I was approaching it simply from using the ballistic vest as a 'weapon' rather than a passive protective device.
In terms of Isosceles versus Weaver, first of all let's talk degrees of Weaver:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/2016/...y/jeff-cooper/
I posted this because of the picture of Cooper in the Weaver Stance. The point is his body is slightly bladed. There were some excerpts from the article I'll mention later.
In the picture of the Weaver Stance below, notice how aggressively the body is bladed. This sharply bladed 'Weaver' is what I normally see in shooters that say 'I shoot Weaver. There is no doubt to me that a sharply bladed Weaver Stance provides more side exposure.
http://gunbelts.com/blog/3-basic-shooting-stances/
One of the arguments for the Weaver, and especially the aggressively bladed Weaver, could be that it presents a narrower silhouette, and it does.
In terms of survivability without wearing protective armor, I'd think someone associated with the IWBA would be able to answer that with some authority. Of course bullets don't behave in exactly the same manner all the time.
It seems to me that a square frontal shot is likely to do less damage than a shot into the side of the torso which could potentially involve the heart and both lungs.
It is possible to shoot with an upper body Weaver Stance and still be pretty much square into the threat. We never required shooters to use the Isosceles Stance, rather required them to be square into the threat. In reality, most of our shooters ended up in some form of an Isosceles stance.
When you look at what the joints and muscles are doing during both stances, it seems to me it should be apparent that Isosceles is easier for a new shooter to grasp. In fact, in the article I linked to earlier Grant Cunningham related this tidbit:
I’ve watched a ton of dashcam videos as part of an ongoing curriculum development project, and what I see time and time again is that, regardless of prior training, when police officers are surprised by a threat they thrust their pistols out in front of them, on their centerline, with their elbows locked (or generally as close to it as their armor allows), their shoulders rolled forward, and their head in a protected position. If this is the natural reaction then it seems only logical to train to use it to its greatest effect.
This is also consistent with the way that our visual systems work, with the focus of interest (the threat) on our centerline and the tool (the gun) brought to the “work”. Putting the gun off-center is non-intuitive by definition, since doing so doesn’t allow the visual systems to work as they have evolved to.
And finally from the same article:
Jack Weaver has long admitted, in at least a couple of articles I’ve read over the years, that he started shooting in his characteristic way in order to “game” the quick-draw matches he was competing in! Even Jeff Cooper indicated in a long-ago article that Weaver figured the slight time disadvantage he had in getting into his stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy.
A lot of current competitors and instructors have done a lot of work in grip development after analyzing the physiology of shooting. I'm not so sure that reasoning -
slight time disadvantage....getting into (the Weaver) stance was offset by his superior control and resulting accuracy - holds true today.
Bookmarks