll be safe.

Happy to see you saw the humor in my previous comment.

R,
Bullseye
Image

allendavis
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm

Stance and Performance

Post by allendavis » Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:03 pm

I agree, it's always rewarding to help a new shooter along the path. I've really enjoyed working with the Scouts and 4-H shooters over the years. Many of those kids are either Distinguised themselves, or out in the big sand box hunting the BG's today. I still get to work with the juniors but not as much as I'd like. I try to stay with the .22s for the junior shooters, especially the younger ones. All the bang, but only a little of the buck.
I've never had a great deal of experience in instructing children, other than my own and a couple of nephews. I thought my youngest son was absolutely NUTS when he was six, because he couldn't get enough of shooting my 1911, and especially my Old Model Blackhawk .41 maggie. Recoil NEVER intimidated this kid!

I gave his older brother a Hi-Standard Sport King in .22 LR as his first handgun. The younger one insisted on a .44 when I thought he was old enough and responsible enough to own his own handgun. He was expecting a Blackhawk. I gave him an 1857 Colt Navy reproduction in .44. He got over his disappointment soon enough. ;-)
Getting over the big bang is half the battle. I used to to a demo with a 45 and two fingers to prove the gun won't jump up and slap you. Really effective for the shy ones to see that the big bad 45 won't dent your forhead with the recoil. Ball and Dummy drills help the timid too.
I began teaching my daughter with her very own stainless S&W Chiefs Special when she was about 8. At first, she was intimidated, but I loaded full wadcutters for her with only about 2.0 gr. of Bullseye. She got so good in such short order that she was shooting full-house .357 Mag. loads from my 686 and Colt Trooper Mk V before she was 10.
Glocks have uncomfortable triggers for target shooting. Combat situations that long trigger travel is comforting, but out on the range, it doesn't enhance accuracy. I got nothing against Glocks, I got one of my own, but the 1911 has the style trigger I like.
I don't like Glocks that much, even though I'll admit they're good guns, but I especially dislike the sub-compact Glocks like the 26 and 36, which my neighbor owns. Personally, I don't ever want to try the Glock or its trigger in a fight. Like you, I prefer the 1911, most particularly the one on my Chip McCormick special! Just under 4 pounds with NO over-travel.
HPs are great for the small to medium sized hands, but the stock trigger is really nasty. That magazine safety really adds a lot of grind to the pull. That was the first thing I took out of my HP. The feel of the pull improved tremendously and the mags all drop free without it. That mag safety stay in its little plastic baggie where it'll be safe.
I think the HP is the greatest 9mm to ever come down the pike. I will disagree that it was Browning's last design. 9 years passed between his death and the introduction of the GP-35, and I see too many things in the HP's design that I seriously doubt Browning would have approved of.

Again, like you, my magazine safety went into a plastic bag before I ever went to the range. I replaced the hammer and sear with a matched set from C&S, and now I've got a trigger that breaks at a hair over 4 pounds. The only complaint I have about my HP is that the front sight needs to be ON the target rather than at 6 o'clock. When switching from the HP to the 1911 or the reverse, I have to be mindful of that fact, which is a distraction.
Happy to see you saw the humor in my previous comment.
Well, I can be dense at times, at least with online exchanges, but I've read enough of your posts by now that I think I can correctly "read" you.

Thanks for the response.

Regards,

Allen

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:52 pm

To each his own; that's why they make so many different models/styles of firearms. I'm kind of fond of my little G27 sub gun, carry it all the time.

R,
Bullseye
Image

greener

Post by greener » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:08 am

Interesting discussion from two guys who probably have more rounds under their belts than I will ever have, even if I count the machine gun ranges I've run. My pistol-shooting has been limited to a few hundred rounds of .38 special, annual qualifications with the service 1911's and a short stint on an Army Reserve pistol team about 30 years ago. I decided to take up pistol-shooting a few months ago and decided to learn to shoot with two hands. Any hints from the experts for a guy who discovered that, after a decade of not shooting, that the front sights aren't as sharp as they once were would be appreciated. Most of my education on two-handed shooting has been reading and trying. I've tried both weaver and isoceles and can't decide which is better. In fact, it seems that the pistol determines the stance, which may be more the distance the front sight is from my eyes more than a function of the pistol. Any hints from the experts would be appreciated.

