Why police went to the isosceles stance instead of staying with a Weaver stance

seabright60 said:
Interesting

I have my own stance, its dumb to think k you have to do exactly what somebody else says works the best. Look at other things that require certain mechanics , everyone has a different batting stance ,golf , pitching motion, running style especially at the highest levels of performance. The best stance is the one that works best for YOU
Click to expand...
And there it is in a nutshell, (y)
 
Last edited:
Brownie0486 said:
1. The Weaver stance requires the shooter to "blade" or turn their body sideways. This exposes the vulnerable, unarmored armpit area of a ballistic vest to a direct threat. The Iso stance squares the officer’s torso to the target, placing the thickest part of the body armor directly in the line of fire

2. Post-shooting studies (such as those analyzed by National Criminal Justice Reference Service) show that officers under high stress naturally abandon complex "bladed" stances and square up to the threat. The Isosceles relies on this natural, "gross motor skill" reaction

3. Moving dynamically in a bladed Weaver stance is awkward. The squared Isosceles platform allows for faster and more balanced movement in all directions, making it superior for navigating real-world scenarios

4. While the Weaver uses push-pull muscular tension to control recoil, modern training favors the skeletal locked structure of the Isosceles triangle, which efficiently directs recoil straight through the arms and into the core.

Top competitive shooters primarily abandoned the Weaver stance in the 1980s, following the rise of the Modern Isosceles stance popularized by action-shooting legends Brian Enos and Rob Leatham in the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) The transition occurred because the Weaver stance—which relies on a "push-pull" isometric tension with bent elbows—began failing under the demands of modern competition and high-stress scenarios

Faster Recoil Recovery: Fully extending and locking out the arms in an isosceles position forms a mechanical skeletal structure that returns the gun to the exact same point of aim after every shot. This allows for faster split times.

Rapid Target Transitions: Blading your body (a core tenet of the Weaver) severely limits your range of motion. A squared-off, aggressive isosceles stance allows shooters to pivot seamlessly between multiple targets on a stage

Under-Stress Performance: Isosceles relies on gross motor skills. Studies have shown that even shooters heavily trained in Weaver revert to a natural, square-to-the-threat isosceles position when subjected to high-stress, real-world scenarios

I never bought into Weaver stance even as I was trained in it for several reasons but one above in particular. Weavers limited range of motion compared to Iso. I want the gun at my nose index, both eyes open and making use of our mechanical skeletal structure. With ISO shooting right handed, I can turret to either side where Weaver becomes a problem when trying to turret the upper body to the extent Iso range of motion gives me.

Thoughts from the members?
Click to expand...
All fine and good but what protects the testesceles while one is in the isosceles position???
 
Smith391 said:
Ahhh, the Rogers SS III Security Holster...

View attachment 884349

Mine first one was a pre-Safariland (070) model, that was still stamped "ROGERS SSIII" on the reverse.
It was the model that ushered in the standard known as the high-security retention holster ... & it worked.
https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/safariland-bill-rogers/
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/in-pursuit-of-the-ultimate-retention-holster/
Click to expand...
I had a Safariland one and ended-up getting rid of it. Something about where it sat on my right hip irritated the nerves in the hip to the point where it felt like a nail had been driven into it and walking moved the nail around. I also really don't like holsters that are not made of good old leather.
 
Brownie0486 said:
A smart old police chief once told me [ 1991 ] to never carry anything in the gun hand/on the gun hand side. Leave that hand free to respond to imminent threats. He gave the example of carrying groceries. One bag at a time, dont fill both hands with bags.

And if caught with the gun hand tied up, let it fall to free up that hand. By the time the bag or carried item drops, one should already have started their draw.
Click to expand...
Check out the opening gunfight in the movie 'Once Upon A time In The West'. Charles Bronson goes into a quick draw fight against three gunfighters with a satchel in his gun hand and his coat hanging over his gun. And Bronson is the only one who survives, albeit with the ever popular bullet in the left shoulder (just a flesh wound; next time we see him he's good as new). Damn that Bronson was fast!
 
oldmanmontgomery said:
From my somewhat suspicious standpoint:

Training of any sort is decided in the long run by upper management. They are usually appointed by superiors who approve of them and their word, which usually consists of those who please them in some manner or another. Occasionally, this is someone who actually knows something, but not aways.
Typically, the upper management sort is one who knows nothing, little or has put out of his or her mind anything about defensive shooting, save lawsuits costing the department huge amounts of money. Usually it's cheaper to bury a dead officer.

