Weaver vs Isoceles

[Handgun Hunter]

Just about everyone uses the Isosceles now. But then just about everyone carries a plastic pistol now, too. If you've been shooting a revolver for over 50 years and have been using the Weaver or a modified Weaver or whatever, then you might want to keep using it and shooting those revolvers. That is IF you can shoot well.

I use the Isosceles for hi cap pistols when shooting fast at multiple targets and drawing from concealment. But when shooting a magnum revolver for precision long range shots I go right back to the old modified Weaver I've used for decades. I also do not use the extended thumbs grip on revolvers because of the cylinder gap and the heavier recoil of magnums. With revolvers the off hand thumb is lapped over the strong hand thumb. For self-defense practice with a pistol I use the extended thumbs grip that trainers now teach.

When shooting a magnum revolver at longer range (shooting a deer or a hog at 50 plus yards) letting the gun recoil naturally is a common practice. Elmer Kieth didn't even use his left hand for more than steadying his shooting hand and din't try to control the recoil at all. But this is NOT what you would do in a self-defense shooting. You would do the opposite and keep the front sight on target as much as you possibly can so you can get more shots off. Two different types of shooting. Why would anyone limit their technique to only one?

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

I disagree. Anyone that can shoot the way he does has a huge advantage over the next guy. He obviously understands and practices target acquisition, trigger and recoil control.

You say that there is no one right answer for every person. If you believe that then why does Jerry needs to explain himself? Which by the way he has. You need to look harder.

Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Just about everyone uses the Isosceles now. But then just about everyone carries a plastic pistol now, too. If you've been shooting a revolver for over 50 years and have been using the Weaver or a modified Weaver or whatever, then you might want to keep using it and shooting those revolvers. That is IF you can shoot well.

I use the Isosceles for hi cap pistols when shooting fast at multiple targets and drawing from concealment. But when shooting a magnum revolver for precision long range shots I go right back to the old modified Weaver I've used for decades. I also do not use the extended thumbs grip on revolvers because of the cylinder gap and the heavier recoil of magnums. With revolvers the off hand thumb is lapped over the strong hand thumb. For self-defense practice with a pistol I use the extended thumbs grip that trainers now teach.

When shooting a magnum revolver at longer range (shooting a deer or a hog at 50 plus yards) letting the gun recoil naturally is a common practice. Elmer Kieth didn't even use his left hand for more than steadying his shooting hand and din't try to control the recoil at all. But this is NOT what you would do in a self-defense shooting. You would do the opposite and keep the front sight on target as much as you possibly can so you can get more shots off. Two different types of shooting. Why would anyone limit their technique to only one?

Everyone? Where? Most people I see shoot Weaver.

And I agree. Putting limitations on yourself is foolish. Things simply will not unfold the way you think they will.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

I disagree. Anyone that can shoot the way he does has a huge advantage over the next guy. He obviously understands and practices target acquisition, trigger and recoil control.

You say that there is no one right answer for every person. If you believe that then why does Jerry needs to explain himself? Which by the way he has. You need to look harder.

Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

Well, he does wear glasses. He might be blind without them and they might be knocked off. There is at least one shooting school that still teaches the Weaver method, and they do get flack for it. If I remember correctly it's Front Sight.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

Everyone? Where? Most people I see shoot Weaver.

And I agree. Putting limitations on yourself is foolish. Things simply will not unfold the way you think they will.

Most people I see at ranges use the Isosceles. Most shooting instructors teach the Isosceles. Now, I'm not saying everyone should drop the Weaver. It's still my favorite for magnum revolvers. But then there are those who think anyone who owns a revolver is an idiot. I'm not one of them.

 

[Rastoff]

There is at least one shooting school that still teaches the Weaver method, and they do get flack for it. If I remember correctly it's Front Sight.

Front Sight and Gunsight teach Weaver or modified Weaver. However, both schools teach that you should use what works best. Some police departments require the use of Isosceles and I know Front Sight will work with that. The NRA teaches both.

Most people I see at ranges use the Isosceles.

These "most people" you talk about, what do their targets look like? Just because "most" that you see do something doesn't mean everyone should do it that way.

Most shooting instructors teach the Isosceles.

