Weaver vs. Isoceles

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
OK, hypothetical situation... you are going to be training people in the use of a handgun. These people will be using this handgun in defensive situations with high-stress and little warning.

By great fortune, all of your students are possessed with a great desire to be excellent pistol shots and will be practicing whatever you choose to teach them on a regular basis. Unfortunately, none of these students will start out with ANY background in handguns and class time will only allow for one method to be taught - so none of this "Whatever works best for you".

So, which method do you teach and why do you choose to teach that method over the other?

Some considerations...

Which methods can be used effectively under stress?

Which methods can be accquired with less effort?

Which methods ultimately produce better results?
 
I prefer the Weaver. I find it more comfortable and somewhat more flexible. To me, the Isosceles seems like a very rigid stance and for target shooting that is great but in a defensive situation, where you are hopefully running for cover if not already there, a Weaver seems more natural to me "on the move". I took a defensive shooting class a few months ago where the instructor tried to get everyone to use Isoceles, just did not feel natural. I damn sure ain't no expert though.
 
I just assisted with an NRA Basic Pistol course this weekend. The students meet exactly the criteria you describe. We taught them both per the curriculum. By the end of the 2 days of training on the range, all of the students had opted to shoot using the Weaver stance. They found it a more comfortable and stable platform for 2 handed shooting. Interestingly enough, almost all of them started out with the Isosceles because they though it was easier. I prefer to teach and use the Weaver stance because it is a much more effective stance with standard power ammunition. Isosceles is superior in competition situations where the ammo is loaded only as hot as it needs to be and the firearms are ported and weighted to reduce recoil to next to nothing. The Isosceles also requires a higher level of upper body strength to maintain that stance for any length of time versus the Weaver. In my opinion the Weaver is superior for defensive situations by far. The platform is much more stable and weapon retention is better due to the firearm being closer to the body. By stable, I mean that it is a much more accurate stance to shoot out of when on the move.

ymmv,
Evan
 
Which is which? I think weaver is stong leg back, in sort of an L with the feet. I also know that an isocoles triangle has all the same sides; does that mean it's both feet spread, evenly facing the target? If so, I'd go weaver.
 
Another vote for Weaver. I feel it's a more solid position to shoot from. But really it's a matter of personal preference.
 
WEAVER

More stable shooting platform and body set up for hand combat just in case. Isoceles is for bullseye and tournament shooters.

------------------
The Seattle SharpShooter - TFL/GT/UGW/PCT/KTOG
 
I've personally, never found the Isocoles to be all that comfortable to use. Also, I prefer Weaver because I find it a more natural transition from and to a shoulder fired weapon. However, you should learn both technique as every individual is different and may get different results.
 
OK, since everbody is pushing Weaver, I'll play the Devil's Advocate and ask why not Isoceles?

Can somebody under a great deal of stress properly execute a Weaver stance? The videos I have seen of actual shootings involving law enforcement show the officers backing up with both arms forward trying to get out of the way of the incoming bullets.

It seems like learning the isoceles stance would take less time and be easier to access under stress because you would be doing what your body is naturally inclined to do in that circumstance anyway.
 
branrot - you pretty much have it right. The isosceles is named for the triangle the arms make when holding the gun at the apex. Isosceles means 2 equal sides - the arms, and a shorter side - the torso.

jtduncan - the isosceles stance isn't used in bullseye shooting. A single arm out to the side is the standard bullseye stance.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
Can somebody under a great deal of stress properly execute a Weaver stance? The videos I have seen of actual shootings involving law enforcement show the officers backing up with both arms forward trying to get out of the way of the incoming bullets.

It seems like learning the isoceles stance would take less time and be easier to access under stress because you would be doing what your body is naturally inclined to do in that circumstance anyway.
[/quote]

Under stress you will revert to what training has been ingrained in you. As to the videos you have seen involving law enforcement, every department I know of trains in Isoceles. This also bring up another point in favor of the Weaver. With the Isoceles you are broad side to the target, that is, you are presenting the widest aspect of your body to the person shooting at you. With the Weaver, you are turned (at least I am) so that your chest is not presented to the attacker.

As to which is easier under stress, it is the one that has been ingrained into muscle memory.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndABeer:
Under stress you will revert to what training has been ingrained in you. As to the videos you have seen involving law enforcement, every department I know of trains in Isoceles. [/quote]

I don't think every department does. The FBI taught the Weaver stance and most government agencies teach the Weaver and modified Weaver.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndABeer:
This also bring up another point in favor of the Weaver. With the Isoceles you are broad side to the target, that is, you are presenting the widest aspect of your body to the person shooting at you. With the Weaver, you are turned (at least I am) so that your chest is not presented to the attacker.[/quote]

Well, that works both ways - if you are a law enforcement or tac team guy, you are also presenting your ceramic trauma plate and body armor to the assailant rather than the weaker side panels.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndABeer:
As to which is easier under stress, it is the one that has been ingrained into muscle memory.[/quote]

Check out this link: http://members.home.net/alienhand/Survival_Stress_Reaction_Training.htm

It discusses physiological reactions to extreme stress and deterioration of muscle control as the heart rate escalates. It specifically mentions the Weaver stance as a type of motor skill that is effected by this once the heart rate escalates past 145bpm.
 
