Changing stance Weaver to Isosceles

[fourdollarbill]

The center target paper is me trying the Isosceles stance using a GP100 double action and at this point I'm really bad at it. The top target paper is the same gun and bullet with me using the Weaver stance which is the only stance I ever used. I don't have to change but I thought to try it. Do you have any opinions, comments or input on what I can do?

 

[Kleanbore]

If what you are interested in is shooting at targets, do whatever you like.

Hoever, persons who have viewed numerous dash-cam and security camera videos tell us that virally no one, and that includes persons who have been trained to use the Weaver stance, default to that stance when push comes to shove.

 

[fourdollarbill]

Yes target is my only interest I just like to learn new things just because.
That's an interesting fact about the default stance. That will be a pretty neat subject to read about. Thanks

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Do What works for YOU.

 

[murf]

you might try rotating your grip (counterclockwise looking down at the gun) a bit so your wrist isn't at an odd angle.

other than that, just basic stuff: line up the front sight in the back and pull the trigger without disturbing that alignment. practice and dry-firing helps a lot.

murf

 

[David E]

3 whole cylinders, eh?

I doubt you're doing it right.

You're simply changing the bladed body angle and the bent support elbow, retaining nearly everything else from Weaver.

Describe your "isosceles" please.

 

[TestPilot]

If what you are interested in is shooting at targets, do whatever you like.

Hoever, persons who have viewed numerous dash-cam and security camera videos tell us that virally no one, and that includes persons who have been trained to use the Weaver stance, default to that stance when push comes to shove.

People often use postures different from what they normally use on a range in real fights.

But, if your argument is that they all goto Isosceles in particular, that is false.

I have seen everything from bladed to squared, one handed to two handed shooting in actual gun fight video footages.

 

[JRH6856]

Check the video frm D.R Middlebrooks explaining the evolution of stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xLiDt3MpVo

 

[MCgunner]

I switched to isosceles from Weaver some years ago. I still use modified Weaver on the barricade just to keep more of my body behind cover, but will naturally go to isosceles in draw and fire drills. Of course, I shoot a lot one handed and weak handed to stay as proficient as possible. I often draw and fire point shooting one handed up close as to simulate fighting off the attacker with my weak hand, though I hold the hand high out of danger. Wouldn't wanna shoot my own hand just practicing.

But, anyhow, I'd say, practice it all and practice often.

 

[fourdollarbill]

3 whole cylinders, eh?

I doubt you're doing it right.

You're simply changing the bladed body angle and the bent support elbow, retaining nearly everything else from Weaver.

Describe your "isosceles" please.

I shot today and was keeping my head straight up and natural facing foreword. The elbows were not locked and I was shooting all over the place. A friend stopped by and showed me to roll and lock my elbows and that forced me to bring my head hunched down to see the sight. I shot very accurate but I sure didn't like the neck stress of shoulders high and head low.
So I think I'll just keep the head up and the elbows unlocked and keep working on the grip and trigger finger. I'll get it sooner or later and if not then no big deal.

 

[murf]

suggest you go on youtube and watch the jerry miculek vedeos on how to shoot a pistol and revolver. he doesn't do anything uncomfortable when he shoots.

murf

 

[Plan2Live]

Find an instructor who knows how to teach and hire them to walk you through a range session. Repeat as necessary.

Most of the stances I see at public ranges can best be described as Isosc-o-weaver.

 

[ATLDave]

I'm no expert, but pretty clearly you're providing some unwanted "input" to the gun in your iso stance. Unlike the Weaver, in an iso stance you're not generally applying a bunch of counter-acting forces... there's not usually a push-pull. You're just using a firm grip and trying to be neutral. You're not pushing or pulling on the gun while it's going off. You're obviously pretty proficient with the Weaver, so it may take you some time to realize how much less is involved in an iso stance.

Note: There are some people who do some active bracing/pinching/compressing with their arms. Some people find that helps control recoil, others don't. Experiment with that later. Right now, just let your arms be neutral. You're just holding the gun at arm's length, or just short of that.

 

[fourdollarbill]

suggest you go on youtube and watch the jerry miculek vedeos on how to shoot a pistol and revolver. he doesn't do anything uncomfortable when he shoots.

murf

Ha, that's what started it all. It's all a good time regardless I'll figure it out. These suggestions are helpful thanks folks.

