Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?


PDA






wally
January 20, 2005, 09:00 PM
Straight poop from the USMC:

http://www.tpub.com/content/USMC/mcrp301b/css/mcrp301b_74.htm

Enjoy. Lots of good stuff at this site!

--wally.

If you enjoyed reading about "Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hillbilly
January 20, 2005, 09:07 PM
They are both good stances, and they have their tradeoffs and uses in different situations.

What I get leery of is when "gurus" start saying Weaver only or Isoceles only.

hillbilly

P95Carry
January 20, 2005, 09:21 PM
As long as safe and stable - either or mix of both.

WWFY ..... (what works for you)

DMF
January 20, 2005, 09:27 PM
I wonder how old that document is. I know Isoceles is the stance trained by most fed LE, and is what the SEALs teach, and the last time I was on an AF range they were teaching Isoceles too. For long range, get a long gun. For short range (ie, anything you would use a pistol for) use a natural, and stable platform, which is the isoceles or modified isoceles (aka field interview) stance.

straightShot
January 20, 2005, 09:54 PM
I like the safety tip at the top of the page:

CAUTION Ensure the muzzle does not cover the left hand when establishing the two-handed grip.

Sheez.

esskay
January 21, 2005, 01:17 AM
For some reason, I've always found the Weaver to be most comfortable and natural for me, but generally I'm more accurate shooting from an Isoceles stance.

dmftoy1
January 21, 2005, 10:33 AM
I was always taught to use the weaver. Does anyone have a good technical write-up of the Isoceles? (specifically hand placement, technique, etc)

Have a good one,
Dave

OF
January 21, 2005, 10:39 AM
The Weaver has it's uses, but it is undeniable that the ISO is an overall superior platform.

Simply put, if the Weaver was superior, people would be winning practical pistol matches with it, and they're not. It just doesn't hold up.

The only people I find who are more comfortable in Weaver are those who have been using it their whole lives and have difficulty getting away from it for whatever reason - which is perfectly understandable. I was a Weaver guy at one time.

- Gabe

OF
January 21, 2005, 11:04 AM
I don't have any real 'technical' write-ups on the ISO, but I'll do my best at describing what I shoot and teach - there are almost as many variations on the stance as there are people out there :)

Feet about shoulder width apart, squared to the target. Some bend to the knees. I tell my students to imagine they're going to shoot some foul shots on the basketball court or something. One of the great things about the ISO is that the lower body position is almost irrelevant, so assume whatever lower body position makes you most comfortable or is most applicable to your current environment. The same can be said for your arms: some people completely lock out their elbows, some have a slight bend, some like a pronounced bend. Use whatever works best for you, whatever feels most comfortable - but try everything before settling on one position.

Square your shoulders to the target, try to keep them down in their sockets and not hunched up. Bring the gun up to your eyes, not your head down to the gun. If I'm teaching a defensive-oriented class, I ask people to assume a bit more of an aggressive forward lean and a little more hunch to the shoulders and hunch down to the headd, more for mind-set sake than anything; for sport shooting, you really want to be completely relaxed, head up, almost standing straight up. Weight on the balls of your feet, but not leaning forward more than feels comfortable.

Grip is strong-hand high on the gun, strong-hand thumb high on the frame (riding on the safety if you have one there). Support hand very high on the gun (nobody gets this right at first. get it waaay up there), support hand thumb pointed straight out at the target, not touching the gun - just floating in air. Your support-hand wrist should have a pronounced downward cant to it so you can get your fingers under the trigger guard. If you open the fingers of your support hand, they should point out at almost a 45-degree angle towards the ground. Fill in all the space on the support-side grip with your support hand plam as much as possible and as high as possible. Really surround the gun with the meat of your hands. It should look like the gun is disappearing in your grip, with just enough room for the slide to cycle out to the back. If you can see any part of the grip/frame, it should be at the bottom, not the top or the middle. Your grip should be high enough with both hands that the bottom of the grip might well be sticking out of the bottom of your hands.

When shooting one-handed, either strong- or support- many people blade away from the target at 45-degrees or so. I used to do this, but lately I have been getting great results by just staying in the normal squared-off stance and just removing the unused hand (bringing it in tight to the chest). Much more comfortable and feels more aggressive and controllable.

There is no pressure in the hands in a good ISO grip. No 'push-pull' or any of that nonsense. Some grip more with the support hand than the strong hand, I grip 50/50. What you don't want to be doing is gripping more with the strong hand. Go 50/50 or tighten up the support hand and losen the strong hand. The goals are: repeatability, being as neutral as possiblea and maintaining trigger finger control.

Don't muscle the gun. Don't fight the recoil. Allow the gun to recoil almost freely, without any extra effort on your part to control it. With a good neutral grip and a good index, the gun will return on its own to the target with out being pushed there faster than you could get it back if you tried. If you over-muscle the gun, you'll find it not returning to the target properly. You'll be re-adjusting for each shot as the muscle tension moves the gun to wherever your muscles push it - and it's not going to be back on target, it'll be off by whatever amount your grip is imperfect. If you're squeezing a hair more with your left hand this shot than you were, the gun will be off because of it. The more neutral you can keep your grip, the more the gun will function like a machine in a rest - recoiling back to it's starting position each time, ready for the next shot with little or no adjustment on your part.

Always keep your head/gun and hips moving together as a unit as much as possible, working as one - like a turret on a tank. Turn your body from the hips to your next target, pushing yourself around with your knees and legs. That upper body working as a single unit (head/torso/gun - especially head/shoulders/gun) is what provides your index, it's what keeps the firing platform consistent from shot to shot and allows you to shoot with your vision. You see something you want to hit, you turn to face it and the gun is right there. You can shoot anything you can see as fast as you can turn to face it.

That's all for now.

Hope this helps,

- Gabe

Old Dog
January 21, 2005, 11:14 AM
but it is undeniable that the ISO is an overall superior platform.

Really? On what facts do you base that statement?

Simply put, if the Weaver was superior, people would be winning practical pistol matches with it, and they're not. It just doesn't hold up.

The purpose of the Weaver stance (as it has evolved, not the original intent) is not to win practical pistol matches. Rather, from the law enforcement point of view, the Weaver is naturally achieved from the FI (field interview) stance, in which the officer is at an angle to the interview subject, keeping the gun side away from the subject. There are many options for fast action from the Weaver, and in many respects, it's far better than the Isoceles (especially when you are very close to an uncooperative or combative subject, and you need to access your handgun or other equipment, i.e., handcuffs, baton, OC, etc.).

OF
January 21, 2005, 11:28 AM
Like I said, the Weaver has its uses, but as a shooting platform, it doesn't stack up. If the goal is to get better hits faster, the ISO has shown itself to be a superior platform for achieving that. If the goal is something other than that (like keeping your gun away from a subject, for instance), then there is an argument to be made for all sorts of other platforms or techniques specific to certain situations.

But as a general shooting platform, the ISO is state-of-the-art. The people getting the fastest, most accurate hits today are shooting from an ISO variation.

That's not to say that the Weaver (or any other platform) doesn't have it's place, it most certainly does. The more tools available to the user the happier I am. But each tool or technique should have its strengths and weaknesses fully understood. And the strength of the ISO is making rapid accurate hits on targets, movement, adaptability, weapon manipulation, etc. In other words, shooting.

I should also make clear that I'm no 'purist' when it comes to shooting stances. Frankly, I think the whole concept of a 'stance' is a little silly. I believe more in a general shooting framework than a true stance, which is almost never achievable in any off-the-range situation. For me, flexibility is the key, having a broad-ranging set of tools and techniques available to you and understanding when to use what and where.

- Gabe

C. H. Luke
January 21, 2005, 12:11 PM
"...it is undeniable that the ISO is an overall superior platform."

IPSC is a "running" sport, so sure something like ISO is more adaptable when banging away at a whole slew of targets all over the place on one of their 30+ round "Field Course's" using comp's and wimpy PF ammo.

That proves nothing in the real World. Try to push someone in a good Weaver and then push same in ISO. Weaver will recover quickly and solidly, ISO they just fall over.

Ankeny
January 21, 2005, 01:18 PM
The old iso stance from the 70's like us PPC shooters used was not real stable and it's out the door. The modern ISO stance is what GRD is talking about. Weight slightly forward on the balls of the feet, left foot (if you are right handed) slightly ahead, etc.

IPSC is not just a running sport. In fact, the classification system is built around short courses with little if any movement. For shooting one or multiple targets from a stationary stance, the modern iso is used far more often than a Weaver becasue it is more stable and allows for better recoil control. When used properly the modern iso is really a "natural action stance" like many athletes use in various sports. It is rock solid. The modern iso works well when leaving a spot, arriving at a spot, on the move, and standing still.

FWIW, the modern iso and grip in use by IPSC shooters today was developed under the old power factor when guys shot real ammo out of pretty much stock 1911 .45 autos. The stance evolved to achieve better control of hard recoiling guns. The Weaver vs. ISO debate is tired and worn out. Use what works for you.

MrAcheson
January 21, 2005, 01:44 PM
IPSC is a "running" sport... That proves nothing in the real World...

With all due respect, real combat shooting is a running art as well. If you aren't moving you are a stationary target. This is foolish. So any stance you can easily move with is highly desireable in the real world.

Something no one seems to have mentioned yet is body armor. With Weaver you often have your chest at an angle from the target. With iso your shoulders and chest are square with the target. Now let us assume that your target is either shooting back at you or could do so. It's a good assumption since you probably shouldn't be using lethal force otherwise. If you are wearing body armor this means you are opening up your (probably unprotected) side to incoming fire. A good iso stance means the area of your chest exposed to incoming fire is covered with body armor. So shooting iso is preferable to weaver because it maximizes your armor protection. This is why most military and law enforcement types like iso, it is assumed their people will be wearing kevlar.

