Weaver Stance

It's my preferred stance for handgun shooting. I've been using it sine 1980 when I was first trained in handgun use. I was taught to not lock the strong-side elbow and use isometric tension with the support hand. It's my default handgun position and has been for almost three decades.

In the '90s some new firearms instructor tried to teach me the isosceles, but it didn't take. I default to Weaver every time.

LINKY for the difference.
 
cosmicdingo: Internet search is an amazing thing.

Regarding stance and the study/practice thereof, I've said this before and it's worth repeating:

Unless you're competing in bullseye, stance is next to meaningless. By meaningless, I mean completely irrelevant to putting lead on target.

The bullet doesn't care how you're standing, and how you're standing should be entirely independent from your sight picture and trigger manipulation.

If it isn't, you need to carefully re-evaluate your shooting approach and methods.
 
Unless you're competing in bullseye, stance is next to meaningless. By meaningless, I mean completely irrelevant to putting lead on target.
Click to expand...
So, what you are saying is that hours of practice using the same stance every time is pointless and a person will obtain the same benefit of practice if they use random stances, holds, just shoot a lot?
 
Weaver vs Isosceles

I was trained in the Weaver for years. In the last decade or so the Isosceles has surpassed the Weaver in our training. Slicing the pie around a right hand corner (For righties) is very problematic using the Weaver. You could swap the pistol to your support hand (another bad idea). The Isosceles allows you to slice the pie by leaning without exposing too much of your body. Also an isosceles stance is more natural, relying on gross motor skill. If surprised by a sudden loud noise (Think Cherry bomb at your feet) your natural reaction would be to suddenly crouch and bring your hands up in a defensive position (looking something like an isosceles turret). The Isosceles turret position is building on what your body wants to do anyways under stress, it is a natural act. The Weaver is not a natural act.

Although when instructing I have been told that I teach from the Weaver Stance, so I guess it’s still in me.
 
Dahermit, no, that's not quite what I'm saying.

In any dynamic shooting, stance and grip are continually being modified, even if only slightly. What should remain constant is front sight tracking, and that is accomplished through trigger manipulation and focus (focus through observation, not to be confused with concentration). Your objective should be to produce consistent trigger manipulation and front sight tracking regardless of stance or position/movement.

As our bodies change, with every round that we shoot, we should be observing and learning. That means our "technique" is constantly evolving. What works for the new shooter won't necessary work when they are ready to shoot IPSC. Likewise when they are suited up to raid a drug house, those IPSC fundamentals won't necessarily all translate. Even if you aren't going from application to application, if all you do is IPSC or range work for HD, you should be open minded and flexible to allow your stance to change otherwise you will always limit your performance.

And these ideas aren't all my own, I have borrowed them from the greats. If you listen and watch some of the better shooters of our time (Brian Enos, Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett, etc.) you will find these same ideas being consistently repeated. Open yourself up and allow your shooting to grow the way it naturally is inclined to do.

Don't get me wrong, being comfortable with some basic elements of stance and grip are certainly important, especially for the beginner, if for no other reason than safety, but also to provide a sound foundation to work from. This is why I suggest that new shooters who are interested in developing their shooting spend a little money to get training from a quality instructor.

One point of clarification.. sight alignment and front sight tracking are distinct things. I believe (some agree, some do not) that even (active) sight alignment isn't ultimately all that important for dynamic pistol shooting. With practice and a solid index, by visualizing the front sight, your sight alignment has taken care of itself because of a well-developed index. On the other hand, visualizing the front sight's movement immediately following the trigger break is absolutely vital to placing rapid follow-up shots. And the motion of the sight is irrelevant; it can go straight up, it can go to 2 o'clock, it can do a figure 4, but find what it does and watch it intently (the value of both eyes open). If it doesn't do what you expect it to do, then it's telling you what's wrong with your shooting while you're shooting, so you can correct for the next break. "Heady" stuff I know, but worth putting out there.

As the shooter matures from beginner to intermediate (which usually happens pretty quickly), I think there is benefit in not being hung up on techniques or equipment, as people are prone to do in whatever field they are in (photography, fitness, shooting pool, golf, etc.). Perhaps the only area where people don't think better equipment or supplements or "pro secrets" will actually make them better is chess. haha What I'm driving at is, work on the shooter. Shooting isn't a very difficult task, allowing your body to naturally perform without becoming tense from excessive thought is the largest hurdle.

