Weaver vs. Isosceles

[CommackBoy]

Hello

I just finished reading an article in the World of Firepower magazine by Chuck Taylor and his opinion is that isosceles stance is being used more because people are shooting 9mm in the competition with it. He says that Weaver tames recoil of a .45 better than isosceles. What’s your opinion on that? Article is attached.

22411

P.S. I've also asked LV the same question.

[glocktogo]

This is ancient news. Spoiler alert... Weaver lost.

[CommackBoy]

I switched from Weaver years ago and never looked back. What interested me about that article is that author states that Weaver is better for heavier calibers and I have never heard that before.

[RWH24]

I have shot the Weaver for years, shooting 357mag, 44mag/spec, 45acp/LC. I went to a class years ago and the Chief Firearms Instructor chastised those of us using the Weaver stance. He said we shoot Isosceles. We face our adversaries head on, not half ready to turn tail and run. Back in those days Troopers were issued only a front PBA panel because no Trooper would retreat!

[m4carbine]

Both methods have pros and cons. I think its more important to figure out what works best for you and do it.

[T2C]

Both methods have their place.

I use and teach isosceles to shoot on the move. I believe it is a much better technique for moving with a pistol.

I use Weaver to shoot precisely at long distance (50-150 yards) with the pistol.

I have been shooting so long that I cannot tell the difference in felt recoil using either technique.

If you do not shoot and train enough to be able to mentally separate the two techniques, I would suggest learning isosceles and sticking with it.

[Maverick07]

Weaver was the preferred method before body armor became more regularily issued. Use of body armor made shooting Weaver awkard and exposed the vulnerable area around your underarm. Keeping your armor square to the threat dictated Isosceles stance. If you use body armor then Isoceles is absolutely the method to use. If not, then either will work. Some experienced shooters can switch back and forth depending on the situation. I find Weaver less tiring and I can stand all day in a Weaver stance. However since I use body armor I have shot Isosceles for years.

[Heavy Metal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kq-N3_plNq8

Airplanes=Iso

Blimps=Weaver

[Heavy Metal]

My understaning is video has shown that under stress, almost everybody reverts to Iso, regardless of being trained on Weaver.

That begs the question why not train with nature instead of fighting it?

[NCPatrolAR]

Both have their place. Spend time doing stuff other than running standards on a square range and you'll find there's times where one is the better solution to a problem than the other

[Redhat]

Both have their place. Spend time doing stuff other than running standards on a square range and you'll find there's times where one is the better solution to a problem than the other

I don't disagree but perhaps you could provide some examples?

[Trajan]

Doesn't forearm strength completely disprove his theory? He did touch on upper body strength, but never went into it.

So...lift and you won't have that problem.

[NCPatrolAR]

I don't disagree but perhaps you could provide some examples?

I'm walking out the door so here's two:

1) when using certain handheld light techniques, such as Harries, we tend to move into a Weaver-type position.

2) when conducting slicing the pie during slow/deliberate building clears shooters tend to go into a Weaver-type position in order to limit leading with your elbow and/or make the most out of cover/concealment

[RWH24]

Still, the Weaver is the fight/boxer stance. You are bladed and have a good balance over your legs and feet.
To me, it is more natural as I am a BIG target and turning sideways makes me a little thinner. I feel the ability to move in a stable way. BUT! If surprised I will make a stand and fight/shoot in whatever position I am in and look for cover/concealment to get small behind. Moving and shooting real fast action/decisions you may not be in a Weaver or Iso, Just be stable enough to get off an accurate shot.

[ScottieG59]

I think a lot has changed and at least part of it has to do with tactics. When body armor is used, the idea is to present the armor plates toward the enemy. As to better shooting, competition has added some level of measurable data to performance. Do we see one position working better in competition?

[Chameleox]

Tools in the toolbox.

I shoot with both, depending on circumstances, and NCPatrolAR came up with some good examples of where one might switch from Iso to Weaver.
I also shoot a lot from a Modified Isosceles, a little closer to a fighting stance, with my chest still facing the threat.