But really you should be shooting with what you can hit with best anyway.

Walt Sherrill
January 21, 2005, 01:50 PM
I've always felt that one of the advantages of the Weaver stance was that it was a natural stance to someone who does a lot of rifle work. It just feels "natural" for the rifle-shooter.

That said, I've watched a lot of folks at IDPA matches who are committed to the Weaver stance really have problems when they have to shoot around the weak-hand side of an obstacle or barricade, or have to shoot from any position that doesn't let them assume the "Weaver" stance they grew up with.

I suspect there are times when Weaver might be superior -- as in a "Bullseye"-type match -- where you can really get set and speed isn't absolutely critical. In many other venues it seems less effective.

Kruzr
January 21, 2005, 01:57 PM
I use this grip and stance:

Grip and Stance (http://www.americanshooter.com/Features/RL1/rl1.html)
The guy teaching this has seemingly done "OK" with it.
;)

OF
January 21, 2005, 02:21 PM
Ankeny is on the money when says this horse has been beat and beat and beat.

Suffice it to say, Luke, that there's more to a shooting platform's evaluation than what happens when you try to push on someone. And your 'take' on IPSC sounds like the textbook 'I'm a combat shooter, I don't play silly games' cop-out, to be frank. The 'you can't control a real man's gun from ISO is just nonsense. I shoot 230gr. out of a 5" .45 making a PF of 195, and I'm not an oddity out there. The fact of the matter is, there is not a single Weaver shooter ranking in any modern 'combat' or 'practical' pistol game. Not one. And you're hard-pressed to come up with a list of any size of trainers still teaching Weaver. Even the state-of-the-art in carbine and subgun stances are moving more and more towards the squared-off ISO stance and farther away from the Weaver/traditional rifle-type stances. Why? Better recoil control, better hits faster.

ISO is more stable, easier to assume under stress, makes controlling heavy-recoiling guns easier, gives the shooter a symetrical platform - making left or right-side cover easily negotiable, is highly mobile, makes better use of body armor, does not destabilize under recoil, is faster into and out of positions, better for shooting while moving, gives the shooter a wider available arc of engagment, etc etc etc.

- Gabe

PS: If we're going to discuss this, at least do it civily. Lose the 'you don't know what happens in the REAL WORLD' garbage.

XD Niner
January 21, 2005, 02:40 PM
GRD,

Thanks for the great explanation of the Iso stance and grip. That is the best I've seen and I know it will help me greatly. :)

dmftoy1
January 21, 2005, 02:40 PM
GRD, thanks for the write-up. I'll have to mess around a bit the next time I'm out shooting.

Regards,
Dave

Grump
January 21, 2005, 02:40 PM
Perhaps its the old smallbore rifle experience creeping in, but I still wind up trying to drop my stronghand elbow down and in a bit, so the inside edge is about even with the side of the pistol (in rifle, elbow _directly_ under the rifle went out by the late 1970s). How bad is that?

Having read Ayoob at a young and impressionable age, I also still drift towards pulling back with my support hand. Is that really bad, or does it just not bring any benefit? I no longer "grind" it, but I really want to "pre-tension" the front of the grip away from recoil.

Conscously letting the gun recoil back has helped me reduce the muzzle-punch of anticipating the shot.

OF
January 21, 2005, 02:42 PM
You are very welcome. I'd recommend seeing if you can find someone to show it to you in person, too. It's easy enough, but can be hard to describe.

- Gabe

Grump
January 21, 2005, 02:42 PM
The fact of the matter is, there is not a single Weaver shooter ranking in any modern 'combat' or 'practical' pistol game.
I'll need to check--doesn't Jerry Barnhart, "the Burner", use a modified Weaver?

Also need to check if he's still competitive. Just might have to re-subscribe to that "turdsucker" magazine. :cuss:

Edited 'cause the wrong quote got in there. :uhoh:

C. H. Luke
January 21, 2005, 02:43 PM
"Suffice it to say, Luke, that there's more to a shooting platform's evaluation than what happens when you try to push on someone."

You're pretty full of yourself aren't ya'.... :rolleyes:

OF
January 21, 2005, 02:51 PM
Grump,

I'd suggest really trying to keep that strong-side elbow symetrical with the support-side one. If you're going to drop the one, drop the other too. If the symmetry isn't there, you're likely to see the gun not returning properly after the shot. If you are doing the exact same thing every time, it will be less of an issue, but if that elbow is kind of wandering around, it might be an issue at some point. Depends on your current skill level. As you get more and more proficient, smaller details will start to make more of an impact. I can get away with pretty much anything, because I suck. :) Ankeny should chime in for you, he's the man.

Re: pulling back with the support hand: you want to avoid this as well. You should actually have the sensation that both your hands are pushing forward, just a bit. Your support side hand is firm on the gun from all directions, not pulling it back at you with your arm. The only rearward pressue is from your fingers on the front of the grip.

- Gabe

PS: Luke:You're pretty full of yourself aren't ya'.... Funny. I was going to say the same thing to you, but was trying to stay polite. We were discussing this all nice and civil-like before you dropped your wisdom on us about what 'works on the street' and how IPSC is just a 'running game'.

BamBam-31
January 21, 2005, 02:52 PM
I'm also more comfortable with the ISO stance. I began shooting much more accurately once I switched from Weaver to ISO, but that's just me.

My BIL and SIL are Homeland Security, and they're taught to shoot ISO. Instructor said that if you're talking to someone, you're already squared up with them anyways. Then it's just draw and shoot. (But wouldn't you have time to drop into a Weaver stance during your draw anyways?)

Anyways, I show both stances to new shooters and let them choose which is more comfortable/effective for them.

BamBam-31
January 21, 2005, 02:56 PM
Play nice, fellas. Although a dead horse to some, this thread might actually be beneficial to some newbie reading it just now.

OF
January 21, 2005, 02:58 PM
Sorry. Shake hands, Luke?

- Gabe :)

P95Carry
January 21, 2005, 03:01 PM
I'll add too - pretty darned good write-up description Gabe .. it sure is way easier to demonstrate than describe!! I am set in my ways now after all the years ... so will stick to my Isoscever - or is it the Weaceles?? :D

BamBam-31
January 21, 2005, 03:06 PM
I'll add too - pretty darned good write-up description Gabe .. it sure is way easier to demonstrate than describe!!

Agreed. ;)

OF
January 21, 2005, 03:07 PM
I have many years on the Weaceles, brother. :) I know it well.

- Gabe

OF
January 21, 2005, 03:20 PM
Behold! The Weaceles!

http://www.brianenos.com/images/photo/oldays/ray.jpg
(that's Brian Enos in his formative years - don't try that at home :))

Edmond
January 21, 2005, 03:51 PM
I use the weaver because I feel more comfortable with it. The weaver comes to me more naturally than the ISO.

However, I think the weaver is a little bit more difficult for a newbie shooter to learn because they may tend to think too much about foot and arm positioning. At least that was my experience.

Ankeny
January 21, 2005, 04:39 PM
Gabe is right on the money as far as not dropping one elbow. However, there are exceptions. I was once lamenting to Ron Avery about how a Glock seems to point unnaturally high for me. Avery agreed the Glocks point high for him too, but he shoots them often, especially when training agencies that issue the Glock. Dropping the the support elbow (or rotating it in) will lower the front sight substantially. I think that technique would be very valuable for someone who is issued the Glock, but shoots high.

C. H. Luke
January 21, 2005, 07:56 PM
"I was going to say the same thing to you, but was trying to stay polite."

Hardly, some of your dichotic rhetoric was clearly reactionary voracious competitive provocation.

DMF
January 21, 2005, 08:26 PM
The purpose of the Weaver stance (as it has evolved, not the original intent) is not to win practical pistol matches. Rather, from the law enforcement point of view, the Weaver is naturally achieved from the FI (field interview) stance, in which the officer is at an angle to the interview subject, keeping the gun side away from the subject. You might want to do some research on the real history of the Weaver stance. LE agencies began adopting it AFTER it started getting used successfully in competition.

Also, most LE agencies that I've dealt with now train the "Field interview stance" when talking to people, but when the action starts it all Isoceles. It is a more natural position for the body, especially after a "startle response," and uses body armor more effectively.

lbmii
January 21, 2005, 10:33 PM
I was going to respond to his thread but my comments might distract from this thread orientation in discussing the major two handed grip styles.

I shoot and advocate a one handed style and will start a new thread on this.

wally
January 21, 2005, 10:38 PM
I like the safety tip at the top of the page:


CAUTION Ensure the muzzle does not cover the left hand when establishing the two-handed grip.

Sheez.

Oh I don't see how its any worse than the typical Glock advice to not put the finger or other objects in the trigger guard while reholstering :)

I'd imagine the USMC gets more than a few city kids that have never fired a gun before.

--wally.

HungSquirrel
January 21, 2005, 11:17 PM
I'm re-training my brother out of Weaver right now, actually, (he's in LA and I'm in Maine, so it's slow going...) and he commented that he thinks he feels so much more comfortable in Weaver because all the years we played guns as children, that was what we used...that was what all our TV and movie shooter heros used and then it was Weaver for years and years from there. It gets ingrained in there and that comfort level creates alot of inertia.

- Gabe
Exactly why I only feel comfortable in Weaver. I saw cops in movies using Weaver, so when I played with cap guns as a kid, I imitated them. Now, ISO feels completely unnatural.

g56
January 22, 2005, 12:57 AM
Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?

I shot PPC competition with a revolver for many years, we always used the Isosceles in PPC revolver competitions.