Some resources that may be helpful include:

Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals, Brian Enos
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Shoo...9648679&sr=8-2

Or http://www.brianenos.com/store/books.html, he has a number of excellent books available. I would consider him my go-to author for pistolcraft.

Surgical Speed Shooting: How To Achieve High-Speed Marksmanship In A Gunfight, Andy Stafford
http://www.amazon.com/Surgical-Speed...9648722&sr=1-1

T.A.P.S. Tactical Application of Practical Shooting: Recognize the void in your tactical training, Patrick McNamara
http://www.amazon.com/P-S-Tactical-A...=1CL07PD0KL43J

Tactical Pistol Shooting: Your Guide to Tactics & Techniques that Work, Eric Lawrence
http://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Pisto...9648953&sr=1-1

The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Boo.../ref=pd_cp_b_1

The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry, Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Boo.../ref=pd_cp_b_2

Stressfire, Vol. 1 (Gunfighting for Police: Advanced Tactics and Techniques), Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Stressfire-Vol...u-wl_list-recs

..and no I don't get paid by Amazon.com, but I wish I did! Happy shooting & be safe.
 
Last edited:
The Weaver is going out of style these days for police/IPSC/etc. type shooting. I still prefer it, on a number of grounds. The Weaver can be adapted to big, big power (handcannon class) and I like the patterns of motion it tends to instill (mainly "sideways" from the incoming fire!).

It's downfall is absolutely the pie slice towards the strong side - barrel moving to the right when you're right handed.

Personally, since I'm right handed and left eyed, my solution is to go one-handed in that case. I blade my body the other way into something that looks like a one-handed old-school stance, lead with the barrel and left eyeball. My chosen gun type (Colt SAA near-clone) lends itself well to one-handed shooting so I just do that.

The pie slice the other way works great. And sometimes you get to choose which side to slice - you retreat fast through a doorway, go right instead of left then when you slice back through it'll be a slice in the right direction for a Weaver fr'instance. Same principle behind any cover where you can counter-attack from either side.

Since I'm not a cop of any sort, the odds that I'll have to be doing offensive pie-slicing is low to start with. Cops have to do that all the time - "clearing" any building with a lot of small rooms is a nightmare of multiple potential ambushes.

As a *defensive* shooter, the need to go immediately off-axis from the incoming fire is the most urgent thing and that's where the Weaver shines.
 
The so-called isosceles has been around since before WWII, I believe, although writings about such things were not common until much later. For situations where you are able to take the time to use a stance like that (both hands and with both arms straight), you would also generally be using cover and perhaps support for your arms. So in other words, in a gunfight, it is illogical that anyone would stand up straight and facing the target to shoot, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

One complaint about the Weaver stance was that it was too rigid in that your feet were supposed to be in such and such a position and your arms just so, pushing and pulling with your hands and so on. The complaint came from Weaver himself in an article about how trainers had formalized his style of shooting.
 
I may well be getting in over my head on this one...but here goes. I've been shooting handguns since my mid-teens. I've been full-time LE since my early 20s. I'm now in my early 40s. In all of that time, I've used Jack Weaver's preferred stance, and, "outdated" or not, it works for me. On the range and on the street, it's what I automatically revert to every time. I tend to be stubborn and highly resistant toward change, especially so if confronted with anything that strikes me as a great solution to a non-existent problem. It's why I still don't own a cell phone, or a Blackberry, or whatever else they're known as these days. It's why I quit listening to new Top 40 music right around the time Nirvana showed up and ruined it forever. Heck, at this moment I'm typing on our very first computer, which I also felt no need for, but the wife sneaked out and bought one anyway. Speaking strictly for myself, I see no need to fix what ain't broke. I'll stick with Weaver.
 
...and for that matter, I don't claim that Weaver is superior to any and all other stances. I say: Find what works best for you, and stick with it. Whatever best enables you to get hits on target is what you should be doing. Meanwhile, just because you don't see the Weaver used "in old movies and TV", that is hardly a good indicator that it's irrelevant. Hollywood would also have us believe that pistols are supposed to be fired one-handed...and sideways. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
In the past, I have used both Weaver and ISO.

Over the past year, I have transitioned to Center Axis Relock. For me, it is faster and combat accurate.
 
