Questioning my Training...Weaver or Isoceles?

C

chicagopimp

Inactive
When I was trained in the academy, they put a big focus on learning to shoot in the Weaver stance. Although I used to rely on the Isoceles, I was also able to shoot equally well with the Weaver stance. Since then, I've seen a number of articles that stressed shooting Isoceles, as they said most people resort to that stance under stress when shooting.

Does anyone have any reasons why one would be superior to the other?

I apologize if this topic has been beat to death in the past....
 
I think Weaver as it is a more natural stance, especially since it is close to the standard interview position, which protects your weapon better, & is close to a standard martial arts position.
 
Don't know if it has been beaten to death here or not, but probably a lot of other places....

Taylor likes the Weaver, Ayoob prefers the Isoceles....

Pick the one that works best for you.
 
Experts, both real, and self proclaimed, praise both stances. For what its worth, my advise would be to practice with both, and then choose the one that you shot best from. Finally, none of this is ever so set in stone, that one stance is 'better' than another for all circumstances. You need to develope the ability to shoot, and survive, in a variety of situations.
 
I find that when I need to move with my weapon held ready, I use a modified Weaver stance.

I will admit that I have never *fired* my weapon while moving, and have only practiced cornering and clearing with an unloaded weapon. But, in terms of maintaining my sight picture while moving, I do far better with the Weaver.

I also find that I have a wider range of fire using the Weaver, since the isometric tension used works well whatever way I'm pointing the weapon.

However, when I shoot at the range, I use an isoceles stance. I definitely show better accuracy from a static position with the isoceles. It also puts the weapon farther away from me, tightening up the slack in my sight picture.

Everybody I've read points out that you're going to behave suboptimally in a fight anyway. I practice several types of shooting when I go to the range, including one-handed, off-handed, and point shooting. When I have time/money to do more than my bi-weekly 100 rounds, I practice shooting in both Weaver and isoceles. If I'm just doing my standard 100-round practice routine, I shoot isoceles for my slow-fire drills.
 
As noted, try both and see what works best for you, but also keep in mind that you do not have to select any one method. I shoot both ways depending on my body orientation relative to the target and whether I am standing still or moving and if moving, at what speed. More often than not, I tend to shoot a version that is a little of both as it feels most natural to me.

Of course for many folks, two handed shooting is not comfortable to them. Neither method fits one-handed shooting.
 
There is a great deal of foolish discussion bouncing around concerning the proper arm position for serious pistol work. Jack Weaver's classic contribution consists in power control. If you crank that left elbow down and pull positive counter-pressure, you dampen recoil very considerably. If you use mechanical means of reducing recoil, and if you lay great importance upon very rapid bursts of succeeding shots, this may matter, but in the overall picture, I do not believe it does. It hardly matters whether you use the Weaver Stance or the Isosceles "with both arms straight" as long as you get hits, and those hits should be delivered with a major powered sidearm under controlled conditions. The argument is silly, and I wish it would go away.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries July '05

I think he sums it up well, don't you?
 
In many "coffe break" discussions I have had several mentions of "Weaver" exposing the weakness of the vest, namely the arm hole (even though there are a couple of bones blocking it). In some minds, the isoceles will always present the strongest part of the armor to the threat. Even stronger if the plate is worn. Others will say that weaver presents a smaller profile to the threat (unless some lbs. have been gained from too many coffee breaks). All this being said, weaver suits me better for my personal shooting accuracy. Just though I'd throw these comments in for further commenting :)
 
They both have their pluses and minuses. With the elbows locked, the isosceles tends to be more stable on the horizontal axis, but rotation to engage multiple targets requires movement at the waist only. So you're not as flexible, and you present a full-body target. The Weaver looses some of the stability of the isosceles stance, but it makes up for it in maneuverability, and you only present a 3/4 target. For combat, I think the Weaver is just a little better, and I like the isosceles for target, especially PPC. But as someone else said, everybody's built just a little different, and you have to find what works for you.
 
Do whichever is most comfortable for you and practice it a lot.
Learn to shoot from whatever contortion you can get into, when push come to shove, I suspect that you will shoot from whatever "position" you can manage to get into, maybe even no "position" at all. If there is lots of time get into your favored one, but do not lock yourself into a habit that says I can only shoot from this position.

And learn to shoot on the move.

Sam
 
thanks for the advice....

I've tried to practice from the Weaver stance as often as I could, just because, as someone had mentioned, it is a smooth transition from the interview stance. I, personally, never had a problem with it....I just saw enough articles praising isoceles that I began to question whether or not I was missing something.

Thank you for all of the feedback on this subject. I read all of the posts and all of the opinions were much appreciated!
 
I was taught the isocoles, and I used it for a while. I never felt comfortable doing it. I always felt off balance awkward. I switched to the weaver stance, and to me it just feels much more natural, and my shooting improved dramatically. They both have advantages and disadvantages, you just have to decide which is the most natural for you.
 
I remember reading Jim Cirillo saying to learn to shoot from as many

positions and akward positions as possible, because you never know how you

will have to shoot.
 
One of our exercises involves running at the 15 yd. line parallel to 4 targets. Two rounds to each target, reload, and run back doing the same thing. Timed and scored fire. Almost Impossible with the isosceles, and if you're right handed, very difficult on the return run without switching to a weak hand Weaver. So practice both stances, AND PRACTICE WEAK HAND SHOOTING! (which nobody likes to do :D )
 
when you are referring to "weak hand shootin" are you referring to reversed two handed, i.e. trigger weak, support strong hand, or weak handed-one handed shooting?
 
since you asked..

I have the exact opposite thoughts as Capt Charlie. I find that during combat shooting and CQB, the modified isosceles works much better for me. Moving to the left, shooting right with the Weaver is just awkward. I have equal grip pressure whether I'm shooting left/right/moving left/right, etc.
I have also studied the "startled response" in humans. After many different gun battles on camera, all the shooters initially ducked their heads, rolled up the shoulders and shot from the modified isosceles (even practiced Weaver shooters). It is just natural human response to protect the vital neck area with the shoulders (hard to shoot this way when in the Weaver).
Modified Isosceles (MI)= feet shoulder width apart with weak side foot about one step forward, waist bent slightly forward, legs bent into a partial crouch (not standing straight up with head upright), shoulders up and head forward (not upright). This is the "startled response" seen in many shootings caught on camera.
Obviously, I'm in favor of the MI, and I used to shoot Weaver before learning this technique. Try them both. Not just at the 15 bullseye, but in combat-type courses.
 
I shot weaver for years and was completely comfortable with it. I recently became a firearms instructor and one of the first things they did was they broke down both stances and fully explained them both. For the entire week I (along with my partner) used the isoscoles. I really liked it and continue to use it. I can't really say that I saw a con to using it over the weaver. I do like the idea of being square to your target and getting the full protection of your armor. It was kind of like learning all over and I am still getting used to it. I guess the bottom line is try many, figure out what works for you and stick with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top