TargetTalk

A good share of descriptions and illustrations of the pistol stance for AP are with the athlete turned most of 90 degrees from the target. The arm is therefore rather straight to the side. Is this the current normal convention?
note the Chichkov articles here
http://www.usashooting.org/11-resources ... olshooting

jackh wrote:...arm is therefore rather straight to the side. Is this the current normal convention?...

Internationally? Absolutely.

Here in 'Murica? I guess we're a little more resistant to change.

I noticed many people at the range I shoot at stand somewhere between 45 degrees, right foot front, left foot a little to the back and to the side. I spoke with some of the shooters and they said just try and stand as natural as possible.

I did watch some online ISSF videos for 10m AP and all competitors stand 90 degrees to the target. I'm now changing my stance to the 90 degree one but I noticed it is a bit more difficult. I was wondering if that might be because in the '45 degree' stance the upper pectoralis (chest) muscle is helping hold the arm up while in the 90 degrees only the three shoulder muscles hold it up?

There are many factors at play that dictate ideal stance. Technically the ideal stance (ignoring all other factors) is pretty much sideways on to the target. But it isn't anywhere near that simple...

The objective is to stand in a comfortable and stable position in which minimal muscle involvement is required to hold the position. So you need a position which is as close as possible to those ideals, but in which you can comfortably look through the sights and onto the target. So minimise neck twist, don't overly restrict blood flow through the carotid arteries and veins - to keep eyesight keen.

Like everything you need to train and practice the position before it becomes and feels 'natural'. It's the sort of thing that a good coach should go through with their shooters and revisit every now and again - as we change as we get older and our fitness and mobility levels change.

Rob.

lifthrasir wrote:only the three shoulder muscles hold it up?

Google "throwers 10" for a description of some excellent shoulder exercises. We don't need big muscles, but you need strong ones and don't want any imbalances.

cheers,
-= Jab

[color=#000000]personal injury lawyer[/color] wrote:A good share of descriptions and illustrations of the pistol stance for AP are with the athlete turned most of 90 degrees from the target. The arm is therefore rather straight to the side. Is this the current normal convention?
note the Chichkov articles here
http://www.usashooting.org/11-resources ... olshooting

I'm not sure if it is the current normal, but I agree it is the most common. Do you practice that way?

Stance straight in line with target are common.

But stance at more than 90 degrees are not uncommon either.

Look at Ragnar Skanaker and Wang Yi-Fu's stances. Those two collect more Olympic medals than all others, but their stances are slightly more than 90 degrees. Even though they are more than 90 degrees, both look natural and comfortable in their stances. More than 90 degree stance could actually be more comfortable than both less than 90 degree stance or 90 degree stance. Just as someone had mentioned earlier (later deleted), you just have to squeeze your gluteus maximus and minor butt muscles tight.

I have to concede that both are unconventional, but I maintained that their stances are more than feasible.

Look at the stance Mortensen used in this western gunfight scene.

He reported to have studied how real Western duelist stand from Remington paintings.

So greater than 90 degree stance is a very feasible stance.

If you were in his position, what stance would you use?

I probably would use the stance that uses my largest muscles group to lift the gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6chxVZhmwg

seamaster wrote:<snip>
I probably would use the stance that uses my largest muscles group to lift the gun.

That may be useful if you're holding a 20Kg weight up where you need real strength. A pistol is 1Kg and the objective is to hold it still. In that case you can probably acheive that better with muscles developed for fine control rather than those developed for pure strength.

Working with a coach you should be able to come up with a stance optimised for you and your body shape, size and annatomy that fulfils the key requirements of the pistol shooting position.

Rob.

I have noticed that the younger the shooter the larger the angle, up to 90 degrees. My impression is that 90 degrees is the ideal position, but this stance is natural to young and flexible bodies only!.... Sadly :-(

seamaster wrote: More than 90 degree stance could actually be more comfortable than both less than 90 degree stance or 90 degree stance. Just as someone had mentioned earlier (later deleted), you just have to squeeze your gluteus maximus and minor butt muscles tight.

