Weaver vs Isosceles?

M

Matrix

New member
I know this subject has been touched on before, but I'd like to hear a little more discussion. I learned to shoot using the classic Weaver stance and reading Jeff Cooper, but here are my observations and conclusions:
To my knowledge, no national winning IPSC or IDPA competitor uses the Weaver. I have yet to see it at the few local shoots that I have attended. I have read Cooper's comments, saying that the isosceles is only good for compensated guns and "light loads",
but many of todays competitions are shot using full house, "major" loads with stock pistols.
If today's competitions are a laboratory for technique (shooting fast and accurately), doesn't it stand to reason that the isosceles is superior? Or am I missing something?
Opinions, anyone?
 
For formal target shooting you can go this route. Reality is another issue. In real shootings the position of the shooter will be almost spasmatic, disorganized and distorted.
Most right shooters in real shootings will fire with left foot forward to some degree. Look at those videos for yourself to see this.
 
Best advice -- learn to shoot accurately as soon as you can, regardless of grip, foot position, etc.

You don't have time in real life; go with what you have......

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Pluspinc has hit a good point, but it's not just "real world" shootouts that apply. IPSC allows the shooter to do a lot of firing in the open and, many times, while remaining static. In these cases stance could make a difference.

In some IPSC stages and in nearly all IDPA stages, the required use of cover and shooting on the move would preclude the use of a true "stance". Instead you will learn to keep the upper body almost rigid while staying flexed and fluid with the lower half. Stance will only come into play on "standards" stages and practice drills.

Mikey
 
Westshoot2: At this point, I like what you have stated. It is realistic and very much practical for there is no more room to apply all the stances and pre-arranged styles when it comes to actual. But, we need also an art of shooting, that is why we have the stances.

"Shooting is an art".
 
I was taught to shoot by my uncle who, long ago, was a firearms instructor in the Army. He taught me to use the Weaver stance. He explained that if I am shot, I am more likely to get pushed backwards off my feet in the isosceles stance than in the Weaver stance. Thus the difference between competition and reality. In competition, targets do not shoot back at the competitors.
 
Hi, folks,

Glockdoc, no disrespect, but that sounds a little like the army firearms instructor that told us ball ammo (as opposed to AP) had only enough power to penetrate the paper target, then it fell to the ground. No expert there.

I submit that anyone, having any other choice, who stands erect on his two feet while people are shooting at him will survive only if hit in the head, which definitely contains nothing vital.

Of course for gun games, that is not important; paper targets don't shoot back.

Jim


[This message has been edited by Jim Keenan (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
Matrix,
I agree, this subject has been discussed before, but no one has really given a good debate for either position.

I posted a question on GT about the Combat Master Handgun test. Part of the question stemmed from a debate that began after a recent IDPA shoot. While still wired from the competition my friends and I went to a local diner to enjoy some coffee, talk about wired, adrenalin and caffeine!? We were discussing the various methods/schools of thought on shooting. I was originally trained hardcore "new technique". Strong Weaver, close the non-dominant eye, isometric tension, etc.

After reaching a certain skill level I wanted to test my skills against other skilled players..., To say I got spanked is an understatement.

After the match I was asked to go out with some of the other shooters for coffee. At the diner I asked them to please critique my shooting. They all said the same thing, drop the weaver, its to stiff, too much isometric tension, learn to work with the gun instead of trying to muscle it. Open both eyes and above all, RELAX!!!

I listened, I started training, with good teachers, in the "New Isoceles". Shooting with both eyes open. I started training to shoot from the ground flat on my back or around/under/over obstacles. All this improved my performance which is the bottom line.

Back to the most recent coffee, one very strong point made in favor of the new isoceles is.., Ron Avery. He trained extensively at Cooper's Gunsite. He does not teach or shoot Weaver.

For me it all comes back to my Martial Arts background. I've trained in Jeet Kune Do Concepts with Paul Vunak's crew for the last 10 years. Researching what will work and what won't is a huge part of the JKD process. How can you train a street fight realistically without going to jail? Simple. All these so-called Masters say that if they are attacked on the street they will simply boink the b/g in the eyes and kick him in the 'nads. But how many of them could really do it?! How many of them actually get in the ring with highly skilled Boxers and Kickboxers? If they can't even land a jab in a gym enviroment how will they land an eyejab when fighting for their life?!

Competition is the lab, use it to research and design, so to speak.

I don't know of anyone shooting Weaver in competition.

To answer the issue of "soft loads". All the competitions I have participated in Blazer ammo was the round of choice. Cheap and makes major. Those that chose to use reloads still have to chrono them to make major.
Most guys are shooting something that is 180 grs. or bigger, going 950 fps or faster.
No problems riding the gun without using the Weaver.

Mikey said it best, just get used to shooting in all kinds of positions, because thats what you end up doing to negotiate the barricades.



------------------
 
I teach both and advocate both since each has its advantage and disadvantage (do I sound like a Chinese fortune cookie now?). Both have their tactical application and it is knowing when to use it.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I advocate the Weaver stance for practical/military/police/CCW/defensive shooting.

