The "Square Stance": Why?

[Overload]

If you are squared up and offering your broad center mass as a target, you are doing it wrong.  That may work ok on a range, against paper targets or tactical jell-o, but in a gun fight, I'd prefer cover & concealment. 

What if you're wearing body armor?  Then you want to square up to the target.  I think it was in GA that a raid went wrong and SWAT were shot through their armpits as they were sideways to the target

[tombogan03884]

Like I tried to point out, (poorly perhaps ) in my reply to an earlier post, what Overload says about Body armor is true, however, most of us here do not, and probably never will, wear it, so for us at any rate, that aspect becomes a moot issue .
That being said, the increased controlability of your long gun, and the fact that you do not have to change stance if/when transitioning to a hand gun means the square stance is still practical for "the rest of us".

[2HOW]

All Good Answers... but one of the biggest to me and the primary reason that we advocate it in Counter Ambush Defensive Shooting is that it is THE position that your body naturally goes to (in the absence of training to do otherwise). The human animal lowers its center of gravity and orients towards a threat naturally. If it happens naturally, we should learn to work with it as much as we possibly can... hence out emphasis on being "natural and neutral" in our stance in the CFS program.



We need to move , and shoot. Low center of gravity does not necessarily mean a good profile. We should train to move first, and be active not reactive. I don't buy in to the "natural " reactive human threat scenario, that Rob describes.
haven't seen it and don't subscribe to it.  With all due respect  Pincus.

[PegLeg45]

I was talking to a LEO friend the other day about things related to this thread and he passed on something his county's ME had been talking about. He was basically saying that a "square stance" (without a vest) can also help avoid what he called "damaged organ stacking"...what he meant by that, he said, was that in a forward-facing squared-up stance, a round might hit a single vital organ (such as a lung, kidney, liver, etc) for those not wearing a vest. He went on to say that in a diagonal or also a perpendicular stance, one round was more likely to hit several organs. For example, he said a single shot to the upper thorax that enters the ribcage below the arm can take out both lungs and the heart, whereas the same shot from the front may only take one lung. He did go on to say that basically it is the luck-of-the-draw sometimes.

I don't know if there is anything to what the ME was saying, I'm not an expert, but I thought I'd share it.

Peg

** as a side note, sometimes even a vest won't save you (but it is still better than nothing).
A local area County Police Deputy was shot and killed about 35 miles away from me last week. An abdominal wound hit just below the bottom of the vest and veered upward (according to the Chief at eh PD where my b-i-l is an officer) and the officer later died from his wounds.

http://themunz.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/lieutenant-cliff-rouse-dougherty-county-police-department-georgia-end-of-watch-thursday-december-23-2010/

Lieutenant Cliff Rouse was shot and killed after responding to an armed robbery at a convenience store on Sylvester Road.
Moments later he radioed that he had been shot at a nearby trailer park. He had been struck once in the leg and once in the abdomen, just below his vest. He was transported to Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital where he succumbed to his wounds.

--------------------------

Rouse was shot once in the abdomen and once in the left leg.  He died after being rushed to Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital.  Rouse was wearing a protective vest, but the fatal shot apparently hit him just below the bottom of the vest.

[Tyler Durden]

I would like to know why I would be caught out in the open with a shotgun.    I mean...if I already have the shotgun, it means that I must have been expecting trouble in the first place,  right?  That's why I went and got the shotgun. 

So if I have the shotgun because I want to be prepared , then I would hope that I am also of the right mindset enough to prepare by getting behind some cover.

As far as the stance goes, I call it a "boxer's stance".  while you looked at somebody from the side the knees are slightly bent, the torsoe is leaning forward slightly....so you can draw a straight line through your shoulders to your knees and to your toes.  The weight is on the toes or balls of your feet, not back on your heels.  Which all makes it easier to absorb recoil.  My other guess is that being up on your toes or on the balls of your feet, you can spring into action better, left, right, forward or back.

[Sponsor]

[BikerRN]

Howdy all.

New member here, but I posted my thoughts on this "stance" stuff someplace else. Here's what I had to say then. Of course I got the very vocal proponents of the Iso stance jumping up and down. Thing is, I don't much care who jumps. I can't jump anymore. Old age or previous injuries will do that to a guy.

Interesting thread.

Over the past twenty years I've used the three main stances, Iso, Weaver, and Chapman. Depending on my medical issues, and which hand draws a weapon, I may use any one of the stances or something that I make up on the spur of the moment.

Each stance has it's strong and weak points. For myself, since I no longer wear a bullet resistant vest, I like that the Weaver Stance presents less of a target area to an assailant and lets the arms help in protecting my vital area. That bad part is, it seems to be a little slower to acquire and not a natural body reaction.

Weaver works great, IMO, when firing from a seated position like the driver's seat of a car if the target is at the door/window area. Chapman tends to work well for me if I start in Iso and have to transition to a target to my left. Starting in Iso one can have almost 360 degrees of coverage if they use all three stances. How practical is that, I have no idea, but somebody in a wheelchair may find that a benefit. Also, when clearing a building with a handgun, due to the various obstacles, corners, and what-not, one may find themselves using any and all stances to complete the task at hand.

One rumor that I had heard a long time ago, but was unable to confirm, was that Jack Weaver had an elbow injury and he found shooting in his unusual at the time stance tended to eliminate or minimize the discomfort in his elbow. I do have elbow and wrist issues, bilateral, and on those days when I'm really hurting the Weaver stance lets me shoot a few more rounds before I have to call it quits.

As for the wheels coming off Weaver when shooting and moving I have not found that to be true if one is walking at a moderately fast pace, which is about as fast as I move anymore. It will depend though on where the targets are in relation to your position. I try not to run anymore, as it hurts too much.

Is any stance going to be the "Be all and end all" for everyone? I highly doubt it. Will a shooter, be they LEO, MIL, or John Q. Citizen benefit from knowing all three stances ? Probably.

Biker

I do agree with trying to use the body's own natural responses, but everyone's body is different and we all have different levels of training. That training will play in to how we respond. For what it's worth, I shoot a lot in Iso, but use the other two stances as well. Take care and stay safe.

Biker

[rat31465]

From a Tactical standpoint squaring up is a very stable stance....
From a competition stand point...it has as much or more to do with Muzzle discipline and maintaining the 180 degree safety rule as anything else.

[Tyler Durden]

I think you'll find you can break the 180 degree rule just as easily with the Weaver stance or "reverse" Chapman...or isosceles...