Unusual stance I use for accuracy

darrentxs · May 8, 2007, 02:31 AM

Hello, I'm pretty new on the forum but have been recreational target handgunning for many years. I've adopted a stance that for me provides the stability I need to achieve very accurate shots. I thought I'd pass it along and see what you think. (I'm right handed and have a right dominant eye which I use to align my sights. I squint but do not close my left eye.)

To try the stance:
1) Stand feet & shoulders square to the target area, then take one step forward with your left foot. (about 2.5 feet)

2) Press your left upper arm flat against your chest (very firmly), with your elbow angled toward the center of your chest and held firmly against your body. Extend your left hand outward to grip the underside of your right hand. (half on the right wrist half on the right palm)

3) The right arm is straight with locked elbow.

4) I lean my cheek on my right shoulder.

It's a very solid/stable. My drift is very slight, I make constant minute corrections and squeeze slowly. My groups are small and at POA. Is there an official name for this stance? I don't think I've seen it anywhere before.
Any input or reslults from your tryout of it is welcome!

PSP · May 8, 2007, 05:26 AM

Sounds odd but I'll give anything a try once...next time I'm at the range...

MPanova · May 8, 2007, 05:39 AM

Have someone take a picture. We all love pictures

I am having trouble grasping exactly how you are standing

Dondor · May 8, 2007, 08:50 AM

sounds like a slightly modified version of the upright stance rifle target shooters use with the exception of the left hand is used fingertips on the middle to rear of the rifle forearm.

Lurper · May 8, 2007, 09:03 AM

You would do far better using a grip and stance that was natural and relaxed. That's the way the body works best. A stance like the one you describe has a long list of drawbacks.

Sturmgewehre · May 8, 2007, 10:29 AM

Yeah, that much tension is usually a bad thing. I'm glad it works for you, but most would agree a more relaxed stance is not only more practical but usually offers better results.

But, if it works for you - keep doing it.

darrentxs · May 8, 2007, 12:13 PM

The idea behind it was to eliminate movement at the elbows. I know it's goofy, been doing it for years though. I'll try to get a picture. I have plans to shoot at The Bullet Trap in Plano, TX this Saturday, if anyone wants to see it. (I'll be easy to spot - just look for the stance).

Powderman · May 8, 2007, 12:27 PM

This is a version of the old Qwell stance, which used to be taught as a "new" combat shooting method.

The stance you describe CAN be very accurate--but as others have noted, it's way too rigid for practicality. While the classic Weaver is TOO relaxed (IMHO), a good Chapman (modified Weaver) does the trick for me.

Lurper · May 8, 2007, 01:38 PM

You want movement at the elbows. That is what will allow you to shoot quickly and accurately by converting upward movement to rearward movement. Locking your elbows and shoulders allows the gun to exert force on your entire body. Try locking your wrists, elbows and shoulders then have someone push inward on your hands. The push will effect your entire body. Now, change to a more relaxed stance (similar to isoceles), keep your wrists firm and elbows relaxed. Have the friend push on your hands again. The push will stop at the elbow. Your elbows will work like shock absorbers.

No one can control recoil through strength. The impulse is too hard, too quick so you have to learn how to use it like a journeyman uses a hammer. As in any sport, your body performs best when it is relaxed. The same applies to shooting. You are far better off learing to shoot the way your body was designed to work. That way, you will succeed because of your efforts, not in spite of them.

Sturmgewehre · May 8, 2007, 02:04 PM

+1 Lurper.

I think he's talking about target shooting though. I know guys who can chew the X ring out of a target at 25 yards show fire but can't draw and fire instinctively at 7 yards in a fraction of a second and get off multiple shots into a kill zone.

Two different types of shooting served by different techniques. I personally have little use for target shooting as most of my weapons are designed for fighting. I don't have very many "target" guns.

Jim Watson · May 8, 2007, 02:32 PM

It doesn't sound fast so it is little use in IPSC or IDPA.
It uses both hands so it is no use in NRA.

