Which shooting stance (Isosceles, Weaver, or "modified" weaver)do you use, and why?

For me it's a weaver. It feels more "natural" to me and therefore I'm more comfortable shooting from it, which leads to better results.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Those are excellent reasons to stay with that stance. I started out with this method, do fairly well, have tried the Isosceles and don't feel as comfortable, so that is that .

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I shoot Weaver, but I can't say I shoot one better than the other.

I like that in Weaver you're presenting less of a target to whatever might be shooting back. Or at least it seems that way.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

I was trained first on the modified Weaver (Chapman) and later the isosceles. The isosceles in its basic, pure form, was a difficult adjustment in technique, and I reverted back to Weaver for a spell after I no longer had academy firearms instructors breathing down my neck. I have since evolved to a "modified" isosceles - slightly bent elbows and a little torque applied to the grip. One of my problems with isosceles was a tendency to drop my non firing elbow, which caused my rounds to start drifting toward the non firing side (and probably inducing trigger jerk).

From an LE standpoint where officers wear ballistic vests, I have noted that some folks who adhere to Weaver seem to be at disadvantage in terms of movement. Even long gun training now emphasizes a more squares off, isosceles stance. Forward, rearward, and lateral movement seem more ackward with the Weaver.

I was trained on the Weaver with a revolver, and seem to revert to that stance when I have a wheel gun. I recall making the gradual shift back to isosceles when I went from 9mm semi autos to larger bore pistols. My stance now takes into consideration the bent elbows' greater ability to control recoil like the Weaver while also taking advantage of the isosceles stance's greater flexibility in tactical movement. In the real world, you're not going to want to stand still and go toe-to-toe with a deadly threat.

Isosceles is more balanced and easier to shoot to either side. Larry

The only way to do it!



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I believe that you need to be proficient with ALL of them as you never know what position you will need given that situation......

Randy

I prefer the combat stance! Isosceles slightly modified. Squared off facing thr target. In a shooting situation an LEO would have their front covered by armor. While the sides are not. But even without the armor one can get shot in the right side or the left but typically not both. No one wants to get shot but it's possible to live without one lung (for instance). Opening your side makes a smaller target but also a worse injury if hit. One shot has the potential to hit both lungs and the heart. That's a possibility of 3 major organs in one shot

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

My stance might be called modified isosceles. I basicly take the isosceles with my left foot slightly forward for better balance.

Isosceles. I'm right handed but left eye dominant, and the extra stretch for a Weaver stance aggravates an old rotator cuff injury.

All or none of the above depending on need and context.

Personally, I teach Weaver, Isosceles, and modified Weaver (specifically, Chapman) as elements of a flow that the shooter should have as the angles change unpredictably in a fight. Kind of like a boxer needing to be able to deliver the jab, the cross, the hook and the uppercut at the appropriate moment.
-Massad Ayoob

We know that maintaining a Weaver or Isosceles, or a CAR or really any sort of pistol stance at the outset of the fight in a reactive event, while moving off the X is simply not possible. When we began the force on force drills I was derided by all the Modern Technique crowd for having "left the fold". I challenged them to show up to any FOF class and pull of a perfect pair from concealment and not get shot. No one has done so. All quickly realize to stand is to die to move is to live. Thus the issue of stance is moot in Fourth Generation Training.
- Gabe Suarez

The Fighting Posture (a.k.a. Weaver or Isosceles — Which is Better?) | DefenseReview.com (DR): An online tactical technology and military defense technology magazine with particular focus on the latest and greatest tactical firearms news (tacti

The Weaver Stance by Gabe Suarez.

Hate to sound stupid and do not want to offend but I just learned to shoot off hand by doing it. I have tried to study the various stances and find my body likes the way I have been shooting. Daily practice one hand, right and left, both hands, at varied distances from 50 to over 100 yards, off hand thumb over my shooting hand supporting my wrist.

Shoot standing, sitting, prone - what ever I feel like.

I honestly do not remember the different textbook stances.

