View Full Version : trying out ISO from Weaver, need input
I started my training taking a pistol class with Giles Stock. Excellent instructor. I have also taken Randy Cain, Ken Hackathorn, and a variety of other classes on both tactics and techniques with handguns, carbines, blades, H2H, and I have started MA's this year with taekwondo.
So I have a well rounded skill set, my marksmanship is good, and I do practice plenty and play gun games (both IDPA and USPSA).
But my handgun basics are all built on a MT foundation.
I score 250 range on the Hackathorn Standards, so Im no slouch here.
But recent converstation and reading has led me to decide to try out ISO, and see if I cant push through to the next level and be able to judge for myself if I want to pursue a change in my technique.
I know Im not the first guy to switch (or try a switch) over.
What Im looking for here is any input or first hand experiance on this.
I am not looking for forever Weaver Vs. Iso debate. I think we have all had/seen our fill of that.
I will be getting together with a friend of mine who shoots ISO, used to shoot Weaver (finger on the trigger guard style even ! ) and is a Master class IPSC shooter. Outside of paid instructors he is hands down the best shooter I ahve ever known personally. So I will have some hands on time with someone who knows WTF they are doing.
You sound a LOT like me. Finger on the trigger guard even.
The two main problems I ran into were.
1. Decades of martial arts training have made me instinctively always move back to a side stance. This creates distance and removes vitals for direct view (which I'm sure you already are well aware of). That is the first problem I have with a squared up stance, that the vitals are more presented to your attacker. I know a side weaver stance isn't absolute protection (and if you are wearing body armor you are actually slightly less protected as the armpit hole is now presented) but it seems to me that the vitals are better protected with a side Weaver than a squared up Iso. When using a squared up stance I simply don't feel protected at all and that greatly distracts me from the shooting I am trying to do.
2. The grip. I completely understand that the both arms locked, palms together evenly grip used in Iso can be very precise. The problem I ran into is when I adopted that grip and arm position and then tried to move and shoot, I couldn't find my sights or hit a damn thing. Also people state that the advantage of Iso is that you can shoot in all four directions while Weaver can not. I found just the opposite. I can only shoot in three direction with Iso and cannot fire in the fourth (directly behind me) without shifting to Weaver.
Jay Cunningham
06-22-10, 17:44
The grip. I completely understand that the both arms locked, palms together evenly grip used in Iso can be very precise.
Locking both arms out is not the way to do it. There are times when your arms may lock out, but generally speaking your elbows are bent. The majority of your grip should come from your support hand, and a little bit of isometric compression is okay.
I have been hearing a lot lately from "Weaver guys" who seem to have misconceptions about what iso is supposed to look like...
I don't even like using the word "iso" anymore because it fails to be descriptive of the technique or form. "Weaver" is no longer very descriptive either.
I have been hearing a lot lately from "Weaver guys" who seem to have misconceptions about what iso is supposed to look like...
yep. what I thought I was doing when I experimented early on was not correct.
Steyr,
I dont do finger on the trigger guard, so luckily thats one more thing I wont have to change. Actually my support hand is already pretty close as it is rotated forward thumbs forward grip I use.
Im not trying to have a debate. I share some of the same concerns as you.
But the only way for me to really know is to set opinion and ego aside and give it a solid honest try for myself and then make an informed and rational decision.
If there is an advantage to be had, Im taking it.
Locking both arms out is not the way to do it. There are times when your arms may lock out, but generally speaking your elbows are bent. The majority of your grip should come from your support hand, and a little bit of isometric compression is okay.
I have been hearing a lot lately from "Weaver guys" who seem to have misconceptions about what iso is supposed to look like...
I don't even like using the word "iso" anymore because it fails to be descriptive of the technique or form. "Weaver" is no longer very descriptive either.
Ok, now I'm confused.
From everything I have been shown both arms are even and equal (hence the isosceles triangle that is formed). This is also why the shooters squares up the stance.
But what you described in your first paragraph sounds a LOT like the Weaver I use. Could you supply a picture of the shooting position you are talking about?
Wouldn't it be funny if I've been doing it right all along?
:D
The stance used by myself and many of the real-deal top instructors (Defoor, Lamb, MagPul Dynamics, etc.) nowadays is the "Modern Isosceles". I also like to refer to it as a simple "Fighting Stance". It is also used by most of the top competitive shooters as-well.