Consequently firearms training is based on lowest cost possible and lowest expenditure of time.

I find the 'style' of shooting (weaver vs. isosceles for instance) is based on the above conditions and the preference of the decision maker - who decides what is going to transpire and is not generally known. Besides, not many officers get shot.

Yes. I am a grumpy and suspicious sort. But I can show a happy and friendly attitude when needed.
Click to expand...
Something to remember when some perpetually complaining citizen wants both Better/More Training while calling to Defund the Police.
 
I use, and taught the Weaver stance for years. The reason it works for LE, is that it builds on the "interview position ," i.e. the stance that an officer is in when making contact with citizens. It works with a handgun, and a long gun, with impact weapons, taser, or hands on, without having to obtain a new "stance!"

Standing in street, (right handed officer) left foot forward, right foot back, balance slightly forward, ready. Something happens, you are already in a position to deal with it, no footwork, no dancing, certainly a better position than squared to an offender pushing, kicking etcetera.

Isoceles "may" be faster for some shooters, but that's on a range, where the order of the day, is shooting at targets. I dropped my ticket book, posse box, or other items, and drew down on a suspect, far more times than I shot at anyone. When I shot competitions, I used the same stance, used the same at Gunsite for several handguns, and shotgun. Whatever you choose, what you do in practice, is what you will do in the field. Muscle memory, repetitive motion, perfect practice makes perfect, whatever your choice of terminology, when stressed, and a real life shooting situation is the pinnacle of stress, having trained to the point that certain movements are performed without "thinking," may be the thing that saves your life. Just my opinion, YMMV!
 
Brownie0486 said:
This thread I started on June 11th brings this lack of one handed practice into focus.

Brownie0486

Thread 'Do you practice with pistols?'

If you practice, what percentage of your shooting day is one handed in your estimation?
Click to expand...
Quite a bit, actually. Suffered a shoulder separation in a highway wreck fifteen years ago and had to retrain my left arm to go above shoulder level myself. There are still days when it doesn't want to and fewer ones where I can hold much weight out at arms length with it. I end up with my left hand at the front of the magwell on an AR as opposed to the popular extended arm C-Clamp hold. Isoceles works fine, but I occasionally end up going Weaver. I can shoot left handed, point shooting, tucking my left elbow into my ribs and getting over the gun to sight at close range where I'm most likely to need it. It's like driving anywhere without a spare tire though.
 
Doug M. said:
If you are holding a beer and end up needing to shoot, you are probably in the wrong place. Even if not, one should train to drop extraneous crud immediately (the odds of whatever you are holding being as valuable as your life are zero), and sometimes pitching it at your assailant as a distractor is a valid tactic. Every time I see anyone in LE approaching a stop with a ticket book or other crud in their hand, I cringe at the poor quality of their training.

Same with shiny parade ground uniform attire (Clarino? Abomination and more than ample cause to fire executive level staff), visible white T shirts at the neck (well documented long ago as a major safety hazard as it is an aiming point), or hats other than foul weather or protective gear. Hats other than the exceptions I mentioned should generally be locked up in an office and only allowed for funerals and other parade ground type uses.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with the "...holding a beer..." and the ticket book (etc) examples.

I am cautious of the 'anything' aspect. Having a child in tow is one 'special' condition as is helping someone from a wrecked car or such. At the same time, I realize these are rather limited circumstances.

Yes, we were addressing police work, but I am retired and see things from a self-defense point of view.
 
I went to Quantico for a firearms instructor in-service, and walked the line several times with a class of new agents. Later I rode the elevator with a new guy who looked downcast, and said he was thinking about quitting. I asked him why, and he told me this.