It does resemble what a lot of handgun metallic silhouette shooters do, so it probably helps accuracy where allowed.

Lurper · May 8, 2007, 03:09 PM

Yeah, but even the old grizzled bullseye shooters who got me to try bullseye were relaxed when they shot (I'm surprised they didn't doze off between shots). But, I also tend to lose sight of the fact that for some, just shooting is okay without regard to competition or practical application.

Sturmgewehre · May 8, 2007, 03:32 PM

Yeah, my "target" stance isn't much different than my fighting stance. I stand the same way regardless, I just fire a little slower. Even when I'm "target shooting" I tend to shoot just as fast as I can get a shot off, get back on target and squeeze the trigger again... most call what I do rapid firing.

But even then I tend to do pretty good. Here's a sample of a rapid fire target I shot this weekend from 21 feet using a gun I haven't shot in at least 10 years. I drug the thing out of the safe to show to the guys at the range... and I fired a box of shells through it (50 rounds fired in this target).

I stand square to the target, arms extended, elbow slightly bent, knees slightly bent, slight lean forward, deep hold on the pistol, thumbs aligned on the left side of the weapon and pointing towards the target.

It works for me.

Sturmgewehre · May 8, 2007, 03:35 PM

Here, this is me shooting. This is about as slow as I'll ever fire "target shooting". This seems painfully slow to me when I watch it by the way, I'm really trying to slow down for this video clip. You can see me speed up a little on a couple of shots...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEVTEagIK3M

westphoenix · May 8, 2007, 06:15 PM

Sturmgewehre,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEVTEagIK3M

Just curious, how does that video prove that "mini-auto's are quite accurate" if you do not show us the target afterwards?

Seems to be more and more common online, proof without the proof

Abndoc · May 8, 2007, 06:25 PM

I'm going to try it just to see what it's about, but to be honest, it feels pretty uncomfortable when I tried it at home.

Oops. I just reread your post, and I had my left hand too far back. Much better now.

Sturmgewehre · May 8, 2007, 09:08 PM

West,

Here's the pic that goes with the vieo:

darrentxs · May 9, 2007, 12:47 AM

Thanks for the input everyone. It is a rigid stance- that's the whole idea. My drift is very, very slight, much less than other stances I've tried. I do shoot slowly usually, because I'm most often evaluating guns, sighting them in etc. I can however get into the stance quickly. I have used this "Modified Quell" stance to "double tap" with no problems. I give up a little comfort for accuracy. I'm not familiar with competition shooting formats and trust the comments posted here on that issue. It's definitely not for everyone and all handgunning situations as we can see here, but it helps me shoot bullseyes and I enjoy that.

onlybrowning · May 9, 2007, 08:05 AM

The obnly thing that I worry about is having your head tilted. If you ever watch any professional shooter, their head is always almost perfectly upright. Try walking in a straight line with your head cocked to one side. You can't do it. it throws off the equilibrium. Ironically enough, I often experience great results trying just about anything new (I believe I focus harder) and then it wears off. I see that you have been doing this for a while now though, so I am surprised. Hmmmm, very interesting.

darrentxs · May 13, 2007, 01:19 PM

I was on lane 10 at the Bullet Trap yesterday with my co-worker (gun novice)from about 12:30-2:00. I used my usual stance as described but need to make a slight correction. With my bulky ear-protection on, I lean just enough so that my ear cover, not my cheek touches my shoulder. It's not really an extreme head tilt. I had only 2 pistols with me, a Para Ordnance P-13 & a Taurus .38 with 4". Both guns are true with fixed sights. What can I say, I shot the bull ring clean out nearly every time. The stance works for me whie target shooting. There is no reason for me to change it.

PS. Monarch ammo at Acadamy Sports is about the cheapest I've found and worked great.

GoSlash27 · May 13, 2007, 01:41 PM

Congratulations! You've just discovered the Quell stance. I use that one myself for precision shots.