Just how many instructors have you seen? How many classes have you been to? Because this is patently untrue.

Now, I'm not saying everyone should drop the Weaver. It's still my favorite for magnum revolvers.

Why is it good for magnum revolvers, but not other guns?

 

[Muss Muggins]

. . .
Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

Eh. I'd just take me, because I know how I'm going to react. Anybody else is just a crapshoot . . .

 

[Mister X]

I disagree. Anyone that can shoot the way he does has a huge advantage over the next guy. He obviously understands and practices target acquisition, trigger and recoil control.

You say that there is no one right answer for every person. If you believe that then why does Jerry needs to explain himself? Which by the way he has. You need to look harder.

Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

My assertion is that the vast majority of civilian defense encounters occurr at close to extreme close-quarters. "Target acquisition, trigger and recoil control" in the context he trains and competes is most often irrelevant at those ranges and circumstances. At 3 feet, drawing and fully extending the gun with a two hand grip from a relaxed isosceles stance would most likely be a very bad idea against any type of attack.

I meant no disrespect or to insult Jerry Miculek. He's a magnificent sport shooter and that is his primary focus, but acquiring skills for being successful in IDPA and similiar sports will have virtually no applicability for defending against someone trying to shank you, a mugging, any type of ECQ assault whether it be against a weapon or an unarmed assailant(s).

Priority for the civilian defender should be on developing integrated skills that are appropriate and applicable for the most probable scenarios.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Eh. I'd just take me, because I know how I'm going to react. Anybody else is just a crapshoot . . .

Gives new meaning to the words "No Muss No Fuss"

 

[Handgun Hunter]

Front Sight and Gunsight teach Weaver or modified Weaver. However, both schools teach that you should use what works best. Some police departments require the use of Isosceles and I know Front Sight will work with that. The NRA teaches both.

These "most people" you talk about, what do their targets look like? Just because "most" that you see do something doesn't mean everyone should do it that way.

Just how many instructors have you seen? How many classes have you been to? Because this is patently untrue.

Why is it good for magnum revolvers, but not other guns?

You seem to live in a different world, one where you find argument when there is none and everyone uses the Weaver stance, though in the real world most regard it as obsolete, just as most today regard revolvers. (Now you will argue that revolvers are still more popular than pistols, even in law enforcement.)

As I already posted, limiting yourself to one technique is not a good idea. As for why a shooter would use a different technique when shooting a heavy recoiling magnum revolver than he would a light-recoiling 9mm, that is self-explanatory for anyone who has shot much. The discomfort of shooting a heavy recoiling revolver is diminished greatly if you let the revolver recoil naturally, and many say it's more accurate than fighting the recoil. This is one reason the Ruger Super Back Hawk was so popular. The grip shape allowed the gun to slide in your hand and absorb some of the recoil. It left the muzzle pointed up into the sky, but who cared? You don't need fast follow-up shots on game.

In contrast, you do NOT go for high precision when shooting on a timer and training for close range self-dense because of the time factor, as you do with a magnum when taking all the time in the world and squeezing off a single action round and sending it 100 yards and into a deer's heart. The two kinds of shooting are so different, why not use a different technique if one works for one type of shooting and the other works for you for the other type? The advantage of the Isosceles is when you're shooting on the run and have multiple attackers to deal with. If you don't know what I'm getting at, go get some training. They will explain it to you.

As for what the targets of shooters who use the Isosceles technique look like compared to those who use the Weaver, that is a stupid question. If you can group well on a target using one method, you can using the other. Neither one is magic. It took me very little time to go from the Weaver to the Isosceles, and I go from one to the other as easily as I do from a revolver to a Glock or 1911. I DO prefer the Weaver for magnum revolvers, especially past 50 yards. Men who had never heard of either were shooting from the hip at close range and putting all their rounds into groups covered by their hand before any of us were born. They were also shooting bullseye matches one-handed just fine. Yet some will go into a fit of rage over the thought of shooting without using the sights or at least putting them between your eyes and the target before pulling the trigger. Others have a fit over the thought of shooting one-handed. Never mind the late Jeff Cooper could shoot from the hip and hit multiple targets with ease. That doesn't mean he taught that technique. Elmer Keith was shooting single action revolvers from the hip a century ago and he was also shooting targets at hundreds of yards using his own technique that was completely different from anything commonly used today. He was often called a liar over his long range revolver shooting, but people would go to his ranch and watch him shoot. They reported he was no liar. He also admitted he was no great bullseye shooter. Yet he could hit jackrabbits at 150 yards.