His instructor had told him he would always have to keep his gun hand free - no holding his wife or kid’s hands, no carrying groceries or IKEA boxes - nothing. He would always have to watch where he sat in public. He could never have a drink.

I asked him who this genius was, and when he told me I laughed out loud. I knew the instructor, and knew he had only worked FCI matters - Foreign Counter Intellegence. It meant he worked a case with a bunch of people and after years, if they were lucky, they could make a spy type PNG. Persona Non Grata. The spy would be kicked out, and reassigned by his country to another place.

This instructor had never made an actual arrest, and probably couldn’t find a felon in prison.

I did a whole career in violent crime. I held my wife’s hand, carried groceries and kids, and sat where I wanted. I had a drink when I felt like it. I made hundreds of felony arrests (other people’s warrants) and worked cases from the ground up and made arrests on those, too. I told this kid that, and I don’t think he quit.

I shot Weaver on the range, nobody tried to tell me any different, though it had changed by the time I shot my last qual.IMG_0254.webp
 
oldmanmontgomery said:
From my somewhat suspicious standpoint:

Training of any sort is decided in the long run by upper management. They are usually appointed by superiors who approve of them and their word, which usually consists of those who please them in some manner or another. Occasionally, this is someone who actually knows something, but not aways.
Typically, the upper management sort is one who knows nothing, little or has put out of his or her mind anything about defensive shooting, save lawsuits costing the department huge amounts of money. Usually it's cheaper to bury a dead officer.

Consequently firearms training is based on lowest cost possible and lowest expenditure of time.

I find the 'style' of shooting (weaver vs. isosceles for instance) is based on the above conditions and the preference of the decision maker - who decides what is going to transpire and is not generally known. Besides, not many officers get shot.

Yes. I am a grumpy and suspicious sort. But I can show a happy and friendly attitude when needed.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! A lot of brass who have cloned the ladder didn’t do so from the range or the mat (or even the streets).

While isosceles was taught on the range, a blades stance was used in everything else. All DT was initiated from the bladed fight stance. I know of one tragedy where an LEO caught a small caliber pistol bullet in the side not covered by the vest. He was fighting with someone and probably didn’t even see the gun. Around the time that the Weaver started to become commonplace, body armor was still sort of optional.
Smith391 said:
Ahhh, the Rogers SS III Security Holster...

View attachment 884349

Mine first one was a pre-Safariland (070) model, that was still stamped "ROGERS SSIII" on the reverse.
It was the model that ushered in the standard known as the high-security retention holster ... & it worked.
https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/safariland-bill-rogers/
https://www.bluesheepdog.com/in-pursuit-of-the-ultimate-retention-holster/
Click to expand...
That was the best security holster ever conceived! The right amount of ergonomics and security. I had one in laminate. It only lasted about ten years. It was well worth the money I paid for it in those ten short years. Can’t really stand the new stuff. The Safariland GLS seems to have the right idea despite shortcomings.
 
sigp220.45 said:
I went to Quantico for a firearms instructor in-service, and walked the line several times with a class of new agents. Later I rode the elevator with a new guy who looked downcast, and said he was thinking about quitting. I asked him why, and he told me this.

His instructor had told him he would always have to keep his gun hand free - no holding his wife or kid’s hands, no carrying groceries or IKEA boxes - nothing. He would always have to watch where he sat in public. He could never have a drink.

I asked him who this genius was, and when he told me I laughed out loud. I knew the instructor, and knew he had only worked FCI matters - Foreign Counter Intellegence. It meant he worked a case with a bunch of people and after years, if they were lucky, they could make a spy type PNG. Persona Non Grata. The spy would be kicked out, and reassigned by his country to another place.

This instructor had never made an actual arrest, and probably couldn’t find a felon in prison.

I did a whole career in violent crime. I held my wife’s hand, carried groceries and kids, and sat where I wanted. I had a drink when I felt like it. I made hundreds of felony arrests (other people’s warrants) and worked cases from the ground up and made arrests on those, too. I told this kid that, and I don’t think he quit.

