Weaver Vs. Isoceles Pt. 2

Paladin1

New member
This is a great discussion. BTW, Clint Smith does train in modified Weaver. I attended TR last month ready with my ISO stance, and all 24 in the class were changed to Weaver in the first range drill. Of course, Clint said he would not get into a discussion of which was right or wrong, it's just how he does it and trains that way. No value proposition, just their way. Now it's mine.

One other thing, question to the moderator. Over in the 1911 web forum, when a topic gets hot and long, their technology just creates a second page. Why isn't that done here? Stopping a hot topic and forcing someone to create a brand new page for a continuation of discussion is one of the best ways to poor cold water on a great thing. Shouldn't we be encouraging the ones that get long instead of causing whiplash and redirecting? Just a thought....

------------------
"I love to do things that scare me, for without fear there is no courage..."
 
I use both. I'm taking Stressfire next weekend and the modified isoceles which is part of that course makes a lot of sense to me. However, I slip into Weaver when I get tired in order to take some strain off. One thing I like about LFI is that Ayoob teaches all the major stances and then allows the student to compare.

As for why the new topic, it's not based on the number of pages but on the size of the file the topic is stored in. I think the cut-off is around 100K or so. By keeping the files within manageable limits, load times are reduced and server resources are economized.
 
Really too bad on cutting the discussion off at that point. It really seems to douse the flames of a hot, hot line of action on the forum. At least in my humble opinion. Anyone else have an opinion on that?

But back to topic--in a real confrontation, I understand from my LE friends that you do go back and forth depending upon the circumstances. It does seems to be advisable to be well-trained in all.

------------------
"I love to do things that scare me, for without fear there is no courage..."
 
I dislike Weaver but found myself going to it on days when I shoot for hours at a stretch, large calibers and my arms start to tremble. Then again, having shot rifles, I no longer feel bad about steadying myself on objects wenshooting pistol.
 
Well, the consensus seems to be that the Weaver is the most stable platform for shooting from. The question is whether it is the best one to teach - especially for self-defense.

The main advantage the Isoceles seems to have is that it is supposedly easier to access and use under the extremely stressful conditions that occur when someone tries to take your life.

We know the military spec ops community trains and uses the Isoceles and we know that Cooper and Smith (who are no slouches either) teach the modified Weaver.


If the study regarding motor skills decreasing as heart rate escalates is correct, then it seems to me that Isoceles is better for most students and that the Weaver is better reserved for those who can keep their cool in such situations.
 
Why not teach your students both?

------------------
"I love to do things that scare me, for without fear there is no courage..."
 
Paladin1: The reason for cutting off a thread is as buzz_knox said.

IMO, it ain't a bad idea, anyway. By the time a thread gets to 50 posts or 100K, the discussion is usually circular--or else a bit hot-tempered. Dead horses or flames.

:), Art
 
Gotchya. I was wondering where that smell of burnt horseflesh was coming from....

------------------
"I love to do things that scare me, for without fear there is no courage..."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paladin1:
Why not teach your students both?

[/quote]

Well the problem seems to be that either of these movements require quite a bit of practice and repetition to program into muscle memory.

There is no point in all that practice and programming musle memory if once stress increases your heartbeat past 145bpm, you are physiologically unable to use the stance anyway.

On the other hand, if Weaver is more stable and can be assumed under stressful conditions then why not teach the one that is best?

You can leave it up to the student to choose but they probably won't have as much information (other than what feels good to them) to base their decision on and their decision will still come down to the problem listed above.

Anybody want to run their heart up past 145bpm and tell us if they can still execute a good modified Weaver?
 
In regards to the Second Page...

I do not know.

But I will look into it. I think its a feature that is selectable... we can turn that function on and off. We have a reason for turning it off - but I dont know why that is at this moment.
 
Hi, folks,

I get grumpy late at night, but here goes anyway.

Here are two real world situations in which an officer had to draw and fire his pistol.

1. An officer responding to a brawl had his left arm partway out of the car when a 250 pound thug came out of nowhere and slammed the door on the cop's arm, breaking it. In spite of the pain and blood, the cop managed to draw and fire his gun through the car window. The thug ran, but was later arrested when he sought treatment for glass cuts.

2. Officer handed a woman a speeding ticket, and she ran the power window up on his arm and took off. The poor guy was dragged three blocks before he managed to shoot out a tire and she finally stopped.

Question: In these situations which stance should the officer have assumed and become comfortable with before drawing his pistol? Would the Weaver have been more appropriate? Since it seems that no one who has received proper training would ever think of firing without being in the correct stance with feet properly placed, did these officers violate the basic rules of pistolcraft?

