Weaver vs. Isoceles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matrix, there is a reason for the isoceles being taught, it works in COMBAT. If you plan on becoming an expert marksman in a static environment, weaver will do just fine; good grip, good shooting platform, etc. If you want to become an expert marksman in the combat environment, isoceles is the way to go.
The studies have shown, video footage has shown, when you are involved in a violent encounter (life or death situation) the body will react by squaring up to the target.
More people should talk to the professionals that teach tactical teams and military special ops groups. The majority of them will tell you the isoceles ( or in a squared up positon) is the best for that environment.
The law dog mentioned that as a police officer he likes to stand with the strong leg back ( I assume in a bladed positon) when talking to a suspect. I gathered from his statement he also uses this stance in CQC. I agree with the stance while interviewing someone, however, how many times have you stayed bladed to the suspect when the fightng starts? For me, never. I square up every time. I imagine you do the same.
It seems to me that if you train with the mind set that you are in combat, and simulate your bodies probable reaction (squared up, shoulders rolled forward, arms extended, etc) you will see a natural isoceles stance.
Seems to work for the professionals.

EK




[This message has been edited by ek127 (edited August 15, 2000).]
 
I shoot IPSC (USPSA) using 45ACP at 180 PF, or 9mm at 139 PF, or 41AE Major, .357 GP100, 44 Redhawk, 38 Super 178 PF, 40 S&W 180PF.

The calibers are in my carry guns; my 'trick' gun is a iron-sight 9x21.

All are fired from Isoceles (if I have time to obtain it).

Anything wimpy there?

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
ek127, unless we go to the ground, I'm pretty good at staying bladed/strong side back during an unarmed fight.

As far as learning from the experts, is Colonel Cooper still advocating the Modified Weaver? Clint Smith?

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited August 15, 2000).]
 
I now use the Chapman/Weaver style of presentation. I would much prefer to use the Isoceles postion, but due to a disabling support arm elbow injury, the pounding the joint takes in the locked position is not acceptable. Because I train as much as I can, I find the Chapman/Weaver allows me to keep shooting. The isoceles is preferable to me due the lower number of body positioning coordinates to assume the "correct" stance. The isoceles position (and especially as taught by LFI as the "Stressfire" position) of an agressive forward stance, thrust out the gun, cush grip, is easy to get into quickly, consistantly, and with accuracy. However, I think one should attempt proficiency with both, as when one pivots to address a flanking attack, one must bend the arms or move the entire body. Also, when shooting around cover, the Chapman/Weaver allows better use of cover. Both hands, both positions, and with luck, never having to use either. Stay safe.
 
Reminds me of a story I read in a gun mag a few years ago. Back when IPSC was still young, a match was held in Rhodesia. The emphasis was stil on "practical". Most of the participants moved carefully through the course of fire (a simulated ambush) making use of cover etc.
The exception was a young African, a veteran of the Rhodesian bush war. He took the course at a run, double tapping each target, all A zone hits. Of course, he won the match on "time". A few participants contested his tactics. He replied that he acted exactly as he would have in a real situation: moving quickly, aggressively and shooting accurately. From his background he acted correctly. From then on, IPSC matches were shot in a similar manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top