It is basically a boxing stance with a gun tossed into the mix. It can be used for all of the traditional weapon systems: Handgun, Carbine, Shotgun, and of-course Empty Hands.
It is NOT the same as the traditional "Isosceles" stance which has the shooters feet in-line, shoulder width apart, and squared up to the target/threat in a perfect triangle.
Instead, with the "Modern Isosceles" stance the shooters feet are again shoulder width apart, but the strong side or gun side foot is about a half or a full step back from the support side foot. Your upper torso is squared to the target/threat and your weight is slightly forward onto the balls of your feet with a slight forward lean in your back, and a slight bend in the knees.
The benefits of the Modern Isosceles stance over the Weaver and the traditional Isosceles are that it is first off a very natural stance, and it is what the human body typically does naturally in a fight. This is good!
Better all-around balance than either of the other two options.
The Modern Iso stance also gives the shooter a wider field of view & motion in-terms of addressing multiple threats without needing to take an additional step to address a threat that is not directly in-front of the shooter. With both the Weaver and the old school traditional Isosceles the shooter has a limited range that he can turn without needing to take a step to address a threat to either his gun or support side.
The "Modern Isosceles" stance is also more conducive to movement in all directions, off of the line of attack, to cover, etc.
It also gives shooters who wear body armor better ballistic protection from the front as the shooters upper torso is squared-up to a threat that they are addressing in-front of them.
I have not seen the compiled video evidence for myself, other than almost every O.I.S. dash-cam video I have seen for myself during my LE training, but there is supposedly a large federal agency that did a study showing that even Officers that were trained strictly in the Weaver stance revert to a squared-up "Fighting Stance" when attacked and fired upon by an assailant.
Kyle Defoor did an excellent demonstration of the "Modern Isosceles" during an episode of last seasons "Tactical Impact" TV series, when he and Larry Vickers were doing patrol tactics & scenarios from a patrol car. That particular episode was just re-runned last week.
PICS:
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1784/sdc10198q.jpg
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4468/sdc10191l.jpg
There is really nothing groundbreaking here, and there isn't any absolutes for how you "must" do the "Modern Isosceles" stance. Basically what works for you, works for you.....;)
Hope this info helps out the OP!
Ok, now I'm confused.
From everything I have been shown both arms are even and equal (hence the isosceles triangle that is formed). This is also why the shooters squares up the stance.
But what you described in your first paragraph sounds a LOT like the Weaver I use. Could you supply a picture of the shooting position you are talking about?
Wouldn't it be funny if I've been doing it right all along?
:D
Here is an AAR from a Magpul class in Pueblo a year ago (June 2009). Lots of pictures that approximate things from both instructors and students. I am not saying these are all stellar examples but there are enough pictures to get the idea, afaict.
Disclaimer: I took this class in 2009. I am not in the pics.
http://mp-pistol.com/boards/lofiversion/index.php?t21492.html
You do not sound broke at all, are you trying to fix it as an experiment? While I am an Iso shooter, and think that it should be the default position taught to those who wear body armor for a living,
I suspect that a full bore, old school MT guy, circa 1980, would do just fine come showtime if he was otherwise switched on.
Jay Cunningham
06-22-10, 22:05
This will be my final post because Shawn is looking for something in this thread and so far he's gotten everything but.
I can't abide the terms iso or Weaver anymore and I've decided to stop using them with any of my students and in my own discussions.
Those terms don't serve me so I think I'm going to refer to "symmetric torso" vs. "asymmetric torso" from now on and be done with it.
ETA: I have some pics that I will try to add later for reference....
Nick - Thanks for taking the time to write that up. Very well written, concise, easy to understand and a logical progression. I look forward to you posting your picture examples.
Shawn (and Steyr), I am of the opinion that trying to work this out on your own (or with the questionable instruction that's telling you to lock both arms out) may be an effort in futility and/or result in unfavorable results. I liken it to the shooter that buys an Oly, never lubes or cleans it, and then proclaims the AR to be an unreliable platform.
