Weaver vs Isosceles?

FVK,


Ditto "...run screaming for cover..." and #3 "...shooting from......convoluted positions from behind cover...".

I still say go with what you got, or it'll be too late ("While acquiring his/her stance, he/she was shot six times...")

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
I really hate to annoy anyone by disagreeing with their pet theories I have a few of my own, and I know how annoyed I get when someone disagrees with me.

To ask the question,"Which is best, Weaver or Isosceles," my answer is, "Whichever one works best for you!" The majority of my students achieve an acceptable level of skill more quickly with the Isosceles than with the Weaver. For some, though, the Weaver seems to work best. Try both, with a qualified instructor who understands both styles, and see which works best for you. I hate to say this, since I'm a long-time "Cooper-Trooper/ Weaver-Believer" but even I seem to perform better with the modern daynamic forward- leaning Isosceles than with the Weaver, unless my back is hurting, and I cannot lean forward, in which case the Weaver works best for me. In either case, I've used the Weaver for so many years that I just go into it without thinking, but it has deteriorated into a sort of "Triangulated Weaver" in which my arms look like they're fully extended, but my support arm is slight bent, and pulls straight back against the forward-pushing gun arm.

Some will tell you that it doesn't matter which you train with, in a real fight, you will extend both arms fully. Well, if you train like most folks, they're probably right! If you only go to the range occasionally, and never do any any dry fire training (posing in front of the bedroom mirror doesn't count) then you won't remember that jazzy-looking Weaver stance you saw in the gun magazine, and you've been trying to imitate.

If, on the other hand, you take your training seriously, repeatedly take classes from qualified instructors, practice live-fire regularly and dry-fire at least weekly, (more often is better) practicing actual techiques and not just what you saw your favorite TV cop doing, the chances are you'll use what ever you train in.

Saying you can't remember a certain shooting stance is like saying that you'll never use your sights in a deadly force situation. About a year ago, I was told that there was no way I could use my sights in a fight. This had something to do with the theory that in the stress of a gunfight, my heart rate would increase (okay, I agree so far) and with a heart rate of 140 beats per minute, it is impossible to focus on anything at arms length. Well, maybe my heart rate isn't the same as others, but I can still clearly remember on hot summer night in June 1980, when I could distinctly see the red insert on the front sight of my S&W service revolver against my target, an intoxicated male who was standing in the doorway of his mobile home with a 270 Weatherby pointed in my direction. I was crouched behind the bed of his Ford pickup for cover(?), and I was only learning the Weaver at that time, so my arms may very well have been in an Isosceles position. The question I, as an instructor now, would ask me, as a rookie Deputy then, would not be "Why weren't you using the Weaver," but "Why is that man still alive?" Suffice to say that I made a mistake that I was able to survive because my assailant wasn't serious about wanting to kill me, something I had no way of knowing, and can't always count on.

On other occasions, when I was confronting suspects who were armed or supposed to be armed, but shooting was not called for, I used a proper Weaver Ready or Guard position to approach with my weapon out and ready, but not aimed at a person I hadn't decided to shoot.

Remember in a gunfight, you won't rise to the occasion; instead,you will default to your level of training(and, no, I didn't make that up, but I DO use it!)

Stay safe,

------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas

"No man who's in the wrong can stand against
a man who knows he's right and keeps on
a-comin'." Capt. Bill McDonald, Texas Rangers

[This message has been edited by KSLawman (edited March 14, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by KSLawman (edited March 14, 2000).]
 
> 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.

But don't most people point one-handed? I've never seen someone point to something with both hands.
 
One handed? If I have to, sure. But not by choice. I train both ways and am much faster and more acurate using both hands.

I'm still in the Weaver/modified Weaver camp.

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited March 14, 2000).]
 
Part of the modern isocolese seems to be rotating the off hand forward, so the thumb is either just pointing forward, or even hanging off in space, contributing nothing to the grip. I use the "two thumbs up" grip, and believe that clamping down on the thumb safety with both thumbs materially improves my recoil control. Also, my fingers are long enough that there is very little grip available for the off hand - if I try to rotate my off-hand forward, I'm merely grabbing my strong hand. Also, after shooting Weaver for 20 years, it is "natural" in the extreme.
 