I use the Weaver, however, they both have their place. Particularly with weak side dominant eye where isosoles is a help.

__________________
"from my cold dead hands" C.H.

There isn't any reason to not use isosceles/modified isosceles; all the top competition shooters use it for a reason. It is much better for moving, getting in and out of position, and shooting from odd positions. Same goes for the thumbs forward grip, there is no reason to not use it as it has been proven to be superior.

As has been said, combat is fluid, and formal stances are made in a world of classrooms and theory, not the reality of warfare, the streets, or your own home. What is a good stance here is not a good stance there, what is possible here may not be possible there. Especially in close quarters self defense, where situations are not clean cut, like they are in professional competition and classrooms. Are you going to attempt to take a shooting stance such as the isoceles against a robber with a knife a couple of feet away, or take a fighting position? Are you going to take a formal shooting stance if you are behind the counter of a gas station with someone threatening you on the other side? Do you even the time or space? Is it even appropriate?

I have great respect for competitive shooters, and the amazing talents they have, and the art they perfect. However, competition shooting has little bearing on real fights, save for situations where the shooter has the space and time to take set piece positions in ideal conditions. Remember its a SHOOTING sport, not a FIGHTING sport. The results these fine men and women show are amazing, but for many people and situations, beyond irrelevant.

Isoceles is a SHOOTING stance, not a FIGHTING stance. Locked in behind the gun, you are in the best shooting stance you can find. However, locked behind the gun with everything you have, you are extremely poorly balanced for anything and everything else. Its a poor stance to be physically attacked in, you are in the worst standing situation possible if someone tackles you, or tries to melee. You are strong as a shooter, and weak as a fighter. In self defense, its not always being able to shoot the attacker, you may have to fight with him, and a fighting stance is superior in close quarters civilian defensive situations, which often times do descend into scuffles.

Part of my view is extremely, extremely, way over the top old fashioned, and I'm still one of those who believe a bayonet is one of the best means of fighting point blank. But there is incredible truth to the point that at some ranges, a knife, sword, club, sap, blackjack, ect., can be more effective than a handgun, quicker, more natural. How many good peace officers have been shot with their own duty weapons after physical confrontation? The gun is not magical, does not mean you will win a knife fight. Its advantage of range can be quickly cut, and often times is, in close combat. In a standoff or running gun battle with criminals, the isoceles can be extremely useful in maximizing effective firepower; fighting a criminal at 2 feet might make the position worthless, or worse, dangerous.

You get a lot of people who will sit and say "isoceles is perfect for shooting" while leaving out "in perfect conditions" part of it. Remember that the laboratory is not always inclusive of all real life scenarios.

The Isocoles stance and Thumbs Forward grip work best for me. Combine them with Point Shooting training for gunfighting in close quarters, which emphasizes both moving and shooting tactics. Being an older dog, I've gone through several handgun training phases over my lifetime to come to that conclusion. YMMV. Use whatever works best for you, but if you retrain, I doubt you'll revert back once you've achieved muscle memory.

I'm happy to hear people voicing on neither stance but maintaining a fluid ability to shoot. It has long been my observation that combat has too many variables to expect one stance is the solution.

I was trained to use the Isosceles, or what I also heard called the "turret" stance, from the late '60s.
MUCH later I was taught the "push-pull" hold and associated stance that I later saw called the Weaver.
An article by Jack Weaver's son was in a recent edition of the Blue Press. He rather lambastes what seem to be common misperceptions of the method. Worth reading, methinks.

I know that a lot of people share this sentiment but I think this line of thought is far too rigid. To be fair the isosceles / modified isosceles is what is being taught to LE around the country and is the generally accepted shooting stance.

As far as accuracy and stability goes, isosceles is actually less stable than weaver. The isosceles is popular because of it's fluidity, the ability to move in and out of positions quickly. As a platform you can employ the fundamentals of isosceles with your lower body in any position, SHO, WHO, etc. The modified isosceles is based off of a "fighting" stance, with the dominant foot slightly behind your other, wide apart, knees bent, waist bent, weight on the balls of your feet.

