Quote Originally Posted by [usn]scribble[nuke] View Post
why don't you both study proper handgun shooting stances. in the position he is in, albeit sloppy, his dominant arm should be slightly bent and 'pushing' while the non-dominant arm, slightly bent as well, should be 'pulling'. weaver stance uses muscles to control recoil rather than skeletal.

acolyte you are talking about the modified weaver (chapman) and still the dominant arm is locked and straight out under the line of sight 'pushing' and the non-dominant arm is slightly bent still 'pulling' to add tension. this is combo muscular/skeletal in the control of it's recoil.

i don't recommend the isosceles unless it's the modern isosceles but i only recommend that for people who are very experienced and still only in rare situations. learn this one just for education purposes, it's tricky for self-defense and IMO useless except for eye dominance issues.
just fyi but weaver stance is no longer the predominant stance while firing sidearms. when using weaver, it almost negates any protection given by body armor. isosceles is the predominant firing stance for all military and law enforcement. but i do have to agree that for casual/sport shooters weaver and mod weaver are meh, i still pref iso, mainly because it allows the most mobility when strafing or moving to your next target.

edit: but i digress, gun that was a pittiful display of marksmanship all around. shooting high caliber rifles at bottles (i think) from like 5 yards? please, do what aco said and go plink some 300-500 meter targets with that ak. learn how to shoot properly before you try (and fail) at showing off your "arsenal" (lol) of guns.

edit #2: im not trying to be mean it just pisses me off when people who dont know how to properly use something as dangerous as a firearm, go and fuck off with one.