In my case it's all natural, when shooting a revolver I will automatically fall into the Isosceles stance, when shooting an automatic I will automatically fall into the Weaver stance, don't ask me why...it just happens. :cool:

OF
January 22, 2005, 08:48 AM
Hardly, some of your dichotic rhetoric was clearly reactionary voracious competitive provocation.Yeah...well....YOUR MOMMA!

- Gabe ;)

Maddock
January 22, 2005, 09:40 AM
Interesting thread.

Any advice on re-grooving an old Weaver shooter?

OF
January 22, 2005, 10:28 AM
It's really best to have someone teach the new platfrom to you in person. It would be a bummer to try and learn it from text, get something wrong and then develop a bad habit, or worse, decide you don't care for it based on a flawed implementation.

That said, you just have to start trying it out for a while and see if it works for you. It didn't take me long to shake Weaver. Dryfire is the key to progress, you don't have to be on the range with live ammo to make it happen.

The grip is really the most radical change. I find people take to the symetrical arm position fairly quickly but it takes a while to get comfortable with the new grip, but once you do you'll never go back.

- Gabe

Maddock
January 22, 2005, 10:36 AM
Thanks, I understand the value of having a coach, especially on the basics.

DMF
January 22, 2005, 06:01 PM
Any advice on re-grooving an old Weaver shooter?
Kruzr already gave you this link, but I'll post it again:

http://www.americanshooter.com/Features/RL1/rl1.html

While getting one on one instruction is always best, you can read this and PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

A few hundred presentations, with that grip and stance, during a couple days of dry fire practice should get you started nicely. It worked for me.

OF
January 23, 2005, 10:51 AM
Dropping the the support elbow (or rotating it in) will lower the front sight substantially. That is a sweet tip, Ankeny. I have all kinds of trouble with Glocks because the front sight is always perched on top of the rear sight whenever I bring the gun up. What possessed Gaston to play with the grip angle is beyond me.

- Gabe

C. H. Luke
January 23, 2005, 01:41 PM
"Dropping the the support elbow (or rotating it in) will lower the front sight substantially."

That even works with the modified Weaver... :eek:

Group9
January 23, 2005, 01:48 PM
One good point about the Weaver is that it is a natural defensive position. Think about the last time you were in a potentially dangerous confrontation with a person. Were you standing in a Weaver or an ISO at the time?

If you don't shoot from the position you find yourself going to in a crisis, are you going to switch before firing, or fire from a different position than you practice from?

Just some stuff I always think about when Weaver vs. ISO comes up.

Edmond
January 23, 2005, 02:04 PM
One good point about the Weaver is that it is a natural defensive position. Think about the last time you were in a potentially dangerous confrontation with a person. Were you standing in a Weaver or an ISO at the time?

If you don't shoot from the position you find yourself going to in a crisis, are you going to switch before firing, or fire from a different position than you practice from?

Just some stuff I always think about when Weaver vs. ISO comes up.

Some instructors of martial arts who also gun train teach the weaver because of that. We're taught for the strong side back to keep the weapon further away from the threa.

DrDremel
January 23, 2005, 02:44 PM
The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation. The firearm is closer to the body and easier to keep control of. having both arms out is not conductive to keeping control should anyone attempt to take control of the handgun. As for faster followup shots, it won't matter in the real world. Hits are all that matter and the targets will be less than 10 feet from you in over 98% of all gunfights. At that distance simply acquiring the target and two quick pulls will hit in either stance. Training in the weaver stance allows a quicker transfer to the isosceles than the other way around.

Edmond
January 23, 2005, 02:58 PM
Which one is taught more to LE agencies?

I saw something on CNN a few years ago where they taught the ISO to FBI agents and a former LEO commented on the adjustment that he needed since he'd been using weaver until that point.

OF
January 23, 2005, 03:34 PM
One good point about the Weaver is that it is a natural defensive position. This might sound good, however, videos of officer-involved shootings show that even those trained to Weaver will snap to a crouched ISO-like stance almost every time when the threat presents itself. The fact is that ISO is much more natural to assume under stress than the relatively complicated Weaver. The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation. I'd love to see some data showing gun snatches from Weaver v. ISO. I'll bet there isn't a lick of difference. The bit about the gun being closer to the body doesn't make any sense. The gun is no farther away from you in an ISO than it is in a classic or modified Weaver. Try it out.At that distance simply acquiring the target and two quick pulls will hit in either stance.This is also not true. Getting a good first-round hit is no walk in the park. Video of actual shootings bear this out. Just because the target is close-in doesn't mean you can just yank on the trigger and get hits. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement - are you suggesting that even though the ISO is a superior platform for getting better hits faster, that's not important enough to factor in?As for faster followup shots, it won't matter in the real world.I also disagree with this. It's my understanding that people don't tend to just fall down on the first round with any great regularity.

As for what is taught, the ISO is taught in almost all modern handgun schools, and many of the top-flight subgun and carbine trainers are now teaching a more ISO-like stance (see: Pat Rogers, et al.).

- Gabe

Group9
January 23, 2005, 04:20 PM
I agree that ISO probably has more going for it for defensive shooting once you are into it. I just always enjoy hearing explanations on how it is faster to change from your defense to shooting stance, and then shoot, rather than just shoot from your defensive stance.

357SIG
January 23, 2005, 09:01 PM
From an LE standpoint, the Weaver stance is bad.

What's the strongest part of your body armor? What's the weakest part?

The strongest part of your body armor is the front, with or without a trauma plate, and is the place you would want a bullet to strike, if it were to happen. In contrast, the side is the most unprotected part of your armor, mostly consisting of velcro and the vest cover with very little Kevlar/Zylon overlap. If you stand in the Weaver stance, you are exposing your unprotected side to the subject.

Which platform is more stable, Weaver or isosceles?

In the Weaver stance, you are placed slightly off balance. If a BG shoves you hard enough, you're going to either step off balance or hit the ground. Either way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by giving the BG an extra second or two of time, where seconds can mean life or death. From the isosceles stance, you are already in a basic defensive/fighting position. It will be much harder for a BG to catch you off guard in this stance than it would be from the Weaver. In SRT/SWAT/ERT/Whateverit'scalledatyourdepartment, basic shooting positions are based off the isosceles stance.

As far as "interview stance" is concerned, it is not really the Weaver or isosceles position. Besides, the State of Florida teaches students to get into a defensive position should anything go south. It takes a very short slide of the foot to go from interview stance to the isosceles stance. Don't always go by the standard DT instruction anyway; out in the field, about 80% of your DT training goes out the window anyway, should TSHTF. I've found that the transport and takedown moves taught in DT class are best suited for drunks and old folks.

ClarkEMyers
January 23, 2005, 11:07 PM
35 years ago I shot a S&W 58 from Weaver, today I shoot a fancied up 1911 with thin grips ISO. Then I could, on a good day, win some bets running rifle gongs at 100+ yards - today I'd empty a magazine to hit one gong. I am reminded that Jack Weaver started with a revolver and today given a magnum N-frame I'll go Weaver every time for accuracy and controllability -ISO only for really slow fire gallery load on the range with the big revolvers.

But with the 1911, of which I have good or at least expensive variations in .45 ACP and 9x23 with thin grips, I find no disadvantage to ISO - at least as fast and just as accurate and just as quick to run a rack (no not tuning diesel engines) and something I fall into naturally anyway so that's a good thing. I don't know whether it's training or grips or habit or custom or transition from single handed bullseye that leads me to ISO with the 1911 but I'd find it as hard to go Weaver with a .45 as to go ISO with a Model 29.

I don't know how to ask Mr. Weaver but I wonder if he wasn't pushing harder than I ever could to match the 1911 with his revolvers?

C. H. Luke
January 24, 2005, 09:13 AM
"Some instructors of martial arts who also gun train teach the weaver because of that."

If one has ever studied Tai Chi for a year or so you'll know the above statement is true. Neither is there any "...put the weight on the balls of your feet" stuff, etc.

Island Beretta
January 24, 2005, 03:20 PM
Allow me to clear up a few cobwebs:

1. Weaver became famous during competition when a guy called Jack Weaver came to letterslap matches and started beating Col. Cooper et al silly at these matches. Then came Ray Chapman shooting what is called the Chapman or modified weaver.. then came Shaw, Leatham, Enos, Plaxco who took the isosceles of old (used by the FBI then) and did a few modifications esp. leaning more into the stance 'nose over toes' etc.

2. Isosceles has actually been proven both on the street and psychological tests to be the deferred stance i.e. facing your opponent squarely.. during high stress SHTF situations.

3. Do a search for Ron Avery, he has done a tremendous article on the Weaver vs. Isosceles debate and in his video series he goes into an indepth review of both, leaving you to decide which one you want!! Oh by the way Ron was a world-ranked competition shooter, a LEO and a martial artist.. go tell him that competition skills are meaningless on the streets.. :what:

Ankeny
January 24, 2005, 04:41 PM
I took a class from Ron Avery. Also in the class was an instructor from one of the better known self defense shooting schools. He had a raven on his hat (hint, hint). Avery tried to get the guy to try a modified iso. stance just once. You know, just try it out. The guy flat refused to even consider anything but his old Weaver. Never mind Avery was coming off of a National Championship win. Forget he is one of the premier trainers in the country (both defensive and competition). Never mind he has a history in law enforcement. None of that matters one lick. It's a matter of dogma. The guy (the duck of death dude) absolutley sucked in comparison to the rest of us, but he knows what is best...

C. H. Luke
January 24, 2005, 09:08 PM
"...go tell him that competition skills are meaningless on the streets.."

None the less, if Iso is so great, no one would be comparing it to the antiquated Weaver....

Walt Sherrill
January 24, 2005, 10:16 PM
None the less, if Iso is so great, no one would be comparing it to the antiquated Weaver....Your logic doesn't match your enthusiasm.

You could say the same thing about Weaver with just as much validity: if Weaver was so great, nobody would be comparing it to the ISO stance...