Doesn't work out for people that aren't cross-dominant. It's also not fast or agile, but there are some situations that it's perfect for. I explain to people that it's good for head-shots out at 50 yds or torso shots out at 200 and they just stare at me blankly like "this guy's fulla s%^t"...

AK103K · May 13, 2007, 02:02 PM

The Quells stance works, but does take some getting used to to be natural with. It like an HK P7 pretty much requires you to dedicate yourself to it.

I dont bend my arms as much and use a more or less modified Weaver with mine, with a normal grip.

Using the left eye is strange at first, but once your used to the head position, you get pretty much instant sight alignment with rifle like steadiness, when the gun is presented. The other thing with the system supposedly had to do with how the brain deals with danger and your left and right brain. Dont know about that, but the system does work for fast, precise shots.

gvf · May 14, 2007, 09:51 AM

I tried it and it produced too much tension. I'm sure it's good for you though if it works.

I'm "teaching myself" for SD purposes, no courses in my area. I try to stand balanced, body to target, or side stance, and alternate between two and one-handed. Since tension will certainly be there in any possible encounter I do a lot of "muscle-isolation": keeping arm/s straight but relaxed, but strong, firm grip, shoulders relaxed, knees "broken" so legs are flexible should I have to move quickly etc/ I'm not so conerned with perfect stance since I would be quickly assuming one and quickly aiming due to conditions of the moment. I want to be flexible so I even shoot from a "bad" stance in case I would have to. But my constant focus is muscle-isolation and relaxing muscle groups that cause tension, hand trembling, neck tension etc., and consequent poor aim. I seem to shoot well now in many stances and positions. When my body is poised but relaxed, I just naturally seem to aim well. When I TRY REAL HARD, the shots are way off. And in the stance you described I was doing that: TRYING.

Lurper · May 14, 2007, 12:52 PM

Okay, in a blatant attempt to fuel a huge debate, let me ask two questions:
1. D, why would you ask for input, feedback or advice when your mind was obviously closed to any suggestions anyone had to help you improve?

2. Why in the world would anyone want to try to shoot in a stance as unnatural and uncomfortable as this?

For the record, I tried the quell stance when I first heard of it in about '81/'82. It was being pushed as a different way to use the firearm. I tried it, agreed with some of the mental aspects of the training (right brain/left brain), but realized that it leaves much to be desired in the mechanics of shooting department. My point is that I have a certain degree of knowledge of the system so my opinion is not just pulled out of the air (or somewhere else).

darrentxs · May 14, 2007, 01:40 PM

Hi Lurper - I learned the name of the stance and that it was already a known method Quell. Now I don't have to describe it as a homegrown "unusual stance I use for accuracy". That's a nice thing for me - thanks to those that passed that info!

In response to your questions:
1) I never asked for advice to improve. Perhaps you misread or I was unclear. Sorry if it was the latter. I did ask for input and thank all that responded inculing you. I'd like to hear from others that gave it a try.

2) One word - bullseyes. If you already shoot them consistently - you have nothing to gain. If you don't you have nothing to lose by trying it and may improve greatly as I did. BTW it is now a very natural stance for me.

Lastly the right brain left brain stuff doesn't apply to me - I shoot righty with a right dominant eye that I sight with.

PS thanks for the pics Goslash - thats it! (only I'm a righty) I have chores and will be offline until late - I'll catch the fallout then.

