http://glocktalk.com/docs/gtubb/Forum4/HTML/001458.html
there is a lot of good and bad information here!!!
there is a lot of good and bad information here!!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is the Weaver stance outdated?
- Thread starter Beowulf
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
IMHO the weaver is much better for defense. Especially a nice tight weaver. You could probably have your gun kicked in a tight weaver and maintain control. In isoceles, you would be lucky to find your gun after a struggle. Also, IMHO recoil control is better in weaver. That may just be me, though. Ask any ergonomist and they will tell you that you are stronger and more precise in a weaver stance. Hell watch yourself reload or wrestle the lid off a twist top beer. Are you in a modified weaver or isoceles. I thought so. Don't let shooting myth determine your stance.
Action shooters use isoceles and do well. I don't have a good rebuttle except it may be easier to index to the locked elbow position and recoil seems minimal for them. A few differences:
1) Nobody is beating on them while they shoot.
2) Cover is not so important when nobody is shooting back.
3) Loads are not typically as hot(recoilwise) as +P hollowpoints used for defense. Yes power factor is high, but bullets are usually the lightest available for the caliber.
4) Emotions are in check when shooting.
That said. . .Don't work like mad to develop a new stance when the old one works for you.
Action shooters use isoceles and do well. I don't have a good rebuttle except it may be easier to index to the locked elbow position and recoil seems minimal for them. A few differences:
1) Nobody is beating on them while they shoot.
2) Cover is not so important when nobody is shooting back.
3) Loads are not typically as hot(recoilwise) as +P hollowpoints used for defense. Yes power factor is high, but bullets are usually the lightest available for the caliber.
4) Emotions are in check when shooting.
That said. . .Don't work like mad to develop a new stance when the old one works for you.
Show me a boxer who fights from anything but a weaver style stance. Besides that, your a terribly big target when in the Iso. stance. When I start shooting fast and moving I naturaly go into a low weaver stance. Arms tucked in, head down, both elbows bent (left more so), left foot front, torso and hips bladed, bent sharply forward at the waist and knees. Remover the gun and you have a sprinter at about 2 steps out of the blocks. Thats just what comes out natural to me..and thats the key. If your body does one thing naturaly, develope and hone it to your benifit instead of trying to learn something new and unnatural.
David Park
New member
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is that the choice of stance is less important than performing the chosen stance properly. As mentioned, the square-to-target point shooting stance may be instinctive but otherwise it's crap. I see so many guys standing up straight, feet together, almost leaning backwards to counterbalance their guns. I don't care what stance you use, but at least do it right.
An Isosceles should have the feet bladed fairly wide apart to maintain balance (less so with Weaver, but still bladed). Knees should be bent. More weight should be on the forward foot to counter recoil. With Weaver, make sure you have the isometric push-pull between the arms, and with Isosceles push the shoulders forward (in front of hips) and lock the elbows. The Chapman/modified Weaver is somewhere in the middle.
Quick check: look at your stance in a mirror without holding a gun. Do you look ready to kill, or like you're going to fall over?
An Isosceles should have the feet bladed fairly wide apart to maintain balance (less so with Weaver, but still bladed). Knees should be bent. More weight should be on the forward foot to counter recoil. With Weaver, make sure you have the isometric push-pull between the arms, and with Isosceles push the shoulders forward (in front of hips) and lock the elbows. The Chapman/modified Weaver is somewhere in the middle.
Quick check: look at your stance in a mirror without holding a gun. Do you look ready to kill, or like you're going to fall over?
Isosceles VS Weaver
It has been my experiance that the weaver stance flows more easily than a Isosceles stance. It feels like the stance for firing a rifle offhand.
Since I was shooting rifle for 10 years before I starting with a pistol, it just feels natural. Is the point of the Isosceles stance tor train people who have NEVER fired a gun?
It has been my experiance that the weaver stance flows more easily than a Isosceles stance. It feels like the stance for firing a rifle offhand.
Since I was shooting rifle for 10 years before I starting with a pistol, it just feels natural. Is the point of the Isosceles stance tor train people who have NEVER fired a gun?
Jack Carson
New member
I like the Weaver but also practice other stances...
I also shoot a lot weak hand, lying on my back, upside down, etc.
Be ready for everything.
