Questioning my Training...Weaver or Isoceles?

If my tactical shooting environment were likely to involve me being decked out in full body armor then the isocoles stance would be the most advantageous. The combination of the armors bulk and the direction of best protection favor being squared off to the target. It’s silly to expect to reach across a chest full of magazine carriers atop ballistic armor with the weaver.

If armor is not likely in my scenarios then the Weaver Stance is what I would train with. It is more stable with follow-up shots when shooting full power ammo and also presents a slightly smaller target to the BG.

Of course training and frequent practice are the most important aspect regardless of what stance you go with. Be sure hover to be geared out as you are likely to be when things go wrong.
 
How about neither or all? I use Chapman most of the time, but will find myself switching among all three stances depending on what's going on.
 
"If you have a proper grip, solid stance and perfect sight picture..............



YOU AIN'T MOVING FAST ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Paraphrased from "The Rules of Gunfighting" by what's-his-name, a formerly famous gunzine writer.

At least I think that's where it from. Works for me. (No grammar lectures, please.)

Stay safe.
Bob
 
Shield20
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.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the way I see it.

While very stable, it is a more versatile or "dynamic" stance. This is important should sudden movement be needed, or a sudden contact engagement is presented for example.

Having said that, I think it is good to learn both, and try the minor variations. A preference is usually developed by the individual themselves.
 
The late Col. Rex Applegate has a very salty talk, reproduced somewhere here on the Net, about Weaver training and how bad it is. He is very much a proponent of the one-hand stance in close quarters. It is an entertaining read.
 
If you really think the old school, straight-strongarm Weaver is better, go shoot an IPSC/USPSA match, and be prepared to be embarrassed. Especially for fast follow-ups, the modified Weaver/bent arm iso stance is clearly superior.
 
Weaver vs. Isoceles

Just so everybody is clear on the differences between the various shooting stances:

TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE
--Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target
--Legs are locked at the knees
--Firing arm is slightly bent at the elbow (pre-lock)
--Support arm is sharply bent and the elbow points down at the lead foot
--Firing hand pushes out
--Support hand pulls in
--Because the bent arms may lower the position of the gun in relation to the head, the head may have to be tilted to the side to achieve proper sight alignment.

The advantage of the traditional Weaver Stance is that the bent arms and isometric tension of the pushing and pulling muscles create a shock absorber effect that reduces felt recoil and snaps the gun rapidly back on target. Since the gun is closer to the body, it feels lightler and in fact exerts less leverage weight on bent arms than it would on fully extended, locked out arms.

The disadvantages are that the Weaver Stance is uncomfortable for many people. Shooters with shorter arms, greater upper body mass, or women with big bosoms (!) find it difficult to blade in relation to the target and reach across their chest. Sometimes the strong arm will over-power the weak arm, sending bullets hight to the left side for the right handed shooter. More often, the shooter may not lock the elbow of the support arm down enough, which results in the stance becoming unlocked and causes shots to drift low right for the right handed shooter.

THE CHAPMAN MODIFIED WEAVER STANCE
--Body slightly bladed in relation to the target
--Weak side foot forward
--Strong side foot back
--Weight balanced slightly on the lead foot
--Center of gravity slightly forward
--The foot position should be like driving a punch -- the forward leg bears the weight and the rear leg is the drive leg
--Elbow of the strong side arm is locked or nearly locked (pre-lock)
--Elbow of the weak side arm is bent down and aimed at the lead foot
--Lead shoulder over the lead knee
--Isometric Tension -- strong hand pushes out and the weak hand pulls back
--Bring the head down to the sights. If you bring the gun up to your eye, you may shoot high
--Cheekweld the side of your jaw on the strong side upper arm, just like cheeking a rifle stock. This consistently positions your eyes in relation to the sights, the same way every time
--Wide stance/pyramidal base

(this stance is my personal preference. I find that bringing my head down to the sights, establishing a cheek weld with the upper arm on my strong side, and keeping the center of gravity forward works very well when firing multiple rapid shots or when engaging multiple targets.)