Go to the graves of these men and argue with them. You might hear the sound of laughter in the wind. Or you could just go shooting and use whatever technique you want. That's what I do.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

My assertion is that the vast majority of civilian defense encounters occurr at close to extreme close-quarters. "Target acquisition, trigger and recoil control" in the context he trains and competes is most often irrelevant at those ranges and circumstances. At 3 feet, drawing and fully extending the gun with a two hand grip from a relaxed isosceles stance would most likely be a very bad idea against any type of attack.

I meant no disrespect or to insult Jerry Miculek. He's a magnificent sport shooter and that is his primary focus, but acquiring skills for being successful in IDPA and similiar sports will have virtually no applicability for defending against someone trying to shank you, a mugging, any type of ECQ assault whether it be against a weapon or an unarmed assailant(s).

Priority for the civilian defender should be on developing integrated skills that are appropriate and applicable for the most probable scenarios.

The old "speed rock" is good for belly to belly defensive shooting. It's extremely fast.

 

[Kanewpadle]

You seem to live in a different world, one where you find argument when there is none and everyone uses the Weaver stance, though in the real world most regard it as obsolete, just as most today regard revolvers. (Now you will argue that revolvers are still more popular than pistols, even in law enforcement.)

As I already posted, limiting yourself to one technique is not a good idea. As for why a shooter would use a different technique when shooting a heavy recoiling magnum revolver than he would a light-recoiling 9mm, that is self-explanatory for anyone who has shot much. The discomfort of shooting a heavy recoiling revolver is diminished greatly if you let the revolver recoil naturally, and many say it's more accurate than fighting the recoil. This is one reason the Ruger Super Back Hawk was so popular. The grip shape allowed the gun to slide in your hand and absorb some of the recoil. It left the muzzle pointed up into the sky, but who cared? You don't need fast follow-up shots on game.

In contrast, you do NOT go for high precision when shooting on a timer and training for close range self-dense because of the time factor, as you do with a magnum when taking all the time in the world and squeezing off a single action round and sending it 100 yards and into a deer's heart. The two kinds of shooting are so different, why not use a different technique if one works for one type of shooting and the other works for you for the other type? The advantage of the Isosceles is when you're shooting on the run and have multiple attackers to deal with. If you don't know what I'm getting at, go get some training. They will explain it to you.

As for what the targets of shooters who use the Isosceles technique look like compared to those who use the Weaver, that is a stupid question. If you can group well on a target using one method, you can using the other. Neither one is magic. It took me very little time to go from the Weaver to the Isosceles, and I go from one to the other as easily as I do from a revolver to a Glock or 1911. I DO prefer the Weaver for magnum revolvers, especially past 50 yards. Men who had never heard of either were shooting from the hip at close range and putting all their rounds into groups covered by their hand before any of us were born. They were also shooting bullseye matches one-handed just fine. Yet some will go into a fit of rage over the thought of shooting without using the sights or at least putting them between your eyes and the target before pulling the trigger. Others have a fit over the thought of shooting one-handed. Never mind the late Jeff Cooper could shoot from the hip and hit multiple targets with ease. That doesn't mean he taught that technique. Elmer Keith was shooting single action revolvers from the hip a century ago and he was also shooting targets at hundreds of yards using his own technique that was completely different from anything commonly used today. He was often called a liar over his long range revolver shooting, but people would go to his ranch and watch him shoot. They reported he was no liar. He also admitted he was no great bullseye shooter. Yet he could hit jackrabbits at 150 yards.

Go to the graves of these men and argue with them. You might hear the sound of laughter in the wind. Or you could just go shooting and use whatever technique you want. That's what I do.

The only problem I have with your posts is the use of blanket statements like you know it all. Doesn't give your posts much credibility at all.

Makes me wonder where you get your information. Do you just make it up as you go?

As far as revolvers. did you know that Smith and Wessons best selling revolver is the 642/442 series? They can't make em fast enough.