Most of my handgun training has been with Randy Cain, and with a Gunsite background he's teaching a modified Weaver for the most part. My first real pistol instruction was at 15 from the man who is now the Operations Manager at Gunsite, so you can imagine the stance that I learned then. ;)
In the last couple of years I had a Magpul handgun class (before Travis was with Magpul) and spent three days at Universal Shooting Academy with Frank Garcia and Roy Tyler. Having a shooter, and instructor, of Frank's caliber show me what to do really let me appreciate the change. Many people get locked on the stance as the issue and it is the most easily recognized of the things taught, but it's not the only thing.
If you feel like your performance has plateaued with Weaver, or you're not placing as well as you'd like in competition, or (as in my case) you have certain flaws in your skillset that Weaver is not addressing, then I would suggest seeking out instruction from someone who's shooting ability you can verify and who has the teaching ability to pass on what they know.
Modified Weaver, Modern Iso.... the more each one changes the more they start to look the same. For me I think that the main difference at this point is the grip on the gun and whether or not you utilize the push/pull technique with your strong/weak hand. I thought I was shooting iso for awhile with no appreciable improvement but was still doing push/pull which was the problem. It took a visit to Frank Garcia to understand that what I was doing was iso in appearance but Weaver in application.
I'm still struggling with it. I haven't gotten nearly the practice time since Frank's place that I need to. Family and work commitments just aren't allowing much in the way of shooting right now. I've been trying to dryfire when I can. But I can tell you that I saw an improvement at Frank's from what I was doing at the beginning of TD1 to what they were teaching me to do at the beginning of TD2. That sold me.
thanks for the input Rob. I will be working with someone who knows what they are doing here very soon.
I was looking for personal experiance of guys who switched by posting this thread. The idea being that perhaps hearing some others mistakes could save me from making those same ones.
I hear there are plenty of guys who have switched, so I was hoping to hear a variety of input on the experiance.
Again, Im not looking for a debate here.
I want personal experiance and input from those who have done this that may help me along.
To sum up my post, my best advice is to make sure you're breaking it down to the basics, otherwise you will default to what you're already doing. For example, if your instructor doesn't cover grip tension you will likely, as I did, default to push/pull. Have him start as if you're a brand new shooter with no prior experience.
You also need to figure out what your goals are. For whatever reason Weaver was increasing my tendendency to low-left with the Glock, and what I hoped a different technique would do for me was reduce that. After 2k rounds in two days it was, from static dot shooting to plate racks to dynamic stages. At the end of TD1 for me I was still having issues, but after some dryfire in the hotel that night I surprised myself by cleaning the plate rack on the morning of TD2 right out of the gate. :cool:
Shawn L,
How is the Iso journey going?
Shawn (and Steyr), I am of the opinion that trying to work this out on your own (or with the questionable instruction that's telling you to lock both arms out) may be an effort in futility and/or result in unfavorable results. I liken it to the shooter that buys an Oly, never lubes or cleans it, and then proclaims the AR to be an unreliable platform.
Well I'm not gonna try and name drop, but the people who have shared Iso with me are hardly a source of "questionable instruction." In fact the arm positioning I was taught was exactly as shown in the photos posted by nickdrak.
And as I've stated all along, the body dynamic demonstrated in those photos simply does not work for me. And I've never stated Iso doesn't work or is unreliable. To the contrary I've stated that I've seen it be extremely effective.
What I've said, is that it doesn't work for me and is incompatible with everything I do naturally.
I started my training taking a pistol class with Giles Stock. Excellent instructor. I have also taken Randy Cain, Ken Hackathorn, and a variety of other classes on both tactics and techniques with handguns, carbines, blades, H2H, and I have started MA's this year with taekwondo.
So I have a well rounded skill set, my marksmanship is good, and I do practice plenty and play gun games (both IDPA and USPSA).
But my handgun basics are all built on a MT foundation.
I score 250 range on the Hackathorn Standards, so Im no slouch here.
But recent converstation and reading has led me to decide to try out ISO, and see if I cant push through to the next level and be able to judge for myself if I want to pursue a change in my technique.
I know Im not the first guy to switch (or try a switch) over.
What Im looking for here is any input or first hand experiance on this.
I am not looking for forever Weaver Vs. Iso debate. I think we have all had/seen our fill of that.
I will be getting together with a friend of mine who shoots ISO, used to shoot Weaver (finger on the trigger guard style even ! ) and is a Master class IPSC shooter. Outside of paid instructors he is hands down the best shooter I ahve ever known personally. So I will have some hands on time with someone who knows WTF they are doing.
