Weaver: Not for Everyone, Not Every Time.

[Mad Magyar]

I don't need statistics to tell me, even though they're available, that for the average J.Q. Public, possibly even LEO's, our confrontations with the bad guy's in terms of shoot-outs will be within feet, not yards...
I will admit my background & experiences are steeped more in Bill Jordan and most recently in such combat authorities, like Brad Steiner, et al.
Instinctively, I find myself reaching & shooting extended one-hand, with all calibers, regardless of perceived recoil...Actually, like in any developed skill, or regardless of form; the more you practice the more proficient one becomes.
Any of you point shooting?
Am I knocking the Weaver stance or other styles? Of course not, but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range

[bentwrench]

I agree magyar, at least some of our range/ practice time should be spent trying different stances and techniques.even learning to shoot with either hand
the bentwrench

[RodneyKSig]

Does this imply that you consider the imortal words of Col. Jeff Cooper USMC (ret.), might I add the father of Modern handgunning not valid or acceptable. I would charge you to find a better style of shooting that can be applied as easily as the weaver shooting stance it seems to have been around since WWII. Speed + accuracy + concentration = termination of the enemy. Read some of his books he addresses these issues. Or not, I happen to think it works but that is my .02$.

[Chris Rhines]

I would charge you to find a better style of shooting that can be applied as easily as the weaver shooting stance it seems to have been around since WWII. Already done. Although Col. Cooper did great work in the field of combat pistolcraft, his technique is no longer state-of-the-art.

I will agree that it's good to practice weapon manipulation, drawstroke, and both sighted and unsighted fire with one hand. Also with your weak hand. The effective combat shooter must be well-rounded.

- Chris

[Andrew S]

bentwrench....Mr B from CAF?


I believe I was taught different stances in my CCW course for a reason. Weaver and L/R handed pointing get even attention from me now. I even try isos from time to time.

[355sigfan]

You will revert to your level of training if you don't train you enough to develope muscle memory then you will revert to one handed shooting. Its also good to be able to shoot one handed. But I would not give up shooting two handed because un trained people revert to it.
Pat

[Mad Magyar]

BTW, Col. Cooper has also had a strong influence on me. Just a historical correction, Jeff was shooting one-handed into the mid-fifties with his shooting buddies, including Jack Weaver, & started their famous shooting contests in CA. He was amazed by Jack's prowess and was converted..But, if you read his writings closely, he is adaptable for different situations and is still influenced by Col. Applegate, another point shooting advocate...

[RyanM]

I use the techniques outlined in Shooting to Live. Mostly three quarter hip. It's gotten to the point where I can pick up a gun after not shooting for months while at college, and group as many shots as I want in about a 1-2" group centered on the bullseye, from about 10 feet away, with each shot fired from the draw. That's not really boasting. Anyone can get those kinds of results, using Shooting to Live. Although, if I fire in "bursts" like Fairbairn suggests, the groups really loosen up a lot.

For ranges past about 15-20 feet, I prefer Weaver over Isoceles. I can't shoot Isoceles worth crap. Weaver, despite what critics say, feels much more natural to me.

[1911Tuner]

Mad Magar noted:

>Am I knocking the Weaver stance or other styles? Of course not, but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range.<
***************

Precisely so. A point that I've tried to make for years. Too many "What Ifs"
plug into a fight for life to count on one tactic. You can't count on being able to attain any stance or even a firm, two-hand grip. For those who maintain that a certain pistol is prone to limp-wrist malfunctions...Better get it fixed or choose another gun. Only practice your defensive technique
one way...Weaver or otherwise? You may be betting your life on something that you have less than a 50/50 chance of pulling off. Always use the sights...without exception? When your moment of truth comes, you may have neither the time nor the distance to be able to use them...assuming that you'll have enough light to see them. Chances are very high that you'll find yourself fending off a sudden, close-quarters attack from a knife or bludgeon with your weak hand while clawing at your pistol in a desparate attempt to get it into play before the lights go out.

Nobody has more respect than I for Col. Cooper and the contributions he's made to the defensive pistol technique, but in a 15 foot face-off between Cooper and hip-shooting Bill Jordan or Jelly Bryce...the Colonel would be shot dead before he could clear leather...even if he made the first move.

