Line of sight

We had a good conversation on the different stances.  45deg vs 75deg.  So,what about when you line up to shoot.  Is your body perpendicual to the target or do you line up in an offset position?  Right now I line up in an offset position.  It seems to take a little stress off my neck.  I am thinking that in line would be better, maybe not as comfortable but better.  What's everyone thoughts?

Interesting to watch the international rapid fire shooters. All inline tight elbow, forearm, wrist shoulder and neck.

At Perry this year I bought the MEC international Pistol Book. I thought that it was interesting that there is more variation in International Rifle positions than in Pistol. The MEC rifle book makes note of the fact that they expected all of the rifle positions to be very much the same but discovered that there were many differences among top competitors. 

In the pistol book they note some things about position that I found interesting. One was the recoil characteristics of the pistol. The more perpendicular one is to the target the more the gun is said to recoil straight up and down. 

The second was that positions change as shooters become more experienced. And those that start out more parallel to the target move more to an edge position as they become more flexible in the neck and shoulders. I have found this to be true but the book was the first place that I read rather than experienced it. 

But the locked wrist, elbow shoulder is a traditional thing for bullseye as well. The body position can be either open or closed though. My main read for a more parallel position is pressure on my neck and steadiness. I am more steady in a less perpendicular position than I am in a blade position. At the same time being completely perpendicular strains my neck and eye and I find myself looking out of the corner of my eye socket rather than the center. That may change over time.

I seem to remember at least one book noting how it affects your sway. Your body will sway front to back. If you are parallel to the target that makes the pistol go up and down. Perpendicular, the gun sways left-to-right. At 45 degrees, it sways in both directions, but minimizes both movements, maximizing your points. That's the theory anyways...

In international rapid fire and centerfire rapid fire, the shooters must start at the low-ready and raise the pistol quickly when the targets turn. This seems easier to do with a more perpendicular stance (75 deg?). Again, that's what the book(s) said. This requirement doesn't exist for NRA bullseye.

The same books noted that being too perpendicular is not conductive for good aiming. It strains the muscles and the eyes which won't be centered in their sockets. I would definitely not shoot a 2700 perpendicular to the target without having a confirmed  chiro appointment the next day.

My mentor, an accomplished shooter, shoots almost parallel to the target and gets great results. I myself shoot at around 45 deg.; I adjust the angle slightly until it feels natural and comfortable. I won't mention "natural point of aim"

james r chapman wrote:Interesting to watch the international rapid fire shooters. All inline tight elbow, forearm, wrist shoulder and neck.

Silly tradition and artifact of the 1800s as far as I'm concerned. Betcha that a month of practice could get any group of 5 such shooters producing the exact same scores with a stance closer to what we use. 

The IPSC bunch used to believe in the "true Weaver" stance which was supposed to provide a repeatable index and faster recoil recovery with a locked trigger arm elbow, the support hand's arm below, the head cocked a bit down, and a push-pull isometric tension thing going on...but they abandoned the support trigger finger on the front of a hooked trigger guard about the time the manufacturers started putting them on. That has been near-universally abandoned in favor of the "isosceles" stance with both unlocked elbows at the same height, the handgun brought up to a naturally erect head position, and a simple overlapping hands on the grips approach. I'm pretty sure that the technique is at least 50% responsible for the faster shot time splits and even reload times as compared to what was happening in the 1970s.

Keith Sanderson did pretty well with an international style stance at the Nationals this year. But it still make my neck hurt.