Weaver vs. Isoceles

Status
Not open for further replies.
The original question asked about training beginners. When I've started out new shooters, I've invariably found them to say they feel 'more comfortable' with something approaching a Weaver, but always shoot straighter, quicker from the isoceles. I've found the isoceles to be more stable. There's less muscle and more bone involved in holding the weapon steady. Even dry-firing at home: just hold a weaver and watch your sights shake with the blood moving threough your arm muscles. Now switch to an elbow-locked isoceles and see how the tremor reduces (true at least for me). It also more closely resembles a 'gross motor skill' and, IMHO, is far easier to aquire and maintain properly under stress.

I hear the arguments about presenting a larger target...but it's not that much larger, and if you can aquire your target and get a round off accurately faster from isoceles, i think that's going to be the single most important factor in the outcome. Talking about civilians here, although if it's LEO's or others wearing body armor, the isocoles presents the strongest armor to the target. The weaver presents the weaker side-panels, or in some armor: the opening.


- gabe
 
I started out with weaver. For a long time I
shot this way but I never felt confortable. Then I started shooting iso, what a difference it made for me. I think a person
should shoot what they are confortable with.
When I went to iso my speed, accuracy and weapons control increased. I often here the argument that the weaver is a fighters stance
and the iso is a shooters stance. When I shoot iso I don't lock my arms and my left foot is forward of my right. Iso is easier to hold for longer periods of time and transitioning from target to target is much easier and requires less foot movement. Shoot whatever feels right and forget about fighting about which stance is better. After
all, better is a subjective term. Keep on shooting

wirenut
 
I believe in sight alignment / trigger control, but when we recently started training two twelve-year-old boys we taught them Isoceles.

I started as a 'Weaver', but IPSC showed me that stance or grip or postition is not the critical factor; sight alignment and trigger control matter.

But.......I'd teach newbies Isoceles.

Ask me how I shoot now?

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
I've been using Weaver for as long as I've been shooting a pistol. Lately I've been practicing more shooting from Iso, and it seems to offer a faster presentation and better recoil control than the Weaver stance. I'm not completley convinced, but I'm getting there. Need to practice more.

Of course, I also practice strong-hand only, weak-hand only, point-shooting, hip shooting very fast at very close range, etc, etc... Not to mention all the bullseye practice and dryfiring. I figure that mastering combat shooting involves getting a grounding in ALL techniques.

Question to the Weaver folks - How many of you have tried the Iso stance? No insult intended, I'd really like to know.

Later,
Chris



------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
 
For what type of shooting? At the range, or in a real-life drama?

At the range: whatever is comfortable for you. I personally use a combination because I like my arms straight with one foot slightly back from the other.

In real life: whatever WORKS. If anyone has the time to think "oh no, I'm not in a proper weaver stance," when they're being shot at... well...
 
I prefer Weaver (really modified Weaver), since I am right handed/left eye dominant. It's easier for me to get the sights in front of the left eye (without having to cant the pistol) in a Weaver position.

------------------
ChasW
 
Weaver,

I obsessively get into physics, keeping the strong arm and palm in line with the barrel will help keep the movement of the barrel during recoil to a minimum (more straight-up, rather than up and off to one side) and will help quicker target acquisition for following shots.

I think the Isoceles tends to let people slip into a bad grip habit.
 
The SEALs I have shot with were all shooting isocolese. They were really GOOD. My friend was showing me how to draw and fire(7yds ISO); He would fire one shot, reholster than put another bullet in basically the same hole.
A younger SEAL that I met at the range said both are good, it's just preference and comfort level.
I feel the ISO is better for reaction shooting while the Weaver is better for mobility.
 
Both stance are good when you try to develop a very professional way of handling your pistols. But in combat and in target shooting we can see many variations and sometimes the two method were forgotten but instead the shooter use a method that he feels effective and convenient to it.
 
If you're training high stress under fire or in a defensive combat situation, Weaver allows you to move much better. I shot ISO very comfortably at the range. Then I attended the Thunder Ranch Handgun 1 a few weeks ago. Changed that stance to Weaver in a flash, literally. That was that. "I got it, no problem."

Just remember, as Clint says, a gun fight is never what you think it will be. It's just what it is. Practice the most mobile stance in order to train your muscle memory, as others have mentioned above. Then practice the movement laterally, retreating behind cover, etc. No way you can do all the movement with an ISO while presenting the least amount of target. There may be opporutnity to use the ISO in certain moments of the action, but most confrontations only last several rounds anyway. 98% of us will never see the action a Navy Seal will see--and I'm fine with that!

------------------
"I love to do things that scare me, for without fear there is no courage..."
 
I am one of the million misinformed cops who have been taught that the weaver is the better stance. This is false. The weaver is harder to assume under stress and is not a natural stance and its difficult to move and shoot in Weaver. There already has been some research in the area and one study had that a control group of weaver and Isoceles shooters. 69% of the weaver shooters reverted to a form of isoceles under stress. The weaver shooters had a 30% hit ratio while the isoceles had a 60% hit ratio. I have the study somewhere I got it off the caliber press news line. I have also had training in the modern isoceles and its much better than the weaver. The only area that the weaver is better in is slicing the pie when room clearing. The weaver exposes the soft spot in your body armor while the isoceles puts your tramma plate forward.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
I forgot to mention who ever said the isoceles stance is for bulleye shooters is ignorant of that shooting sport because its shoot one handed. And for combat games (ISPC and IDPA) the isoceles wins all the time. Weaver is not a natural stance for the body to assume and its too complicated. Keep it simple and use isoceles and live.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
EQP
The weaver is much more taxing on the upper body than the isoceles. The weaver requires you to push pull untill your hands tremor and then back off slightly. THis is tiring it also causes misses. The weaver is difficult to move quickly with. I can almost run and shoot from an isoceles try that from a weaver. I had this same arguement with one of the firearms instructors in my academy. I shot weaver during the whole academy and I can shoot well that way but isoceles is better and scores are always a little higher under static conditions and a lot better under stressfull conditions.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
As a Peace Officer, how do you stand when interviewing someone on the street? Me, I stand strong side back.