A lot of us learned from our fathers. A lot of our fathers learned from GI instructors in WWII or later. Ditto, cleaning guns -- most of the stuff the military taught'em was designed around corrosive ammo. Things have changed, but the "received truth" hasn't kept up.

Ankeny
January 25, 2005, 12:09 AM
Frankly, I don't care what stance a person uses. Just grip it, rip it and forget it.

C. H. Luke
January 25, 2005, 09:26 AM
"He had no previous pistol experience."

"...like a fish to water."

So, it was like giving an aborigine a mirror for the first time?:eek:

Couldn't care less what stance others shoot from or even if they wear Football "Speed Shoes" with cleats when they play their gun game..... :what:

Island Beretta
January 25, 2005, 10:02 AM
Ultimately you want to build 'your' shooting platform. That said you will hit the ground running if you build on what is available. I personally used to shoot Weaver but once introduced to Isosceles I liked it more because I felt more relaxed in it and 'seemed' faster.

Eventually I moved to a flexible platform (which is based on the mod iso) which varies depending on circumstances but the constants are always 1. appropriate focus (sometimes target, sometimes sights) 2. trigger control 3. weapon control.

Drakejake
January 25, 2005, 12:38 PM
I prefer the Isosceles stance because it is simpler than the weaver and seems to provide greater resistance to recoil. I also see many competitive shooters using it.

Drakejake

OF
January 25, 2005, 12:50 PM
So, it was like giving an aborigine a mirror for the first time?Something like that, yeah :)

I only mentioned it to point out that Weaver is not the default preferred platform for martial artists - and yes, I showed him both a classic and modified weaver. I didn't offer him the choice of what to learn, however. It's my class and we shoot ISO. :)

- Gabe

Jonathan
January 25, 2005, 01:38 PM
Please humor me, I'm new to this stuff.

In the Weaver stance, you are placed slightly off balance. If a BG shoves you hard enough, you're going to either step off balance or hit the ground. Either way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by giving the BG an extra second or two of time, where seconds can mean life or death. From the isosceles stance, you are already in a basic defensive/fighting position. It will be much harder for a BG to catch you off guard in this stance than it would be from the Weaver. In SRT/SWAT/ERT/Whateverit'scalledatyourdepartment, basic shooting positions are based off the isosceles stance.
Try to push someone in a good Weaver and then push same in ISO. Weaver will recover quickly and solidly, ISO they just fall over.

I'd greatly appreciate any clarifications to this, especially pictures. Are you referring to a "classic" ISO involving legs squared to the target?

The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation. The firearm is closer to the body and easier to keep control of. having both arms out is not conductive to keeping control should anyone attempt to take control of the handgun.
The bit about the gun being closer to the body doesn't make any sense. The gun is no farther away from you in an ISO than it is in a classic or modified Weaver. Try it out.

How does ISO deal with arm placement when you are not working with full extension? Likewise, transitions between contact-distance gun holds, etc?

Ankeny
January 25, 2005, 02:30 PM
GRD:

Of course we both know you are correct. :) Ron Avery refers to the modified or modern Iso as the "natural action stance". I suppose that's why your martial artist student fell right into the platform. Frankly, I find the iso stance very natural, extremely comfortable, rock solid, and very flexible. FWIW, I used to shoot Weaver.

OF
January 25, 2005, 02:46 PM
My cousin gave me a cool tip (actually awhile back when I first showed him how to stand when shooting a pistol) that I should try keeping my feet either perfectly parallel (like standing on railroad tracks) or even toe-in a bit. This puts the strong base of the triangle to your rear and improves stability even further. It's a bit unnatural-feeling for a while, but I'm used to it now and it's very cool. You feel like a rock anchored to the ground.

- Gabe

Darkmind
January 25, 2005, 02:51 PM
I use a combo of both,Isosceles grip and a weaver stance. I can turn out groups like this at 7 yards and i'm getting close to that at 15 yards with a Glock 23.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/llDarkmindll/Glock23.jpg




I used the Isosceles grip and weaver stance combo the whole time in the Corps and I always did very good come qual time with the M9.

OF
January 25, 2005, 02:58 PM
I've got a question: are there any Weaver shooters here who used to shoot ISO and switched to Weaver? Not people who 'tried' ISO, but actually shot it for real, lets say for a minimum of a year.

- Gabe

C. H. Luke
January 25, 2005, 06:44 PM
"...try keeping my feet either perfectly parallel (like standing on railroad tracks)..."

Sure, that's straight from Tai Chi,called "Horse Stance" but a very small component of it ....Centuries old. {In no way to be confused with "Horse Sense"}

OF
January 25, 2005, 07:35 PM
It was new to me :) There might be something to that old Chinese stuff... ;)

- Gabe

Hawkmoon
January 25, 2005, 07:55 PM
I was going to stay out of this, but after yet another regference to Tai Chi I can't. I'm no master, but I have a couple of friends who are masters, and instructors. Everything they have shown me has started from what would equate to an iso stance -- feet spread apart to shoulder width, parallel to the shoulders, weight slightly forward or on the balls of the feet. That's the basic stance from which all other moves/positions progress, and to which you return at the end.

As to shooting, I'm old enough that when I shot on a competition team in the army we fired handguns "duelist" style -- right shoulder to the target, right arm and gun extended, left hand behind the small of the back. Going to a two-handed shooting position was a big transition for me. The iso feels natural and helps compensate for aging eyesight. Weaver just doesn't feel right or natural, and I feel it makes me pull the gun off target.

JMHO ... YMMV

OF
January 25, 2005, 08:51 PM
I'm old enough that when I shot on a competition team in the army we fired handguns "duelist" style -- right shoulder to the target, right arm and gun extended, left hand behind the small of the back.Now that is old school. :)

- Gabe

Walt Sherrill
January 26, 2005, 07:28 AM
Re: "duelist-style" and "old school"


Probably black powder, too.

Seems like that's what we used when I was in the military.... long, long ago. <grin>

Island Beretta
January 26, 2005, 02:19 PM
GRD: I don't think you will find someone switching from iso to weaver but like you I anxiously await replies to this query.. ;)

Ankeny
January 26, 2005, 02:24 PM
I anxiously await replies to this query

Don't hold your breath.

1911Tuner
January 26, 2005, 02:30 PM
Weaver is a good, solid shooting platform that is/was/will be used by many
knowledgeable folk...but the plain fact of the matter is that unless a man is
well-disciplined and well practiced...when the moment of truth comes, he will
very likely go into the ISO stance of late. It's a natural body reaction to
the onset of an attack.

Watch somebody launch into a sudden rush on another. The intended victim's
natural reaction is to bend at the knees and crouch...and thrust his hands
out in front of him to brace for the impact. Watch a bunch of kids playing
"King of the Hill" and you'll see it again.

Given that...it only seems to make sense to work within the body's most likely posture and practice shooting from the natural reflexive position that will probably be assumed during an attack.

Just my nickel's worth...

Cheers all!

C. H. Luke
January 26, 2005, 05:09 PM
"The intended victim's natural reaction is to bend at the knees and crouch...and thrust his hands out in front of him..."

Tuner,

Are you referring to Jelly Bryce's shooting stance?


http://www.gutterfighting.org/jellybryce.html

IPSC dudes: Can any of your Competition Stars match Jelly's draw speed with his big-@$$ .357 revolver with their "slap" draw and peg holsters? :eek:

1911Tuner
January 26, 2005, 06:05 PM
Hey Oscar,

His stance in the picture looks a lot like the old "FBI Crouch" that they taught'em when J. Edgar was a rookie. The reflexive crouch looks more like the new ISO stance, with the knees bent and the weight slightly forward of
the heels, nearly putting the shooter on the balls of his feet.

That said...Can you imagine throwin' down on Jelly Bryce with his deliberate
intent to kill his antagonist...even if it meant getting shot himself? Or how about Bill Jordan, with his quarter-second draw and fire? You'd get shot about the same time your hand hit the pistol butt. :eek:


Intimidating stuff...

Maddock
January 26, 2005, 08:38 PM
Or how about Bill Jordan, with his quarter-second draw and fire? You'd get shot about the same time your hand hit the pistol butt
Or just about the time I thought about drawing.

jmilliron
January 26, 2005, 09:30 PM
I don't have any real 'technical' write-ups on the ISO, but I'll do my best at describing what I shoot and teach - there are almost as many variations on the stance as there are people out there

[...]


Very interesting GRD, I think I'll try some of your suggestions tomorrow at the range. It's a little different then how I shot but I'm new and I can see how they would be beneficial.

-jason m

Ankeny
January 27, 2005, 02:17 PM
IPSC dudes: Can any of your Competition Stars match Jelly's draw speed with his big-@$$ .357 revolver with their "slap" draw and peg holsters?

Yes, not a problem. Most of the feats accomplished in days of old were done without the benefit of electronic timers and/or the guys self started. Apples and oranges, but it makes for nice Internet chatter.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2005, 02:41 PM
Quote:

>>Yes, not a problem. Most of the feats accomplished in days of old were done without the benefit of electronic timers and/or the guys self started. Apples and oranges, but it makes for nice Internet chatter.<<
***************

Might wanna research that a bit. Jordan drew against a timer that gave him the GO signal. His best recorded time was 27/100ths of a second from signal to shot and he hit his target,...an aspirin tablet on a table 10 feet away...on demand. His weapon was a 4-inch Model 19. Draw on him first, and you'd
not likely even clear the leather.

Darkmind
January 27, 2005, 02:48 PM
27/100ths of a second from signal to shot and he hit his target

WOW, I wouldent even know what to say if I saw that.

Island Beretta
January 27, 2005, 02:51 PM
1911Tuner:

Sure about that, thought Bob Munden had the world record at .45secs. and he came after Bill Jordan for regular fast draw.. for thumbing I believe Bob did that in about .13secs????