Personally, I don't care what the latest competition shooters are doing, I go with what works for me, and so far, that's Weaver. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Isosceles stance have straight legs, and if it does, please tell me the one thing necessary before a person can move. I'll tell you: it's straighten your legs! You can't move stiff legged (not very effectively anyway). Try it and you'll see. I know it doesn't take a long time to bend your legs and then get moving, but in a guinfight, isn't every little scrap of time precious? Besides, I did a lot of MA training and the stance there was much like Weaver, so I am comfortable with moving and zoning from that position.

FVK,

I did stick training as well as JKD and BJJ for quite a while, but unfortunately, I had to move, though I hope to pick it up again soon. I am glad you used the stick on the branch wielding guy and didn't have to resort to lethal force. Were you in the reiterada stance (assuming solo baston here)? I found that was a great position for the hand strike, as it gives you a longer reach and increases the distance the opponent has to cross to get to you. Also smaller target for the opponent to boot. I'll bet, like many, that the branch guy tried to go for your head/body while you were smart and took out his weapon/hand. After all, it's the closest thing to you! It's amazing how many don't realize this and go for the knockout shot to the head. Glad you used footwork and zoning to advantage too. Bravo sir! :) I agree that disarms are a waste of time against an uncooperative opponent, unless you've got years upon years of training.

John
 
> 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.
But don't most people point one-handed? I've never seen someone point to something
with both hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AND a human will put both arms at full length and palms forward to fend off a threat. Duke University has shown this to take place even in sports in their in depth studies. It is like claiming a text book "position" in sex. If our honeymoons were on video we'd see the reality.
 
> 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.
But don't most people point one-handed? I've never seen someone point to something
with both hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AND a human will put both arms at full length and palms forward to fend off a threat. Duke University has shown this to take place even in sports in their in depth studies. It is like claiming a text book "position" in sex. If our honeymoons were on video we'd see the reality about positions.
 
Gopher, the "racegun" Isoceles is often described with the knees slightly bent and feet about shoulder width. I suspect this is to achieve a state of minimum muscle tension, and thus give better target accuracy. not necessarily good for real gunfights, but there's no law that says you can't mix-n-match techniques from the different camps.

after taking LFI-1 I started messing around with Ayoob's version of Isoceles. it makes logical sense to me, but after doing Weaver for several years I had a hard time keeping my elbows locked out. so for me, the transition from Weaver to Isoceles wasn't easy.

one thing I liked about LFI-1 was messing around with one-handed shooting from a "front stance" with strong foot forward and with weak foot forward, and with either hand. those exercises really showed me how nontrivial it is to integrate handgun techniques into the whole CQB picture. it felt very natural for me to shoot one-handed with strong-foot forward, but that's probably the less optimal approach from a retention point of view (experts, feel free to chime in here). shooting one-handed with weak-foot forward felt very clumsy.
 
Gopher,
You are correct sir! So many people forget, If I break your hand you can't use it to attack me. De-fang the snake. I like something one of my instructors told me once,"If you destroy your opponents limbs, he can't fight, he might be mad as a hornet, but it doesn't matter. He's just a mad stump on the ground" Everytime someone sends something my way I say thank you and take it. :)



------------------
"JKD is about...discovering the cause of your own ignorance"
 
Gopher, most competition isosceles shooters
shoot using bent legs with the weak side slightly forward. Every split second of time is precious in a match as well as a gunfight, and these guys shoot (accurately!)
and still move extremely fast. I didn't mean to start the gamesman vs martial artist debate. Understand, I'm making the transition myself, and trying to keep an open mind. I don't shoot the same way I did 5 years ago, or even one year ago. I've improved, and my evolution as a shooter has been because I've tried to keep what works for me and discarded the rest. Hopefully this has been done without incorporating anything into my style that would be foolish.

This is a good thread - breaking down, analyzing and debating each component of a technique is the best way to find what fits us individually.

Any thoughts on recoil control, recovery and shot placement and how the stance affects these?
 
FVK,

Argh! I'm having flashbacks to the Black Knight scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail! I remember that I didn't move so well after taking a full-power shot to the hand even thru a big glove. I can only imagine the ineffectiveness of trying to fight with a busted flipper! I'd rather pick off an opponents limbs than become exposed trying to go with an risky one-shot KO. Of course this doesn't really apply the same way to gunfights and projectile weapons in general and I'm straying off topic.

