trying out ISO from Weaver, need input

[Shawn.L]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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]

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.

[Shawn.L]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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?

[nickdrak]

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:



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!

[chadbag]

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?

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/lofivers...hp?t21492.html

[dojpros]

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]

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.

[Irish]

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.