1911Tuner
January 27, 2005, 03:37 PM
IslandBeretta....Yep. 27/100ths of a second, signal to shot.

Quote:

>WOW, I wouldent even know what to say if I saw that.<
**************

LOL...If you happened to blink at the right time, yoiu wouldn't.

Don't know what Bryce's best was...Anybody?

Darkmind
January 27, 2005, 03:55 PM
LOL...If you happened to blink at the right time, yoiu wouldn't.


LOL True, very true. :p

Ankeny
January 27, 2005, 04:44 PM
Oh, I have researched some of this and I stand by what I said. Most of the feats of old (like McGivern) used unreliable timers and/or they self started, and/or they had a hand on the gun, etc.

You guys might want to do some research for yourselves. What is the average human reaction time to an audible stimulus? What is a super human reaction time to an audible stimulus, etc.

Sorry guys, I ain't buying the claim that anyone dead or alive can react to a timer, draw, fire, and shoot faster than most shooters can react to a buzzer by simply pulling a trigger...even a 1 lb. trigger.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2005, 05:08 PM
Well...Just relating what I saw during one of his exhibitions in 1968. (I was 16 at the time) Even watching closely, I could barely see his hand move...and I watched several times. Seems like his average time for 10 tries that day was 3/10ths of a second-ish...but it's been over 35 years, so it could have been a bit longer. Granted, he was expecting the signal and coiled like a rattler for the draw...but it was literally faster than the eye could follow.

Another one of his tricks was to balance a ping-pong ball on the back of his
hand at mid-torso level...drop the ball...draw...and punch the ball with the gun's muzzle...OR...draw and fire...and hit the aspirin tablet as the ball fell into the holster. It was a fascinating exhibition...I was priveledged to witness it.

EDIT:

Almost forgot...He never started with his hand on the gun. It was always either with hands hung straight down or straight out at just above waist level.

C. H. Luke
January 27, 2005, 07:50 PM
"....Yep. 27/100ths of a second, signal to shot."

Piffff....Thats Nuthin! Uh, wait a minute, my best splits at 3 meters are .25? :what:

Nippy
January 27, 2005, 08:13 PM
Auditory Stimulus Response Times in Milliseconds (m/s)

The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the British journal, Brain. (2) The authors tested the latency period (time it takes to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:

Neck: 58 ms (range 40-136 ms)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 ms (range: 48-120 ms)

Forearm Flexors: 82 ms (range: 60-200 ms)

Forearm Extensors: 73 ms (range 62-173 ms)

Thumb: 99 ms (range 75-179 ms)

Back of Hand: 99 ms (range 72-176 ms)

ON a side note I wonder how many 80 year olds died from an heart attack during this experiment lol

1911Tuner
January 27, 2005, 08:28 PM
Okay...Found my copy of "No Second Place Winner" to make sure my memory wasn't playin' tricks on me. Pages 46 and 47 show the man in a 7-frame sequence and the sidebar reads:

Fast draw timer. Target is cut out "K" zone of Colt silhouette mounted on
plywood backing and must be hit to stop timer. Variable time switch in control box actuates clock and lights "eyes" as signal to draw. ( Note that the variable time switch negates Jordan's ability to jump the signal by anticipating the elapsed time of the activation to the signal...AND the time was stopped by the hit rather than the sound of the shot.)

Author (Jordan) has been timed on above equipment and on Ross "Robot Dueller" at WITNESSED 27/100ths of a second. (Reflex time and hit) Hit time in photograph was approximately .320...I guess he was gettin' a mite old by then. :p

'Nuff said?

Split times? Have a gander at Ed McGivern's feat using a Smith & Wesson M-10 to hit a playing card at 10 feet 6 times at about 600 RPMs...firing one-handed. You can find videos if you search for'em...of McGivern and Jordan. They're out there.

Cheers all!

Old Fuff
January 27, 2005, 11:49 PM
I was privileged to know Bill Jordan as a personal friend, and witnessed his demonstration of fast draw shooting on several occasions. In addition I had the opportunity to examine several of his revolvers, and question and/or discuss the issues surrounding the kind of shooting he did. I don’t believe anyone who ever watched him ever came away doubting that he could hit the 27/100th second mark. He was no ordinary man, and his height (over 6”2”) combined with long arms made it possible for him to draw without dropping into any kind of a crouch – unless he was wearing his gun very high and concealed by a coat.

I never met Ed. McGivern, but I have a videotape with some old movie footage made during one of his demonstrations. Bill Jordan is in another segment of that tape. Both men performed before reliable witnesses, and both men on occasion exceeded their public records, but never made any claims as to doing so because the events weren’t witnessed.

Incidentaly, McGivern's timers were checked by the U.S. Bureau of Standards for accuracy - and passed. Jordan used the same timing equipment the fast-draw cowboy shooters were using at the time. If the timers were off they were equally off for all competitors.

I also had another friend of some reputation that never doubted that Ed. could do everything he said he did, and I have that person's personal copy of McGivern's book, "Fast & Fancy Revolver Shooting" with marginal notes. His name was Col. Rex Applegate, and no further introduction should be necessary ...

Ankeny
January 28, 2005, 01:18 PM
I think I gave the wrong impression. I used to shoot at the Lead Rifle and Pistol Club and I have seen the timing equipment used my Ed McGivern. I also have a great deal of respect for Bill Jordan. There can be no doubt those gentlemen will remain icons of pistolcraft until the end of times. They were indeed super human and their feats are a matter of record.

I guess what gets my feathers ruffled is when folks attempt to compare modern shooters to the past greats without regard for timing mechanisms, starting procedures, and so on. For instance, I have had guys tell me Jordan was three times as fast as Robbie Leatham. How would we ever know unless both shooters did exactly the same task using the same parameters? To this day there are folks who would have me believe Ed McGivern would smoke Jerry Miculek like a cheap cigar. :)

FWIW, the average IPSC shooter has a .18-.20 reaction time to an audible signal. That is, holding the pistol in your regular shooting stance, finger on the trigger with the trigger prepared. Range commands are given, then a 1-3 second delay follows. At the beginning of the tone, simply pull the trigger. Using the same set of parameters, guys like Jordon would require only .07 additional seconds to move the hand to the gun, complete the draw, and manipulate the trigger through the double action cycle. That's pretty incredible.

ClarkEMyers
January 28, 2005, 02:28 PM
It is well established that from a self start Bill Jordan could draw under the gun - that is noticably faster than most people (not saying IPSC grand masters but to include some regular gun handlers) could react to his movement and pull the trigger from a prepared gun in hand position.

Putting it another way, from a self-start Jordan could draw and fire inside another person's reaction time - and do it every time.

I don't know of any such tests from a signal start - a review of the court transcript may or may not show such trials - there may be something in the literature.

I saw Bill Jordan's standard demonstration only once - I might have thought that like Buffalo Bill some of it was gimmick shooting such as smooth bores and shot cartridges but I now know it wasn't.

I understand today but don't know for sure that Buffalo Bill's show did this for inside the tent safety reasons sort of like lip synching for public performances but that the Wild West Show did nothing they couldn't do live.

I am reminded of John Dean Cooper's tale of debunking the notion of splitting a bullet on an ax blade to break 2 clay birds, one on each side of the ax head. The gimmick was to be that the clay birds were fixed to a metal splash plate so that a hit to one side only would flex the splash plate and break the birds. As Cooper tells the story, he made a fast draw, shot from a point and the birds broke. Sadly for the debunking the bullet hit the ax head square and left nice tracks of lead on each side as the 2 fragments each broke a clay bird on their way to the splashplate.

As everybody knows Elmer Keith vouches for McGivern. The biggest controversy with Miculek is reminding people it's a soft c.

And nobody here has persuaded me to abandon the Weaver stance with big bore revolvers - though if say Fuzzy Farant were still making grips then maybe the right balanced grip on an N-frame would insprire me to go ISO - or to adopt the weaver with the 1911. I suggest horses for courses is still the rule.

1911Tuner
January 28, 2005, 02:59 PM
Ankeny, The timer that Jordan used when I saw the exhibition signaled the start by visual rather than an audio, so that may have played a role in the reaction time...Maybe he could see faster then he could hear. All I know is that the man was unbelieveably fast...and his ammunition was primed cases with wax bullets...not snake shot, as has been often suggested. He has given the demo with live ammunition from .38 target wadcutters all the way to full-bore .357/158/1200 stuff. His speed and accuracy never changed.

Imagine, if you will...a hand that could pull a K-frame revolver from a holster
and fire nearly as quickly as a snake could strike...or it seemed so to my wondering eyes.

Part of his demonstration was in showing HOW the move was accomplished by
starting the draw in slow-motion. His hand moved in an arc, scooping up the gun as his hand went past, and starting the trigger pull as it came out of the holster...timing the firing stroke until the instant muzzle fell on target. He began with an exaggerated semi-circle and repeated to movement in smaller and faster arcs until you literally couldn't clearly see his hand move. There was simply a blur of motion and a shot...a tick over a quarter-second later. The amazing thing was that his self-started times and his signaled times weren't all that far apart. The "secret" was economy of motion, and once it started, his hand never stopped or paused until the hammer fell. It was one fluid movement.

McGivern was a trick shooter. Jordan perfected his firing stroke for a much different reason. The Jordan draw is an automatic firing sequence that, once started is hard to stop without firing the shot. Simply put...it's a killing stroke...by design and intent.

Ankeny
January 29, 2005, 01:08 AM
Simply put...it's a killing stroke...by design and intent.

Not to drift even more, but I think Ed Cantrell demonstrated that pretty well to Mike Rosa. :)

Walt Sherrill
January 29, 2005, 12:15 PM
I've also done the test than Ron Ankeny talks about with a couple of friends. All of us are a bit faster than most of our fellow shooters in local IDPA or IPSC matches.

