Anyone still shoot Weaver?

Weaver works... But in an actual firefight guess which stance everyone reverts to esp if they have to retreat even a single step. Practice both imo.
 
I used to back in my IPSC days, when we were outside, and moving from target to target.

Nowadays, at an indoor range, facing a target square on, not so much. I shot better from the Weaver. Of course I was about forty years younger. That might have had something to do it.
 
I shoot both but shoot Weaver better and most of the time. I was born with a shoulder injury and it is more comfortable and steady for me. It seems like I once read that Weaver had a shoulder injury as well.
 
An important consideration.
If you shoot IPSC or IDPA or train for gunfighting, you will find that you cannot depend on getting in a particular stance (def: "the way in which someone stands" (emphasis added.))
Your grasp of the gun should allow you to twist, turn, pivot, and lean as necessary to acquire the target(s). Setting your feet in a school stance takes time you may not have to spare.
Click to expand...
Well put. I'm a modified Weaver guy, have been for 50+ years and it works for me. I'm comfortable in it, shoot well, can move and adjust to conditions. Mas Ayoob calls it the "interview position" in one of his articles...a good description.

Too, Front Sight, the NV based defensive shooting school, teaches the modified Weaver in their 4-day defensive handgun course. I've been twice, my wife once, and we found it easy to adapt to, their version of the classic Weaver.

While I don't participate in any of the handgun games where multiple targets are engaged, I do find that my version of the Weaver limits, to some extent, my ability to engage to the left (I'm right handed), without some foot movement. But then, my friend (nationally ranked in the Glock version of IDPA) demonstrated the isosceles to me, and moved his feet as well....guess it is what it is and you do what works.

Lastly, thinking on it, I find that about the only thing I do squared-off to another person, is shake hands....for any other human interaction, I naturally assume the "interview position" - "fighter's position", ie. the "Weaver Stance" to one extent or another. In a confrontation, it's what 71 years of living is going to condition me too, and it's where I'll find myself...and that's where my shooting "stance" comes from.

YMMV, Rod
 
Last edited:
I've never trained to shoot in a particular stance. I shoot the way I shoot and usually hit what I'm aiming at.

I naturally shoot a handgun with one hand most of the time without even thinking about it.

When shooting one handed, I stand in a Weaver type stance. When shooting with two hands it's more like an isosceles stance.

Maybe I should train for a gunfight but I never have.
 
I tried several stances that was taught to people and the form of Weaver stance are what's more natural to me. Left foot forward and elbows bent.

I have different grips for quick deployment and for precision shooting.
 
I mainly shoot Isosceles but I have been trying to maintain a familiarity with weaver if I ever need to actually use a handgun defensively.
 
The crucial thing about Weaver is what you can't see. That is the muscle tensioning. Strong arm locked and support arm pulling back as though pulling a rifle into the strong shoulder. I found that to be much steadier than the mostly untensioned Isosceles that "made more sense" to me before.

It may be partly mental but it gives the impression of shooting a rifle offhand.
 
I shoot weaver, largely because I am cross dominant (right handed, "left eyed"). The weaver stance feels more natural when I have to adjust my head to line up the shot with my left eye, and I'm too set in my ways to switch to left handed.

The other thing is the foot position for weaver is almost identical to the stance we use in our non-violent crisis intervention/restraint system at work (CPI), so it's a natural stance for me to take in high stress situations.
 
Last edited:
BiGB....That's me, right handed, left eyed. I tried Isosceles on recommendation it was a superior body position...

But like an old sponge regaining original form, I gravitate back to Weaver. Isosceles might be for those who have never lined up in anything in competition like football or boxing, etc. where a righty, GENERALLY, lines up with left foot forward but this also varies considerably for person to person..

Cooper was a Weaver or modified Weaver (Chapman?) advocate but guys like Miculek and Ayoob, I think, prefer Isosceles, not sure.

But we are all built different (mentally too) so probably no one anything is best for everyone.
 
I do, fifty years is a long time. Sure, my left side remains less protected, but that has very little to do with chosen shooting position and is mostly about choosing to ignore the weak side.
 
My body stance goes to automatic reflex depending upon the terrain and target distance.

Short distances / flat terrain I shoot Isosceles.

Long distances / uneven terrain I shoot Weaver.
 
Anyone ever try the reverse Weaver?
It's more like the way we shoot long guns.
Support arm more straight than the gun arm.
It has its uses, too.
 
Iso, like wearing a reload near the body centerline, are best suited to competition that allows a choice in how and where you are going to be standing - standing - as you shoot.

If you are going to be standing, kneeling, twisting, etc., having additional techniques is certainly worthwhile.
If I'm kneeling to engage one target in front of me, then have to transition to a target off to the side, I'll twist around to a position more like Weaver, as that's the only way to keep both hands on the gun and not have to move the knees.
Don't be so dogmatic that it limits versatility.

40 years on, there's been some loss of knowledge about what Weaver actually was; some call any stance that has both elbows bent "Weaver", others call a stance with a straight strong arm "Weaver", but the real key to it is thrusting the weak shoulder forward, which essentially causes the sharply bent weak arm and push-pull effect without even being conscious of it.
Jack Weaver was never really involved in describing or codifying "his" stance, that was all Cooper.
Even if you don't shoot Weaver, if you are interested in the development of practical shooting, read The Modern Technique of the Pistol, by Morrison.
 
I was trained to shoot weaver, but these days modified weaver is my preference. I was mandated to shoot Isosceles when I took my MA safety course (required for CCW permit) a few decades ago. Although I shot well using it, I didn't really like it. Didn't feel as stable for me.
 
I'm right handed.
I shoot with my left foot forward, toes pointing at 12o'clock. Left hand forward elbow bent. Right foot back, toes pointing to 3. Right arm straight. Both eyes open.
Aside from the eyes, the stance is where I feel stable and comfortable. Don't know if it falls under a single specific stance or if it's a hybrid, but it works for me.
 
I practice variations of both. Just shooting in one position all the time gets stale. I'll take my brass catcher and set it in the middle of the bench and lean and shoot from both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top