May 8, 2007, 02:31 AM	#1
darrentxs Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 401	Unusual stance I use for accuracy Hello, I'm pretty new on the forum but have been recreational target handgunning for many years. I've adopted a stance that for me provides the stability I need to achieve very accurate shots. I thought I'd pass it along and see what you think. (I'm right handed and have a right dominant eye which I use to align my sights. I squint but do not close my left eye.) To try the stance: 1) Stand feet & shoulders square to the target area, then take one step forward with your left foot. (about 2.5 feet) 2) Press your left upper arm flat against your chest (very firmly), with your elbow angled toward the center of your chest and held firmly against your body. Extend your left hand outward to grip the underside of your right hand. (half on the right wrist half on the right palm) 3) The right arm is straight with locked elbow. 4) I lean my cheek on my right shoulder. It's a very solid/stable. My drift is very slight, I make constant minute corrections and squeeze slowly. My groups are small and at POA. Is there an official name for this stance? I don't think I've seen it anywhere before. Any input or reslults from your tryout of it is welcome!

May 8, 2007, 05:39 AM	#3
MPanova Senior Member Join Date: October 1, 2006 Location: Houston TX Posts: 681	Have someone take a picture. We all love pictures I am having trouble grasping exactly how you are standing __________________ .45 CALIBER FANATIC!!! "WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG GUN!"

May 8, 2007, 12:27 PM	#8
Powderman Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2001 Location: Washington State Posts: 2,166	This is a version of the old Qwell stance, which used to be taught as a "new" combat shooting method. The stance you describe CAN be very accurate--but as others have noted, it's way too rigid for practicality. While the classic Weaver is TOO relaxed (IMHO), a good Chapman (modified Weaver) does the trick for me. __________________ Hiding in plain sight...

May 13, 2007, 01:41 PM	#21
GoSlash27 Senior Member Join Date: November 26, 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 3,118	Congratulations! You've just discovered the Quell stance. I use that one myself for precision shots. Doesn't work out for people that aren't cross-dominant. It's also not fast or agile, but there are some situations that it's perfect for. I explain to people that it's good for head-shots out at 50 yds or torso shots out at 200 and they just stare at me blankly like "this guy's fulla s%^t"... __________________ Bill of Rights Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Not available in all states. Some restrictions apply. Last edited by GoSlash27; May 15, 2007 at 05:35 AM. Reason: typo

May 14, 2007, 09:51 AM	#23
gvf Junior member Join Date: July 30, 2006 Posts: 1,226	Tried it I tried it and it produced too much tension. I'm sure it's good for you though if it works. I'm "teaching myself" for SD purposes, no courses in my area. I try to stand balanced, body to target, or side stance, and alternate between two and one-handed. Since tension will certainly be there in any possible encounter I do a lot of "muscle-isolation": keeping arm/s straight but relaxed, but strong, firm grip, shoulders relaxed, knees "broken" so legs are flexible should I have to move quickly etc/ I'm not so conerned with perfect stance since I would be quickly assuming one and quickly aiming due to conditions of the moment. I want to be flexible so I even shoot from a "bad" stance in case I would have to. But my constant focus is muscle-isolation and relaxing muscle groups that cause tension, hand trembling, neck tension etc., and consequent poor aim. I seem to shoot well now in many stances and positions. When my body is poised but relaxed, I just naturally seem to aim well. When I TRY REAL HARD, the shots are way off. And in the stance you described I was doing that: TRYING. Last edited by gvf; May 14, 2007 at 10:18 AM. Reason: spell

May 8, 2007, 05:26 AM	#2
PSP Senior Member Join Date: June 2, 2006 Location: Bowling Green Virginia Posts: 4,487	Sounds odd but I'll give anything a try once...next time I'm at the range...

May 8, 2007, 08:50 AM	#4
Dondor Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2006 Posts: 226	sounds like a slightly modified version of the upright stance rifle target shooters use with the exception of the left hand is used fingertips on the middle to rear of the rifle forearm.

May 8, 2007, 09:03 AM	#5
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	You would do far better using a grip and stance that was natural and relaxed. That's the way the body works best. A stance like the one you describe has a long list of drawbacks.

May 8, 2007, 10:29 AM	#6
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	Yeah, that much tension is usually a bad thing. I'm glad it works for you, but most would agree a more relaxed stance is not only more practical but usually offers better results. But, if it works for you - keep doing it.