THE MODIFIED ISOCELES STANCE (aka "the turret")
--Wide stance/pyramidal base
--Weak side foot slightly forward
--Strong side foot slightly back
--Weight on the lead foot/shoulders forward of the feet
--Center of gravity slightly forward
--Arms locked out
--Slight crouch/knees unlocked
--Lean into the gun

With the torso bent slightly at the waist and the gun straight out ahead in both hands, the body is balanced by the flexed knees, which automatically compensate for balance by lowering the center of gravity for the body in the pelvis. This technique can be made even stronger by taking a step toward the target with the weak foot and bending the lead knee, applying the weight forward. Think of it as leaning into the gun.

The body is now poised to move instantly forward or bak, or side to side, and a considerable portion of upper body weight, coupled with the muscular tension of the locked arms, helps snap the gun down in recoil.

The modified Isoceles Stance is essentially Isoceles from the waist up and Weaver from the waist down, and seems to be the most comfortable for many people.

I find that most shooters find the modified Isoceles Stance the most comfortable, followed by the Chapman Stance (in about a 60/40 ratio). I find almost nobody using the traditional Weaver Stance anymore, unless they're an old time IPSC shooter. In my experience, Shooters with longer arms and more upper body flexibility generally tend to find some kind of technique that looks like a Chapman, and shooters with shorter arms or greater mass in their upper body prefer some variation of the Isoceles.

(I personally prefer the Chapman Stance)

It's all a matter of personal preference, and preferences and comfort levels will change. I know a couple of IPSC & IDPA shooters who had back or shoulder injuries that made them switch from a modified Weaver to an Isocles. We have one guy on the PD who shot from Weaver who tore a rotator cuff making an arrest. When he came back to work after the surgery, we had him experiment with Isoceles to see if that might work better for him, and it did not. In his particular case, Isoceles was actually painful and the modified Weaver worked much better . . . I know another guy (an IPSC & IDPA shooter) who shot using the Chapman Stance for YEARS and then when he got old and had to get bifocals, he found he had to switch to Isoceles to get the front sight out just a little farther so that it was back in focus with his new glasses.

There is no one best way, there are just alternatives, and you have to experiment a little bit to see what works best for you. If you're an instructor, you need to know and be able to explain and demonstrate and trouble shoot all the common variations, because you don't know what combination of techniques will work best for your students.
 
You should practice shooting from the stance you will use in actual combat. And watch out for stance "reversion" under combat stress. Many police shootings recorded on surviellance tapes show officers who were trained in the Weaver style "reverting" to the Isosceles stance when under fire.
 
How about going back to basics? After you learn what the stances are, focus on shot placement, movement, and multiple target engagement. Your body will naturally find the balance and you'll find yourself moving into fairly stable positions based on the position. Weaver works well when your moving in some situations, isoceles works well when advancing, etc. Focussing too much on one stance can easily cause you to try to get into the stance before fighting (which costs time) or where moving your feet is a bad idea (i.e. when attacked on stairs).
 
QUOTE from Morgan: If you really think the old school, straight-strongarm Weaver is better, go shoot an IPSC/USPSA match, and be prepared to be embarrassed. Especially for fast follow-ups, the modified Weaver/bent arm iso stance is clearly superior.

I'd suggest watching some of the IPSC or IDPA national matches on TV (like the IPSC Factory Gun Nationals). You'll have to look awfully hard to find any Weaver shooters (as defined by the isometric tension aspect).

The Weaver "push-pull technique" (forget "stance" for a minute) was predominant in the late 1950's and 1960's - was used by most all the top shooters. That changed when the Isosceles "method" arrived on the competitive scene. Now virtually every top shooter uses some version of the Isosceles.

Fast follow-ups don't require the bent arm push-pull technique. Your STANCE will vary depending on the position you are shooting FROM. If you're shooting around a barricade, you'll use some sort of bent arm stance, and it will vary depending on which side of the barricade you are shooting from. Plus you'll likely cant the gun somewhat. And if you're moving parallel to a row of targets, you'll adjust your technique accordingly. BUT all of these can be done quite well with the MI grip and a variety of "stances."

Bottom line: If the weaver were a superior shooting technique, the top pros would still be using it. If you want to modify your stance to alter the target you are presenting, fine. But don't confuse that with the notion that you need to control recoil with isometric tension. :)
 
Jeff22 -

Your assessment of the modified Isoceles stance is not as I know it. The largest change from the original to the modified is that the elbows are NOT locked. Locking the elbows, one of the problems with the way some shoot Weaver, transmits recoil directly to the body and then to the head, not letting the wrists and elbows absorb the recoil. The shooter is still generally square to the target, though many adopt a slight weak foot forward stance.