1. Blading your body to keep your weapon away from the BG/adversary lends itself to the Weaver.

2. Transitioning to the Weaver from a long arm, or vise versa, is a very natural movement in the Weaver stance. (Try it both ways, you'll see)

3. The Weaver stance lends itself to shooting from corners and barracades. (Less exposure)

4. The Weaver allows for rapid follow up shots, less muzzle flip, and greater control. (Most big name trainers agree- I know it is true for myself.)

5. It is important to note than in competitions the targetsw are not threats in than they don't shoot back. What is ideal under these circumstances is not necessarily ideal under threatening ones.

Erik
 
I would argue that all things being equal, which I do not think they are, situational awareness dictates my #1 issue sited above. That alone should be enough for most. After all, I have not heard anyone dismiss the importance of situational awareness.

Erik
 
Ever seen Shooting for Keeps from Rex Applegate? A point shooting instructional video, found it quite interesting.

Approached training from the premise that a gunfight will probably be in low light, extreme debilitating stress and near point blank range.

Both weaver/isoceles had their place; but seem to me now as being more something for longer ranges, where you have time/low enough stress to actually aim in that manner.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

PlusP. . . have you seen this video? The authors seemed to share your opinion on modern "handgun combat" training. I'd be interested to know what you think of it.


Battler.
 
Competitive shooters appear to like the Iscosles (sp?). I do a lot of defend training and have found the Weaver stance proposed by chuck Taylor's techniques to be the best for self defense scenarios.

If you will do as you train, pick one and train with it. As for me, a relaxed Weaver strikes the balance and if I run out of ammo, I'm already in position to run, seek cover, strike a blow, box, punch, kick, etc.

------------------
The Seattle SharpShooter
 
PlusP. . . have you seen this video? The authors seemed to share your opinion on modern "handgun combat" training. I'd be interested to know what you think of it.
Battler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean I'm not totally nuts? Rex Applegate had a lot to share and was damned good coming from a point of reality. He almost stopped writing for gun rags when the editors blew him off because he wasn't putting out what "the readers wanted."
Rex just didn't know why he was so right. Today new science has shown us why that happens and one of the flies in our self-defense ointment is memory blocking chemicals that cause us to "forget" our training and resort to genetic efforts of which the handgun isn't one of them. Just today a researcher with the Veteran's Administration send me more information on Cortisol a nasty toxic memory blocking chemical that comes from a glad near the adrenal glad.
We are finding chemistry within the brain and body that blocks memory. Cortisol, Endorphines, Transient Global Amnesia, and even our precious Adrenaline all have that function. A grand slam of chemistry that is triggered when we are in FRIGHT. Toss in blood pressure spike that shuts down the blood vessels to the brain and blocks oxygen to the brain limiting thought process and the speed of the brain to limit thinking to a bare bones minimum called "chunking" and you have a very imperfect fighting machine. The entire process will boil down to the incredible thin line between fear and fright. Once we cross the fright line we have little chance of application of any training and resort to a genetic response. Had Applegate known that he would have ended up where we did. Cut the training in shooting and increase it in detection of danger and safety/security measures to prevent the shooting. Shooting is simple and highly over complexed to make us think we can use such skills when needed. The medical reality and science says otherwise.
It sure seems to be a better explanation why 9 out of 10 cops die with their guns in the holster and when they do shoot they have an easy 80-90% miss rate. We find no connection between training and surviveability. If someone can find it let us know. Thus "stances" and all of that are seldom applied nor can we apply them. We have trouble enough just remembering we have a gun and getting it out and the time to do that.
 
Eric,
I'll go point by point,(insert point shooting pun here :))

1)If I blade my body, assuming I'm caught in the open, I have a 6 inch gap between panels of body armor. I'd rather face them straight on, if I can't run screaming for cover.

2)Excellent point and one strong arguement for the Weaver.

3)I see your point, but I find myself shooting from all kinds of convoluted positions from behind cover. Especially if simunitions are used, those things leave a mark!

4)I can say the same for the isoceles, and I can name top shooters who not only say it, they do it regularly in competition. I know, I know, its not real, but it is as close as we can get without having a life altering experiance.

5)I agree with you totally, some guys do some really foolish things in the name of gamesmanship. Only because targets don't shoot back. Again I point to the issue of testing our skills. Where else are we going to do it? I do everything I can to avoid falling into that gamesman mindset.

Again I would use the martial arts world as an analogy. As part of JKD I have trained extensively in stick fighting. I learned tons of disarms and pretty patterns. Not until I competed in a full contact stick fighting competition did I learn beyond a doubt what is useful and what is useless. Standing in front of a big, strong opponent, ready to rock n'roll. You suddenly realize the only thing I'm wearing for protective gear is a street hockey glove on my stick hand and a lacrosse helmet. If my skill's are not what I think they are I'm going to get hurt! Flash forward to "real life",(as if the bumps, bruises and cuts from stick competition were not real :(). I answer a call of a man swinging a tree limb at cars in an intersection. I'm the second car there. The first officer is on the ground being pummeled. I pull my stick, the guy sees me starts my way, I know from competeing that disarms are a waste of time. I use footwork, zone out, and smash his hand, breaking it. Took the fight right out of him. The first officer attempted a disarming technique taught by one of the Tactical God trainers out there, which I believe the trainer had never tested. I did exactly what I've done in hundreds of stick sparring sessions.