 

[SleazyRider]

The problem I'm having with the modern isoceles is that I've always been taught to grip the pistol in the web of the hand so it is in line with the forearm on the strong side, so the forearm and the barrel of the pistol make one straight line. This seems to me more consistent with the Weaver stance, using the weak side hand to pull back and add stability to the structure. I suppose one could equate it to a right triangle, if I'm understanding this correctly.

When one assumes the isosceles stance, squared to the target with arms equidistant, the centerline of the pistol can no longer be inline with the forearm, perhaps making it point less naturally and putting recoil force on the base of the thumbs.

If I'm wrong in my understanding of this, I'd appreciate your (gentle, of course) correction.

 

[ATLDave]

Sleazy',

Again disclaiming any great expertise, I think you are getting too hung up on the idea that the two arms are precisely equally extended. That's not how anybody I know actually shoots iso. The right hand is more behind the gun and the heel of the left hand is on the back half of the left grip panel (assuming a RH shooter). So the left arm will generally be slightly straighter than the right, but only by a small amount. But it won't be pulling back while the right pushed. Just gripping firmly.

 

[george burns]

As most top guns say, shoot in your natural stance. There is no perfect way to do anything like standing, as we are all built different with many physical imperfections.
You should do what comes natural, "within limits", just walk up and find what feels right to you.
You may watch Hickok also, he shoots using Jerry's method, No method, Just what feels comfortable to him. What I do notice with him, is when he is missing shots, he will straighten his gun hand and lock it out at the elbow, and bend his head more, "Lean in". I found I have a tendency to be "lazy" and stand straight up, instead of leaning into the target which levels out the gun instead of shooting down. Try that, lean in and lock out your elbow, of course keep both eyes open.

 

[SleazyRider]

As I watched Jerry Miculek's YouTube video yesterday, my peripheral vision detected this little critter wreaking havoc in the backyard. Shot him from my deck with a .40 Sig SP2022 using a Weaver stance at 30 yards. Based on my past performance, a bit of luck was involved.

I followed Jerry's advice to "keep it simple" by bringing the gun up to the head without additional movement of the legs and torso. (Of course, he would have double-tapped that chuck, but I make no such claim.) It was pretty easy to transition; the only conscious change I made from the traditional Weaver stance that I'm accustomed to, was to square off to the target. The rest came pretty naturally.

 

[blarby]

Great vid on Speed and Accuracy from Jerry, with Iraqvet8888:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dOVZ5TRCUw

Very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[TestPilot]

People unnecessarily limit themselves when they think in terms of Weaver vs. Isosceles.

Also, another source of confusion and misinformation is that a lot of great shooters are poor communicators. There were a lot of cases where what they were actually doing was quite different from how they described it when I saw it on a video.

 

[1911 guy]

Weaver and Isosceles are not mutually exclusive, both have benefits and drawbacks. And both are better used in some situations than the other. While my puny mortal self will never master either as well as the likes of Mr. Miculek, I think that having a working knowledge of both is good.

As far as one being the "default" stance, I call hogwash. People default to their training as well as the situation allows. I have heard many people claim that shooting even a rifle under stress you don't see the sights, you just point and pull. Twice a year qual is not training.

 

[Old Dog]

A ways back, someone stated:

Hoever, persons who have viewed numerous dash-cam and security camera videos tell us that virally no one, and that includes persons who have been trained to use the Weaver stance, default to that stance when push comes to shove.

Well, I have viewed numerous dash-cam and security camera videos and I've actually seen a handful of officers who displayed the Weaver, including one trooper who demonstrated a textbook Weaver until he had to seek cover after being shot ... The problem with that statement is twofold: first, most people who are actually getting fired on do in fact seek cover or are moving (in almost every training video I've seen); two, most agencies do not not train the Weaver any longer -- there's only a few old dogs left out there who came up when the Weaver was what many departments taught.

 

[fastbolt]

I'm another person who uses different shooting "styles" & "techniques" for different situations and circumstances, especially as it relates to stationary, moving, kneeling, crouching, prone, barricade/cover, etc circumstances.

Then again, as a longtime practitioner of different martial arts, I've learned that dynamic movement and adjusting to environmental conditions can easily require some flexibility when it comes to "techniques" best applicable to the circumstances of the moment.