Jim
 
Hi Jim; you help my argument that if an autoloader requires proper stance and grip to reliably and consistantly function: Then that autoloader is NOT a good defensive weapon.

Sam..."I thought you checked the fuel."
 
Jim, your comments highlight why thinking than ANY stance is always applicable is erroneous.

If I'm caught out in some wide-open area, and a deadly threat is some 10 or fifteen yards away, I'll relexively draw and use the Weaver stance. I can do that in about 0.8 to 1.2 seconds, depending on carry.

If the threat is within five yards, and I believe I have time to draw (rather than, say, grapple), I'll shoot from the hip, ASAP.

It is my belief that there ain't no "one size fits all", whether gunfight or law.

:), Art
 
Practice everything you might need it.I practice strong ,weak hands and both hands in about stance I imagine.Straight shooting I shoot the weaver but vary for training.I don't want to get locked into one thing and be lost if,in a situation,I can't use it.
Its somewhat like the old true story of the LEO(revolver days)who was found shot to death in a ally.He had been taught on the range to dump his empties into his left hand.He did and kept them there messing up his reload and it killed him.Point don't get into a narrow range of training,it could kill you.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Practice everything you might need it.I practice strong ,weak hands and both hands in about stance I imagine.Straight shooting I shoot the weaver but vary for training.I don't want to get locked into one thing and be lost if,in a situation,I can't use it.
Its somewhat like the old true story of the LEO(revolver days)who was found shot to death in a ally.He had been taught on the range to dump his empties into his left hand.He did and kept them there messing up his reload and it killed him.Point don't get into a narrow range of training,it could kill you.

------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Johnwill, if I could, I would! :) From a good open-carry holster and starting with the old IPSC clasped hands position, it is easy to draw and hit at ten yards in 0.8 seconds.

I thoroughly enjoy playing "Let's pretend". I'll walk past targets at various distances, and use various "notions" as to what to do. Draw and fire one-handed from my hip pocket, trying to get three or more hits on a Pepper Popper before it goes flat, for instance. Or shoot once, drop to the ground, change to weak hand. All manner of "weirdnesses". Whatever comes to my pea-pickin' little mind.

I guess the most useless practice for a non-LEO is with the assumption that when trouble begins, you'll be erect, stationary, and fully emotionally prepared. El wrongo!

One thing in the argument about "better" between Isosceles and Weaver: If you are going to search through your house for whatever went "Bump", which gives YOU the best control over your movement, and over your movement onto a target should you see one? It seems to me that the Weaver allows a sort of sidling movement, always leading with your weak-side foot and bringing the other to it--better balance at all times. Also, if a target is spotted at a position other than directly in front of you, the Weaver allows a more controlled turn-and-fire movement. I think. Maybe.

Prob'ly need to walk around and check this before "committing" to an opinion, though.

FWIW, Art
 
Hi, guys,

In a general response to a fellow who e-mailed me: No, I do not advocate breaking a trainee's arm to give him practical experience. But maybe he should practice shooting with either hand, with the other in his pocket, and shooting from awkward positions.

Jim
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Keenan:
Question: In these situations which stance should the officer have assumed and become comfortable with before drawing his pistol? Would the Weaver have been more appropriate? Since it seems that no one who has received proper training would ever think of firing without being in the correct stance with feet properly placed, did these officers violate the basic rules of pistolcraft? [/quote]


Grumpy indeed : )

We could just as well make the argument that since most shootings are quick, surprising and stressful encounters, you will rarely be able to obtain the proper grip or stance and therefore shouldn't bother to train on one.

My point is, in training new shooters, they should be start to strive for some stable platform to shoot from whenever the situation allows.

The Weaver and Isoceles are the primary stances taught. If under stressful conditions people revert to shooting Isoceles regardless of what they were taught, then it makes little sense to have them attempt to build muscle memory in order to execute the Weaver stance.

If the Weaver stance CAN be executed under extreme stress and is a more stable shooting platform, then perhaps the time to build muscle memory is better spent here.

I am not saying that any good shooter should learn one to the exclusion of the other, I am asking which one do you want to program your brain to execute instinctively under extreme stress - especially considering that certain people argue that this isn't possible with the Weaver.
 
Easy reason for me to choose Weaver: When I point-test (spot target, close eyes, bring pistol up, open eyes and check aiming) using Weaver I am spot on, when I do it using Isosceles I always aim about 4 inches to the right of where I intended. Guess Weaver just works better for me. Just proves the old proverb "success beats statistics every time".
 
Back
Top