I also shoot a lot weak hand, lying on my back, upside down, etc.
Be ready for everything.
When we talk about shooting stances, why do people bring up boxing or martial arts stances? One is for hitting/blocking and the other is for indexing your gunsights.
Early in this thread someone said to go to a one handed hold when shooting to your far right (r/h shooter). Your natural reactions in a gunfight will be to hold on to that pistol with everything you've got. You can train all you want to and you still won't let go of it in a gunfight. If you don't believe me take someone to the range with you, put a Wal Mart bag in their off hand and ask them to shoot a target, see if they don't shoot one handed. Your normal reaction is to grip what is already in your hand.
Shooting stance? Train in all of them from all positions, from cover, from prone, on your back ect. Shoot from where you are not comfortable.
Early in this thread someone said to go to a one handed hold when shooting to your far right (r/h shooter). Your natural reactions in a gunfight will be to hold on to that pistol with everything you've got. You can train all you want to and you still won't let go of it in a gunfight. If you don't believe me take someone to the range with you, put a Wal Mart bag in their off hand and ask them to shoot a target, see if they don't shoot one handed. Your normal reaction is to grip what is already in your hand.
Shooting stance? Train in all of them from all positions, from cover, from prone, on your back ect. Shoot from where you are not comfortable.
There is more to shooting, especialy combat style shooting than lineing up the sights.
To my feble brain there is a direct correlation to aiming a blow and aiming a gun or controling the incoming force from a punch or recoil. Besides, watching top notch athletes gives you a good understanding of what the body is designed to do naturaly. Sprinters, boxers, NFL quarterbacks, etc. all do an activity and use a stance that has direct primordial links to shooting fast while on the move.
The only sport that I can think of that squares up to the target is Power lifting, and try as I might, I cant draw a link to shooting.
To my feble brain there is a direct correlation to aiming a blow and aiming a gun or controling the incoming force from a punch or recoil. Besides, watching top notch athletes gives you a good understanding of what the body is designed to do naturaly. Sprinters, boxers, NFL quarterbacks, etc. all do an activity and use a stance that has direct primordial links to shooting fast while on the move.
The only sport that I can think of that squares up to the target is Power lifting, and try as I might, I cant draw a link to shooting.
Erick, I understand the need to be balanced, we are in total
agreement there, my point is that a stance for unarmed combat is
not automatically the best for firing a gun.
If I am fighting without a weapon then I want to be able to punch, block, kick and be able to withstand the same. If I am in a gun fight I want to be able to index my firearm, be able to transverse to the flanks for other targets, and be able to move to cover as quick as possible.
I realize that there are similarities between the 2, but I feel that there are also differences. In the martial arts we learn more than 1 stance, should shooting be any different?
I thank you for your comments, when talking stances most people get to bogged down in dogma to look at the bigger picture.
agreement there, my point is that a stance for unarmed combat is
not automatically the best for firing a gun.
If I am fighting without a weapon then I want to be able to punch, block, kick and be able to withstand the same. If I am in a gun fight I want to be able to index my firearm, be able to transverse to the flanks for other targets, and be able to move to cover as quick as possible.
I realize that there are similarities between the 2, but I feel that there are also differences. In the martial arts we learn more than 1 stance, should shooting be any different?
I thank you for your comments, when talking stances most people get to bogged down in dogma to look at the bigger picture.
Success in IPSC/IDPA style competition requires the shooter to be able to place multiple hits on multiple targets from various positions, as quickly and as accurately as possible. The Isosceles and the Weaver are both able to accomplish this.
Isosceles dominates the competition. And yes, I am quite certain that competition and self defense are different. However, we are discussing a stance for effective shooting - not tactics. Isosceles wins because it is a better platform for accomplishing what was described above.
For LEO purposes, I think that an effective argument could be made for not shooting Weaver. There are documentable cases of officers being killed by bullets that passed through the "gap" on the sides of their vests - a gap that is exposed while shooting Weaver.
The argument about boxers/martial artists using a stance similar to Weaver are foolish. :barf: Martial arts and shooting are very different activities. Would you cook in a Weaver stance? How about using a urinal in a Weaver stance? Drive in a Weaver stance? Of course not. Different activities are suited to different stances. Just because it is effective in Tae Bo doesn't mean that it is the way to shoot a gun.