[MacGuffin]

My hands constantly shake a little bit (familiar or essential tremor) and I was taught to use a modified Weaver to help mitigate this. However, I've started to doubt this actually helps -- the last time I was at the range I shot at least as good if not better when I tried Isosceles. Has anyone else heard this advice or have other stances/techniques to compensate for the shakes?

[Abraham]

At Fort Ord, in 1967, I was taught to shoot the Army .45 with one hand, arm fully extended, sideways to the target, with the other hand on my hip.

I later learned this was the way dismounted Cavalry would shoot while the hand on the hip was really used to hold the reins of the horse.

This was the technique I used for years until slowly transitioning to a Modified Isosceles. The dismounted Cavalry method is a very accurate way of shooting at bulls eye targets.

I also train shooting with my weak hand to the point I'm slightly more accurate than with my strong hand, but I'm slower to get on target with my weak hand.

[C4IGrant]

I always love stance debates. The answer is if someone is shooting at you, you will NOT be standing still. If (for some reason) you are standing still, simply be in the MOST STABLE position you can. For lack of a better term, a "fighting stance" that allows you to be hit and not fall over. Whatever that stance looks like is really irrelevant.


C4

[Failure2Stop]

What some folks interpret these stances to be can be pretty far from the way they are applied by those that use firearms in a professional and competent manner.
For a long time people would wax eloquently about how the Weaver stance was the only acceptable stance for gunfightin', and that the Iso was only good for gamers shooting mousefart loads.
Never mind that any cross-section of those shooters would show distinct variation in application of technique, frequently in the areas that some would claim to be crucial, and that lower body variations are basically irrelevant.
The simple fact of the matter is that sight alignment and trigger control (and directly linked; anticipation) are the two factors that directly affect precision, doesn't matter how you are holding the gun or where your toes are pointed. Anyone that claims to see a distinct precision difference at distances under 25 yards based on grip/stance is either extremely skilled or in need of training.
The contemporary position most frequently taught/seen/used is a "Modern Iso", which is the same as the old FBI Iso in basically no areas what so ever other than both arms being kind of straight. In the Modern Iso alone there are 3 different arm/elbow positions that can be used depending on what the shooter needs in relationship to their individual strengths and weaknesses.
Similarly, the "Weaver" was altered from what Jack Weaver was doing by Cooper/Gunsite, and turned into the "Modern Technique", which is pretty different than what lots of folks interpret as a "Weaver". Simply having a straight firing arm and a low support hand grip does not put one into the "Weaver" camp anymore than pulling donuts in the middle of the trailer park make one a NASCAR driver.

The back and forth argument about which position makes one a smaller target, provides better armor coverage, blah blah blah is ridiculous. Getting blasted in the vial organs, whether at a 0 degree angle or at a 30 degree angle is a bad idea. Given that you can't guarantee that lethal threats will only be directly in front of you, I'd rather encourage people to use the technique that permits the fastest, most accurate, most repeatable method of employment for their handgun.

There are many reasons that one may choose a position at a specific time and circumstance, it is, however, fairly important to understand the impact to performance based on what you are giving up in regard to control with different grips/stances/positions.

[weggy]

I have shot both, I like the Weaver. I have no trouble moving from that stance, and in the beginning of a gun fight you do present a slightly smaller target to your opponent. But, like everything else, it's about what you are comfortable with.

[Surf]

Sometimes you need to shoot. Sometimes you need to move. Sometimes you need to shoot while moving. And sometimes you just need to haul ass. Being able to improvise everything in between while making hits is the goal. I don't care if I am using the drunken monkey technique. If it works, it works. So how do we get to the Zen of the Drunken Monkey technique?

Having the ability to vary your shooting platform to optimize your chances of success is a good start. Having numerous well trained and practiced base techniques and fundamentals allows for more fluidity in transitioning to the rapidly evolving dynamic of a fight. It also allows the person to more easily adapt to shooting platforms / situations that they may not have directly encountered. In other words with the more proficiency in varied techniques gives the person the ability to more effectively adapt or improvise a position or technique in a spontaneous situation. I take the same principle with shooting that I would utilize when teaching and training children how to play any sport. Teach base fundamentals / skills, expand them as ability increases but always continue to hone the core base fundamentals all the way up through the major leagues.

