Adoption of modern weaver and similar stances

[leadcounsel]

So, rifles and handguns have been around for what, a few hundred years going back to their infancy... "modern" weaponry being around for say a century. Why then, has it taken until say the last couple decades for the widespread training in weapon handling techniques such as weaver stance with two hands on pistol, holding rifles at the low ready, etc.?

Watching old videos of police and Soldier training, handguns were fired one handed like in a fencing stance (with the off hand on the back hip, shooter standing tall with legs locked), and rifles carried at the hip/waist...

"Modern" training and shooting simply seems that these would have been immediately natural movements with these firearms (two handed stance, low ready with rifles, etc...)... so any thoughts on why it took a century or more to get where we are?

 

[Al Thompson]

Inertia and ego. If you read some of Jeff Cooper's writings, it took Jack Weaver beating everybody at a competition for a few years running to get Jeff to look at using two hands.

There are pictures out there of a guy in the 1920's (Fitzgerald?) using a pretty solid Weaver stance. So it's not exactly a new concept, just not adapted.

Another (strictly my opinion) reinforcement of the cavalry method of shooting (one hand only) were Hollywood Westerns. Lots of folks even today imitate what they see on the big screen.

IMHO (and we see it here bunches) American shooters tend to be very reluctant to change. Add in the perpetuation of myths and legends surrounding firearms and you have a very real morass to over come.

Couple of .mil examples:

First time I qualified with a 1911A1 at Benning in 1982, I was admonished for using a Weaver stance.

When I was in the sandbox, the supply guys were still treating M4 magazines like they were durable items instead of expendable. I looked at the motley bunch they tried to issue me and stuck with my Pmags.

On the .civ side:

I was trained on the four count draw several times, but it took Tiger McKee to explain why that was different and better. Once I understood the reasoning, done.

Just the other day, over heard some idiot at the big box gun store recommend a 12 ga for home defense as "you don't have to aim it".....

 

[Hangingrock]

First time I qualified with a 1911A1 at Benning in 1982, I was admonished for using a Weaver stance.

Taken from a Platoon Book criteria 1964 MCRD Parris Island South Carolina: “Todays recruits hold their handguns with two hands. While not as stylish it is a steadier position and pays off in more hits”. The accompanying photograph in the Platoon Book shows a PMI demonstrating the position to recruits

 

[Slamfire]

Inertia and ego.

Totally agree. The Army and Police are extremely conservative.

Back in the era of the horse cavalry it made sense using one hand to hold the bridle and the other to use a pistol. The US Army had horse cavalry all the way up to 1940-41.

It did not help that the training of the period, Bullseye pistol, was conducted with one hand. Bullseye is still a popular sport, but not as dominant as it used to be. Sports are run by the Champions of the past. They like the game as it was. A big change, like a two hands change, would totally invalidate their records, Sports officials would rather the sport to go away than make a big change. In their viewpoint, it was going away anyway with the big rule change.

So in the period, two handed shooting was not the “fashion”. It looked odd. Humans are such herd animals, they look and wear ridiculous clothing, stick pins through their skin, smoke cancer sticks, ingest addictive drugs, just to be like everyone else.

Since humans are such conformist animals, everyone in the sport shoots this way, you shoot this way, and that is the way it is supposed to be. You go against the tide and the body politic will ostracize you. So, people go with the flow and defend the status quo.

 

[sidheshooter]

Inertia and ego. If you read some of Jeff Cooper's writings, it took Jack Weaver beating everybody at a competition for a few years running to get Jeff to look at using two hands.

Speaking of the Weaver stance:
Mas Ayoob told a great story about the above phenomena many years ago at an LFI class. Some years before that class, Mas was in a competition, also beta testing the then-new Wolf ear electronic muffs (the expensive first-gen iteration of what is now commonplace filtering/amplifying technology; generally unheard of at the time). All these practical shooters at the time were Weaver proponents.