An old saw could apply:

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

[Mad Magyar]

"Chances are very high that you'll find yourself fending off a sudden, close-quarters attack from a knife or bludgeon with your weak hand while clawing at your pistol in a desparate attempt to get it into play before the lights go out."
Tuner, so aptly put....We have a "perp" in town who's flashing his lights like a LEO, and when they stop & he engages the victims (mostly women): your scenario describes half the incidents...The SOB actually stopped a female, Animal Control Officer in his latest attack..She fended him off with her baton, too bad she wasn't licensed for CCW....:banghead:

[Vern Humphrey]

The Weaver stance has two major advantages, it allows fast shooting, and is adequate for most defense situations.

To be well-trained, START with the Weaver. Ingrain it in your muscle memory, and then learn other techniques. One common shortcoming in training is failing to build a solid base, so the reaction under stress is to revert to the "untrained" state.

It's kinda like golf, the rules allow 16 clubs -- and I'm so flustered I don't know which one to use.:D

[Q-Lock]

"It's kinda like golf, the rules allow 16 clubs -- and I'm so flustered I don't know which one to use."


They only allow 14 clubs..but I get your point :)

Regards,

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, I only played golf once, when I was about 13.:p

[Chipperman]

Good practical shooting exercises will show that there is no single perfect stance.

You need to become proficient in one hand, two hand, weak hand; as well forehand, backhand and Isoceles stances.


Use the grip and stance that circumstances dictate. Things will not be the same if a mugger accosts you when alone vs carrying your 6 month old child.

[Archie]

Sometimes, you just don't have both hands to use.

I mean, on the way back from the croissant place...

Seriously; as either a lawman or a citizen, one does not always have the luxury of both hands - or proper stance - or several other things assumed in current two hand shooting.

Keep in mind, one doesn't always have one's strong hand, either.

[Vern Humphrey]

These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.

[Charles S]

Already done. Although Col. Cooper did great work in the field of combat pistolcraft, his technique is no longer state-of-the-art.

Excellent point.

You need to become proficient in one hand, two hand, weak hand; as well forehand, backhand and Isoceles stances.

I agree.

These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.

True, but Isosceles is an excellent starting point also with many virtues.

The truth of the matter is that if you are really interested in learning to shoot under stress, quickly and proficiently you will get professional instruction.

Shooting skills can be learned on your own, but one single well taught class will advance your skills much more in a week than you could on your own in years.

I have a close friend who espoused point shooting as the be all and end all of self defense. This gentleman was a very accomplished shooter. During a night course he attempted to use his point shooting technique and completely missed the target at 7 yards.

With training aimed fire can be as fast as point shooting and you will not miss.

Point shooting is a very iffy proposition for most shooters. There are naturals and exceptions to every rule, but on the whole you will hit what you are aiming at if you use your sights.

Charles

[1911Tuner]

Vern said:

>These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.<

Agreed. Without a foundation, you could find yourself floundering at a critical
moment. Who was it that said: "You won't rise to the occasion. You'll default to your level of training."

[Jim March]

The Weaver has two interesting advantages for me:

* It can handle bigger power levels than Isosceles; once you hit strong 44Mag recoil or above, the ability to let the gun recoil up to the SIDE of your head matters. A lot. Linebaugh, Casull and the the rest of that wild'n'crazy "handcannon" crowd are all Weaver proponents and if you want to ever work your way up to those power levels for handgun hunting or woods defense...

* I think the Weaver promotes better footwork; the place where you're at when the shooting starts is the place where incoming fire is going, it's a really bad place to be. This goes double if you actually hit the other guy and he's shooting wounded or partially stunned - he'll pump fire into the place trouble came from almost as a reflex. The Weaver is compatible with footwork taking you sideways and backwards from the initial contact point. Backwards is good because odds are you're a better long-range shot than the average goblin if you're paying attention to the Weaver-vs-Isco debate! Sideways is good to avoid that "incoming fire zone" problem. The Weaver promotes combining them...

The flipside is, the Isco promotes faster shot-to-shot speed at low to medium power levels of ammo, up through about the 357/40S&W/45ACP horsepower range.

Me, I'm a wheelgunner. I don't need to dump ammo out as fast as I can, I sure as hell better not! I'd rather place my first shot on target damned fast and then both move and evaluate in the next instant. Movement is with knees bent and still allowing a decent level of aimed fire while moving.

