Weaver vs Isoceles

[medic15al]

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.

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.

 

[OKFC05]

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 .. 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.

+ 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.

 

[Mister X]

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.

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.

 

[OKFC05]

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.

 

[Arik]

he quick drew his gun and started double tapping crotches .

[emoji15] [emoji15] [emoji48] [emoji48]

Brutal... lol

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Sayoc01]

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

 

[Ed Fowler]

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.

 

[paragain]

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

Same here.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

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.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

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

^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.

 

[Duckford]

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.

 

[dlombard]

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.

 

[TTSH]

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

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s[/ame]

... 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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

 

[ContinentalOp]

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.

 

[Kanewpadle]

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?

 

[Kanewpadle]

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.

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

 

[ContinentalOp]

Good post.

Now lets through a wrench in there.

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

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

 

[Ed Fowler]

Can't argue with Jerry!

 

[MMT]

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.

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.