As an example, for a default position, I use a lower body position that would be described as a modern or combat Iso, however I tend to use more locked out elbows and a heads up orientation with relaxed shoulders (not the tactical turtle) as in a standard Iso. Throw on some body armor with plates and I am shooting with an upper body that necessitates bent elbows in a more traditional modern or combat Iso. Now if I am working cover, I do not use a weaver like many old school shooters where they may drop the primary shooting sides foot more to the rear and blade. Instead I move the primary side foot forward and my upper body looks like what I was once told was a Reverse Chapman. I was never formerly taught this technique but rather it is just something that I improvised a long long time ago. It took me some time to actually see someone formerly describe a Reverse Chapman. It made sense in my mind at that time, still does and works well for me. Bottom line use whatever technique that works best for the situation your faced with. Don't be rigid on one technique and forcing it to work. Be fluid and be prepared to improvise. Improvisation comes easier with the more exposure to varied techniques / shooting platforms / shooting positions and a lot of repetitions. As stated by F2S, the key is still having a correct sight alignment, proper sight picture and maintaining those throughout the trigger manipulation. Having more experience with varied or improvised techniques / platforms / shooting positions allows you to improvise spontaneous positions much easier while allowing you to focus more on maintaining those base fundamentals.

[Voodoo_Man]

I've shot them both. Modified weaver in the academy, which blew, and iso for everything else.

When shtf I was in what stance? A fighting stance.

That's how I train now. Whatever your natural reaction is that is what you should train off of.

[Ty_B]

I didn't know who he was, so I looked up his website.

OP - this is just another Cooper era dude who's preaching the 'competition will get you killed' nonsense. Reading the article, I started hearing circus music so it was hard to focus, but I think I got most of it. He is saying what countless other contemporaries of his have been saying for 30+ yrs. Shoot however you want, but there's no truth to the old line that iso is fine for 9mm, but you need the good ol' Jack Weaver stance for the mighty .45. If you want to see how to shoot fast and accurately while you're standing still, moving, whatever, Google you up some Stoeger, Michel, Vogel, etc. Just be careful, that shit'll get you killed.

He's also got a great article about stopping power: http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/stoppingpower.html

BTW - if you like what Chuck has to say, I highly recommend Mas Ayoob.

[txgunsuscg]

FWIW, I tend to agree with NCPatrolAR and Surf, your situation dictates what position you take. Plus, very few people use the "pure" Weaver or Isosceles as originally taught, if you actually watch guys on the range, most use a hybrid anyway. Find a good instructor and COI that allows you to put yourself in various situations, including barricades, vehicles, movement, what-have-you, and find a position or positions that work for you, then practice them.

[Shao]

I always love stance debates. The answer is if someone is shooting at you, you will NOT be standing still. If (for some reason) you are standing still, simply be in the MOST STABLE position you can. For lack of a better term, a "fighting stance" that allows you to be hit and not fall over. Whatever that stance looks like is really irrelevant.


C4

Thank you Grant, I've been preaching this for years. I use a heavily bladed stance, lean heavily on my front foot and lean forward. I present a stable firing platform while presenting the minimal amount of my body to opposition as possible.

[superfuzz]

FWIW....I attended a course about 13 years ago that was kind of an early version of today's active-shooter training. The instructors were ex-Delta Force guys and it included videotaped force-on-force training. I was, at the time, a Weaver shooter because that's what my instructors at the academy (my first firearms training) taught me and I had never shot with or practiced an Isoceles stance. During the training we reviewed the tapes of the scenarios and the instructor pointed out that, even though I was a Weaver shooter, under the stress of confronting the shooter I dropped into an Isoceles stance.

He stated that it was his experience that it was common, if not typical, for many Weaver shooter to instinctively settle into an Isoceles-type stance under stress/pressure.

The video convinced me that it would be wise for me to train for a stance that was closer to what my lizard brain was going to do. Now I shoot with my shoulders square to the target and my feet very slightly bladed for balance.