I've got a GREAT video of Blake Miguez shooting a stage, with a Limited (no compensator or optic sight) gun, showing the flexibility, recoil control, and general superiority of this stance.

It's too large to post, but I'll e-mail to anyone who asks.
 
Weaver vs. Isoceles

Morgan -- you're correct on the other variations of the Isoceles Stance, i.e. shooting with unlocked elbows. That's how Jerry Barnhart and others teach it. Those descriptions of the various stances are based on how LFI teaches them, and there are endless other variations out there.

I didn't post those descriptions with the intent of insulting the intelligence of anybody on this forum because I think this is (usually) a very knowledgable group. However, I went to a police firearms instructor update last spring, and this topic came up in discussion and we quickly determined that not everybody was using the same terminology to describe the same things . . . hence the descriptions.

And as many posters on this thread have mentioned, you can't get too hung up on any one stance or postion. In a match or in (god forbid) a gunfight, your feet will be where your feet are and you'll shoot from whatever position works at the time. If you ever get a chance to do force-on-force training with airsoft guns or the Simunitions FX system, you'll find this out IMMEDIATELY.

I shoot occassionally in local IDPA and IPSC and PPC matches. Four or five years ago I shot an IPSC match at my local club. The match designers had just come back from Area 5 or the Nationals or someplace (don't remember now) where there were a number of stages specifically designed to make competitors shoot from weird and awkward positions from behind cover and through doors and tunnels and so forth. The guys didn't do so good in the match, so they wanted to duplicate it and practice it. It was excellent practice. We all shot a little too fast and we all sucked, but it was a good exercise because proper use of available cover is probably more important to your survival in a gunfight than pure marksmanship skill is, and you never know what cover might be available, how it is configured, and how the dynamics of the situation might develop.
 
The Rabbi
The late Col. Rex Applegate has a very salty talk, reproduced somewhere here on the Net, about Weaver training and how bad it is. He is very much a proponent of the one-hand stance in close quarters. It is an entertaining read.
Click to expand...
And this is a very important point, something that competition shooting does not address. I think there not just a "good case for" - but that it is an essential element - to be able to shoot with one or either hand up close. The nonshooting hand used for support, blocking, balance or whatever else is called for.

The idea that a two-handed stance of any kind is going to be the answer for any and all sudden close encounters is ridiculous.
 
the "Weaver vs. Isoceles" debate

And addressing the concept of whether or not techniques used in IDPA or IPSC apply to the "real world" -- what technique some IPSC competitior shooting an open class gun with an electronic sight and recoil compensator drawn of a goofy competition holster is pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do in real life. What techniques are successful for an IPSC shooter in "production" class or an IDPA shooter in "stock service pistol" class is somewhat more relevant to the actual use of a handgun in self defense.
 
The idea that a two-handed stance of any kind is going to be the answer for any and all sudden close encounters is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, positively correct! One of the most valuable drills we do at each and every qualification is a close encounter drill where you stand 2 feet from the target, body bladed some so that your weapon is away from the target. At the whistle, you bring your left arm up (for right handers) in a defensive sweep, while quick drawing and firing one round from a hip tucked position, into the hip / gut / groin. Then you immediately walk backwards while switching to a two handed grip and firing three more into center mass. I think it's the most realistic and practical drill we do.
 
Well Rabbi, we do have one or two fellers that can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but nobody's winged themselves yet :D . If it happens though, I'll bet that guy will only do it once :eek: :D :rolleyes: .

Seriously, that is a concern, and is why we start that one off slow, and build up speed. The one drill that scares the beegeebee's out of me is the one-hand rack. Your weak hand goes in your back pocket and stays there. One mag is loaded with a couple of duds thrown in randomly. Shoot one-handed and when the "misfire" occurs, you must rack a new round home (Glock 17's) by placing the front edge of the slide either on the edge of your gunbelt or boot and pushing the slide back, and continue shooting. I guess it's practical, but I don't like chambering a round with the muzzle that close to my body.
 
Capt:
We learned to use the sights to rack, not the front of the slide. That way, the muzzle can be pointed away from the body.
Hook the rear sight on your belt or boot top.
I tried with the front edge of the slide on my belt and my pants almost fell off.Couldn't do it on my shoes either. Glock 19-----empty of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top