Isoceles Vs Weaver (poll)

[EBF]

Pretty simple...which do you prefer?

[cidirkona]

Isoceles is for girls.

-Colin

(I'm just kidding, obviously)

[Rumble]

Chapman, but I guess that counts as Weaver.

[Devonai]

I've been using Weaver for so long I unlock my front door in it.

[Preacherman]

Both.

[crofrog]

I use whatever stance I can get myself into as I shoot, however when given the time and option it's mod-iso

[Correia]

In my experience teaching handgun classes, about 80% of shooters tend to go with an Iso.

[ball3006]

you never know what position you will need until the time arrives. I am also ambidextrous too.......twice the practice required......chris3

[MedGrl]

I tend to do a combination. My sholders ar square like in iso but my feel are seperate one foward and one back like in weaver...I blame my martial arts for ingraning the walking stance as more stable than a horse stance.:cool:

[Biker]

Mod-Weaver.

Biker

[Bobo]

My main purpose for owning a handgun is for self-defense.
I target shoot, but only to improve my self-defense capabilities.
I use Weaver for two-handed shooting. Weaver allows better body movement, varied body positions, and presents less of a target to the opponent.

If I were mainly a target shooter I'd probably use isosceles.

[MS .45]

I naturally tended toward the Weaver stance when I started shooting and it has stuck with me. I have recently started trying out an isosceles stance. I find it quite comfortable although not instinctive as the weaver stance has become for me.

[crofrog]

you never know what position you will need until the time arrives. I am also ambidextrous too.......twice the practice required......chris3

+1 I spend an almost equal amount of time shooting dominant and support side both one handed and 2 handed.

(I need to carry this skill over to the long gun.)

[jfruser]

I started of with a Weaver & used it for years.

Then, my wife started shooting & all the instructors here'bouts use an Iso. I switched to Iso, so as not to send mixed signals to SWMBO.

I will find myself going Weaver every once in a while.

[1 old 0311]

For ME Weaver just fits better.

Kevin

[Mulliga]

I've tried Weaver a bunch, but I just seem to naturally fall into an Iso stance, especially in competition. Why fight what your body wants to do? Neither one is "better."

[gunsmith]

mine is a modifified weaver, I hit the target...thats the most important thing to me

[Thefabulousfink]

I stand sideways to the opponent, feet shoulder width apart. This provides the smallest target profile. I place my left hand in the small of my back, plam-out to ensure proper posture. My right arm is then extended straight from the shoulder towards the target and the pistol is held frimly in the hand but not tense. This is, of course, the ONLY proper stance for engaging a detractor in a duel. Also, I find that both the Isoceles and Weaver stances to be difficult in frock coat and just look plain silly.:neener:

[James T Thomas]

The "Weaver" is the stance for rifle fire; from upright that is, and since I have trained in it, it is what I would instinctively use.

Medgrl is correct from the martial arts viewpoint. The W. is physically more stable, and for that reason, I would think that in a sudden or suprise handgun
encounter, that if you would sustain hits to your person, the isosceles stance would enable an unbalanced and wavering to regain balance that might cost you critical moments before you could realign you sight picture and resume fire. It is inherently less stable.

From the art of Judo. Practice in balancing and unbalancing of the opponet readily reveals that the feet in line; perpindicular to the force applied is the most efficient method of "off balancing" them. Similar to the iso.

Other threads have expounded on how small the "knock down power" of a bullet actually is, however, the human muscle reaction -your brain screaming, my God I've been hit, causes jerks and spasms that will tend to off balance.
It's disruptive or distractionary in effect.

The knees flexed, "quartering" Weaver stance gives you the most stable standing platform from which to defend yourself.

Perhaps the Iso. provides more flexability for lateral engagement; I would like to read comments on this concept.

A PS: The equal angular Iso. places something in your subconscious mind that you may not want. That is; what we practice is what we will revert to during stress. The isoceles stance, by it's nature, induces a risky mindset of "stand your ground, face your enemy, and shoot it out with him!" It's the posture of I'm here, come and get me. You're almost commited by the adrenaline, once you have adopted that spread feet even stance to "target shooting;" and then, the target is shooting back.

It is the squared on presentation of the isosceles that presents more of a body to your attacker.

MrTuffPaws: Please excuse my hasty post; I misread yours!

[No_Brakes23]

I unintentionally shoot Weaver. It is the natural stance for me, as it mimics the rifle stance, (At least my version of Weaver mimics offhand rifle.) Also, the one foot forward, weak-side facing is a very martial stance.

I don't think that Iso is inferior, it just isn't as natural for me.

Here's some pictures comparing longarm offhand to pistol weaver stance.

http://i2.tinypic.com/r1e9ok.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/r1e9uu.jpg

[MrTuffPaws]

Another Weaver lover here. Though I pull my arms in by bending the elbows so I have more control on the gun. I try Iso, and I feel like I am going to fall over backwards and I am to exposed to the target.