A big emphasis for competition shooters is to be able to shoot in any position and as such they have developed a shooting style to facilitate that. If we look at competition (particularly USPSA/IPSC), take it for the game that it is, we can see that many modern advancements in shooting techniques have been adapted directly from competition. Just like shooting, ideas are fluid. The thumbs forward grip and modified isosceles stance were born through competition and have been adopted by LE/Mil because they work. At any rate I don't think we should do anything to dissuade people from using methods that are currently accepted as the best.

Duckford: sounds like you have been there, very eloquently stated!

No the thumbs forward grip is not superior. Understand not everybody's hands are the same. I don't know what the grip I use is called, but I lock down my thumbs to keep the grip from twisting while firing. I have short fingers and palms and any grip in an auto is almost too big, excepting the Hi-Power and VP9 with all small inserts.

Also my left arm is a bit shorter than my right by half an inch. Isosceles is a no go in any form. Weaver and modified Weaver is clearly superior for me here.

No one technique is superior to any other. Not everybody is the same. Get this thru your hard heads.

+ 1

I seldom rant, BUT here is one:
I am truly sick of statements like "fixed stances are allright for competition...."
THAT IS COMPLETE NONSENSE. All the top competitors will tell you otherwise, that getting the gun out and presenting the handgun is the least possible time, JUST LIKE REAL FIGHTING, is the only way you have a prayer of winning any top IDPA or USPSA match.
We routinely are moving, shooting around obstacles, in awkward positions, and if you have to take time to put your feet a certain way YOU LOSE.

__________________
Science plus Art

The thumbs forward grip is generally not very well suited for those with limited hand strength. For an individual like myself whose focus is on ECQ skills, alternates between revolvers and autoloaders, frequently transitions from two to one handed shooting and want the most secure grip in retention scenarios, I find the thumbs forward grip lacking.

I would also reiterate that there is a substantial difference between sport and self-defense. Combat sports(shooting, MMA) have had a great deal of influence over the last couple of decades on what is being taught as personal defense and to Military and Law Enforcement. In certain instances, it has been extremely beneficial, but a lot of it has been misguided due to lack of discretion, not making adjustments and failing to distinguish between what is actually applicable and what is not with the much different context.

No disrespect intended to you sport guys, but in terms of IDPA type competitions, I think they do very little(or are even detrimental) in the way of training and preparing you to effectively respond to what you're likely to encounter in an actual civilian personal defense scenario which are generally close-quarter ambushes requiring reactive ECQ skills.

This is the type of statement that usually comes from someone unfamiliar with either the military or IDPA competition.
IDPA is NOT training. It is a chance to practice in a controlled, simulated stress SHOOTING exercise.
I have a IDPA competitor friend on the Tulsa police force that is probably the top close quarter and force on force instructor in the state, and he will gladly take you into his class and give you more force on force experience than most people can stand. When he was ambushed on duty by 3 and taken to the ground, he quick drew his gun and started double tapping crotches instead of fighting bare handed. Worked just fine.

__________________
Science plus Art

Brutal... lol

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I have heard "best"stances for quite awhile.Best shooter I "ever"personally saw uses a modified.What I'm curious about is what do the Delta & SEAL TEAM 6 guys use??Only reason I ask is they shoot for the real deal...be interesting to hear what "stance"they use!
Jim

Will be shooting and working with one who has been there in a few weeks, I will ask him if he can respond on this thread.

Same here.

If I voted I wouldn't be sure if I was voting my actual stance when shooting or not. I just know that whatever I'm doing works for me - I bet it's modified Weaver. But I can and do shoot isosceles at the range sometimes - the real question I have is what is my stance when I'm combat shooting and I cannot tell you that for sure. All I know is that the last time I took a class in combat shooting I wasn't allowed to use my sights even once - it was all point shooting at normal combat distances and even a moving target.

The target died every time.

That's really all that I care about - my bullets are going where I want them to go.

When I was cowboy action shooting I shot "Duelist" category so I used one hand only. Neither "stance" under discussion is involved. I rarely missed so, again, my bullets are going where I want them to go. That's my bottom line.