I shot Weaver on the range, nobody tried to tell me any different, though it had changed by the time I shot my last qual.View attachment 884821
Click to expand...
I’m like you, I started my career with weaver, and they tried to have me “adapt to the new style “, but I kept the weaver. I’m still here, so that’s the way it is
 
seabright60 said:
Interesting

I have my own stance, its dumb to think k you have to do exactly what somebody else says works the best. Look at other things that require certain mechanics , everyone has a different batting stance ,golf , pitching motion, running style especially at the highest levels of performance. The best stance is the one that works best for YOU
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
Though most stances for serious/competitive shooters fall into one of the 3 most common categories, each individual is different and (frankly) have probably developed their own slightly modified shooting stance (and grip to go with it). The key IMHO is to find whatever combination works best for you.
PERSONALLY I favor a slightly modified Chapman stance. The one severe issue I’ve found with using it is moving/shuffling short distances to the non-dominant side. Longer distances are far less problematic as it is easy to get back into quickly because it is easier to push off with your dominant leg/foot.

My much more unusual feature is my grip, which I have found both natural and incredibly effective for ME, most easily on Semi Automatic’s with a Squared off trigger guard, but even those without. I find it allows for a better grip on shorter gripped pistols as well.
I use a nearly normal highly placed dominant hand and fill in the Non-dominant hand side with the bottom 3 fingers, palm fill as normal, thumbs aligned under the slide but with index finger free to grip the forward part of the trigger guard,
This allows my trigger finger to “press” rather than pull the trigger, gaining a better feel for the trigger break point. I also find/feel that allows for far better muzzle control with the non-dominant index finger outside the guard enabling much better control and thus faster return to target.

Combined with the stance I described above it has proven incredibly effective FOR ME.
But as my friend above said, we all must develop the stance and grip which are first SAFE and EFFECTIVE for them.
The “Big 3” are great starting points, but I don’t feel we should be tied to them unless you’re trying to break an otherwise unsafe habit…of course that may present problems when trying to qualify
 
Last edited:
Brownie0486 said:
One certainly needs to go with what they know and are comfortable with, relative stance. Do you shoot that 3 yrds from the hip as the last few in-service quals taught by some depts in late 90's?

Iso may be easier to teach, I wouldn't know anything about that. I picked up both weaver and iso very easily. Show me, watch me, make corrections, and if I can throw 3-400 rds in the instructors presence correctly, I'll own it.
Click to expand...
Don’t recall the precise name for the <3 yds stance but I’ve heard a lot of folks call it the “John Wick” or “Baba Yaga” lol!
 
Folks have to realize that when it comes to training LEO'S they don't have the luxury to let individual officers work out what is best for them nor are candidates coming to them well versed in handgun shooting. Someone has to decide what works the best for most officers. With limited training time, one size fits most is almost required. And like a lot of their job they often are and should be told how to perform the tasks.
 
Last edited:
eveled said:
In my opinion boxing footwork translates well into shooting and moving

You would never see a boxer in an isosceles stance.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

Never LE, just USN which taught ISO at the time.

I’ve always felt no matter which stance you are taught and how well it is ingrained, if it hasn’t become muscle memory, it is very likely most will revert under fire to whatever stance and grip they feel works best for them.
 
I started in Law Enforcement in 1983 and was trained with the Weaver stance, and then later all training changed to the Isosceles stance, for better protection by the body armor, but we were told to use which stance we were more comfortable with. I like having my right foot back, I think it gives me more stable footing, so mine is kind of a modified Isosceles/Weaver stance. It works for me anyway.
 
The Weaver that I was taught you don't blade the body. Stance is over rated as the best handgun shot that I ever saw used a very unorthodox stance. That was Ross Sefried and he was the best and shot a weaver with the pistol literally inches from his face.
 
For me, the grip of a revolver lends its self more to a Weaver-Chapman stance than an isosceles. Maybe it’s because that was how I was trained. Maybe it’s because Jack Weaver was shooting K-38s when he developed his signature stance. Obviously Cooper incorporated the stance into his Modern Pistol Technique with emphasis on the 1911 don’t works with either platform.

Again, the bottom line is that stance is important for a lot of shooting scenarios, but being one with the grip, trigger, and sights of your pistol defines whether or not you hit where you’re aiming.
 