Once I've drawn my sidearm, weapon retention is better done with strong side back.

My CQC stance involves my dominant leg being back.

The local Police Academy uses an interesting little demonstration when it's teaching stances: Students take a good Isoceles stance with unloaded sidearms and are asked to observe muzzle deflection as the instructors walk the line, pushing the students arms up and/or down.

The same thing is repeated with the students taking a Modified Weaver position.

Usually, the pistol muzzles wander much further off-target if the student is in an Isoceles stance.

However, personally, if you're backing me up in a nasty situation, and if my fuzzy lil' butt is on the line, you take whichever stance you feel most comfortable with. I ain't a-gonna complain. ;)

LawDog
 
Law dog I agree that you should use which ever stance is best for you. I stand in a interview stance as well but if I Need to shoot its not hard to face the target while you draw with one little baby step.
PAT

------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
 
355sigfan,

You must be a much stronger man than I am if you have less muzzle climb with Isosceles than with the Weaver Stance. :) Classifying IPSC as a combat game is somewhat of a misnomer in my opinion. The folks that shoot it have guns that are so tricked out and are shooting a bullet that is moving so much slower than what a normal person shoots that I can't consider that real world training. IDPA is better, but you still have the concept of loading to a 'power factor', which will give less recoil than what most people are going to use for self defense. That being said may account for why you see the Isosceles stance in use. The Weaver is obscenely easy to move with (even rapid movement), if you train with it. A number of people have mentioned one of the best reasons to train and utilized the Weaver throughout the course of this thread. The transition from carbine, sub-gun, shotgun, pistol, is very fluid with the Weaver.

Regarding taxing demands of a physical nature, the Iso will give most folks less control with a standard self defense load (i.e. Hydro-shok) than will a Weaver. I understand what you mean regarding the use of muscles in the Weaver stance and submit to you that the same applies to the Iso. What I mean is that with Iso, you have to take a firm 2 hand grip and grip until the hands shake then release a small amount of pressure. The difference between the two is that, in the Iso, now I have to hold my arms straight out and hold 2 lbs. steady until I shoot and then deal with the recoil to get back on target quickly, while only using my arms to control recoil. With the Weaver, much more of the body is there to soak up the recoil which results in faster follow up shots using standard self defense ammo.

As for the stats that you posted, I don't doubt them one bit. What I do doubt is the level of training that the officers actually spent on learning to shoot and then maintaining that ability. I shoot, and have shot with a lot of police officers. Quite a few of them are not what I would call proficient with a firearm. Especially if I am going to stake my life and others on my proficiency with it. Most of them treat it as a tool just like their flashlight or radio. They have a lot of other things to worry about in their day to day lives than their shooting abilities. That being said, they tend not to spend a lot of time outside, of what's required by their department, to improve their shooting ability. Unless of course, they are like yourself and enjoy recreational shooting. :) I'm not trying to turn this into a bash on police, because I think of them as a motivated group of people doing a job that not many others would want, which just happens to also be potentially lethal.


Ymmv,
Evan
 
It is easier for me to use isosceles for target shooting, since I may shift the gun to either hand and keep my feet in the same position. When the clock is running, and the course calls for a switch from strong hand to weak hand, I do not want to shift my feet as well.

However, the original poster asked about training for defensive shooting, and one point that was suggested to me is that Weaver keeps your gun closer to your body, hence easier to retain in close quarters. When my arms are extended in isosceles, it seems like the gun would be harder to retain, that is, it would be easier for someone to get control of it. Does this make sense?
 
Originally posted by AndABeer:
... As to the videos you have seen involving law enforcement, every department I know of trains in Isoceles.

For what it's worth, the LEO I learned defensive shooting from a mort of years ago [a former Illinois state PPC champ] insisted on and taught me the Weaver stance. He also used it in departmental training.



------------------
Click to expand...
 
I've changed my stance to the isosceles, actually an "improved isosceles" after years of shooting weaver. My shooting has is now much better. The arm position has allowed me to be better able to watch my sight through double taps and multiple shot strings.

The competitive pro shooters don't allways shoot compensated guns or low powered loads.
I watched Rob Leatham win an IDPA match with the same modifications to a 1911 that many of us regular guys have. The rise in popularity of "single stack classics" and IDPA matches have not brought about an increase in weaver usage. Understand, I'm not talking about cover, tactics or anything that would be foolish in a dire situation. The situation would dictate that. However,gamesman or martial artist, we're all interested in accuracy, speed and control, and imho the isosceles offers the best platform.

By the way, John Shaw, a former IPSC pro shooter, has for years taught SEALs, numerous special forces and federal agencies at his Mid South Institute of Shooting near Memphis.
This was one of the first shooting schools for these guys, and they were all taught isosceles.
 
Modified Weaver stance.Sounds like you want a really intense course..so I have to assume that these people are not beginners.

Reason: IMHO, more mobile, better for movement against multiple targets. My experience--moving makes you harder to hit when facing multiple attackers. Standing still and trying to engage multiple targets is ok as long as they are not shooting back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top