And all of this scales up to serious ammo horsepower levels with minimal retraining.

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed. Which can work with Isco for sure, but in the Weaver I get an interesting advantage: if I want to take a long-range or precision shot, I can extend my right arm to basically straight, lean my head over so my left eye is lined up with my gun's sights (gun held vertical), and I can form a literal cheek-weld with my right bicep. This weird variant of the Weaver is only available to cross-eye-dominant shooters and is an incredibly stable braced position.

Normally I shoot with my gun leaned slightly left lining the sights up with my left eye, head held closer to upright. Gives me better movement and better peripheral vision than the "cheek weld" variant Weaver.

But I can transition from one Weaver to the other very quickly and naturally.

[MCgunner]

I've always shot from Weaver, but I've transitioned to isosceles recently. I find it easier to move in Isosceles and just as accurate and somewhat more natural. Most of your better shooters shoot isosceles. And, if you're leaning into the gun as you should be, isosceles fights recoil, too. I have some pretty hard kicking .45 colts and don't have a problem from isosceles, though when hunting I tend to be shooting off some sort of rest, not off hand. I never wanna be shooting off hand at a deer 80 yards away.

Yeah, I practice weak hand, strong hand, don't mean I ain't more accurate two hand isosceles OR weaver. My go to is two hand hold. I ain't gonna draw and fire instinctively one handed, no way, no how. I'm instinctive with a two hand hold, point shoot better that way, figure it offers better gun retention if a BG tried to take my weapon, and in isosceles I can bring the weapon close to my body if there is such an attempt, and still fire point shooting at close range.

For IDPA or any competition, nobody, but nobody fired one handed unless the exercise requires it. That's the way I approach life. If I'm hit in the strong arm and can't use it, I'll fire weak hand, of course, but I won't rely on it.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed.

Right handed, left eyed here. I can relate.

[CAnnoneer]

I don't feel stable in the isosceles at all. It makes me slightly bob back and forth, which degrades aim.

Weaver is fine, but after a prolonged session, I feel twisted. Then I sometimes do the one-hand duelist, just in case my other hand is disabled. I also shoot with my weak hand too. It seems more accurate because by that time my strong hand is already tired. Perhaps it is time to try the wrist-over-wrist cop style too.

[pax]

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed. Which can work with Isco for sure, but in the Weaver I get an interesting advantage: if I want to take a long-range or precision shot, I can extend my right arm to basically straight, lean my head over so my left eye is lined up with my gun's sights (gun held vertical), and I can form a literal cheek-weld with my right bicep. This weird variant of the Weaver is only available to cross-eye-dominant shooters and is an incredibly stable braced position.
Jim ~

The stance you describe is great for target shooting, but not good for defense shooting. In that position, with your head tilted clear over, you have literally blinded yourself to everything else except a very narrow field of view very close to your target. It is even more restrictive than simply closing one eye.

It's good to focus on your front sight. It's also good to have some peripheral vision left over, especially given the tendency toward tunnel vision under stress. The cross-dominant Weaver stance greatly magnifies the tunnel vision problem.

Weaver is better for some folks, Iso for others. Based on the above, it is my opinion, Iso is better for cross-dominant shooters doing defense work.

pax

[Clipper]

Get two people to take each stance and examine them:

Iso gives little vertical support. Try forcing each subject's arms up and down from the hand juncture. A proper Weaver grip is much better supported, hence steadier. Weaver also affords much better recoil control and return to target for me.

Iso gives no cover to vitals against return fire. Only a band between the shoulders. I believe that anyone who does not try to mentally prepare themselves for the very real possibility of taking a hit in a close combat situation is kidding themself... The Weaver puts the weak arm (not to mention two thicknesses of bone) between the BG's gun and your heart & lungs. Keep in mind the reports that have shown that even .45ACP is pretty much prevented from penetrating the chest cavity after having to penetrate arm tissue & bone before encountering the rib cage.

While I always practice one hand, weak hand, and instinctive, I have completely abandoned Iso, and discourage its use by anyone I teach.

[MCgunner]

I CAN shoot either. Of course, behind cover I'll go to Weaver to take advantage of the cover. I just find I'm quicker, just as accurate, and more mobile shooting isosceles. I think that's why most of the better action pistol shooters shoot and teach isosceles. Don't hurt to use and train with both as well as weak and strong hand shooting.