Modified Weaver stance saved my left eye from a ricochet when shooting beat up steel plates (stupid, stupid, stupid). The bullet/fragment hit at the hairline, above my left eye. It's still there 25+ years later.
 
My first agency taught us the Weaver stance in 1987. In 1990 At the DEA Academy they taught us isosceles. Many of asked the instructor why 1) because most of us were prior LE and 2) the stance was really comfortable and kept you handgun away from the suspect during a field interview. The instructor said it gave full use of the bulletproof vest. Ok…..
 
ronbwolf said:
I use, and taught the Weaver stance for years. The reason it works for LE, is that it builds on the "interview position ," i.e. the stance that an officer is in when making contact with citizens. It works with a handgun, and a long gun, with impact weapons, taser, or hands on, without having to obtain a new "stance!"

Standing in street, (right handed officer) left foot forward, right foot back, balance slightly forward, ready. Something happens, you are already in a position to deal with it, no footwork, no dancing, certainly a better position than squared to an offender pushing, kicking etcetera.

Isoceles "may" be faster for some shooters, but that's on a range, where the order of the day, is shooting at targets. I dropped my ticket book, posse box, or other items, and drew down on a suspect, far more times than I shot at anyone. When I shot competitions, I used the same stance, used the same at Gunsite for several handguns, and shotgun. Whatever you choose, what you do in practice, is what you will do in the field. Muscle memory, repetitive motion, perfect practice makes perfect, whatever your choice of terminology, when stressed, and a real life shooting situation is the pinnacle of stress, having trained to the point that certain movements are performed without "thinking," may be the thing that saves your life. Just my opinion, YMMV!
Click to expand...
 
Raf1963 said:
Completely agree.
Though most stances for serious/competitive shooters fall into one of the 3 most common categories, each individual is different and (frankly) have probably developed their own slightly modified shooting stance (and grip to go with it). The key IMHO is to find whatever combination works best for you.
PERSONALLY I favor a slightly modified Chapman stance. The one severe issue I’ve found with using it is moving/shuffling short distances to the non-dominant side. Longer distances are far less problematic as it is easy to get back into quickly because it is easier to push off with your dominant leg/foot.

My much more unusual feature is my grip, which I have found both natural and incredibly effective for ME, most easily on Semi Automatic’s with a Squared off trigger guard, but even those without. I find it allows for a better grip on shorter gripped pistols as well.
I use a nearly normal highly placed dominant hand and fill in the Non-dominant hand side with the bottom 3 fingers, palm fill as normal, thumbs aligned under the slide but with index finger free to grip the forward part of the trigger guard,
This allows my trigger finger to “press” rather than pull the trigger, gaining a better feel for the trigger break point. I also find/feel that allows for far better muzzle control with the non-dominant index finger outside the guard enabling much better control and thus faster return to target.

Combined with the stance I described above it has proven incredibly effective FOR ME.
But as my friend above said, we all must develop the stance and grip which are first SAFE and EFFECTIVE for them.
The “Big 3” are great starting points, but I don’t feel we should be tied to them unless you’re trying to break an otherwise unsafe habit…of course that may present problems when trying to qualify
Click to expand...
Just the way my two hand hold looks here with the non dominant index finger grabbing the front of the trigger guard and pulling rearward and down. Been using it for 40 years and it started in the matches back in the day.

The timer told the tale of faster splits and added recoil management. This was taken early 90's in a match QK early 90'.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doug M.
LEOSA time with lessons
Replies
9
Views
546
The Big D
T
PALADIN85020
The Steyr Scout rifle ...
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Glenn R. McMannly
Glenn R. McMannly
the ringo kid
  • Locked
Here's the scoop getting you LTC in Texas.
2 3
Replies
61
Views
8K
Tinhack
Tinhack
500 Magnum Nut
  • Locked
  • Sticky
FAQ
Replies
0
Views
25K
500 Magnum Nut
500 Magnum Nut
H
AAR: 21st Century Gunfighter Handgun 1
Replies
4
Views
3K
Hitokiri03
H

Latest posts

Back
Top