Weaver vs Isoceles

[star1]

Wonder if this cop was using Isosceles or Weaver ? Just kidding...., a real fine job of extraordinary shooting under pressure.

Austin cop's sure shot stopped crazed gunman | Fox News


"Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.

Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he'd fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 . The shot, from Johnson's Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest "

Actually I found another article, he was astride his horse while holding the reins of 2 other horse.
Chief on Austin gunman: 'Hate was in his heart' | KXAN.com

Also sounds like quite a humble guy:
"Sgt. Johnson told Chief Art Acevedo that he credits "divine intervention" and that the other officers in the mounted patrol unit who were advancing on the shooter should get the majority of the credit."

 

[MCorps0311]

If i'm in a gun fight,my stance is taking cover somewhere.

 

[Buford57]

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 heard a quote from Bill Jordan one time in response to someone citing McGivern's speed - something to the effect that McGivern could have taken any of the old western gunmen. Jordan replied probably not - those men were killers and McGivern wasn't. The whole picture looks different when the target shoots back.

I answered the question according to the stance I use to qualify. It isn't the only one I know, thank God.

 

[Protected One]

I heard a quote from Bill Jordan one time in response to someone citing McGivern's speed - something to the effect that McGivern could have taken any of the old western gunmen. Jordan replied probably not - those men were killers and McGivern wasn't. The whole picture looks different when the target shoots back.

Sometimes its easy to forget or underestimate the impact of that little statement!

 

[watsonrg]

Didn't check every post to see if someone already posted this, but if not, here is Jerry Miculek on the topic.

Skip to 11:45 where he discusses stance.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEHNZFTfSD8[/ame]

 

[BB57]

I started practical pistol shooting under the influence of Jeff Cooper and thus started shooting from a Weaver stance. However, both my law enforcement and military training was in the isosceles stance and over the years since then shooting (better) in practical pistol competition I've found the isosceles is much more useful and generally more effective in a realistic shooting scenario.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Weaver stance as it comfortable and feels natural, and given the natural feel it tends to promote greater accuracy. If I'm in a match that ends with a single precision shot, I'll usually transition to a Weaver stance for that last shot. Similarly, if I am shooting steel plates for fun offhand at 50 to 100 yards with my 6" Model 19, I'll usually be shooting from a Weaver stance.

However, tactically speaking the Weaver stance a poor choice for self defense shooting - yes I know, Jeff Cooper is probably turning in his grave at about 10,000 rpm.

It's much easier to move off the X from an isosceles stance, particularly if you're side stepping to avoid crossing your feet and eliminate the potential to trip yourself under stress.

You're also well balanced at any point during the move and can shoot at any time.

The isosceles stance also allows you to pivot equally well in either direction to engage assailants on your flank. You have a fairly large field of fire just pivoting at the hip and the amount of movement needed by either foot to pivot the entire stance is fairly small.

The isosceles stance also promotes situational awareness in terms of keeping your head up and gives you maximum field of vision across your entire front from flank to flank with fewer blind spots. That's also one of the reasons I do a stress fire reload with a revolver rather than the slightly faster FBI reload.

Pivoting to engage a target on your flank is something that can be problematic from a Weaver stance. With your weak hand side foot forward, pivoting to the strong hand side is a snap as you just shift to an isosceles position shooting to your strong side. Consistent with this, pivoting to a Weaver stance is unnecessarily slow, so even if you're a Weaver guy you'll be shooting isosceles in this situation.

However, it's the pivot to the weak hand side that really slows you down, perhaps fatally so.

The isosceles position is also more amenable to transitioning to or from a close in retention shooting position, and it tends to help keep the support than close in and behind the muzzle, particularly if the assailant is a bit off axis and or on the weak hand side. And again you are well balance, always stable, and able to move well forward, backward or laterally to adjust to an attack or move toward available cover while engaging the assailant.

Another advantage of the isosceles occurs if you are wearing body armor. If you've got concealable class IIIa body armor you've probably got fairly limited coverage to keep the vest truly concealable (and advertising that you are wearing body armor is often just inviting a head shot). In that regard the isosceles position keeps you facing the assailant and maximizes the coverage of the vest, as well as maximizing the coverage of the trauma plate in the front of the vest.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

There are a lot of posters "talking" pasty each other here and trying to find argument where there is none. What a waste of time.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

I started practical pistol shooting under the influence of Jeff Cooper and thus started shooting from a Weaver stance. However, both my law enforcement and military training was in the isosceles stance and over the years since then shooting (better) in practical pistol competition I've found the isosceles is much more useful and generally more effective in a realistic shooting scenario.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Weaver stance as it comfortable and feels natural, and given the natural feel it tends to promote greater accuracy. If I'm in a match that ends with a single precision shot, I'll usually transition to a Weaver stance for that last shot. Similarly, if I am shooting steel plates for fun offhand at 50 to 100 yards with my 6" Model 19, I'll usually be shooting from a Weaver stance.