greener

Post by greener » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:22 am

Just a note on the "big bank" and recoil comments. I've been going to a state-operated public range. I've watched a number of people bring first-time shooters out and start them off with the big bang handguns. After a few rounds of not even being able to tell where the rounds are going the new shooters, usually wives, daughters and kids (teenage and older males seem to be too macho to admit it) decide that watching is more fun than shooting. I've taken a few and showed them what I know of the basics and let them bang away with a .22 cal pistol. There is relatively no noise and no kick and they get over that and actually put a few holes in the paper. They get enough confidence to go back to the real guns. A couple of them have actually done better than those that brung 'em. I'm a big fan of starting them off with the plinking guns.

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:24 am

First let me welcome you to the forum.

Next, You're comments about shooting rimfire pistols for newer, or less than confident shooters, is right on the money. The enjoyment factor of shooting the rimfire pistols makes a day at the range a pleasureable experience out of something, for a new shooter, that can otherwise be very stressful situation. When shooting rimfires a person will have all the same tendencies, good or bad, that they would otherwise with a bigger bore handgun. My rimfire aggregate match scores are always within a point or two of my centerfire aggregate scores. Once your body gets comfortable with the tool it adapts to the amount of force applied to it, and when shooting the typically lighter rimfire handguns with milder recoil the body compensates and all the natural habits rise up.

You sound like your experiencing the changes of eyesight that middle aged people start to have when the near vision tend to go away. Focusing on iron sights can be difficult, especially indoors where the ambient light conditions tend to be far lower than outside. There's two solutions for this condition: Go to your optometrist and get a special prescription for shooting glasses that are tuned to focusing at the distances your sights will be; or change over to a red dot style optical sighting system.

There are several eye doctors who'll help with this situation, and specialize in sports related optometry. Some of those will even allow you to bring in a firearm in order to get the optimal diopter correction for the distances you need for sighting. Typically this takes some calling around and making prior arrangements before showing up in the office with a gun in the bag. Sometimes the center of optimal focus region has to be oriented differently on the corrective lens, especially if your into high power rifle shooting.

If your eyesight is such that you need bi-focals, then getting a progressive style lens can be most helpful. On this type of lens, the curvature is gradual between the two perscription areas and this creates an intermediate zone. The intermediate focusing zone allows for sharp sighting beyond the typical reading length and is not considered far vision. Simply positioning the head can bring the sights into focus, in other words, adapting your position to meet the optical challenges.

Last, I'll briefly discuss position and stance. Position and stance are different for everyone. Everyone's bodies are of different lengths and styles and therefore one stance or postition does not fit all. There is no one position that is better than all the rest. Sure there are people that say this is the best, but what they're really saying is, "This is what works best for me." What one has to do is find the position that works best with the type of body shape that they have, not what works for someone else. In order to do this, one has to carefully experiment and track the results.

Which brings me to my next point on position, stance, and performance. In order to properly evaluate change, it must be small and measurable. One has to make little changes in one's style and have a legitimate way to measure the results. Shooting in some kind of competitive event can be measureable, because typically scores are kept and the targets have graduated lines for scoring. It doesn't have to be formal competition, it can also be in practice sessions. It doesn't matter what dicipline, IDPA, IPSC, Bullseye, etc. Just as long as there's a means to evaluate the results. Make small changes, vary one thing at a time. If one changes their stance, grip, head position, and muscle tension and performace declines: than what exactly caused the change? There's no way of knowing, which is exactly why one must make small changes to one thing at a time.

I can't tell you that you should use the Isosocles stance over Weaver, that's something you'll have to discover on your own. Find the position that is most comfortable and works for you, and then stick with it. One has to committ, jumping back and forth with position just causes inconsistency, and inconsistency in shooting is not compatible with good performance.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye
Image

greener

Post by greener » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:06 pm

Thanks for the comments Bullseye. You've got a great site.

