Stance: Weaver vs. isosceles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks

Thanks everyone for some great comments. Especially PPCMaster who has really shared a lot of useful info here.

TrooperSon
 
Grab your carbine...

....and stand with it shouldered facing the target. Aim, and fire. Now, drop the carbine and draw your pistol. Do you really want to move your feet to get into what feels right?
We train to have the exact same foot position with carbine, shotgun, or pistol. There's no realistic way to hold your long arm in the isocoles stance.
The schools that I've been to that teach Iso stance maintain that the body armor faces the target. The ones that teach Weaver mantain that it delivers a slimmer profile to the target, reducing your chances of being hit. I like Weaver, as it gives me a multi-weapon platform for shooting. After a couple of transitions from carbine to pistol, Weaver made the most sense.
 
....and stand with it shouldered facing the target. Aim, and fire. Now, drop the carbine and draw your pistol. Do you really want to move your feet to get into what feels right?
Click to expand...
If I read this right, you're saying that you can't realistically employ your carbine from this stance, right?

I very much disagree - assuming that you mean only the "true" iso stance. My above post indicated that I train people to fire both weapons from the same stance: shoulders square to the target, both feet pointed in the direction of movement and about a shoulder's width apart, weak foot forward.
You lean slightly forward at the waist, keep your elbows in, and bend your knees. If you're moving forward in this stance we've always called it either the "duck walk" or the "combat glide" - it provides the most stable shooting position throughout your movement because your lower body absorbs all of the 'bouncing' motion.
Transitions don't change your stance, either. Drop the carbine to the weak side, draw your pistol, and maintain. Shoulders are still square to the target and feet are still pointed forward.

I think the true Weaver stance gives you easy transition when you're not moving. So I suppose it just depends on what you're practicing for.
 
However, in a life or death encounter you will be feeling combzt stress the instant you realize that your life is in danger. There is consuderable evudence ( from surviellance tapes) that uner this stress law officers trained in the Weaver stance instinctively revert to the Isosolese stance under fire. Many will say after the action that they used the Weaver stance and are astounded when shown that they did not.
Since it seems to be difficult and for many people impossibe to use the Weaver stance in actoal combat the logical thing tp do is to adopt the Isosoles stance and practice with it since you should practice doing what you are actually going to do.
 
First of all, I am not a LEO or a certified trainer so the following are questions and opinions that I have developed in my 10+ years of shooting. I do not claim that any of the techniques I use are better than anyone elses. So with that said...

What any weakness in the Modified Weaver assuming you aren't wearing body armor? I'm not too sure about the strong hand over powering the weak hand part. Does this mean the shooting hand is pushing more than the support hand is pulling?

One other thing is I believe that muscle memory is going to play a major factor in a high stress situation. Basically, what you practice most will be what you revert to when the poop hits the fan. I even at the range, I practice a modified Weaver stance. I feel this is probably what I would revert to instinctively if I was in a bad situation. (There is always a possibility that I will be cowering in some corner soiling myself too but I hope that won't be the case! :eek: )

While the isocoles presents a target that is protected by body armor (assuming you are wearing any), you are still presenting a LARGER target. I have never been shot (thank God) but I have heard that even with body armor, it can be pretty painful. If the officer gets knocked to the ground, they will still present a large target for the bad guy to shoot at. I prefer the modified weaver as I present a smaller target and stand a lesser chance of getting hit at all. At the same time, my support arm is covering my chest and will reduce the energy of any round that strikes there. It may still be a fatal injury but I don't wear body armor anyways.

I also like the modified Weaver since it is a forward leaning stance. This helps to control recoil, as mentioned, and also sets you up to fall forward if you were to be hit. I assume this makes it easier for you to continue fighting. At least that is what the mall ninjas and internet warriors claim. Heck, it makes sense to me.
 
Quell, I tell ya!

:D

The quell stance presents a smaller target than any of the above, a quicker presentation, more stability, and less muscle trembling.

Of course...it comes at a price of more muzzle flip and less range of motion for traverse. And that little matter of having to be cross-dominant in order to employ it...

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I play one on TV.
 
I shoot in a modified Weaver stance, I just always have, it's how I was taught.

My wife shot for the first time naturally in an Isosceles, and even slightly bent her knees.

She gives me a hard time (I've heard "Way to go mall ninja!" more than once in the middle of a draw an fire excercise), and I give her crap right back (Recently it's been the nickname TEX because of the cowboy-esque way she shoots). Both are very different, but each work for the individual user.
 
Maybe I wasn't clear.

In the Iso stance, the carbine is very difficult to properly employ. In the Weaver stance, the carbine and pistol can be employed without changing foot position. It makes a sturdy recoil absorbing platform for shotguns, too.
 
I prefer Isosoles for several reasons.

1. After reviewng vidieos of several shootings, the predominant stance is isosoles. "natural instinctive reaction"?

2. natural point of aim. It is one of the funamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned.

3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance.
Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction.

4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch?

Your results may vary. I like isosoles because it seems more natural with more consistant results.
 
Yep

I have to second this:

I prefer Isosceles for several reasons.

1. After reviewing videos of several shootings, the predominant stance is Isosceles. "natural instinctive reaction"?

2. Natural point of aim. It is one of the fundamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned.

3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance.
Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction.

4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch?

Your results may vary. I like isosceles because it seems more natural with more consistant results.

PS:
It is a good one if you are on the move, if you are just drawing and aiming and shooting I drop down with both knees bent, feet about shoulder width and facing the target, at the same time you raise the pistol. Smaller target.
Quicker to get on target.

Using the Isosceles if you are not careful, you will change the dominant eye. Then you must practice that eye also, good to keep both open.

SW
 
I believe the modified weaver stance is the optimum, because you have the maximum static arc of fire with it. If you compare with isosocles then the arc through which one can move the pistol is reduced and one's personal target area increased. After many years of being taught the wrong way to shoot a pistol, I found that once I was introduced to the weaver stance it was such a comfortable way to shoot that I stuck with it throughout four further tours in Northern Ireland.

Originally I was taught to shoot a pistol in a stance that can only be described as the 'taking a dump in the woods' stance! It was a crouch and it was hellishly uncomfortable on the thighs!

In the mid 80s when I first went to Northern Ireland; and was introduced to the pistol as a primary weapon (prior to that I had an SLR) for carry when we were in civvies, I was not too happy. A happy encounter with a member of the Battalion I was with who really understood pistol shooting led me to completely re-appraise my attitude towards it. He taught me the weaver stance and how to really use a Browning very effectively; it is knowledge that I have passed on to everyone since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top