So I was researching the Langdon Tactical Beretta, and came across this video of Ernest Langdon teaching stance and grip.

I was a bit surprised to hear him say "isosceles stance is the norm these days" [starting at 2:45 of the video], and then proceed to talk about an athletic stance with one foot slightly back [at 3:15]

Then talking about the support hand coming off of the gun during recoil, he recommends isometric tension [starting at 15:45].

So what do y'all think about an isosceles stance that's not isosceles, or the isometric tension concept? I have my own opinion, but I'm interested in what others think. Video embed and link below.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VP4X6FVa4E

I've done a little bit of training (including a Bruce Gray weekend more than a decade ago) and a lot of shooting, but I'm not an expert. Take these comments with a grain of salt.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
I was a bit surprised to hear him say "isosceles stance is the norm these days" [starting at 2:45 of the video], and then proceed to talk about an athletic stance with one foot slightly back [at 3:15]

.....

So what do y'all think about an isosceles stance that's not isosceles,

Every training course I have done has taught isosceles, and pretty much every good competitive tactical/practical/whatever pistol shooter I have watched uses an isosceles stance or something close to it.

The "isosceles" stance is not about where your feet are. One foot in front of the other doesn't make it not isosceles. The "isosceles" part is pretty much just that your arms should both be fully extended. Looking down from above, your torso should be facing the target and should make the base of an isosceles triangle and your arms should make the two legs.

This is in contrast to something like the Weaver stance, where your torso is somewhat turned away from the target and your shoulder-to-pistol distance is different between your two arms.

There are basically two arguments in favor of the isosceles stance.

1. Looking at averages, competitive shooters using the isosceles stance are faster and more accurate. I personally certainly shoot better this way.

2. If you're police or military, having your torso facing the target makes it less likely you'll get shot in the armpit where you don't have body armor.

quote:

Originally posted by honestlou:
Then talking about the support hand coming off of the gun during recoil, he recommends isometric tension [starting at 15:45].

So what do y'all think about ... the isometric tension concept?

This is another thing that has been promoted in every training course I've taken. (Not necessarily in those words - sometimes something like "push with your strong hand and pull with your off hand.")

This is obviously anecdotal, but for me, the gun moves a LOT less under recoil and I am a LOT faster back on target when I do it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maladat,

Most training I've had focused on modified or modern isosceles. Some more "strict" than others. For a while I was all weight on the balls of your feet, knees bent, the whole shebang. I'm more with Jerry M. on stance now. Just a natural stance, arms isosceles.

As for push/pull, can't say I've ever had heard it taught. I'm aware of the concept, but it seems to me you'd be inducing twist. I just picked up my P320 to see if I can determine exactly what it is I do, and it's more of a clamp with my strong hand, front to back, and support there to steady. I guess there's some natural push/pull with the weak hand fingers being set further forward than the strong hand, but nothing that's a conscious effort to push with strong hand and pull with weak.

it looks , for minutes 2-5, like he's teaching the Hokey Pokey

Fascinating video! I learned a lot...little nuances that make sense. Thanks for posting that! The most helpful instructional video I've ever seen regarding grip and stance. If we had an "instructional sticky" posting thread, I'd say this is a great candidate.

Practicing Isosceles makes m lower back hurt. If I can't practice it, I can't count on it. I go Weaver and hope the half-second that I lose isn't a critical half-second.

quote:

I was a bit surprised to hear him say "isosceles stance is the norm these days" [starting at 2:45 of the video], and then proceed to talk about an athletic stance with one foot slightly back [at 3:15]

What you do with your hands an arms doesn't have much bearing on what you do with your legs and feet. Best place to see that would be complex match stages when people are forced to shoot out of position. Better ones will still try to keep iso triangle in their grip. I shot with Ernest multiple times. His arms and hands are in iso grip, and his legs do what they need to do to take him where he needs to go. While he does demo for multiple static drills, I would hazard a guess that the shooting that's more relevant to him is not static.

Thanks for posting this.

Silent