The fastest of us might routinely hit .14 of a second between hearing the beep of a timer and pulling the trigger of a gun in our hands, pointed down range, with finger on trigger. (Most of us are bit slower, however, with times ranging from .16 - .18 of a second.)

Like Ron, above, I find the stated times attributed to these great shooters and what I know [and have seen measured] hard to reconcile.

I just don't believe these folks were all playing on the same playing field we're playing on, today. (For example, there's no way I would believe that an "observed" time using the equipment from several decades ago would be as accurate as the fully automatic electronic time measurement used today.)

That said, I don't find it hard to believe that Bill Jordan was phenomenally fast -- and maybe even faster by some margin than the best shooting, today. I've seen the films. I wonder if the film frames themselves could be used, nowadays, to measure the time. (Film speeds have been pretty darned uniform for many years now.)

OF
January 29, 2005, 01:01 PM
I suck and I can do .13 - .15 fairly regularly on the trigger-pull reaction time drill, so I have no problem believing someone can do .1's or less on a regular basis if they're wired right and have the practice time in. Don't drag-racers have insane visual reaction times?

That would leave a whole .17 or so for the draw and fire...an eternity :)

- Gabe

1911Tuner
January 29, 2005, 01:13 PM
Walt suggested:

>> I've seen the films. I wonder if the film frames themselves could be used, nowadays, to measure the time.<<
************************

Maybe...A good substitute might be to measure the time it takes for a ping-pong ball to fall from mid-torso into a low-ride holster like Jordan's. As noted...one of his tricks was to balance a ball on the back of his hand with his elbow bent and forearm parallel to the floor. He'd drop the ball...fire and hit the aspirin tablet...just as the ball went into the holster. Probably couldn't get it down to hundredths of a second accuracy...but you could drop one and see just how fast that stroke really was. I've tried it. I can barely get the gun clear of the leather as the ball passes the bottom of the holster...and I've worked with Jordan's "Arc Draw" a lot. Granted, my holster does ride somewhat higher and at a slightly forward rake, and I bring the gun to low point-shoulder...but about the best that I can do is to fire just as the ball hits the floor...and I for damn sure can't hit an aspirin tablet except by accident.

Anyway...back to the topic. I tend to feel that under the stress of kill or git kilt...most people will automatically resolve to something resembling the ISO.
It's just instinctive to crouch and duck when the lead flies...

OF
January 29, 2005, 02:23 PM
Now that was a segue. :)

- Gabe

C. H. Luke
January 29, 2005, 03:32 PM
"Don't know what Bryce's best was...Anybody?"

Tuner,

A neat article on Jelly:


"On November 12, 1945, Life Magazine ran an unusual story. It was a photographic study of an FBI Agent named Jelly Bryce drawing and firing his .357 Magnum in two-fifths of a second, faster than the human eye can follow…"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This is an interesting picture. Delf Bryce could drop a silver dollar, as shown in the picture, and he could draw and fire before the coin passed the gun which was at waist level. Bryce was one of those incredibly and naturally skilled men who could point shoot and hit everything they aimed at."


From:

http://www.donrearic.com/twodeadlymen.html

wally
January 29, 2005, 03:56 PM
>WOW, I wouldent even know what to say if I saw that.<
**************

LOL...If you happened to blink at the right time, you wouldn't.


Not really, a blink is typically 50 milliseconds, 0.050 seconds, about the time it takes for the sound of a start buzzer to reach you from ~60 ft away.

You see and percieve things you can't possibly react too all the time -- bugs splatting into a motorcyclist's face is a good example :)

I can get my gun out of the holster about the time the silver dollar hits the floor. Bet I could improve with practice, but getting off an accurate shot WOW!

--wally.

akviper
January 29, 2005, 07:44 PM
Back on the original subject. One of the early posts said it best. Do what works for you. I started with the isoceles many years ago. I won many match shooting a custom heavy barrel revolver firing match loaded ammo. Liability raised it's ugly head starting back in the late 70's and I urged our department to start using full power duty/carry ammo. Scores and times plummeted. Even the hot match shooters didn't do well with heavy load ammo and standard carry guns, myself included. We invested in some top of the line instruction who taught us the Weaver stance. Using the proper isometric hold all personnel were able to successfully qualify with carry ammo and handguns. If you plan to shoot matches with heavy guns loaded with the lowest power ammo allowed, the Isoceles will work fine for you. Keep in mind those master blasters shoot hundreds of rounds if not more weekly and could probably shoot the gun upside down if they wanted. If you practice any stance for hours daily you will shoot well. However, if you are a typical ccw/le you will not carry your race gun and ammo in the real world. Your best bet may be the Weaver. The Marine site seems to miss the point of the Weaver stance as a properly executed Weaver allows excellent control of heavy recoil handguns, ie. .357 and .45 auto. Find the proper technique for both, try them, and use the best for you.

OF
February 1, 2005, 02:18 PM
The assertion that you can't handle heavily recoiling firearms from the modern ISO is a myth. I get the feeling that this myth reached the level of acceptance that it has when Weaver shooters (of the late 70's, as you pointed out, akviper) compared the early and very immature ISO against the Weaver of the time. See: Col. Cooper. I've seen video of the Col. 'proving' that the ISO can't handle the recoil of a .45 (!) by shooting it from a strange ISO-like stance he assumed and then from Weaver and commenting on how the muzzle reached a higher point during recoil from ISO. Which is irrelevant, but then again if you haven't kept up with the state-of-the-art on the ISO, you wouldn't know that.

I get the impression that ISO was thrown into the trash heap by alot of weaver proponents and then never given another look. The platform evolved over time (and still is) and now they are trying to make a case for Weaver by comparing it to a 30-year old version of ISO, which is no longer in use.

Again, the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation. There isn't anything about the modern ISO that handicaps the shooter with full-power loads. It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is.

For curiosity's sake, akviper, have you taken any instruction in the modern ISO and compared it to the Weaver? It would be interesting to hear your opinion as you will then have shot the original ISO, the Weaver and then the modern ISO. That might be a fairly unique perpective to have.

- Gabe

Ankeny
February 1, 2005, 03:06 PM
I suck and I can do .13 - .15 fairly regularly on the trigger-pull reaction time drill,

What do mean you "suck"? A "regular" .13-.15 would make you faster than any of the shooters I have ever timed, including a national champion IPSC shooter. In fact, .13-.15 puts you miles ahead of some of the fastest shooters on the planet.

Walt Sherrill
February 1, 2005, 04:23 PM
In fact, .13-.15 puts you miles ahead of some of the fastest shooters on the planet.Makes me wonder, too, if our timer was being a bit generous...

This was with gun up, finger on the trigger, and just reacting to a noise.

Imagine doing the whole packge: moving your hand to the gun, moving it from the holster, getting the hand on the trigger just right, pointing the gun, sighting (or whateverinhell someone like Jordan did), and THEN pulling the trigger -- all in less than twice as fast as MY ability to just pull the trigger.

I'm impressed.

My personal best time was maybe .16, and I didn't do that often. When I'm rested, alert, etc., I can frequently do it in .18 - .20 of a second, with a .17 sneaking in from time to time. And about the same for breaks. And I'm not the slowest guy in our club. (I'm also not the best shot, either. <grin>)

A friend who just got her Ph.D in Physical Therapy said a lot of it depends on a person's muscle/nervous system, and whether the subject has what are called "fast twitch" muscles.

Jordan must have had VERY FAST TWITCH muscles to do what he did, so frequently, with such success. Many top athletes have this innate ability. (In the final analysis I'd have to say that Jordan was a world-class athlete and a damned good shooter and he kept that skill/ability until very late in his life.)

OF
February 1, 2005, 04:36 PM
In our informal test (4 guys) I was the fastest by quite a bit. "I suck" meaning as an overall shooter comparatively. Maybe I have a good reaction time, but that's not the whole ballgame.This was with gun up, finger on the trigger, and just reacting to a noise.That's what we were doing. Timer was a PACT Club II, pretty standard.

- Gabe

OF
February 1, 2005, 04:40 PM
Playing around with this (http://www.usewisdom.com/fun/java/reactiontime.html) for a while will give you an idea of what you might do...it's visual, I can't find an audio one at the moment.

- Gabe

PS: Hold the stop button down and release it to get a better idea of what you're time is. The java clocks on the release of the mouse, not the click.

PPS: I'm doing .171's and .172's on that. I'll have to check my logs for that day (I'm sure I wrote down the times), but I'll be boiled in oil if I wasn't doing .13's and .15's off the buzzer...

1911Tuner
February 1, 2005, 04:41 PM
Walt,

I have a copy of Jordan's book: "No Second Chance Winner" if you'd like to
read it. Jordan describes in detail how the draw is accomplished and provides pictures. You're welcome to borrow it if you want. Let me know.

Chris Rhines
February 1, 2005, 07:53 PM
That's interesting, GRD. I can't get under a .250 on that one - no wonder my draw time sucks so badly...

- Chris

C. H. Luke
February 3, 2005, 09:57 AM
"...the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation."

Just how have you determined this?

"It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is."

Your personal Opinion, again?

OF
February 3, 2005, 02:23 PM
Well, lets reason this out. I said:"...the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation."Teaching/Learning: I know of only one major training outfit that still teaches Weaver, and even they don't force students into it, so only a percentage of their students (probably almost all of the entry-level students) are shooting Weaver. So, if only one of the major schools is teaching Weaver, then the vast majority of teachers are teaching ISO. From that, it stands to reason that vast majority of students are learning ISO...and they're shooting real ammo, too. I'll defer to the cops on the board to chime in if they are being taught Weaver in local department-mandated training. I doubt we'll find too many.