It is how you train. While in my ccw class, they talked about officers being shot because they used to practice two shots then reholster at the range, and of course that had cops shooting at bad guys that would shoot two shots, then reholster. Or the guys that would line up brass when reloading. Now they teach shoot, shoot again, when empty drop the clip to the ground and reload. So no one trys to put the empty clip back in the pouch when done.But I digress. I too believe in using the Weaver stance, but teach starting with the isoceles, then give them the choice. I start with the isoceles because it is easier to control the student. Less chance of wandering barrels, or having to be on the shell flinging side to make sure they don't draw back.
 
Thanks Mal.

That being said, I'd go weaver. Besides everything else, you're a lot less of a target with the weaver stance because you are giving a silouette rather than a full frontal view. And of course, the Weaver is more stable, particularly with large caliber ammo.
 
I fire more accurately from isoceles than weaver. I would think that shooting strong arm would be the best defensively since it provides a smaller silloette to attack, although Weaver allows easier retrieval if the attacker gets too close.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndABeer:
Under stress you will revert to what training has been ingrained in you...
As to which is easier under stress, it is the one that has been ingrained into muscle memory.[/quote]

Well, yes and no. In some stressful situations, you may no be able to use the method you've trained for.

I've been shooting a lot of IDPA over the past year, and you'd be surprised how often its difficult to assume a good WEAVER stance in an IDPA match. (IDPA scenarios are meant to replicate real world situations, and I'm sure nobody's trying to rig the contest against a particular stance.)

Several of my friens shoot Weaver, and shoot it well, but when these right-handed guys have to shoot around the left side of a barricade, or have to shoot hard to their left or right, or have to shoot walking laterally, they seems somehow ill-at-ease. Perhaps its just a matter of practice.

A friend of mine went to the Blackwater training center recently. Blackwater trains civilians but is focused on honing the skills of military special ops types. All of the instructors there are ex-Navy SEALS. This firend said that all of the instructors shoot -- handgun, subgun, machine gun shotgun -- using the isoceles stance. They didn't force that stance on their students, but used it themselves. They feel it works better when you're moving, etc. I'm sure other experts have a different viewpoint.

I'm not an expert, but I shoot isoceles.



[This message has been edited by Walt Sherrill (edited August 14, 2000).]
 
For years, I thought I was shooting Weaver, because I stood in a "boxing stance", and bent my elbows. After reading The Modern Technique of the Pistol, I realized that I was not shooting Weaver at all, and neither are a lot of people who think they are. I don't find it too worthwhile to practice a rigid, standing technique, because in IPSC, IDPA, or presumably "on the street", you won't be standing, directly facing your opponent. You'll be kneeling, squatting, leaning, etc., and no "stance" can be maintained under those conditions. I like a "stance" that allows quick movement and is adaptable to different conditions. I bend my knees, and bend my elbows, but I don't thrust the off-side shoulder forward, which is perhaps at least as important a characteristic of the Weaver as the bent elbows.
 
Practice, Practice, Practice. I shoot every Sunday in tactical scenarios which include all types of movement. Forward and backward. Left to right. Right to left. Running, kneeling, using barricades, low light, etc. It is true that while no one stance will fit when shooting from cover, the Weaver will work the best IMNSHO. ;) It all comes down to the amount of time that you are willing to put into the training that will enhance your chances of being alive at the end of an encounter. Notice I say chances. No matter how much time you spend training, you can't guarantee that your going to come home alive or uninjured when it's over. Prepare for that fact and train with it in mind.

When I shoot this type of training, I concentrate not on speed, but rather on tactically sound movement coupled with speed and accuracy. I have found multiple personal truths in the course of this training. Point shooting is what will happen in a sudden close encounter. A flash sight picture will be used automatically at longer distances, or I wont hit my target. While I use a Weaver stance when running and shooting as well as from the right side of a barricade, I will use a left handed Weaver from the left side of a barricade to avoid over exposing myself to the threat(s). Working with weak hand, one handed shooting and reloading is a must that is highly neglected by the majority of shooters because it is difficult to obtain a high level of proficiency with. That proficiency may also save your life one day and will make all of the time you worked on it very much worthwhile. :)


My .02,
Evan
 
I'll be sure to remember all that if the BG gives me lots of time to get set. If all training is concentrated on assuming the perfect stance before firing, the trainee could be in trouble if the BG doesn't play by the rules.

Jim
 
Isoceles has become the dominant stance in IPSC and most action pistol competition. I read recently that world class shooter Brian Enos (?) was consulting for the FBI, to develop an isoceles-based training regimen for the academy. Whatever that's worth!

I've always shot "modified Weaver", and have tried to get comfortable with Isoceles, but it's going to take more attempts. I like Weaver for several reasons though: *easier transition from sidearm to longgun using Weaver, *if you're already in interview/fighting stance, Weaver is the best, *you present a smaller target, and for those of us who don't wear body armor, that's important; * I find moving & shooting easier with Weaver, usually.

I'm sticking with Weaver for now. fwiw
 
I got into combat-style pistol shooting in 1980; the instructor taught Weaver, so that's what I learned. With my long arms and lanky build, it came easily to me.

Up close? I'll point shoot, while trying to move away and into a Weaver. Cover is more important than stance, so whatever keeps the bad guy from shooting at me with no fear of consequences on his part while I'm moving is a Better Thing than worrying about stance. If my only choice is to stand there and try to shoot the bad guy(s), I'll reflexively go into the Weaver stance.

Shoot around a barricade, weak-handed? Only if I'm inside my house. If I'm outdoors, that barricade is cover; I'll use it while I definitely un-ass the area to some far more desirable position--preferably behind the BG so I can backshoot him.

Anyway, I've tried various stances and generally prefer the Weaver--and it's now a no-think reflex if I'm going to two-handed shooting.

FWIW, Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top