Far as an arm blocking a shot, I'd rather be moving, myself, and finding that cover. That's why I've converted to isosceles as my number one shooting stance. A brick wall or a car or something is far better cover than an ulna.

[pax]

Clipper ~

I hope you rarely teach women. Weaver tends to be better for folks with more upper body strength, while Iso tends to be better for those with less upper body strength. Iso also tends to work better than Weaver if the shooter's hands are a little too small for the gun. Furthermore, well-endowed women often find that a correct, stable Weaver is nearly impossible to achieve because the rack gets in the way. (Chapman usually works a little better than Weaver in most such cases.)

pax

[CAnnoneer]

Good point, pax. I have not thought about that.

[MCgunner]

I also think iso is a lot easier to learn properly and easier to teach.

[AndyC]

I started shooting Weaver when I was 10 and slowly over time went to Iso for shooting on the move. Paintball at age 15 indicated that standing proud and upright in my chosen stance was great for the range but would likely get me killed if the other person was armed and halfway competent (or lucky), and an awareness of the importance of cover and concealment (and the difference between the two) was hammered into me.

A close-range encounter with a blade-armed mugger taught me the value of distance (by backpedalling at speed); when the dreaded day finally came that real bullets were inbound I learned that "take your time, fast" was the best gunfight philosophy for me and that tachypsychia & tunnel-vision are very real physiological phenomena.

Learn all that you can, remain flexible in your approach (there is no One True Way) and realise that all the above will become irrelevant if you wander through life in a switched-off state.

[355sigfan]

Andy I have to agree and disagree with your post. Not in relation to the stance but rather tactics. We have too long taught police to go to cover no matter what. But this can get you killed in close quarter situations. If your threat is 5 yards in front of you, your number one priorty should be shooting him. Perhaps moving laterally while doing it or moving in in an agressive manner to close the distance. The number one theme amoung winners of gun fights is agression. People who win were agressive to the extreem. Losers are almost always on the defensive and looking for cover hiding or back peddling.

I recently attended a very good training put on by Jeff Hall a former Alaska State Trooper and Vietnam vet and gun fight survivor. He pointed out a lot of videos of shootings in which officers were killed because they were trying to get to cover when they should have been focusing on shooting the threat. Moving to cover in close quarter situations is secondary.

One thing that seems to be a theme with gun fight winners is a cool head, and aggression. In fact most of them remember being angry about what was happening to them. They then used that rage and fought back.

I am not sure if you have a martial arts background but if you did you would have experienced how much energy comes from simply being angry and focusing that energy into your attacker. Same goes for winning gunfights. Just my two cents.

As for stance I started off as an ISO shooter. I was taught by Ron Avery a very good competative shooter. It works well for competition where the only concern is shooting targets. It does not work so well when you have to transition for shooting to unarmed fighting and weapon retention type combat. Personally I don't think stance is very critical in shooting. I have been taught ISO and the 6 point weapon retention weaver stance. The weaver will work so will the ISO. What matters most in shooting is good trigger control and secondly the grip your using. If you have good trigger control you can shoot well in a one arm handstand. What really matters is good trigger control and front sight focus.
Pat

[Clipper]

...My wife is a 46D...Shoots weaver very well.

[pax]

Must have proportionately longer arms then.

*shrug*

I've seen more busty women who can't easily than who can.

pax

[AndyC]

Andy I have to agree and disagree with your post. Not in relation to the stance but rather tactics. We have too long taught police to go to cover no matter what. But this can get you killed in close quarter situations. If your threat is 5 yards in front of you, your number one priorty should be shooting him. Perhaps moving laterally while doing it or moving in in an agressive manner to close the distance. The number one theme amoung winners of gun fights is agression. People who win were agressive to the extreem. Losers are almost always on the defensive and looking for cover hiding or back peddling.
Oh, I agree that the situation dictates the tactics. I didn't mean "dive for cover" in every case, and at close-range, shooting the threat would be my primary concern as well. One small point - aggression does not always mean "Damn the torpedoes" followed by a forward charge - one can maintain the aggressive mindset while fighting in reverse-gear. I did this against a knifeman in Cape Town - I didn't close the distance because I didn't want my belly opened, rather I backpedalled which gave me the time to draw and at the same time rendered his weapon pretty much useless. Just tactics, and I won.