I was in the same circumstance. Former "chapman" weaver here.
It took about a year for me to finally get comfortable with the ISO as described by some of the pics posted above. This is with weekly dry & live fire sessions, including training courses and matches.
Something about teaching an old dog...
That was about 9 years ago and I'm glad I made the switch.
What I've said, is that it doesn't work for me and is incompatible with everything I do naturally.
We get it. After two threads, god knows how many posts, we get it, you are incapable of making the switch to shooting anything other than Weaver, and not even modified Weaver but old-ass Weaver.
I strongly encourage you to come out to as many IDPA and USPSA matches as you can and see how that works out for you.
We get it. After two threads, god knows how many posts, we get it, you are incapable of making the switch to shooting anything other than Weaver, and not even modified Weaver but old-ass Weaver.
I strongly encourage you to come out to as many IDPA and USPSA matches as you can and see how that works out for you.
Well actually that is not true. What I use is very much a modified Weaver (or so I'm told, I think part of this could be a terminology problem). And I'm not terribly interested in matches. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just interested in practical shooting practice. The sort of things done at the FDCC are far more interesting to me than gun races.
Well actually that is not true. What I use is very much a modified Weaver. And I'm not terribly interested in matches. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just interested in practical shooting practice. The sort of things done at the FDCC are far more interesting to me than gun races.
Here is what I am going to throw out for you. How do you shoot from behind cover with your stance out from your reactionary hand side? Do you shift your foot stance, as well as your hands? What about your eyes? Everytime I see a hardcore weaver shooter do any practical shooting if you ask them to shoot from the left side of a barricade (if they are right handed) they get all messed up. Either exposing to much of their body or being completely inefficient as far as doing it quickly and hitting a target. I am not sure how you can get more practical than shooting from behind cover.
For practical shooting you should be judging your speed and accuracy. Which a lot of what the game shooting tests.
Here is what I am going to throw out for you. How do you shoot from behind cover with your stance out from your reactionary hand side? Do you shift your foot stance, as well as your hands? What about your eyes? Everytime I see a hardcore weaver shooter do any practical shooting if you ask them to shoot from the left side of a barricade (if they are right handed) they get all messed up. Either exposing to much of their body or being completely inefficient as far as doing it quickly and hitting a target. I am not sure how you can get more practical than shooting from behind cover.
For practical shooting you should be judging your speed and accuracy. Which a lot of what the game shooting tests.
Would depend on the barricade. In most cases I can use the same shooting position and lean it to the right to put my weapon and eyes around the cover. For left side (mostly because I'm so right eye dominant) I do an Izzy lean off to the left. That said if I have to (say I'm behind a tree) I can press my body against the cover (front shoulder on the tree) and still shoot around the tree with my current shooting position. I think I would actually expose more of myself with the both arms extended position. In fact I believe the shooting position I use keeps you more behind the cover than squared up.
In any case, we are sidetracking this topic. So for you and Rob S (and anyone else) I started a specific topic so I can explain exactly what I do (I'm not sure I've done that very well so far given Rob S post) and so I can understand what changes I should make and why.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=694907#post694907
Hopefully I can get on the same page as everyone and at least understand what you are saying.
Shawn L,
How is the Iso journey going?
Thanks for asking.
I am meeting this weekend with a good friend of mine and Master class IPSC shooter. We are then shooting a match on Sunday and Im going to try to use what I learn then. I fully understand my performance will prob suffer the first time around.
Sorry, I wasnt trying to start a Weaver vs. Iso debate, but I find it difficult to get my point across sometimes without getting into detail about the "Why".
I started as a Weaver shooter myself, as that is what I was taught throughout two separate police academies. I started shooting from the "Modern Iso" stance in 2004 when I took my first formal/private handgun class from Henk Iverson (Strike Tactical). It's really hard for me to remember if I had any specific issues adapting to it from Weaver, but I do remember that I was completely enamored at the time because that first class was like an epiphany moment for me....seriously, and I just went with it without thinking about what I was used to doing. It just felt soo natural for me at the time.
I didnt focus on the size of my groups much at the time, and if there was an effect on my accuracy from switching my stance, I didnt notice it.
I would simply suggest that you just go along with the instruction you will be receiving on the Iso without thinking about what you are used to doing (Weaver). The more you fight it, the harder it will be to adapt.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.