^that. I shoot with my shoulders squared off facing the target, knees slightly bent, and leaning slightly forward.

...Now obviously in close a quarters defense situation (think someone mugging you), you do what you can to get your rounds impacting center of mass as quickly as possible.

I'll point out that I praised isoceles for its strengths in my long post. It certainly has its strengths, and is a good stance to learn, but I simply point out that learning that alone is not the absolute key to fighting. Perhaps I am far too rigid, but I also warn that there is danger in the modern world's attempt to "standardize" things to the point that "there can only be one", and a tendency to teach one exact stance, one exact mindset, and no adaptability or flexibility. The ability to use the right stance in situation, and the ability to shift into a more natural fighting post is important.

My greater fear is the sense that many people think they are simply standing behind a shooting platform and shooting at an attacker. In truth, you are in a fight when it comes to self defense, and you have to be able to fluidly move beyond simply standing behind a gun and shooting. I think isoceles is something everyone should learn, but the ability to pull and fire from other positions is important. I know trainers have to be rigid and teach one way to hammer out the "imperfections" of older training, thus the extreme rigidity of trainers and many hardline stances against alternatives, but my fear is that such attitudes preclude training of alternatives when they are appropriate or necessary.

The truth is shooting stances and general handgun combat is an art in constant development and improvement. I like isoceles, but I also like Weaver at times, and I think its good to practice in unnatural shooting positions that imitate real life scenarios. In fact, I strive for flexibility, in life and death, you use whatever works best to survive. I'm not as rigid in my thinking as you might think.

And when 3 gun has a "Shoot Bubba the 300 pound gorilla at 5 feet" competition, let me know.

Weaver is what I feel comfortable with but when I get the chance to establish my platform in such a way that gives me MAX leverage and control, I tend to prefer isosceles. The point is a stable platform, or else it's going to very difficult to be able to produce shots on target. So I try not to use a stance that will produce a less than max-stability shooting platform.

As much as I'd love to be a great isosceles shooter like Jerry...


... my left arm disability forces me to be a modified Weaver guy. Even when I am trying my best to do otherwise, anyone watching me would still call it a modified Weaver stance and they would be more correct than not to call it that.

A few generations of shooters were taught the Weaver or a variation of the Weaver. It comes naturally to most folks and it's a little difficult to change after doing so for so many years.

I shoot using a modified Weaver but I can and have shot Isosceles. I actually shoot better with isosceles but don't much because of a shoulder injury.

As previously stated by others it's best not to limit yourself. Even if it means learning new ways. If you carry a gun you should learn different shooting positions and methods such as shooting with either hand or from retention. When the poop hits the fan, you may not have a choice in how you defend yourself.
Situational awareness, quick thinking, and flexibility means more options. More options increases your probability of prevailing.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

I started off learning how to shoot a handgun with the Weaver stance, both versions with the shooting arm straight as well as bent. It worked and I shot well with it.

I then started leaning towards techniques that were oriented closer to what a person does in a "startle response" or "fight-or-flight response," namely Isoceles.

One thing that turned me towards more of an Isoceles stance was reading an article about law enforcement training where a majority of officers trained in the Weaver stance reverted to Isoceles when in a stress shooting. I wish I could cite that source.

Another reason is that I'm cross-dominant (right-hand, left-eye), so Isoceles works better than Weaver for me in that regard.

I also seem to get a better "body index," for lack of a better term, when it comes to getting quick hits on target at close range using target focus rather than sights focus (i.e., not quite point-shooting, but not exactly sighted-shooting, either).

So I would say I mostly use Isoceles. It may sound "tacticool," but I actually like the idea of a shooting "platform" as opposed to a "stance," with the idea that defensive shooting should be focused from the waist up in order to better respond to different situations. "Stance" always makes me think of being "rooted."

I do think people should at least be familiar with different shooting techniques, but ultimately it's up to each individual to figure out what works best for them. As long as they can get good hits on target it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, I hope it goes without saying, that defensive-shooting oriented people should also be practicing one-handed shooting.