[bluto]

Outstanding pics from Iraq Andy. They really convey a sense of the being there. Thanks for posting.

bluto

[ColoradoKid]

AndyC,
A question......your definition of the term tachypsychia..??. It's strictly for FYI for me. I can't find it in my dictionary.... Thanks..

[Spec ops Grunt]

Whats the Weaver and Isociles?

[Vern Humphrey]

Whats the Weaver and Isociles?

CAUTION: What follows is an explanation, not a tutorial.

Both are two-handed grips for shooting a pistol.

In the Isosceles you face the target squarely and wrap your weak hand around your strong hand.

In the Weaver (named for the orginator, Jack Weaver) you turn half right (for a righ-handed man) and grip the gun in the same manner. You pull back with the weak hand, and push forward with the strong hand -- about 40 lbs of pressure.

The Weaver tends to snap the gun back into firing position for a quick second shot ("double tap.") The Isosceles is a bit more flexible in engaging targets at different angles.

[AndyC]

Outstanding pics from Iraq Andy. They really convey a sense of the being there. Thanks for posting.
Not a problem, bluto - glad you liked them. I'll add more when I get off my lazy butt sometime :D

AndyC,
A question......your definition of the term tachypsychia..??. It's strictly for FYI for me. I can't find it in my dictionary.... Thanks..
The weird sense that time has slown down during a short period of intense stress or focus eg. in a fight, playing baseball, etc. - I'm sure others can put it better than that, but that's my description.

Edit: Wiki of Tachypsychia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachy_Psyche)

[Ankeny]

The modern iso., or modified iso. is not the same as the squared off iso. of old. FWIW, the modern iso. and related grip were developed under the old power factor when .45s kicked in IPSC. The grip, balance, and stance was specifically developed to manage recoil, to shoot quickly, and to provide for movement. Unfortunately, too many folks are quick to crticize the platform when they haven't mastered it themselves.

[S&Wfan]

This is a debate that will never be resolved, for both stances have great merit.

For LEO, the Weaver is best for many reasons . . . from exposing less of the chest in a frontal area, to a better fighting stance if things end up not requiring shots to be fired . . . to slightly faster (maybe) shots at a huge B-27 stationary target during annual qualifications.

The Isoceles, IMHO, is more stable when executing longer range shots when hunting, and faster at engaging multiple targets at different distances for the competitive shooter who might also need to be moving himself.

The "weakness" of the Weaver to me is that human targets AREN'T going to remain stationary at 10-15 feet, like a B-27, while someone is lifting a gun to shoot them! The sudden shifts in direction and speed of a running target, either to the left or right exposes the weaknesses of the Weaver . . . and validates the accuracy on moving targets, and/or when moving yourself, of the Isoceles.

My experience in competitive shooting matches and while handgun hunting for whitetail deer has convinced me that Isoceles, or a version of it, is most effective for me.

For instance, I've twice downed three deer in the past few years with my .44mag. Two fell literally nose to nose with separate shots, and the third one fell instantly while running full tilt away, with a broadside heart shot at 65 yards. I use a Bushell Holosight red dot sight on the revolver and all three shots were taken in a wide open clearcut with no way to brace the gun.

I simply cannot shoot my deer rifles and carbines that fast . . . again due to a sideways, Weaver-like stance required to hold a rifle that limits the smoothness and accuracy in tracking with the sight when swinging the firearm.
http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/246/246167/folders/226705/1810269Mod29forweb.jpg

Two years ago a buck spotted me in a ladder stand in a hardwoods forest. He bolted, swung in front of me and I nailed him at 35 yards, also through the heart, swinging the .44 with the deer and touching off the single round as he cleared into a small gap between trees.

I practice both stances, plus single handed with both hands. We ALL need to do these things. I find that handgun grip, trigger control and pull and correct focus on the sights is even more important than the variation of stance used.

I practice the Isoceles out to 100 meters too. It's a wonderful stance for hunting and shooting targets that move!

Sincerely,

Tom

[Jim March]

Pax: believe me, I realize how screwed-up the "cheekweld Weaver" leaves me for anything other than delivering a long shot. Movement and peripheral vision are trashed.

The odds I'd ever need a very long shot with a wheelgun from behind cover are really remote, but not beyond possibility.