YMMV

[Surf]

I disagree with the concept of not worrying about your stance or your overall shooting platform, because you will be moving or that your shooting platform will be less then ideal anyway in a real scenario. This is even more reason to have a solid base foundation of fundamentals.

I will remove the shooting concept and talk football, baseball, boxing, martial arts, MMA, or hell even golfing if that is your thing. Proper stance, footwork, balance, etc all matter, especially when the action becomes dynamic and improvised. Everything that becomes improvised or spontaneous in a game, match, bout, etc but is based off of or derived from a solid foundation of fundamentals. That spontaneous action will be much more effectively performed from someone who was trained and drilled on correct fundamentals and yes that would include their stance and perhaps more importantly their footwork. If a proper progression of training is not followed and learning correct fundamentals via correct training and constant repetition of practice then the odds of becoming a major leaguer, or professional at anything is not likely. Saying that stance in shooting is unimportant and not having a good foundation would be like saying that my stance means nothing in a boxing match, or MMA match, or a pro football game. If we go off the "it doesn't matter" idea, then you should be able to step into a ring, a football field, baseball diamond and be able to compete effectively from just having done "your own thing" all your life and dismissed correct training of proper fundamentals. Sure there are "naturals" but they are few and far between. Professionals at anything drilled and trained and have a solid grasp of the fundamentals which were developed at the static or base level.

I hope no one confuses my belief that there is only one good effective stance as varied shooting platforms will often be required for varied situations. However understanding the best ways to perform them is also key. So it is my belief that a shooter should be trained on proper fundamentals and techniques in a controlled static situation, then eventually progressed into dynamic situations and eventually drilled on reality based situations where anything can and does happen. If we don't have a good foundation when we are simply standing still and not moving, it makes zero sense to think that we will perform well when shit gets ugly. If you mimic a real life situation via reality based training (force on force) it is clear to see who is more apt at being successful. All other things like mindset and tactics being equal, someone with better or properly trained fundamentals and trained skill sets will 99% of the time outperform someone who has poor base fundamentals and skill sets and / or are self taught.

Training should be based upon correct fundamentals and built upon by adding new and more complex steps as skills progress. This is exactly how we teach our kids to be successful at any sport. Ignoring this belief and having an "it does not matter as you won't have a good shooting platform in a real situation" and not properly training in correct techniques, is a good recipe for failure. It doesn't matter if it is football, baseball, soccer, boxing, martial arts, golfing or yes even shooting.

[walkin' trails]

I say stance is important, but will not go so far as to say one is definitely better than the other. How many stances and techniques have been documented since the beginning of the 20th Century? Each guru who came along advocated a certain technique and was practiced enough in that technique to be a great shooter. Instead of stance, call it a stable platform. Whether you're on your feet in an isosceles facing the target or just got knocked on your sit-me-me-down and have to defend yourself, your pistol-hand-arm needs to be stable in order to shoot accurately. For static ranges with some forward, rearward, and lateral movement, the isosceles and it's modern adaptations work well. The Weaver and Modified Weaver also have their place depending on the the situation/scenario. So does one handed shooting. I was first formally trained on the Modified Weaver, and a few years later had the basic Isosceles practically beat into me. I wasn't receptive, especially shooting a 9mm, and returned to the Weaver when I could. Later when going to 40s and 45s, I found the lessons that the isosceles using bone structure to channel recoil was beneficial to me and I switched. I now shoot a somewhat modified isosceles as defined in Andy Stanford's book, "Surgical Speed Shooting." Regardless of what you're using, it must be stable regardless of what position your body funds it's self in.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[LowandLeft]

Here is a video from Ron Avery of Haley Strategic Partners. It addresses this issue and I found it very balanced and informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GewbIC2P8Hw&feature=youtu.be

[walkin' trails]

Ron Avery makes some very informative, well thought instructional videos. I learn something every time I watch one. I hope to catch a class taught by him one of these days.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[Heavy Metal]

To me, it looks like what Avery is calling a Weaver is at least as much an Iso as it is a Weaver. Very heavily modified.

To me a true Weaver is the whole 'Tank Turret' thing.

I would say my Iso is part Weaver as I tend to blade a bit.