I'll have to try Isosceles next time at the range, but I imagine it'll feel real strange. Does an arms-locked stance help with recoil? I mean, it seems to work in competition! I was wondering, though. In MA, stiffness=slooooooow, so I didn't know if the same thing applied in shooting. I try to keep the wrists locked in Weaver, while the tension in the elbows is varied to absorb recoil.

Games often had their root in practical situations so I think it's a valid consideration, but over time, they become more an end unto themselves rather than serve any practical purpose.

John
 
Could somebody give me a brief description of the isoceles and the Weaver stance? Or point me to a web site or good book that describes them. I've never had any formal training, not sure what my stance is.
 
Hey guys.... I have only had formal pistol training in the US Army for Main Battle tank crewmembers which pretty much makes ne a combat shooting ZERO.

I shoot a modified Weaver (at least I think so... no locked elbows, weak side foot ahead, weak elbow bent 90deg, strong elbow not quite locked).

My question concerns my wife. She is starting to shoot my .45cal in order to get proficient enough with it to use it in an emergency situation. She is not very large (5'5", 120lbs) but has very long fingers (same size as mine) and so havs no problem with a full size USP.

Should I have her fire Isoceles (locked elbows, square on to target, right?) to control recoil more? She is currently an open book so I am interested in opinions here. I agree that she should fire what she does the best in, but I would like to know which stance people think controls recoil best in a slightly built woman.

Thanks!

J.T.
 
FVK,

re: ","If you destroy your opponents limbs, he can't fight, he might be mad as a hornet, but it doesn't matter. He's just a mad stump on the ground"

I surely hope you've seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" (i think it was?). The encounter with the Black Night. You have to see it, if you haven't.

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited March 15, 2000).]
 
Perhaps more important is learning to fire an aimed shoot regardless of stance; sight alignment, trigger control.........

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
> AND a human will put both arms at full length and palms forward to fend off a threat. Duke University has shown this to take place even in sports in their in depth studies.

Interesting... Can you tell us more about the Duke study? What sort of experiments did they do?
 
J.T.

Teaching your wife to shoot is a recipe for disaster. Send her to at least one day of instruction at a good school :). IMHO. Critique is often very difficult from one we love.

Weaver vs. Isoceles-
I was trained in the weaver but find myself naturally gravitating to a mutated form of both with my left foot forward and left arm bent a bit more than my right. I don't know if it's right but when I have competition stress I sort of just do this. When I practice clearing a house or looking from behind cover it is a strict weaver.

Olazul
 
SHOOTING STANCES - My Perspective

I hope Jeff doesn't send a thunderbolt my way, but it really makes no difference what stance you use, as long as you have certain attributes in place:

1). Your feet are placed in a way that allows you to move. Remember, this is fighting, not target shooting. Fighting stances usually require that one foot lead. If you are right handed, this means that your left foot will be a little forward of the other.

2). Maintain an aggressive posture. This means a SLIGHT forward inclination, not bowing at the waist. Knees are slightly bent (not locked).

3). The pistol (or rifle, or SMG, or Shotgun), is held in a way that you can bsorb the recoil forces with your upper body mass & muscles. The arms are just there to hold it in place.

Now that said, I still shoot from what you might call Weaver. I'll tell you the reasons why -

1). That posture works for any weapon (including contact weapons). You can't shoot a Benelli or an MP5 from an iscoceles.

2). In real-life (that off-range world that we all train for), you sometimes have to fight with your hands, or with other weapons
before you get to the pistol, and I prefer to fight from a slightly bladed posture.

Knowing that under intense situations we get a little silly, I keep things as simple as possible.

My stance (oooopps, I mean my version of the stance...there's no such thing as a suarez stance) involves taking a slightly
bladed posture to the threat and present the
pistol toward the target.

Keeping the previously mentioned attributes in mind, simply drop the left elbow like it would be when shooting a long gun. I don't worry about any isometrics or anything of the sort. This is the same as what many competitors use, except I lower the left
elbow. Simple enough.

I'm not saying that this is THE STANCE handed down from the god of war while meditating in cave, just that this simple version of it is more natural and has worked for me amd my guys. (Even under stress :)

Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top