Does anyone have statistically significant results of real life self defense shootings in which Weaver is superior to Isosceles? Don't think so. But the empirical evidence from competition is clear. Isosceles is superior.
Isosceles dominates the competition. And yes, I am quite certain that competition and self defense are different. However, we are discussing a stance for effective shooting - not tactics. Isosceles wins because it is a better platform for accomplishing what was described above.
For LEO purposes, I think that an effective argument could be made for not shooting Weaver. There are documentable cases of officers being killed by bullets that passed through the "gap" on the sides of their vests - a gap that is exposed while shooting Weaver.
The argument about boxers/martial artists using a stance similar to Weaver are foolish. :barf: Martial arts and shooting are very different activities. Would you cook in a Weaver stance? How about using a urinal in a Weaver stance? Drive in a Weaver stance? Of course not. Different activities are suited to different stances. Just because it is effective in Tae Bo doesn't mean that it is the way to shoot a gun.
Does anyone have statistically significant results of real life self defense shootings in which Weaver is superior to Isosceles? Don't think so. But the empirical evidence from competition is clear. Isosceles is superior.
I'm no expert, but...
It seems to me that this discussion is incapable of going anywhere. The only real benefit of discussing it here is that you might be introduced to a stance you were previously unaware of. I agree that people shoot what they practice, but I wonder why people only practice one stance.
Okay, for a civilian, like me, a "gunfight" will involve myself and a terrible threat. The threat will *probably* be under seven yards away and aligned at my approximate 12 o'clock. I'll pull out my gun, aim it toward the approximate center of the shape in front of me, fire it to slidelock, then pass out and wait for my date to call the police. This will require me to have a fairly fast draw, some decent motor skills, and a date with a cell phone. All of these things can be acquired easily, with the exception of the date. I should practice "combat shooting" in a comfortable stance that allows me to get to my weapon swiftly.
If I'm going to find myself in more complex scenarios, possibly in a law enforcement or military capacity, I think I have an obligation to myself to be a fighter. If I'm using a gun, I should be a gunfighter. Learn a bunch of stances, train a bunch of scenarios, and study a bunch of weapons. Optimally, my stance should be determined by my unconscious competence (an Ayoob term? Sounds like his sort of thing), or, as Miyamoto Musashi called it, emptiness. If stance is important enough to you that you want to analyze it to this degree, then you shouldn't have a name for it. You should have "stance without stance" (Miyamoto Musashi again), and you should train exhaustively to maintain this level of proficiency.
Instead of discussing which stance is "better" or "outdated", you should compare and comtrast their merits and shortcomings in a variety of scenarios, and decide which combinations are best for you. Chioce of stance, as has been stated before in this thread, is a very personal decision.
It seems to me that this discussion is incapable of going anywhere. The only real benefit of discussing it here is that you might be introduced to a stance you were previously unaware of. I agree that people shoot what they practice, but I wonder why people only practice one stance.
Okay, for a civilian, like me, a "gunfight" will involve myself and a terrible threat. The threat will *probably* be under seven yards away and aligned at my approximate 12 o'clock. I'll pull out my gun, aim it toward the approximate center of the shape in front of me, fire it to slidelock, then pass out and wait for my date to call the police. This will require me to have a fairly fast draw, some decent motor skills, and a date with a cell phone. All of these things can be acquired easily, with the exception of the date. I should practice "combat shooting" in a comfortable stance that allows me to get to my weapon swiftly.
If I'm going to find myself in more complex scenarios, possibly in a law enforcement or military capacity, I think I have an obligation to myself to be a fighter. If I'm using a gun, I should be a gunfighter. Learn a bunch of stances, train a bunch of scenarios, and study a bunch of weapons. Optimally, my stance should be determined by my unconscious competence (an Ayoob term? Sounds like his sort of thing), or, as Miyamoto Musashi called it, emptiness. If stance is important enough to you that you want to analyze it to this degree, then you shouldn't have a name for it. You should have "stance without stance" (Miyamoto Musashi again), and you should train exhaustively to maintain this level of proficiency.
Instead of discussing which stance is "better" or "outdated", you should compare and comtrast their merits and shortcomings in a variety of scenarios, and decide which combinations are best for you. Chioce of stance, as has been stated before in this thread, is a very personal decision.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.