 

[Protected One]

I disagree. Anyone that can shoot the way he does has a huge advantage over the next guy. He obviously understands and practices target acquisition, trigger and recoil control.

Ask yourself this. If you had to walk through a dark alley in the worst part of town and choose someone to go with you, who would it be? Jerry? Or just your average concealed carrier?

I think the answer is obvious.

That's not really much of a choice you're offering him. Why not make it a reasonable choice? Say, Jerry or a Ranger/SEAL/Delta soldier?
Now. Which would you pick; the champion target shooter, or the one with skill and experience under fire?

 

[Kanewpadle]

That's not really much of a choice you're offering him. Why not make it a reasonable choice? Say, Jerry or a Ranger/SEAL/Delta soldier?
Now. Which would you pick; the champion target shooter, or the one with skill and experience under fire?

Because this isn't about Rangers or Seals. It's about concealed carry and how we shoot. He set the parameters by bringing Jerry into the discussion. No offense to the above mentioned military guys but I'll take an experienced street cop any day.

 

[Protected One]

Front Sight and Gunsight teach Weaver or modified Weaver. However, both schools teach that you should use what works best. Some police departments require the use of Isosceles and I know Front Sight will work with that. The NRA teaches both.

Last week I had a "Use of force" class at my local PD. Their tactical instructor said he teaches Isosceles, because it provides for maximum protection by their vest - which only protects the front and back. The weaver exposes the side to potential fire on an unprotected area.

 

[Protected One]

Because this isn't about Rangers or Seals. It's about concealed carry and how we shoot. He set the parameters by bringing Jerry into the discussion. No offense to the above mentioned military guys but I'll take an experienced street cop any day.

I think you tried to stack the deck by offering him a choice that was really no choice at all. I was just trying to make it a "real" choice.

I think I know what the thread is about - I started it, and we've been well off target for a while now.

Interesting choice in who you'd pick to walk that alley with. Given the same choice I wonder how many cops would even make that pick?

 

[Muss Muggins]

I think you tried to stack the deck by offering him a choice that was really no choice at all. I was just trying to make it a "real" choice.

I think I know what the thread is about - I started it, and we've been well of target for a while now.

Interesting choice in who you'd pick to walk that alley with. Given the same choice I wonder how many cops would even make that pick?

I wouldn't . . .

 

[jtcarm]

Just pick one and practice it. I don't think either is inherently better.

Sight, grip, trigger are more important. In a shootout, it's unlikely you'll be standing up in the open.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Just pick one and practice it. I don't think either is inherently better.

Sight, grip, trigger are more important. In a shootout, it's unlikely you'll be standing up in the open.

It's more likely you'll be touching your attacker and not considering the sights at all . . .

 

[Handgun Hunter]

The only problem I have with your posts is the use of blanket statements like you know it all. Doesn't give your posts much credibility at all.

Makes me wonder where you get your information. Do you just make it up as you go?

As far as revolvers. did you know that Smith and Wessons best selling revolver is the 642/442 series? They can't make em fast enough.

You and the other poster seem to be reading things in my posts that simply aren't there, and in his case, missing some things that are. I own more revolvers than pistols and shoot them a lot more. But that doesn't change the fact younger shooters absolutely hate the revolver and laugh at older shooters like me who still prefer them. I also still use the Weaver method every day, but it's dying out. Your statement about S&Ws best selling REVOLVER is neither here nor there. How do revolvers compare to pistols in sales numbers? That would be more to the point. I'm guessing there are still enough older shooters who like revolvers that sales aren't that bad. But I'm also guessing (because I never checked into it, after all, I really don't care) that pistols are on the rise and revolvers are losing interest and sales. You can buy two plastic pistols for what one Smith revolver costs. To a young shooter price is going to matter a lot. Then there's capacity and weight.

As far as what I know, you don't have to be a pro shooter to see what's been going on in recent decades and the changes that have come to the shooting world, especially in law enforcement and training, not to mention competition. I certainly never earned my living as a competitor, but I've been shooting since 1961. I reread my posts and cannot find where I claimed to be an expert or know any more than anyone else. This stuff gets boring fast and it's why I don't post much on these forums.