May 8, 2007, 12:13 PM	#7
darrentxs Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 401	The idea behind it was to eliminate movement at the elbows. I know it's goofy, been doing it for years though. I'll try to get a picture. I have plans to shoot at The Bullet Trap in Plano, TX this Saturday, if anyone wants to see it. (I'll be easy to spot - just look for the stance).

May 8, 2007, 01:38 PM	#9
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	You want movement at the elbows. That is what will allow you to shoot quickly and accurately by converting upward movement to rearward movement. Locking your elbows and shoulders allows the gun to exert force on your entire body. Try locking your wrists, elbows and shoulders then have someone push inward on your hands. The push will effect your entire body. Now, change to a more relaxed stance (similar to isoceles), keep your wrists firm and elbows relaxed. Have the friend push on your hands again. The push will stop at the elbow. Your elbows will work like shock absorbers. No one can control recoil through strength. The impulse is too hard, too quick so you have to learn how to use it like a journeyman uses a hammer. As in any sport, your body performs best when it is relaxed. The same applies to shooting. You are far better off learing to shoot the way your body was designed to work. That way, you will succeed because of your efforts, not in spite of them.

May 8, 2007, 02:04 PM	#10
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	+1 Lurper. I think he's talking about target shooting though. I know guys who can chew the X ring out of a target at 25 yards show fire but can't draw and fire instinctively at 7 yards in a fraction of a second and get off multiple shots into a kill zone. Two different types of shooting served by different techniques. I personally have little use for target shooting as most of my weapons are designed for fighting. I don't have very many "target" guns.

May 8, 2007, 02:32 PM	#11
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	It doesn't sound fast so it is little use in IPSC or IDPA. It uses both hands so it is no use in NRA. It does resemble what a lot of handgun metallic silhouette shooters do, so it probably helps accuracy where allowed.

May 8, 2007, 03:09 PM	#12
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Yeah, but even the old grizzled bullseye shooters who got me to try bullseye were relaxed when they shot (I'm surprised they didn't doze off between shots). But, I also tend to lose sight of the fact that for some, just shooting is okay without regard to competition or practical application.

May 8, 2007, 03:32 PM	#13
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	Yeah, my "target" stance isn't much different than my fighting stance. I stand the same way regardless, I just fire a little slower. Even when I'm "target shooting" I tend to shoot just as fast as I can get a shot off, get back on target and squeeze the trigger again... most call what I do rapid firing. But even then I tend to do pretty good. Here's a sample of a rapid fire target I shot this weekend from 21 feet using a gun I haven't shot in at least 10 years. I drug the thing out of the safe to show to the guys at the range... and I fired a box of shells through it (50 rounds fired in this target). I stand square to the target, arms extended, elbow slightly bent, knees slightly bent, slight lean forward, deep hold on the pistol, thumbs aligned on the left side of the weapon and pointing towards the target. It works for me.

May 8, 2007, 03:35 PM	#14
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	Here, this is me shooting. This is about as slow as I'll ever fire "target shooting". This seems painfully slow to me when I watch it by the way, I'm really trying to slow down for this video clip. You can see me speed up a little on a couple of shots... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEVTEagIK3M

May 8, 2007, 06:15 PM	#15
westphoenix Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2002 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 582	Sturmgewehre, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEVTEagIK3M Just curious, how does that video prove that "mini-auto's are quite accurate" if you do not show us the target afterwards? Seems to be more and more common online, proof without the proof

May 8, 2007, 06:25 PM	#16
Abndoc Senior Member Join Date: January 28, 2006 Location: Kalifornia Posts: 727	I'm going to try it just to see what it's about, but to be honest, it feels pretty uncomfortable when I tried it at home. Oops. I just reread your post, and I had my left hand too far back. Much better now.