As for the failing ancient eyes, I'm already at the progressive lense bifocal stage. Unfortunately, when I ask the local optical shops about corrections for shooters I get very blank looks. I've been looking for the combination of sight and barrel length that makes it easier for me to see the sights. That's one of the reasons I bought the Ruger Hunter, the high visibility front sight with interchangeable fiber optics makes it much easier. My 22A looks like it was left lying about in a modern art class because I've been playing around with various color combinations. I do pretty well with tactical night sights. I've also played around with a red dot scope, which makes it easier. But I prefer "iron sights." A quarter of a century in field artillery makes echo location difficult, so I'll have to stick with my eyes.

User avatar
Bullseye
Site Admin/Host
Site Admin/Host
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bullseye » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:57 am

There is another option, it's called a Merit Optical Attachment. Basically it is an adjustable iris, like a camera lens stop, for your glasses. It attaches by a suction cup and then the lens section pivots and can be moved into your line of sight.

Image

I have one that I won many years ago at a match, when I too young and didn't need it. I still have it and it works fine for bringing the front sight into focus. They cost about $55-$70 retail and you can buy one from Merit or from most shooting supply sites online. You can read more about the specifications at this website: Merit Optical

Here's a couple of places that sell them:

Champion Shooter's Supply
Brownells
Shooter's Box


You will get blank looks from most optometrists. Call around and ask if they will set up a set of sport glasses for optimal focusing a set distance. You can get someone to measure your front sight distance to your eye during your normal stance, or ask the eye doctor's office if you can bring in your firearm to adjust the focus of your glasses. There are Optometrists in your area the cater to shooters. If you have trouble finding one, you can contact the NRA and they have lists of eye doctors that do specialized work with shooters.

Hope this helps.

R,
Bullseye
Image

allendavis
Regular contributor
Regular contributor
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:27 pm

Stance and Performance

Post by allendavis » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:48 pm

Bullseye

I was intrigued by your last post about the Merit Optical thingamajig.

I'm on my fourth or fifth set of no-line ("progressive") bi-focal eyeglasses, and this pair gives me a fit because the lenses I selected are so short top-to-bottom.

I don't really have a problem seeing my front sights (on my handguns, at least), mainly because of my stance and the way I shoot.

I'm about 95% ambidextrous, but I really do prefer to shoot right-handed, but I'm "left-eyed." I use a modified Weaver stance, both elbows bent, applying mild isometric pressure forward with my shooting hand while pulling back slightly with my off-hand. I also learned from Masaad Ayoob's Lethal Institute course to bury the tip of my left index finger into the web between my shooting hand's index and middle fingers. This stance requires me to cant my head to the right so I can use my left eye properly since it is dominate. However, I always ALWAYS keep BOTH eyes open while shooting. I take a "flash sight picture" (a la Jeff Cooper), then focus on the front sight.

With both eyes open, I can not only see the front sight, but I can see the target, whether or not it was hit, and can see where the bullet goes after it passes the target if it is not against the backstop.

My optometrist here in Martinsville (Indiana) is shooter-savvy, thank God. Perhaps that will come in handy when I need. (He's a shooter himself.)

He's had the Lasik surgery, but says he now regrets it. He is no longer near-sighted, but he will eventually need reading glasses (he's 2-3 years younger than me). He recommends that I wait at least another 5 years if I want Lasik done so the technology can improve and the price continue to fall.

My approach to shooting stance seems to work for everyone I've gotten to try it and stick with it long enough to get used to it, although most people make little minor modifications to work for them. Both of my sons swear by the technique I use, and my youngest son was a crack shot in Afghanistan and Iraq and used his 1911 to good effect on several occasions while overseas. My wife, Connie, can regularly crack clays out to about 60 yards or so with her 4" barrelled S&W M-34.

I can't really knock anyone using an isocoles (sp?) hold if they can actually shoot well with it. I just know that I can't, and I don't like the way a handgun recoils when I have my elbows locked. And I especially hate how long it takes me to re-acquire a sight picture.

But that's just me, my wife, kids and a sizeable number of my friends.

That's my two cents' worth.

Allen

Post Reply