Shooting/Competing: I have personally never seen anyone win a modern pistol competition of any type from Weaver. Now, I wasn't at the IDPA nationals or anything, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that in the top 20, there wasn't a single Weaver shooter. And I know there aren't any Weaver shooters winning USPSA matches. Zero. So, the vast majority of people winning competitions (at least competitions relevant to our discussion here) are shooting ISO. Maybe it's big in some slow-fire events or Bianchi or something...but all the Bianchi shooters I know and all the shooters I've ever seen shot ISO. The winners most certainly are."It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is."The vast majority of trainers are teaching ISO, we've established this. That is just reality. Again, there is only one major school (correct me if you know of more than that one...but even if there is more than one you'd have to show at least, what, 40% are teaching weaver to refute the 'vast' term and show at least 51% to refute 'majority'...good luck with that) still teaching Weaver. And these people are not teaching 'How to Win IDPA Matches' classes.

So, no, it's not just my opinion.

- Gabe

C. H. Luke
February 4, 2005, 09:24 AM
"The vast majority of trainers are teaching ISO, we've established this."

Your rhetoric is as believable as the John Kerry Campaign quote:

"I'm a gunner..."


What's this "We" Stuff?

OF
February 4, 2005, 09:40 AM
When I get compared to John Kerry in a discussion about shooting platforms...the horse is dead.

This thread is here, everybody said their piece, people can read and decide for themselves. You and I are obviously not getting anywhere.

- Gabe

Walt Sherrill
February 4, 2005, 09:50 AM
Nor has C.H. Luke offered a credible counter-proof.

Island Beretta
February 4, 2005, 11:15 AM
Ankeny: Quick one.. how important do you feel the 'heel weld' is at the back of the gun for recoil management and transitions in the isosceles?

I have noticed that my clamshell grip doesn't quite result in a firm heel weld and maybe therefore I am not optimising recoil management.. should I sweat it? :confused:

rlq9thrk
February 4, 2005, 07:44 PM
This thread began with discussion of isosceles versus the Weaver stance. I am no expert, but I think these are both 2-hand methods.

The end of the thread speaks of drawing and firing quickly as in an IDPA match. Do these rapid draw-and-fire times include getting a grip with both hands? Seems like 1-hand grip would be faster...

Jammer Six
February 4, 2005, 08:11 PM
It wasn't Luke's claim, it was GRD's claim.

It wasn't up to Luke to provide proof, counter or otherwise.

When asked for what is commonly known as a citation, GRD failed to provide anything other than opinion. There are formal standards from many disciplines for what constitutes a citation, and none of GRD's many answers met any of them.

Without a citation, what GRD says is simply opinion, unless he personally has some claim or credentials as an expert. Since this discussion would require expertise in shooting, competition, and firearms instruction as well as law enforcement and shootouts, or as a statistician who has studied those fields, I'd be interested in what those credentials could be.

Even then, those with such credentials would be able to cite their sources when making the number and types of claims that GRD has made.

No one is above being asked to provide citations.

At least, no one with any credibility.

Without those credentials, or without a citation, Luke is absolutely correct: the claims GRD has made are simply another opinion.

Walt Sherrill
February 4, 2005, 10:06 PM
Jammer Six:

This is like a political or religious discussion. <grin>

GRD said he knew of ONLY ONE major training program that used/taught the Weaver stance. I, personally, didn't know of ANY schools teaching Weaver. That "one" was a surprise to me. (Gunsite?) He used a little hyperbole, too.

I haven't made an effort to familiarize myself with a lot of different training programs. I'm not really "up" on the various schools. I've been to three classes (classes, not schools), myself and all three focused on the ISO stance and worked to get folks OUT of the Weaver stance. The instructors explained why they were doing that, and it seemed to make sense.

Nearly everybody was shooting better and faster when they were done -- but that might have been true if the instructor were teaching Weaver, too. Classes typically have that effect on folks.

The easiest way for someone to shut GRD up would be to falsify his claim -- by offering up the names of schools using Weaver. That hasn't happened, yet. Maybe it will. Perhaps C.H.Luke's right and GRD's wrong! I'd love to seem some proof, one way or another.

riq9thrk:

Re: one-handed and two-handed first shots.

If we're talking about aimed shots, rather than point shooting, I suspect the one-handed shot might even be slower, becuase for most folks its marginally more difficult to get the gun steady on target with one hand than two!

I don't think two hands are really slower, because:

1) The left and right hands are working independently; it doesn't take more time to position the left hand if you're right-handed, or vice versa.

2) the strong hand is already pulling the gun into position it should be in regardless of whether one or two hands are being used (i.e., sight alignment). There will be minor differences, but the guns going to ABOUT the same place, regardless of whether you're using a one-handed or two-handed grip.

3) Wrapping the off-hand around the grip shouldn't add that much time, and for the same reason as 1), above.

4) two hands will give you a much more stable aiming platform.

5) Recoil control is harder with one hand, so rapid followup shots are more difficult. In this type of shooting, one shot typically isnt' enough. <grin>

In my experience (which admittedly isn't all that broad) when folks shoot try to shoot fast using one hand they typically shoot less well than when they use two hands. Even when they take extra time to aim carefully. I don't know about point shooting; I suspect that's different.

One of the strings in the first stage of the IDPA Classifier calls for you to shoot strong hand only, drawing from the holster. People slow down when they do that, and still don't shoot as well as when they shoot two-handed.

Perhaps its psychological, and training would get them past this seeming hurdle. I doubt it, but have no proof.

OF
February 5, 2005, 09:02 AM
Perhaps C.H.Luke's right and GRD's wrong! I'd love to seem some proof, one way or another. That would be something.

Re: opinion: What kind of 'credentials' or 'citations' would possibly be available for this? Unless someone has done a formal (or even informal) survery of all shooting schools, department training, competition, etc. what we have to work with here is observable evidence. The evidence is that there are hardly any schools teaching Weaver. Which leads logically to the statement "The vast majority of..." If anyone has any evidence to the contrary of this current hypothesis, lets have it. I believe this thread has now been reduced to indicting me for not stating "I hypothesize that the vast majority..." when stating what, for all intents and purposes, is the obvious.

In the absence of any formal study about the prevalent platforms being taught/used, I made a statement concluded from the observable evidence, then expanded on the reasoning behind it when asked to do so. If you are going to hang your hat on the fact that nobody in this thread is going to pull an honest-to-god peer-reviewed statistical survey out of their ass to prove that Weaver is yesterday's news, you certainly have that right.

I can't go any farther than that, who here can? But I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. The observable evidence is overwhelming. Jammer is correct, I can't provide a 'citation' to any peer-reviewed studies of what is being taught...frankly, I doubt one exists.

So you get off on a technicality. ;) I can live with that.

- Gabe

PS:The easiest way for someone to shut GRD up...2,700 and counting, so good luck with that. :)

Jammer Six
February 5, 2005, 06:24 PM
Re: opinion: What kind of 'credentials' or 'citations' would possibly be available for this?

I have no idea.

It's one of the reasons I'm not making the claims you are.

I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing supporting any of your claims beyond your opinion.

I didn't realize it was a religious argument. Personally, I'm a Chevy guy, so I understand that concept, and I would go on to extropolate that since proof that Fords are better wouldn't convince me of jack, I disagree that any "counter" proof would "shut GRD up", quickly or otherwise.

I will now return to the silence Chevy guys are famous for, and let you believe whatever you wish.

We're famous for silence because we Know. :cool:

OF
February 5, 2005, 09:01 PM
I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing supporting any of your claims beyond your opinion.Not true. There's a healthy quantity of observable evidence to support the statement.

That's not enough for you, I'm fine with that. But don't tell me it's 'nothing'. If I said "I think tomorrow the world will end," that would be an opinion based on nothing.

That's it. I'm out. Back to debating the merits of W. v I.....I hope.

So, hey: if you take a torso hit from the front in Weaver the chance of the round penetrating multiple vital parts is higher than if you take a torso hit from ISO. :D <duck and run>

- Gabe

ClarkEMyers
February 5, 2005, 09:21 PM
As noted above I have no doubt Iso is preferred for everything in an autoloader - with the possible exception of Wildey? some of the Jurras loads in an Automag? - in fact I prefer it myself as well. I can't imagine anyone at all setting out to shoot Weaver in a race gun or what have you for SSC, Limited 10, IDPA or any other practical sport.

I still think there is a difference given that Jack Weaver started with revolvers - different bore line, trigger pull and lots of other incidentals of use.

Just the same I'm curious about Weaver for the .454/.460/.480 and on up to .500. Anybody teaching classes in how to handle a charging bear (take away his credit card?) with repeat shots at moving targets from painful handguns?

Again I find myself falling into a Weaver with an N-frame magnum and I'd certainly expect to go Weaver if I'm ever gifted with an X-frame? Any actual experiences out there?

Jammer Six
February 5, 2005, 09:21 PM
Not true. There's a healthy quantity of observable evidence to support the statement.


Cite, please.

Without a cite, it's merely opinion, with nothing supporting it.

Oh, wait, this is where I came in, isn't it?

Enjoy your Ford, GRD. :cool:

Ankeny
February 5, 2005, 11:13 PM
Island Beretta:

Ron Avery teaches a lot of side to side pressure, kind of like your arms and hands making a nut cracker motion. If you have controll issues, it's worth a shot (no pun intended). If you shoot well with a more neutral grip, you are in good company and I wouldn't worry about it at all.

Anybody teaching classes in how to handle a charging bear (take away his credit card?) with repeat shots at moving targets from painful handguns?

Yes, a very good friend and shooting buddy of mine happens to be the firearms trainer for our Grizzly Bear Managment Team. They use 629 Smiths stoked with the nastiest Hammer heads they can get from Randy Garrett. His charging bear prop is a 55 gallon barrel on a pulley system.