[MCgunner]

The weird sense that time has slown down during a short period of intense stress or focus eg. in a fight, playing baseball, etc. - I'm sure others can put it better than that, but that's my description.

Mmm, motorcycle crashes tend to be that way for a while. After a dozen or two get offs, you get used to it and things don't really slow down anymore. It becomes a familiar experience, almost normal. Might be an adrenalin thing, eh? That's what I'd speculate anyway. I have experienced it, not in combat, though.

[TonyB]

My theory for what it's worth:
You learn the basics and then adapt them to work for YOU....People are all built different(as Pax pointed out)and have different abilities.I for one have severe arthritis that prevents me from gripping a hand gun "properly"....I have adapted and actually do pretty well at IDPA.I think people need to find what works for them.Heck if you can shoot better with one hand(like a buddy of mine does)why not do that?I have a problem with "teachers" who want everyone to do things their way 100% of the time.The best teachers inspire us to find our own way.(sorry if that sounds like a fortune cookie;) )

[Vern Humphrey]

I used to work for Colonel Andy O'Meara when he was head of the Army Training Board.

A lot of people object to training, using the excuse that "if you over-train them you stifle their initiative."

So Andy had me find him a picture of Andy Warhol's famous tromp l' oeil of a can of Cambell soup -- and he used this as the opening slide in all his briefings and speeches. The message got through -- you have to master the basics before you're qualified to use your initiative.

[Dobe]

All have their advantages, but it seem that most schools are going to the isocoles or actually the modified isocoles stance as a frontal position. Shooting around barracades is essentially a weaver stance or facimile thereof, and it makes sense in this and other scenarios.

I try to practice different positions while shooting, and with both hands. On some range days, I declare weak hand only. On that day of practice, I will only shoot left hand-single or left hand-double hand hold. It has forced me to be quiet humble in front of other shooters :o, but over the years, it has paid off.

The modified isocoles works best for me for the frontal position, because there is little or no muscle contradiction. With the Weaver, the shooting arm is always pulling away from the body, supposidly countered properly by the pulling hand and arm. When tired, I have noticed a tendancy to drift to the right(right hand shooter) because of the continuous stress of muscle fatigue. Under extreme stress, this would be no better.

So, throughout the years and from differernt training, I have come to believe the same as the bulleye shooter of yonder year will tell you...natural point of aim. Assuming time and conditions will allow, don't cause your body to work against itself.

Just a thought,
Dobe

[Clipper]

...If you're cheek is touching your arm, you're not shooting Weaver, but something else. Weaver uses bent elbows. A true Weaver hold is quite versatile. I myself shoot offhand better than I can Iso...

[ColoradoKid]

Andy,
Thank you...the definition was fine

[Vern Humphrey]

...If you're cheek is touching your arm, you're not shooting Weaver, but something else. Weaver uses bent elbows. A true Weaver hold is quite versatile. I myself shoot offhand better than I can Iso...

I am right-handed and right eye dominant. But as I grew older, I became far-sighted in my right eye, and near-sighted in my left. I had to retrain myself to aim with the left eye (which gives me pin-point focus on the sights) and use the right eye to see the target (try it.:p )

As a result, I shoot a modified Weaver, with the right cheek touching the shoulder. If I shoot Isosceles, I still have the right cheek touching the shoulder.

[rayra]

"but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range"

False premise. Or at least infers that 'flexibility' has priority. Flexibility is a necessary skill, but so are reflexive actions / muscle memory. ALL techniques have their place and time.

[Mad Magyar]

Rayra, I stand by what I said but understand where you are coming from. Muscle memory: "a phrase referring to the body's ability to memorize, or perform automatically, a well rehearsed motion." I have a problem with the "automatically" implication. This might get you in dire straits one of these days. If you call draping off the hood of your pick-up plinking leisurely at cans/targets "muscle memory", good luck! BTW, whether you are doing this in a standing Weaver or Isosceles doesn't make any difference. True, your mind need some repetition on the entire shooting sequence from unholstering to firing, but you must also be able to adapt in milliseconds to the threat at hand which calls for alternative actions beyond "muscle memory". My point was very few pistoleros, from my observation, are practicing different routines in their shooting styles, shooting cadence, and various threat scenarios. They much prefer to pride themselves in slow-fire target shooting from 15 to 25 yds. out...Maybe, I just don't get it...:scrutiny: