Weaver vs Isoceles

[Protected One]

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.

 

[murphydog]

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 .

 

[petepeterson]

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.

 

[walkin' trails]

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.

 

[tops]

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

 

[Arik]

The only way to do it!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[growr]

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

 

[Arik]

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

 

[Louchia]

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

 

[bigwheelzip]

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

 

[Mister X]

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.

 

[Ed Fowler]

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.

 

[M1A]

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

 

[MMT]

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.

 

[Duckford]

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.

 

[Ranger514]

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.

 

[fkienast]

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.

 

[Harkrader]

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.

 

[MMT]

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.

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.

 

[Ed Fowler]

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