May 8, 2007, 09:08 PM	#17
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	West, Here's the pic that goes with the vieo:

May 9, 2007, 12:47 AM	#18
darrentxs Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 401	Thanks for the input everyone. It is a rigid stance- that's the whole idea. My drift is very, very slight, much less than other stances I've tried. I do shoot slowly usually, because I'm most often evaluating guns, sighting them in etc. I can however get into the stance quickly. I have used this "Modified Quell" stance to "double tap" with no problems. I give up a little comfort for accuracy. I'm not familiar with competition shooting formats and trust the comments posted here on that issue. It's definitely not for everyone and all handgunning situations as we can see here, but it helps me shoot bullseyes and I enjoy that.

May 9, 2007, 08:05 AM	#19
onlybrowning Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2005 Location: Saratoga Springs, NY Posts: 275	The obnly thing that I worry about is having your head tilted. If you ever watch any professional shooter, their head is always almost perfectly upright. Try walking in a straight line with your head cocked to one side. You can't do it. it throws off the equilibrium. Ironically enough, I often experience great results trying just about anything new (I believe I focus harder) and then it wears off. I see that you have been doing this for a while now though, so I am surprised. Hmmmm, very interesting.

May 13, 2007, 01:19 PM	#20
darrentxs Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 401	I was on lane 10 at the Bullet Trap yesterday with my co-worker (gun novice)from about 12:30-2:00. I used my usual stance as described but need to make a slight correction. With my bulky ear-protection on, I lean just enough so that my ear cover, not my cheek touches my shoulder. It's not really an extreme head tilt. I had only 2 pistols with me, a Para Ordnance P-13 & a Taurus .38 with 4". Both guns are true with fixed sights. What can I say, I shot the bull ring clean out nearly every time. The stance works for me whie target shooting. There is no reason for me to change it. PS. Monarch ammo at Acadamy Sports is about the cheapest I've found and worked great.

May 13, 2007, 02:02 PM	#22
AK103K Senior Member Join Date: May 1, 2001 Posts: 10,223	The Quells stance works, but does take some getting used to to be natural with. It like an HK P7 pretty much requires you to dedicate yourself to it. I dont bend my arms as much and use a more or less modified Weaver with mine, with a normal grip. Using the left eye is strange at first, but once your used to the head position, you get pretty much instant sight alignment with rifle like steadiness, when the gun is presented. The other thing with the system supposedly had to do with how the brain deals with danger and your left and right brain. Dont know about that, but the system does work for fast, precise shots.

May 14, 2007, 12:52 PM	#24
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	Okay, in a blatant attempt to fuel a huge debate, let me ask two questions: 1. D, why would you ask for input, feedback or advice when your mind was obviously closed to any suggestions anyone had to help you improve? 2. Why in the world would anyone want to try to shoot in a stance as unnatural and uncomfortable as this? For the record, I tried the quell stance when I first heard of it in about '81/'82. It was being pushed as a different way to use the firearm. I tried it, agreed with some of the mental aspects of the training (right brain/left brain), but realized that it leaves much to be desired in the mechanics of shooting department. My point is that I have a certain degree of knowledge of the system so my opinion is not just pulled out of the air (or somewhere else).

May 14, 2007, 01:40 PM	#25
darrentxs Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 401	Hi Lurper - I learned the name of the stance and that it was already a known method Quell. Now I don't have to describe it as a homegrown "unusual stance I use for accuracy". That's a nice thing for me - thanks to those that passed that info! In response to your questions: 1) I never asked for advice to improve. Perhaps you misread or I was unclear. Sorry if it was the latter. I did ask for input and thank all that responded inculing you. I'd like to hear from others that gave it a try. 2) One word - bullseyes. If you already shoot them consistently - you have nothing to gain. If you don't you have nothing to lose by trying it and may improve greatly as I did. BTW it is now a very natural stance for me. Lastly the right brain left brain stuff doesn't apply to me - I shoot righty with a right dominant eye that I sight with. PS thanks for the pics Goslash - thats it! (only I'm a righty) I have chores and will be offline until late - I'll catch the fallout then.