That be me. I deleted my post about the 90+ stance, w/ compression of the butt-halves :-), cause i feared it might be considered too controversial (or even trolling).
I see you have the same knowledge about this. Hence, I am delighted!

therider wrote:I have noticed that the younger the shooter the larger the angle, up to 90 degrees. My impression is that 90 degrees is the ideal position, but this stance is natural to young and flexible bodies only!.... Sadly :-(

A stance is no good if it's uncomfortable, so if your body doesn't want to go into that position, dont force it. And as you say with age comes a reduction in mobility/flexibility.

There is also the possibility that older shooters were taught stance when they were much younger and when convention was towards a more 45 degree stance. It's equally possible therefore that most older shooters have never been re-taught.

Rob.

seamaster wrote:Look at the stance Mortensen used in this western gunfight scene.

He reported to have studied how real Western duelist stand from Remington paintings.

So greater than 90 degree stance is a very feasible stance.

If you were in his position, what stance would you use?

I probably would use the stance that uses my largest muscles group to lift the gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6chxVZhmwg

Sideways on (inline), to present the smallest target ;-) besides he is not shooting sighters plus 60.

When I started shooting rapid fire pistol in the early 60s I used the inline stance as it felt more stable with a rapid raise. I have stayed with it ever since including precision shooting.

I tried the 90 degree stance when I first started with air pistol. I did not feel as steady in that position as I did with a lesser angle which is how I have subsequently been shooting. I think I read somewhere (from a source I haven't found again) that turning one's head to face directly along the shoulder can put pressure on the vagus nerve and that can interfere with balance. Is that an issue? Did I really read it or am I dreaming?

Roger

This is all very interesting. One thing I noticed on the illustration in the USAS article with the young Chichov is the elbow is hyper extended. No way can my elbow bend backwards like that. Also my natural wrist wants to go left so much that I need great grip modification even though I am right eye right hand. I do not like forcing my wrist to the right. I might have to get the 7 degree type grip. Ugh! Another expense.

I have long suspected that many of the top shooters do well in SPITE of themselves.

I think (and that's just it... no scientific basis) that the shooter who has greater shoulder, chest, and neck flexibility has an advantage.

The flexible shooter can try any number of different positions and choose the one which suits him/her best. However, the shooter with limited range of motion will pretty much just be shooting from some diagonal angle to the target.

RandomShotz wrote:I tried the 90 degree stance when I first started with air pistol. I did not feel as steady in that position as I did with a lesser angle which is how I have subsequently been shooting. I think I read somewhere (from a source I haven't found again) that turning one's head to face directly along the shoulder can put pressure on the vagus nerve and that can interfere with balance. Is that an issue? Did I really read it or am I dreaming?

Roger

That may be true, but perhaps more important is the vascular system. Too much pressure will restrict blood flow to the brain (and eyes).

We are all individuals though and one mans too far is fine for another, so it's important to find out what works for you.

Rob.

Stance is all about stability.

Single most effective modification I've made to my stance recently (based on something in an article in the USA Shooting News) is to place my feet shoulder width apart and PARALLEL to each other. The latter action seems to lock the hip, knee and ankle joints and gives a feeling of rigidity. A lot of the elite shooters appear to do this. Helps too to have very thin soled shoes so there is no sponginess underfoot. Weightlifting shoes are a good alternative to expensive shooting shoes.

I'll follow this regime until the next good idea comes along!

Bob

BobGee wrote:Stance is all about stability.

Afraid, I disagree, but stance is about far more than just stability. It includes comfort, building an effective and repeatable position, and stability.

Turning your feet more inwards than normal is generally a rescue tactic that some shooters use for a short period in a match when they become more unstable - or feel they are more unstable. It's not a stance I'd recommend to shoot with all the time, as it will cause undue stress and strains on the legs, especially the knees.

Rob.