However, tactically speaking the Weaver stance a poor choice for self defense shooting - yes I know, Jeff Cooper is probably turning in his grave at about 10,000 rpm.

It's much easier to move off the X from an isosceles stance, particularly if you're side stepping to avoid crossing your feet and eliminate the potential to trip yourself under stress.

You're also well balanced at any point during the move and can shoot at any time.

The isosceles stance also allows you to pivot equally well in either direction to engage assailants on your flank. You have a fairly large field of fire just pivoting at the hip and the amount of movement needed by either foot to pivot the entire stance is fairly small.

The isosceles stance also promotes situational awareness in terms of keeping your head up and gives you maximum field of vision across your entire front from flank to flank with fewer blind spots. That's also one of the reasons I do a stress fire reload with a revolver rather than the slightly faster FBI reload.

Pivoting to engage a target on your flank is something that can be problematic from a Weaver stance. With your weak hand side foot forward, pivoting to the strong hand side is a snap as you just shift to an isosceles position shooting to your strong side. Consistent with this, pivoting to a Weaver stance is unnecessarily slow, so even if you're a Weaver guy you'll be shooting isosceles in this situation.

However, it's the pivot to the weak hand side that really slows you down, perhaps fatally so.

The isosceles position is also more amenable to transitioning to or from a close in retention shooting position, and it tends to help keep the support than close in and behind the muzzle, particularly if the assailant is a bit off axis and or on the weak hand side. And again you are well balance, always stable, and able to move well forward, backward or laterally to adjust to an attack or move toward available cover while engaging the assailant.

Another advantage of the isosceles occurs if you are wearing body armor. If you've got concealable class IIIa body armor you've probably got fairly limited coverage to keep the vest truly concealable (and advertising that you are wearing body armor is often just inviting a head shot). In that regard the isosceles position keeps you facing the assailant and maximizes the coverage of the vest, as well as maximizing the coverage of the trauma plate in the front of the vest.

You posted pretty much exactly what I did, except I didn't mention body armor, since I don't wear any, but you did a better job of it. I prefer the Weaver for longer range shooting with heavy recoiling hunting revolvers and do not use it much when shooting a light recoiling 9mm pistol at close range for the extra speed on multiple targets. In fact, I use the Isosceles when shooting my eight-shot .357 revolvers at close range (under 30 yards) because recoil is easily controllable with that round and revolver. I also believe the Weaver is dying out faster than revolvers. There will always be people interested in revolvers, just as the 1911 still sells well despite it is inferior to many newer designs, but more revolver haters are coming of age every day.

 

[getoff]

mod weaver... just seems to work best for me.

 

[Drummer Boy]

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

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

Ditto, on both. I'm cross dominant also, and, I shoot with both eyes open, with both thumbs forward.

 

[blues7]

I find myself shooting both methods with roughly equal results.

I probably gravitate toward isosceles more often during qualifications.

 

[cmort666]

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

How to shoot a Pistol with world champion shooter, Jerry Miculek - YouTube

... 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.

I have similar issues, having previously dislocated both shoulders at different times.

When I shoot two handed, Chapman works best for me, but the truth is that I shoot better one handed than two handed.

 

[Lee's Landing Billy]

In March of this year I had a nice long chat with Allen Weaver, Jack's son. He was kind enough to send me 2 wonderful posters of his dad shooting at Big Bear in the late 50s. They are sign by Jack and have many faces you will recognize. Cooper is squatting by Jack as he shoots, Elden Carl in the background and Allen Weaver is a little boy. No one is wearing eye or ear protection.Allen says he has many pictures of jack shooting and the one thing he insists on is..His dad can be seen in every imaginable position..The only common denominator is he is ALWAYS using 2 hands. THAT is the original thought from Weaver's son own mouth. His dad was a proponent of using 2 hands...PERIOD. All the rest evolved over time. If you have a book by John Henry Fitzgerald 'Colt's man', there is a picture of him shooting what today we all call The Weaver Stance. A perfect picture of it!!! This book was written in c1935.

 

[Protected One]

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.

I don't think it's skewed. Shooters of ANY platform are free to vote, and I'm guessing that all ages are represented well too.

 

[JCFindley]

I shot weaver most of my life then went through FLETC and they taught isosceles. Took some work to train the first out of me. I am good with either but train isosceles. Grip is two thumbs forward when shooting two hands.