[Surf]

To me, it looks like what Avery is calling a Weaver is at least as much an Iso as it is a Weaver. Very heavily modified.

To me a true Weaver is the whole 'Tank Turret' thing.

I would say my Iso is part Weaver as I tend to blade a bit.Most people really don't understand or they just don't care to differentiate between the true Weaver Stance and the progression into a Chapman. Many who talk about the Weaver stance are really using or describing the Chapman. Just look at those on youtube talking about it. They are talking about a Weaver and many are showing the Chapman. That includes Mr. Avery's video. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe some might say, but they are just as different as the standard isosceles and the modern or combat isosceles. Even Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman understood the difference.

Your point specifically of considering what Mr. Avery is teaching being a heavily modified Weaver is indeed "heavily modified". First from looking at his video and description he is starting out with a Chapman. Nitpicking again, but by turning in the strong side toe and rotating the hips and shoulders pretty much square to the target with a bent knee, bias forward towards the balls of the feet is indeed more modern Iso like than anything else. The bottom half is modern iso and it is the gateway into bridging Weaver / Chapman type of shooter into a true modern iso stance as the upper body and shoulders wants to rotate or "square up" to the target. Sounds like a mind trick that some Jedi might pull on you to get you over the "hump" so to speak into utilizing the modern iso.

I know this really sounds like minutiae but they are definitely just as different as the iso and modern iso, so I agree with you.

[Heavy Metal]

http://olive-drab.com/images/jeds_training_45_375.jpg

1944


And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.

[Heavy Metal]

What? No love for the pic I found? Bump.

[26 Inf]

Plenty of love - link please?

[LowandLeft]

Ya, when I was a kid I was taught Iso from a Vietnam vetran who was in the 75th Ranger and 5th SFGA (and a whole lot else... great stories). We think we're so cool and modern :rolleyes:. Check out this picture on Kyle Defoor's blog. http://kyledefoor.tumblr.com/post/41787802056/hand-forward-not-invented-by-anyone-anytime . Same with M4 shooting it appears!

[RogerinTPA]

I have a tendency to 'blend' the two, especially when shooting 40 & 45. I'm for the 'What ever's effective for the individual shooter' technique.

[hunt_ak]

Sometimes you need to shoot. Sometimes you need to move. Sometimes you need to shoot while moving. And sometimes you just need to haul ass. Being able to improvise everything in between while making hits is the goal. I don't care if I am using the drunken monkey technique. If it works, it works. So how do we get to the Zen of the Drunken Monkey technique?

Having the ability to vary your shooting platform to optimize your chances of success is a good start. Having numerous well trained and practiced base techniques and fundamentals allows for more fluidity in transitioning to the rapidly evolving dynamic of a fight. It also allows the person to more easily adapt to shooting platforms / situations that they may not have directly encountered. In other words with the more proficiency in varied techniques gives the person the ability to more effectively adapt or improvise a position or technique in a spontaneous situation. I take the same principle with shooting that I would utilize when teaching and training children how to play any sport. Teach base fundamentals / skills, expand them as ability increases but always continue to hone the core base fundamentals all the way up through the major leagues.

As an example, for a default position, I use a lower body position that would be described as a modern or combat Iso, however I tend to use more locked out elbows and a heads up orientation with relaxed shoulders (not the tactical turtle) as in a standard Iso. Throw on some body armor with plates and I am shooting with an upper body that necessitates bent elbows in a more traditional modern or combat Iso. Now if I am working cover, I do not use a weaver like many old school shooters where they may drop the primary shooting sides foot more to the rear and blade. Instead I move the primary side foot forward and my upper body looks like what I was once told was a Reverse Chapman. I was never formerly taught this technique but rather it is just something that I improvised a long long time ago. It took me some time to actually see someone formerly describe a Reverse Chapman. It made sense in my mind at that time, still does and works well for me. Bottom line use whatever technique that works best for the situation your faced with. Don't be rigid on one technique and forcing it to work. Be fluid and be prepared to improvise. Improvisation comes easier with the more exposure to varied techniques / shooting platforms / shooting positions and a lot of repetitions. As stated by F2S, the key is still having a correct sight alignment, proper sight picture and maintaining those throughout the trigger manipulation. Having more experience with varied or improvised techniques / platforms / shooting positions allows you to improvise spontaneous positions much easier while allowing you to focus more on maintaining those base fundamentals.