Don't feel bad. Jack Weaver used that position because it worked for him. Nobody told him to use it, although you should be aware that he developed it for shooting games. No one should underestimate their own ability to develop a system that suits their own circumstances better than any other, though I imagine some overestimate their ability. And by the way, I always thought handguns were supposed to be fired one handed, too. How else could you hold your cigar when shooting or hang on when riding on the running board?
 
booker_t said:
...In any dynamic shooting, stance and grip are continually being modified, even if only slightly. What should remain constant is front sight tracking, and that is accomplished through trigger manipulation and focus (focus through observation, not to be confused with concentration). Your objective should be to produce consistent trigger manipulation and front sight tracking regardless of stance or position/movement....
Click to expand...
Excellent post and spot on.
 
For me the Weaver or modified Weaver works best. Probably because I was taught that method in the early 1980s. I like the feel and stability, and can shoot more accurately.

However, as mentioned the Iso works well especially for fluid shooting.

Taught to use one hand only both Rt. and Lf. Doesn't hurt to practice all methods that include sighted and so- called point shooting.

Given a choice it's the Weaver looking for rather than at the front sight.

An old dog should learn new tricks. Bow Wow!
 
I agree with Booker. Further, I find all of the emphasis on stance to be a significant waste of time - if you're truly training for combat, you have to consider what is my likely posture in an actual shooting event? More than likely, you're going to be moving, or crouching behind cover, or even doing both at the same time.

I'd say it's far more important to be able to control your sights and your point of aim regardless of your physical position - whether that be upright, on your back, crouched, whatever. That and keeping a cool head is what's going to save your life should you ever be in that unfortunate scenario, not what textbook stance you attempted to engage.
 
Mixed bag

I personally like the Weaver for practice purposes, as I shoot well from it. But I also practice isosceles, one handed, and off-handed.

Thing about the Weaver that I like is that it's fundamentally similar to a martial arts front stance, and so it's a natural posture for me to assume (IE, muscle memory tends to put me into a similar posture when I feel threatened).

Its similarity to a front stance probably isn't an accident. It provides a good, balanced position.

Is it the be all and end all? No. Is it likely that one will take the time to assume a "formal" stance when in a gunfight? Again, no. That doesn't make it useless, though.
 
Weaver Stance?

THE TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE:
(1.) Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target (boxer stance)
(2.) Legs are locked at the knees.
(3.) Firing arm is slightly bent at the elbow (pre-lock).
(4.) Support arm elbow is sharply bent and pointing down at the lead foot.
(5.) Firing hand pushes out.
(6.) Support hand pulls in
(7.) Because the bent arms may lower the position of the gun, 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 significantly reduces felt recoil and snaps the gun rapidly back on target. Since the gun is closer to the body, it feels lighter and in fact exerts less leverage weight on bent arms than it would on fully extended, locked out arms.

The disadvantages are that the 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 high 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:
1.) Body slightly bladed in relation to the target.
2.) Weak side foot forward
3.) Strong side foot back
4.) Weight balanced slightly on the lead foot.
5.) Center of gravity slightly forward.
6.) The foot position should be like driving a punch -- the forward leg bears the weight and the rear leg is the drive leg.
7.) Elbow of the strong arm is locked.
8.) Elbow of the support arm is bent down and aimed at the lead foot
9.) Lead shoulder over the lead knee
!0.) Isometric Tension -- strong hand pushes out and weak hand pulls back.
11.) Bring the head down to the sights. If you bring the gun UP to your eye,
you may shoot HIGH.
12.) 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, every time.
13.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base

(this position is my personal favorite by far. 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. )

MODIFIED ISOCELES POSITION (aka the "turret" ):
(1.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base
(2.) Weak side foot forward
(3.) Strong side foot back
(4.) Weight on the lead foot/shoulders forward of the feet
(5.) Center of gravity slightly forward
(6.) Arms locked out
(7.) Slight crouch -- kneels unlocked
(8.) 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 back, or side to side, and a considerable portion of upper body weight, coupled with the muscular tension of the locked arms, helps snap the handgun down in recoil.

(this position is essentially Isoceles from the waist up and Weaver from the waist down, and seems to be the most comfortable for many people)

What works for you can be determined through experimentation, and may well change over time. Also, in a dynamic confrontation where you are moving and they're moving and shots are being exchanged, you won't be too worried about stance. Your feet will be where they are, you'll adjust your upper body gun mount as you need to to stay on target and possibly to conform to available cover, and you'll just shoot . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top