[LightningJoe]

By the time it occurred to me to think about things like stance, I noted that I was using a modified Weaver. Where I got this, I don't know. Presumably from watching TV. Seems to work, though. I guess I didn't watch much Charlie's Angels, since I think Farah used to use isoceles.

[kbheiner7]

As a guy that shot long guns a ton before ever getting into handguns, Weaver is the only way I'm comfortable shooting.

I understand the benefits of Iso, but can not for the life of me get comfortable in that stance.

The Weaver has distinct advantges from a defense standpoint, as has been mentioned - so I'm comfortable with it for more reasons than actual physical comfort.

[gunfighter45]

I shoot Weaver. Started out with it and came back to it. In between several LEO "instructors" made our dept. learn and use various Iso techniques. My qualification scores went down dramatically. I went to Gunsite and a Louis Awerbuck school, got Weaver drilled back into my head, and my scores went back up.

[torpid]

Stumbled upon this during a Google search...

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=6

Interesting.

.

[N3rday]

Anyone mind linking a site that shows both of these stances? I'm a new shooter and don't really have much of a 'stance'.

[SixForSure]

I tend to do a combination. My sholders ar square like in iso but my feel are seperate one foward and one back like in weaver...I blame my martial arts for ingraning the walking stance as more stable than a horse stance.+1
I have no martial arts training, but my shooting stance is just as you described. I find it quick to aquire and rock-solid.

[CAnnoneer]

I do not feel good nor am I stable in isosceles. Weaver is far better for me, especially since I am right-hand/right-eye dominant.

Believe it or not, Weaver also shields me better against flying casings from the adjacent booth. Last week, there was a guy with a .45 Sig to the left of me. He kept hitting me with his ejected casings OVER the safety barrier! I don't know what was wrong with that Sig. Possibly, the guy was sticking his gun too far forward of the firing line. I could also feel the heat wave from every shot.

[sacp81170a]

Having trained for several years in Kendo I have a good basis for comparison of that art's stances and movement with those described in the article by Gabe Suarez. The stance I use is almost identical to that described by Suarez and is primarily derived from Kendo, from the positioning of the feet and arms to the way the hips and body are held. In Kendo, it's perfectly legal to bash into your opponent in an attempt to knock him backward into range for a strike (hiki waza, which is also a term for striking while *you* are traveling backward from such an impact). The point is that you must be centered, able to move in any direction very quickly, and able to absorb impact while still remaining ready to attack. Another thing I learned from Kendo is that an agressive forward movement at an angle takes you "out of the crosshairs" and into range for you to strike.

I've done force-on-force training using this principal against a knife wielder, and it seems to work well. An aggressive 45 degree motion out of his path to his weak side gives you time to draw and forces him to reorient his attack to your new location. Keep moving and you get to take your time picking him off while he tries to get close enough to use his knife. I don't mean just a step here, I mean literally running very quickly at an angle to your opponent's direction of attack. Done correctly, you'll almost be able to shoot him in the back. The limitation, of course, is that you gotta have room to do it.

[LAK]

Weaver.

It is a more dynamic postion allowing for rapid movement and changes in position if and as needed. I see the iso as more of a strictly target shooter's stance.
-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Clean97GTI]

I prefer Iso over Weaver.
Mainly because in practicing various manuvers, I found Iso to be the most accurate and stable. I seem to be able to isolate the movement of my lower body, from the movement of my upper body much more effectively in an isoceles stance. I've also burned the habit into my mind to square up in an iso and get that gun to eye level.

accuracy has been better for me and thats what counts.

[SSN Vet]

The TMC on our boat trained me to use Iso....with my back erect (as if I had a pole up my keester). This worked fine.....qualified expert pistol and have always been able to get tight groups since.

Untill I started hanging out on THR in January, I never considered "fighting tactics" or mobility with hand guns. The Iso stance I was taught is definately NOT very mobile.

Years back, when I had Karate on the brain, (an "Americanized" version of Tung Su Do), we simply called it "Fighting Stance"......

Hips 45 deg. to line of attack, weak leg forward, upper body turned slightly to the side and upright.

VERY IMORTANT..... knees slightly bent and weight evenly distributed...and "sprung" (muscles carrying weight....not locked joints).

This is a VERY mobile and stable stance.....especially if you learn to "shuffle" verses "step" when you move.

It seems to resembe the Weaver. I'm eager for the weather to warm up and to try it out at the range.

We did a lot of practice against knife attacks and the previously posted comments about moving off line at 45 degrees towards attackers weak side are spot on.