Fire that youtube account up, Surf. A video version of the above text would be fantastic...

[Surf]

Fire that youtube account up, Surf. A video version of the above text would be fantastic...Lol, video would really be the only way to truly give a good representation of what I was trying to describe but for myself I don't think I will be making a return to video anytime soon. Even if I wanted to, I just don't have the time. ;)

I will note however that most shooters will go into a bladed type of stance when working a barricade, as an example a right hander might drop the right foot more to the rear, blading more when working a barricade. This is also the same when they may work the barricade kneeling, again a right hander dropping the right knee to the ground and leaning outward. This was widely taught as the default method by many organizations. However over the years from personal experience I have found that working primarily in a team environment, that in a stacked situation, perhaps a high / low, the front shooter can more easily be knocked off balance by the rear shooter causing them to overextend themselves or even fall out from behind cover. Because of this I went opposite of traditional methodology. When standing, whichever side of cover I worked I led with that foot forward. When kneeling, whichever side cover I was working, that knee was up. There is a distinct method to doing this method correct and I began teaching this method several years back and at that time frame it met with resistance and sometimes outright disdain.

I finally saw someone of notoriety teaching this method a few years back with Kyle Lamb when he started making VTAC video's where he works a barricade strong side knee up. Yes this is a carbine from a knee, but that was my first viewing of someone notable doing it no matter the weapon or situation. The most recent or perhaps most notable take on this technique is a very recent video I saw of Kyle Defoor demonstrating how he works a barricade with his leading foot forward and working a certain direction on taking an angle on a barricade to expose targets. This is virtually identical to how our guys perform this move and how I have been teaching it for a long time, even when I used to take heat over it. I do have my own twist where I have an elevated support arm with a slight bend in the strong arm which someone told me was a reverse Chapman. I had no clue WTF a reverse Chapman was at that time. It was just what I did and seemed to work well.

[hunt_ak]

Lol, video would really be the only way to truly give a good representation of what I was trying to describe but for myself I don't think I will be making a return to video anytime soon. Even if I wanted to, I just don't have the time. ;)

I will note however that most shooters will go into a bladed type of stance when working a barricade, as an example a right hander might drop the right foot more to the rear, blading more when working a barricade. This is also the same when they may work the barricade kneeling, again a right hander dropping the right knee to the ground and leaning outward. This was widely taught as the default method by many organizations. However over the years from personal experience I have found that working primarily in a team environment, that in a stacked situation, perhaps a high / low, the front shooter can more easily be knocked off balance by the rear shooter causing them to overextend themselves or even fall out from behind cover. Because of this I went opposite of traditional methodology. When standing, whichever side of cover I worked I led with that foot forward. When kneeling, whichever side cover I was working, that knee was up. There is a distinct method to doing this method correct and I began teaching this method several years back and at that time frame it met with resistance and sometimes outright disdain.

I finally saw someone of notoriety teaching this method a few years back with Kyle Lamb when he started making VTAC video's where he works a barricade strong side knee up. Yes this is a carbine from a knee, but that was my first viewing of someone notable doing it no matter the weapon or situation. The most recent or perhaps most notable take on this technique is a very recent video I saw of Kyle Defoor demonstrating how he works a barricade with his leading foot forward and working a certain direction on taking an angle on a barricade to expose targets. This is virtually identical to how our guys perform this move and how I have been teaching it for a long time, even when I used to take heat over it. I do have my own twist where I have an elevated support arm with a slight bend in the strong arm which someone told me was a reverse Chapman. I had no clue WTF a reverse Chapman was at that time. It was just what I did and seemed to work well.

This would ALSO make a great video! Now you're two behind... :dance3:

[strambo]

I shoot Iso, but was taught Weaver @ Gunsite just a few years ago. It was taught squared up to the threat, exactly the same body position as Iso minus the arms.

I like Weaver for working around barricades, Iso for everything else...and realize in a run and gun fight it may be neither.