I shoot from a modified Isosceles stance. I say "modified" because both elbows are slightly bent rather than at natural extension. The weakside arm is somewhat straighter than the strong arm, but only slightly, and this is due to the particular grip used on the gun. Great pictures of the grip in links below, by the way, but that is for another thread. I'll dig around and try and find a picture of me shooting at some point, but Cliff's avatar picture is an example of it, as are the pictures of Rob Leatham on www.robleatham.com. Rob and Brian Enos were two of the shooters that brought this stance to prominance, beginning in the early 1980's.
The modified Isosceles stance, with some slight variations, is the most common stance in USPSA/IPSC matches, and there is a good reason for it. It is very neutral, flexible, relaxed, and handles recoil very well. I like to describe the upper body as a "turret" in this stance, because it really doesn't matter what the legs are doing. You can lean or swivel right or left, squat, shoot on the move, etc., all out of the same stance, and much easier than you can in really any other stance of which I am aware. I am a big proponent of it, but I would never say it was the only stance for everyone. It is worth giving a try though, IMHO, for anyone that hasn't already.
Some of the common variations are the height of the elbows. Dave Sevigny of Glock shoots with very high elbows. They are bent, but from the side, it almost looks like they are locked straight because they are so high. See the last picture on the main page at http://www.sevignyperformance.com/. Rodney May, meanwhile, teaches rolling the elbows down low which tightens the chest muscles. I am somewhere in the middle, more like Leatham I guess.
I previously shot from a Weaver stance and have tried the Chapman. Interestingly, the "Reverse Chapman", where the weakside arm is fully extended and locked out, the strongside arm is slightly bent, and the push/pull is done away with, is also somewhat popular and used by some competitors. I am not that familiar with the Center Axis Relock.
I know the NRA still teaches the Isosceles and Weaver, tilting toward the Weaver, and I personally think that is unfortunate. I don't think it is as consistent (the push/pull forces) nor as flexible. It is not as easy to shoot around some obstacles or shoot on the move because the weak side leg needs to be forward to keep it from being incredibly awkward (to me anyway). Finally, I don't really buy the argument in favor of reducing the frontal target area by blading to a threat. I'd rather have a single stance that I can use under almost any circumstances and can move easily in any direction while using rather than a slightly smaller frontal area but less ability to move in some directions. For LE's, their body armor generally offers better protection from a frontal shot than from the side.
As an aside, I shoot long guns from a very similar stance when possible. It is a common subgun stance, where the body is basically squared up, a la the Isosceles or Modified Isosceles, and the buttstock is moved inboard several inches towards the sternum. Both arms are bent, strong obviously more so to get to the trigger while weak is on the forearm.
The modified Isosceles stance, with some slight variations, is the most common stance in USPSA/IPSC matches, and there is a good reason for it. It is very neutral, flexible, relaxed, and handles recoil very well. I like to describe the upper body as a "turret" in this stance, because it really doesn't matter what the legs are doing. You can lean or swivel right or left, squat, shoot on the move, etc., all out of the same stance, and much easier than you can in really any other stance of which I am aware. I am a big proponent of it, but I would never say it was the only stance for everyone. It is worth giving a try though, IMHO, for anyone that hasn't already.
Some of the common variations are the height of the elbows. Dave Sevigny of Glock shoots with very high elbows. They are bent, but from the side, it almost looks like they are locked straight because they are so high. See the last picture on the main page at http://www.sevignyperformance.com/. Rodney May, meanwhile, teaches rolling the elbows down low which tightens the chest muscles. I am somewhere in the middle, more like Leatham I guess.
I previously shot from a Weaver stance and have tried the Chapman. Interestingly, the "Reverse Chapman", where the weakside arm is fully extended and locked out, the strongside arm is slightly bent, and the push/pull is done away with, is also somewhat popular and used by some competitors. I am not that familiar with the Center Axis Relock.
I know the NRA still teaches the Isosceles and Weaver, tilting toward the Weaver, and I personally think that is unfortunate. I don't think it is as consistent (the push/pull forces) nor as flexible. It is not as easy to shoot around some obstacles or shoot on the move because the weak side leg needs to be forward to keep it from being incredibly awkward (to me anyway). Finally, I don't really buy the argument in favor of reducing the frontal target area by blading to a threat. I'd rather have a single stance that I can use under almost any circumstances and can move easily in any direction while using rather than a slightly smaller frontal area but less ability to move in some directions. For LE's, their body armor generally offers better protection from a frontal shot than from the side.
As an aside, I shoot long guns from a very similar stance when possible. It is a common subgun stance, where the body is basically squared up, a la the Isosceles or Modified Isosceles, and the buttstock is moved inboard several inches towards the sternum. Both arms are bent, strong obviously more so to get to the trigger while weak is on the forearm.