Oh, and I will add that when I'm doing slower, more precise longer distance shooting, say past 10-15 yards, I do find Weaver to work better for me, despite having to turn my head practically 45-degrees to the right to line up my left-eye with my sights, kind of like Murtaugh from the "Lethal Weapon" movies. It feels more stable when I'm trying to make more deliberate, precisely aimed shots.

Good post.

Now lets through a wrench in there.

How well can people move AND shoot with their chosen method?

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Murtaugh - "I'm too old for this ****"

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

And to really challenge shooters, we can add gum chewing into the mix.

Can't argue with Jerry!

I think we're actually saying the same thing. I guess I look at shooting stances and grips much more abstractly than most. Fluidity and dynamism are what is important in shooting competitively or defensive shooting (or all aspects of life really). I just look at all of these awkward shooting positions one might find themselves in, be it shooting from retention, supine around a chair, side prone under a truck, or doing a hard lean standing on one leg WHO in competition to be an extension of a base isosceles stance and thumbs forward grip.

Honestly, I think the best stance is to be beyond stance. What I mean by that is we have a basic stance that provides the most advantages with the least drawbacks, which from a pure shooting perspective is isosceles, and then we need to adapt that to reality, be it a competition or defensive scenario. Watch OIS videos and you will never see someone in an ideal stance, watch a top level GM shoot a USPSA stage and they are never in an ideal stance. If we want to advance our shooting skills in any arena we need to be proficient shooting from any stance and any awkward position we may find ourselves in; we use no-stance instead of stance.

As I said I am pretty sure we are both actually getting at the same point so you probably know everything I just said; I just think it's important to flesh these things out for new shooters that might stumble upon the thread so they can at least be on the right path to a grounded and fluid perspective on shooting. Thankfully, I think if a new shooter reads both of our respective posts they will come away more knowledgeable.

This post reminds me of one of my favorites quotes...

Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just a punch, a kick was just a kick. After I’d studied the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick. - Bruce Lee

I can move and shoot from a modified weaver, with either hand and win.

I've saw me do it.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Did you have an out of body experience?

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Due to surgery, my left arm will not fully extend without pain. The Weaver, allowing my left elbow to bend, is painless and comfortable.

If I don't think about it, my body just falls into the Weaver stance naturally.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

I'm with Bruce-

Front sight,...press. Whether your sitting, standing, or shooting a rifle over your shoulder like Annie Oakley.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

I use something called the reactive stance. It flows from how I stand when I talk to people, strong side foot back a bit, shoulders square, hands high. One basic platform that can support a variety of actions. In most SD situations that I am familiar with, the front sight was never considered. People would do well to practice putting the muzzle in the middle of the target presented and holding true . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Weaver 'cause that's how I learned and I feel like I get a better "push/pull" from the Weaver position. Also I've damaged my left elbow a bit and it is more comfortable not to fully extend it. I watch Youtube videos and most everyone is shooting Isosceles. I thought I must be among the very few shooting Weaver or modified Weaver. Apparently from this poll-not so.

This poll is also skewed toward a specific group of shooters (i.e., a lot of old farts like me). I think the results would be drastically different at a Glock or Springfield Forum. OTOH, I also imagine they would be eerily similar at the Colt forum.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

You give a good example of why every one has to do what works for them. I do believe that when first learning, you have to start with what most seem to accept as the best methods. From their everyone needs to adjust to their physical and unique circumstances.

This sounds reasonable, but is a mistake in understanding. The Weaver does not put the shooter's side directly toward the target. It's only a slight angle.

Duane Thomas is not Jack Weaver's son, but it is a good article.

You did land on the most important aspect of defensive shooting; evolution. The day you stop learning and improving your abilities, is the day you die.

This is the Concealed Carry & Self-Defense forum. In that context, stance is largely irrelevant. A friend of mine says, "In defensive shooting 'stance' means, be the guy standing at the end of the fight."

__________________
Freedom isn't free.