Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?

[Ankeny]

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]

Without a citation, what GRD says is simply opinion

There'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]

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]

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]

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!?]

Modified Weaver...

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]

...
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]

another obligatory "toolbox" post

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]

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]

Stance

All this assumes that we'll be standin' on our hind legs, in one spot while the lead flies...

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'.