He doesn't teach nor recommend the Weaver and none of the team members use a Weaver, period. Why the heck would you pull back on a gun that kicks like a mule?

Face it guys, all of the observable evidence shows the Weaver stance is not the dominate shooting platform being taught today in any endeavor be it gaming or shooting for blood. That's just the way it is. If you like the Weaver and it works for you then use it.

OF
February 5, 2005, 11:17 PM
Without a citation, what GRD says is simply opinionThere's a healthy quantity of observable evidence to support the statement.Without a cite, it's merely opinion, with nothing supporting it.Now you're just jerking my chain for the fun of it.

- Gabe

torontogunguy
December 25, 2006, 12:31 PM
Keep in miind.... different strokes for different folks. For instance:
1. Wearing body armour: More protection with ISO stance BUT if WEAVER takes down the assailant faster... calculate the odds? Better IMHO to take the assailant down fast. The whole thing is probably going to be over in a matter of a few seconds anyway and if that's the case use whatever it takes.

2. Exposure of sides wearing body armour: What is the assailant shooting? Is opening up your sides an issue? Do you even have time to think about this?

3. What feels best and works best? The older we get the less flexible we become. "Bringing you head down to the firearm" may be less acceptable than "bringing the firearm up to eye level". Or some combination of both.

I think, IMHO, as a new shooter (surprise) that whatever works for YOU is the way you need to be shooting. And you need to keep in mind what your purpose is. Do you have return fire coming at you? In which case it is unlikely that you are going to be thinking ISO or WEAVER but rather ducking for cover and returning fire as and where possible to get the assailant's aim off track. I think what we are talking about here is competition shooting more than combat, but I could be wrong. Seems to me that in competition you use whatever you feel most comfy with and train with it. In a combat situation? On the range is completely different than when you have bullets zinging by your ears. I have never had occasion to return fire but have had a few zingers by the ears in my years.... and I was too busy heading for cover to think about stance.

TestPilot
December 27, 2006, 05:40 AM
Weaver has following advantages:
1. The arm of the pistol gripping hand can point more toward the target,meaning the wrist needs less lateral tilt to point the pistol toward the target,compared to Isosceles. The wrist tilt can be awkward for some.

2. Because the pistol is not at the center of the body,corner as a cover can be more effectively utilized,if the pistol hand side matches the side of the corner. The two side may not always be the same,but shifting the pistol off center of the body to utilize a cover effectively may not always allow a symmetrical posture,and may favor some variant of Weaver.

3. The distance of support hand shoulder to the pistol is shorter,compared to Isosceles,giving the support arm more leverage. That may make it easier to maintain the position longer.

Isosceles has following advantages:
1. Because the Isosceles orients the torso towards the direction the recoil is coming from,it makes it easier for the shooter to lean the upper body directly toward the recoil force with less awkwardness compared to a Weaver. That may make it easier for an Isosceles user to utilize the whole upper body to manage recoil.

2. Isosceles does not require the support hand to be tilted down wards compared to the Weaver which causes the forearm of the supporting arm to point upwards. That wrist angle may allow positioning of the support hand in a manner that has more firm grip which aids control.

I believe the above is the reason Isosceles is winning many matches. As long as the hits are in the general center of the target,more rounds on target in a given time is stressed in competitions. This is merely a speculation,because I am not able to compete at this time,but from the competition video footages I've seen,it seems like use of cover is not as stressed as speed or accuracy of shooting. Which is understandable because speed and accuracy can be easily measured. So it results in shooters shooting and running as if their life depends on it,but not so with utilization of cover. There are shooters leaning to the side and shooting with Isosceles posture maintained,exposing about half of their upper body.
There are claims that Isosceles is better at recoil control because it absorbs recoil evenly with two arms. Regardless of whether if Isosceles is better at recoil control or not,I do not think that is the reason. In order to distribute recoil evenly to two arms,both hands must absorb the recoil,which can only happen when both hands contact the back of the pistol's grip where the recoil is transfered. The support hand does not have significant area that contacts the back side of the grip. However,the support hand forearm leading to the pistol at similar angle to the pistol gripping hand's forearm allowing support hand to have a strong grip,with more contact surrounding the pistol,do contribute to control.

3. If the shooter rotates the aim upwards,it will cause the pistol to move away from the support hand shoulder,requiring the supporting arm to straighten. After a certain point,required amount of supporting arm to straighten will make it impossible to maintain a Weaver posture.

4. Isosceles may utilize the armor panel of a body armor more efficiently because the panel is usually located at the center of the torso.

5. Compared to the Weaver,Isosceles also gives more range of lateral torso rotation with maintaining the posture,which may be required to engage opponents to the side,if the lower body cannot rotate towards the target for some reason.

mindwip
December 28, 2006, 03:32 PM
This topic is a bit old. But both the Weaver and the Isosceles are the same in the body armour area. You can stand turned to the side with a Weaver and Isosceles, or you can stand more squared with both. The Isosceles allows you to stand more squared off then the Weaver if one so wishes. But what you must remember is that while standing squared uses more body armour you have a better chance of bine hit. When turned to a side you have less of a chance being hit.


Look at it this way if you are in Weaver then only 30-50% of your chest is capable of being hit. If you are in a squared Isosceles then 100% of your chest is open to be hit. Lots of body armour covers your sides, then the Weaver would be better. IF you have no side coverage then the Isoceles may be better. If you have no body armour then I would stand Weaver, or a Modified Isosceles that puts me not squared to the bad guy.

This is of course not counting, moving, ducking for cover, and the bad guy holding still.

Still 2 Many Choices!?
December 28, 2006, 04:12 PM
Being right handed pistol shooter and left eye dominant, I have gone with a modified weaver, that helps bring the pistol to my strong eye side. My left foot is slightly forward(maybe 1 foot), and my shoulders are for the most part, square to the target. My right hand exerts an almost non-existant,"push" forward while the left elbow is 45 degrees sloped down to my straight right arm while performing the almost non-existant,"pull". With this method, I have not had any trouble recovering sight picture with either .40S&W, or .45 ACP. I have seldom tried isosceles, but find with my situation, it leads me to want to lean my head over to get my left eye on the sights. I also find that isosceles brings me to the point of muscle fatigue faster than my modified weaver. I have no clue why this is though.

Still 2 Many Choices!?

TestPilot
December 28, 2006, 07:40 PM
...
Look at it this way if you are in Weaver then only 30-50% of your chest is capable of being hit. If you are in a squared Isosceles then 100% of your chest is open to be hit. Lots of body armour covers your sides, then the Weaver would be better. IF you have no side coverage then the Isoceles may be better. If you have no body armour then I would stand Weaver, or a Modified Isosceles that puts me not squared to the bad guy.

This is of course not counting, moving, ducking for cover, and the bad guy holding still.

Well,the torso is not a flat plane,it is oval tubular. So a 20 to 30 degree oblique angle will not reduce the width of side to side edge seen from the opponent point of view with much significance. Of course that may reduce the frontal surface of the chest area,but the important thing is to avoid the bullet from entering toward the inner center of the body,even if it entered from the side.

Against an opponent with a pistol,I don't think the probability of body exposed from the body armor is so significantly different between Isosceles and Weaver,if the body armor also protects the side. However,some don't. Also,some feels that the armpit exposed,even if only a little more depending on the angle,greatly increases risk.

For rifle combat,only the hard plate,which usually only covers center surface of the torso,provides proper protection. So,whether to stand with torso directly facing the target or stand with the torso at an oblique angle depends on comparison of two risks. With oblique angle,the unprotected area increases with more angle. With torso directly faced to the target,it may become very awkward to handle the rifle,the end of stock point changes,in order to have proper cheek and eye placement,and the support arm has to straighten because the handguard is placed further. This can reduce control and especially aim stability. Imagine the awkwardness of supporting any significant weight far from the shoulder with one arm straight and stretched forward.
This is one reason shorter carbine is favored by some,in spite of the muzzle velocity,which seems so important for 5.56mm,being reduced.

pwrtool45
December 29, 2006, 10:17 AM
Teaching Weaver or Iso, eh? This is a boolean type thing now?

I'd have thought that the latest and greatest would be teaching to use whatever stance your body can conform to while moving or hiding behind something capable of stopping bullets. Sometimes, that's Weaver (e.g., maybe around a corner). Sometimes, that's Iso (e.g., maybe shooting while moving over uneven ground to cover).

Usually, though, I'd imagine it's neither. Hard to take a good, proper stance while you're grappling*, flat on your backside, kneeling behind cover, seated in a car or wounded (which might have the additional effects of, say, necessitating that you shoot one handed, or with the off-hand). You'd think that'd be something they teach, as opposed to dogmatic adherence to The One True Stance. Go figure.

Guess this is part of that shooting/fighting disconnect a few folks talk about. Like in most any MA environment, there's the guys who like the kata aspect of practice, and there's the guys who like the workout and sparring aspect of practice. Depends on what you want to get out of it. Do you want enjoyment of the art itself or do you want maximum effect?

*- Yeah, I know.

Feanaro
December 29, 2006, 08:42 PM
As long as we are picking over every part of this, a bladed stance might have it's disadvantages if you ARE hit. It might make you more vulnerable. I don't know about you but I am wider than I am deep. A shot from the side could also hit two lungs, a lung and a heart, etc.

1911Tuner
December 29, 2006, 08:51 PM
All this assumes that we'll be standin' on our hind legs, in one spot while the lead flies... :scrutiny:

Might be best to ignore both, and practice hittin' what you're shootin' at with one hand while ya scoot toward the nearest thing that'll stop a bullet, 'cause that's likely what you'll be doin'.

If you enjoyed reading about "Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!