[Checkman]

Iso. In training we shoot and move and it's from the Iso. My experience has been that the Iso does lend itself to dynamic movement. Another reason we teach the Iso is because of our vests. There have been past experiences where officers have been shot and the bullet has gone through the opening between their front and back panels. The Iso present the frontal part to the shooter. The part of the body that it covered by the front panel.

No matter which position you prefer either are superior to the old one hand target shooting stance. If you're curious at how ineffective that stance can be in a gunfight read American Gunfight by Stephen Hunter.

[1911 guy]

For me, the Weaver lets me be mobile. When I try to shoot isocoles, it's hard to go from a stable shooting position to any kind of movement. Weaver solves that problem. I can move and shoot at the same time.

[Doc2005]

Nearly 26 years as a licensed TKD instructor has taught me to remain mobile in defensive situations. For target-shooting, Weaver is great. For defensive situations, fighting stance is superior, keeping the weight distribution 50% / 50%, for FAST movement in any direction.

Doc2005

[bcochran]

I was trained in both. Then, I met an instructor with a background in ergonomics and biometrics. He is also a former paratrooper with a fused spine. He developed a technique that is neither stance. It is comfortable with shotgun, submachine gun, pistol and rifle. It is comfortable to be used while walking, running, going to the knees, while rolling over and also while covering 360 degrees. He also has a background in martial arts. The method is consistent, natural and effective. Coincidentally, expert instructors in boxing, martial arts and dancing teach essentially the same positioning without being able to breakdown the stance into its components.

I am not a shill and have no financial interest in the technique.

Take up your position, whether posted as an option in this thread or not. If you cannot take that position and run with it, turn 360 degrees or even walk with it, it is not going to work for you unless you are 1. static; and 2. standing. And my response would be, good luck to you in a gunfight.

See quickshoot.com and turnipseedtechnique.com.

[thorazine]

Which stance do you use?

[X] Other - Center Axis Relock (CAR).

[Larger]

.454, meet isoceles. Everything else involving two hands is just a modified weaver :) Chapman would be 2nd place, but i shoot bullseye and monster magnum loads far far more often than i do combat-style shooting.

[JohnKSa]

I don't prefer one over the other. But I find myself using the Isoceles if I don't think about it.

[GoBrush]

BOTH!

I have been formally trained using Isoceles, Weaver, and point shooting in my opinion any one that says one is better than the other does not fully understand tactical shooting. No two shooting situations are the same you need to adapt to whatever senerio that presents itself and use whatever position, stance, grip that fits the senerio. Going to the extreme you might find yourself pointing your weapon down a hall way with your weak hand while still using the wall as cover for the majority of your body in this case you are not using either. Are you prepared to make that shot? If you say either Isoceles or Weaver is the end all stance how will you maintain your cover?

Enough said;)

[Stevie-Ray]

Modified Weaver

[Zundfolge]

I've always naturally shot Weaver ... however when I took my CCW class they made us shoot Isosceles and by golly I shot better.

Still trying to break that darn Weaver habit :p

[RyanM]

Weaver. Which is ironic, since I mainly point-shoot, and Weaver is supposed to be all unnatural and crap. Whenever I shoot one-handed, it's always textbook Shooting to Live, either fully extended or three quarter hip, depending on range. But if I use the other hand, Weaver is just what I naturally do.

Which is good, since I can't shoot iso worth crap. The gun wavers all over the place, I can't control recoil at all, and my back starts to cramp up after awhile.

[Grump]

Uh, what's this week's definitions of:

Weaver

Isosceles

Chapman

Modified Weaver

Modified Isosceles

Modified Chapman???

I learnt from Massad Ayoob's writings years ago to take a step back with the strongside foot, have rear toe about even with front foot, knees bent like a martial artist, rachet the strong arm stright and locked, bring the support hand from the side so you don't shoot your palm, and "push-pull" with the strong and support hands. Worked okay, but I'm not that great anyway. IIRC, anyway. There may be blendings from other sources way back then (I didn't notice author names until later review...)

Earlier, when going to something other than bulleseye (pure accuracy and nice and slow), I had done a "strong two-hand hold" that was sometimes called "Weaver" by the Gunzines. In fact, the American Handgunner award statue was described as that, though I now see it as Iso. It worked just fine for the static shooting I was doing....just wanting highest accuracy at those 75-yard milk jugs.

Now, I've abandoned the push-pull and have my strong elbow just a bit bent. Tried Iso a few times recently and just can't square my FEET to the target without feeling a bit vulnerable and unstable. Yes, I shoot a .357 in this mix and ain't all that tall. I CAN square my shoulders to the target and do an ISO, but I just have this urge to swing from the shoulders to engage to the left, and turn at the waist to engage to the right, and shift footing in either direction when going more than 30-45 degrees off my natural point of aim.

So, I guess I'm a modified Weaver guy???:confused:

[NineseveN]

Modified Weaver here.