Weaver vs Isoceles

[Mister X]

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

 

[keith44spl]

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

I've saw me do it.


.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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

I've saw me do it.


.

Did you have an out of body experience?

 

[Rustyt1953]

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.

 

[petepeterson]

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'm with Bruce-

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

 

[Muss Muggins]

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 . . .

 

[bowzette]

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.

 

[petepeterson]

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.

 

[Louchia]

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.

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.

 

[Rastoff]

One shot has the potential to hit both lungs and the heart. That's a possibility of 3 major organs in one shot

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.

An article by Jack Weaver's son was in a recent edition of the Blue Press.

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

The truth is shooting stances and general handgun combat is an art in constant development and improvement.

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."

 

[Rastoff]

Since we're talking about stances, try this: http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...itions.html?highlight=Rastoff's+Challenge+III

 

[PALADIN85020]

I use (and teach to newbies) the Weaver stance. It's based on the classic boxing stance, which keeps one steady on one's feet, offering good balance and no necessary shift in foot position to move rapidly to any point on the compass. It's steady, natural and comfortable. But perhaps that's slightly rationalistic. The real reason is:

Jeff Cooper said so.

John

 

[Mister X]

In the context of defensive shooting and civilian self-defense in general, I feel the importance of movement cannot be stressed enough. *

Whether it's moving to escape, get to cover, getting off the X or line of attack, creating space or using footwork to gain positional advantage in an ECQ scenario, movement is often a key element for a successful resolution irregardless of the distance and specific scenario.

The term posture is preferred IMO because stance implies standing over moving. In terms of what constitutes an efficient defense posture, it must allow for spontaneous, dynamic mobility in any direction, allow transition between as well as simultaneous utilization of unarmed defense skills rather than just be a pure shooting stance. The individual details of an effective posture is not absolute since it could vary depending on the specific scenario. And it shouldn't be overlooked that many civilian defense encounters occur with no to minimal warning even with a high level of environmental and situational awareness, so you could initially be reactively moving and responding from a pretty much completely casual or neutral(albeit ready) posture.

* I would add the caveat that everyone differs in their physical abilities and adjustments and considerations must sometimes be made for those who have limited mobility or are physically handicapped in some way. One size does not fit all.

 

[keith44spl]

Originally Posted by keith44spl
I can move and shoot from a modified weaver, with either hand and win.

I've saw me do it.

Did you have an out of body experience?

Caught on surveillance camera

.

The isosceles platform is great for static range, i.e. stationary targets.

The 'Jack Weaver stance'....in a modified version works well for me,
in a moving fluid 'the real world' kinda deals.


.

 

[tops]

It works great for me because all I ever do is shoot holes in paper, tin cans and dirt clods. Sometimes I ride around the fields and woods on a golf cart and shoot holes in leaves but that is a sitting position. If I'm ever in a place where someone is shooting at me and I get shot it will be in the back because I will be using a running stance. Larry

 

[LoboGunLeather]

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

Agreed. I regularly practice using two-hand strong-side, two-hand weak-side, one-hand right, one-hand left, crouching, kneeling, standing, prone, and from the seated position (as in while in a car). I also shoot at differing ranges with single and multiple targets. I also shoot in low light conditions and practice shooting with a flashlight to locate and illuminate the targets. I will mix in dummy cartridges to simulate stoppage and clearance problems.

About the only thing I don't have regular access to that I would like to have is moving targets.

Only when shooting for a score or accuracy-testing a handgun and/or ammunition will I use an "accepted" position of any kind.

 

[Ziggy2525]

I'm not a CQB/EQB expert. Never been in combat. Just a civilian trying to keep my skills up.

The last couple force on force classes I took (within the last year), taught by police trainers, advocated using a "wrestlers stance." Similar to a boxers stance with maybe a bit more crouch.

Their point was it was a natural position to assume if you're under attack. Provides good forward and lateral movement. Lowers your center of gravity. Shoot and move one handed or two.

Made total sense in the context of the course, but no real world shootouts on my part to back it up (thankfully).

 

[Okie21]

Weaver works best for me after trying both for a couple of months. It feels more natural to me even though a friend told me everyone MUST shoot isosceles. He uses isosceles because Jerry Miculek says thats best. I say choosing one over the other just because someone else tells you to is wrong.

 

[Mister X]

Much depends on the goal.

No offense to all the Miculek fans out there, as I think he's great, but as talented and phenomenal as Jerry Miculek happens to be at what he does, it should not be overlooked that he is a competitive shooter and has developed skills specifically geared toward excelling at that particular sport.

I've never seen him address the type of skills and techniques you would likely need in the most probable defense encounters, considering the vast majority of all civilian self-defense scenarios occur at contact distances out to a few yards(if you believe the published statistics are correct). The type of sport shooting skills I've seen him demonstrate, while no doubt are extremely impressive, just aren't all that applicable in actual defense situations. There is still an elemental degree of crossover in certain circumstances, it's just not very substantial IMO. That's not to say he doesn't have other skills or knowledge, I've just never seen him discuss them in depth or demonstrate them. If the goal is to exhibit proficiency at sport shooting skills or be successful as a competitor, it would be logical to look to the best competitive shooters for tips and guidance, but defensive shooting in realistic conditions requires different methods.

Context is everything and your training methods, preferred shooting posture, stance, grip etc. should be specifically suited for whatever your goal is and for you as an individual. There is no one right answer for every person and every category.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Much depends on the goal.

No offense to all the Miculek fans out there, as I think he's great, but as talented and phenomenal as Jerry Miculek happens to be at what he does, it should not be overlooked that he is a competitive shooter and has developed skills specifically geared toward excelling at that particular sport.

I've never seen him address the type of skills and techniques you would likely need in the most probable defense encounters, considering the vast majority of all civilian self-defense scenarios occur at contact distances out to a few yards(if you believe the published statistics are correct). The type of sport shooting skills I've seen him demonstrate, while no doubt are extremely impressive, just aren't all that applicable in actual defense situations. There is still an elemental degree of crossover in certain circumstances, it's just not very substantial IMO. That's not to say he doesn't have other skills or knowledge, I've just never seen him discuss them in depth or demonstrate them. If the goal is to exhibit proficiency at sport shooting skills or be successful as a competitor, it would be logical to look to the best competitive shooters for tips and guidance, but defensive shooting in realistic conditions requires different methods.

Context is everything and your training methods, preferred shooting posture, stance, grip etc. should be specifically suited for whatever your goal is and for you as an individual. There is no one right answer for every person and every category.

So, what do you teach for a defensive shooting stance . . . ?