The difference between me and the Tactical Trainer, I had done it in the "lab" of competition. He had only pontificated about what he could do. IF he tried his techniques I can almost guarantee he never tried them against an un-cooperative opponent.

None of this is intended as a flame, I'm blunt but never rude.

I just hold a simple belief, If we don't constantly test and evaluate and most importantly, question, HOW CAN WE GROW?

Ask yourself this, Who is most interested in shooting with accuracy and speed?
everyone :)

Who does it most often, without holding to
dogma?
competitve shooters

What is the most favored shooting platform?
Isoceles :D :D


------------------
"JKD is about...discovering the cause of your own ignorance"

[This message has been edited by FVK (edited March 13, 2000).]
 
I was receptive to this style of training because I myself had been considering what I would really (be able to) do in a real defense situation.

I've been in close encounters before; but nothing I believed truly life-threatening, yet I remember it being very close up and I was still pretty spooked. I'm handy with weaver stance for target shooting; but I couldn't figure out how I could use it in any non-IPSC-sounding defense situation.

When you find yourself questioning "weaver stance"/target-shooting techniques in self-defense situations, is point shooting ala "Shooting for Keeps" what you mean?

Outside just being able to react in time, etc., when the pistol comes out, where should one focus, or at least train to focus? How do YOU train students to hold the weapon?

thanks,
Battler.
 
Outside just being able to react in time, etc., when the pistol comes out, where should
one focus, or at least train to focus? How do YOU train students to hold the weapon?
thanks,
Battler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you look at real videos of real shootings you see the shooters firing with both arms fully extended. That is a genetic response to a threat. It is also great for control of recoil. Full locked extended arms and pushing forwared (which is what we will do) puts a real lock on that gun. Bent elbows allow a flexing action unless you are built like a gorilla and few are and you don't have to "remember" to bend the elbow.
Next we never put the gun above the chin. We use what comes "natural" where the gun ends up if you POINT at the target as you normally would. Pointing BTW is now well documented to be genetic. Even the most primative types point. Again, we reduce the thought process to natural body response.
You don't look at the gun for a long list of reasons. You look OVER the gun. You will hit what you look at. Hand eye coordination is again genetic as standing is.
Pretend you are on the deck of a boat that is rocking in the waves. How would you stand? You want the most solid position and in all of the shootings we are reviewing you see shooters (right handed) with the left foot extended. Often called "sea legs." Again, it is a genetic response to losing solid footing. There are individual variations, but any attempt to process the information needed to apply a "stance" won't work and will be scrambled by mental information processing fighting chemicals being released. So go with the natural flow of events. Besides it will offer little contribution to shot placement. It is far down the list unless we are talking formal target type shooting. In the real world you may be shooting on your back, side, pinned to a car hood, or falling down some steps. Real life isn't very formal or coordinated.
My partner shot a mental patient as they wrestled each other and my partner tried to keep the gunmans gun held in downward position and they bent over a porch railing. He put his revolver to the gunmans face which was next to his and pulled the trigger.
Perhaps I can scan some pictures to show the real shootings and what we teach. The whole idea is to keep it SIMPLE.
You can find some on our web page.
www.plusp.com
 
one assumption that folks make all the time is that doing the Isoceles *requires* the textbook parallel foot stance, and likewise that Weaver requires the "front" stance (i.e. weak-side foot forward, like a traditional boxer's stance).

well, fortunately, our arms and legs work independently. you can use the "front" stance with Isoceles if you want. Ayoob teaches this when he teaches Isoceles (he teaches Weaver, Chapman, and Isoceles w/ the front stance).

the gamesters like Isoceles because it provides an accuracy edge, and for those guys, the difference between a 5" group and an 8" group at 25 yards is the difference between making the mortgage payment and not. whether that level of performance is relevant to your self-defense scheme is up to you. given the stats on LEO self-defense shootings, you might want to worry more about solving the 5 foot problem rather than the 25 yard problem.
 
Good thread. I've read several extensive pieces in the gun rags (the good ones) lately in favor of the isoceles, and of course, all the top competitive combat shooters use it. I'm trying to transition to it, from the Weaver. Old habits die hard. Any suggestions, other than many repetitons?

One thing that seems to me to be extremely important, if not related to Weaver vs. Isoceles, and not directly discussed: shooting on the move, both one and two handed. Mastering that seems like it would be an asset in competition, and essential in real-life combat. I'm working on it.
 
A good way to "train out of" the weaver stance is to point at the target with the thumb of your non-dominate hand. Just try to really poke an imaginary hole in the center of the target with the support hand thumb. This will help in straightening out the arms. Of course, we all know you cannot possibly be conditioned to a certain method with just mere training and practice. ;)

------------------
"peace, love, joy, and happiness..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top