 

[BaldEagle1313]

I was taught Weaver back in the early 80's. Now I use Isoceles because I've gotten fat enough that Weaver is uncomfortable...

 

[susieqz]

for people who work hard at point shooting, these stances are obsolete
at distances of 10 yards or less.
i can tell that 4'' groups at 15 yards are possible, but i'm not there yet.
shooting from the hip, one can practice weight on right leg, left leg, balanced unbalanced.
this can't be taught by police agencies only because it costs a great deal of time n money.
i've shot more than 4,000 practice rounds n i can tell it's gonna take 10,000 rounds to be good at this.
one shoots walking, kneeling, squatting, bent over, from any position one might be in.
at 10 yards, a competent point shooter would fill you full of holes before you raised a gun to shoulder level.
i have no way to measure time, but it certainly takes way less than a second to draw, point shoot.
a couple months ago, i checked my group at 7 yards. 4 1/2''. that's draw, point, shoot.
the group would have been smaller if i drew once n fired 5 times.
i'm working at 9 yards now, but by next year i'll be at 15.
further than that, you can use some stance.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Isosceles ( leastways with one foot slightly forewards and upper body at least somewhat forewards ) is most natural, more flexible for either shooting off to the side or beating feet. Easier for new shooters to comprehend, and quicker for them to reach a level of * kinda.reasonably competent* . This is the method I default teach to new shooters, or shooters at a level of non-competence that they need to hit reset instead of just fine tuning what they're already doing.

All that said,*For Me* , I can get faster precise hits with Chapman. ( I consider Chapman a seperate stance in its own right, not just another miscellaneous variation of Weaver.) Once again *for me* , I can fluidly transition between a buncha styles and not even realize unless I stop and analyze later, so for me I'm not as concerned with flexibility limitations of Chapman or whatever. But for instructees that at least initially will only know one way, I prefer that to be flexible.

Transitioning between styles doesn't mean that one was inherently bad or flawed. It means everything has relative strengths and weaknesses, and options are good.

The Prevailing Wisdom of LE training changes on 20-30yr cycles, with gradual transition 5yr on either side. The real hoot of this conversation is that 30 some years ago the places were 180 degree reversed. Weaver was somthing gamey used by those impliedly pantywaist Target Shooters, while the proven Isosceles was the way to go for real defensive shooting. And before that it was dawn of PPC era FBI doctrine vs Turret aka Isoscles. And before that it was classic one hand bullseye vs FBI .

And on a side note, the real reason for the off hand balled on the chest, is so the trainee/ requalifying person doesn't shoot themselves in the hand.

 

[JCFindley]

for people who work hard at point shooting, these stances are obsolete
at distances of 10 yards or less.

As a civilian I would go so far as to say there are not many times I would engage anyone at 30 feet with the exception of an active shooter maybe and that is still a maybe. I use and train the stance at targets beyond 10 feet as weapon retention becomes a factor when the attacker gets closer. Speed of the draw and fire is not as critical as shot placement at longer ranges IMO.

i can tell that 4'' groups at 15 yards are possible, but i'm not there yet.
shooting from the hip, one can practice weight on right leg, left leg, balanced unbalanced.
this can't be taught by police agencies only because it costs a great deal of time n money.

The Feds absolutely train this. I cannot speak to how many locals train - draw, point, shoot from hip. We did not train that stance out to 15 yards as it really isn't necessary at that range. But sure, it can be done and if you train at that level more power to you.

at 10 yards, a competent point shooter would fill you full of holes before you raised a gun to shoulder level.
i have no way to measure time, but it certainly takes way less than a second to draw, point shoot.

In training we had targets that would turn to us then away. 1/2 second was the shortest they could flip the target to expose then turn away. Starting from the holster I drew and put two rounds through the target in that 1/2 second at 3 yards. I am just not sure that the speed of drawing and firing from the hip would be needed at 10 yards and am confident saying it would take a shooter well beyond just competent to fill me full of holes at 30 feet in a real world gunfight.

a couple months ago, i checked my group at 7 yards. 4 1/2''. that's draw, point, shoot.
the group would have been smaller if i drew once n fired 5 times.
i'm working at 9 yards now, but by next year i'll be at 15.
further than that, you can use some stance.

Have fun! It certainly can be done with enough training.

 

[susieqz]

thanks for the info, jc.
when you said 2 shots in 1/2 second, was that point shooting?
did i understand you correctly that point shooting was taught up to 3 yards?
for me, point shooting has real world applications.
aggressive rattlers can show up unexpectedly real close if your head is in the clouds. evil bunnies sometimes give you little time to shoot.