IIRC, the stage in the story required that shooters engage three widely spaced targets from right to left (something like 2 shots per) and then return back hitting the first two targets again. One by one, all these guys using the Weaver stance go up and proceed to hammer each target, sort of quickly shuffling their feet to reorient towards the next target, double tap, and shuffle again; continuing across to the last target, and back again in like fashion.

When Mas's turn comes, he goes up using an isosceles stance-not remotely en vogue at the time-and, turreting from the waist, strafes the targets out and back in one fluid movement.

Through the wolf ears he hears some guy on the line behind him yelling at his friend, " Holy <deleted>! Imagine how fast that guy would be if he used Weaver's stance..."

 

[Loosedhorse]

"Common sense" and doctrine.

Sykes, Askins, Fitzgerald, Fairbarn, and others preferred single-handed unsighted shooting from what would be known as the "FBI crouch." The reason was "common sense:" you gotta be fast. After they established what common sense was, it became doctrine: try something else, and "You think you're smarter than Applegate? Pipe down and do what we tell you."

What had been forgotten was the wisdom of earlier gunfighters like Bill Hickok, who apparently always used a sighted shooting style, and had at least one documented kill at 75 yards. He apparently said:

Whenever you get into a row be sure and not shoot too quick. Take time, I've known many a feller to slip up for shootin' in a hurry.

With that wisdom forgotten, the time was ripe for someone like Jack Weaver to rediscover it. As has been said, even Cooper laughed at Weaver...until he beat everyone three times straight at Bear Lake.

For three years I tried to catch Jack (Weaver) in diversified competition, but it was not until I adopted his system that I was able to catch him. Both Jack and I might be considered exceptions, but I think not. Jack had the better mouse trap...

So, now we've come full circle, and everything that Cooper taught has become common sense and defended doctrine. I wonder what "new," better technique that will delay us considering?

 

[Al Thompson]

Sort of failed to mention this as well. One reason (IMHO) for the popularity of body index shooting were the crummy sights on most handguns. If you think about it, we did not see much improvement in handgun sighting equipment until the 1980's.

IMHO, it won't be much longer till we see RDS on handguns as a factory option.

 

[Hangingrock]

Sykes, Askins, Fitzgerald, Fairbarn, and others preferred single-handed unsighted shooting from what would be known as the "FBI crouch."

I have a file of correspondence from Askins. He was not dismissive of sighted fire as circumstance allowed. His body count was significant but that would include various firearms used as opposed to handguns only.

 

[Al Thompson]

Cooper taught has become common sense and defended doctrine.

I don't know if I'd go that far. Isosceles and the four count draw seem to be dominant. But. Young friend went to the local Police Academy and asked me for some pointers on shooting. Having a nodding acquaintance with one of the firearms instructors, I asked the instructor if covering the four count draw and working on trigger control would be OK. He gave me a strange look and only commented that hitting the target was the big issue he encountered.

Turns out they don't use the 4 count draw. My friend on qualification day started chewing one ragged hole out in the center of the target and was promptly stopped by the cadre. He was told that if he kept that up, he would be disqualified as they couldn't count all the bullet holes.

Paul Gomez is doing an excellent series of videos that do a great job of showing where certain techniques originated and showing current thinking.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=611249

 

[mortablunt]

It takes a while before anything new is adopted, especially in competitions which are run by the old winners. You can also see this in carry attitudes: people don't open carry because they were instructed against it.

 

[Cosmoline]

When the doctrine is *written into* your muscle memory it's darned difficult to change. Almost painful. So it's not just like accepting that the world is round, you have to reeducate your muscles and reactions. It's much easier to stick with what you know.

 

[9mmepiphany]

After they established what common sense was, it became doctrine: try something else, and "You think you're smarter than Applegate? Pipe down and do what we tell you."

Now some are saying the same thing about Cooper and the Weaver

... even Cooper laughed at Weaver...until he beat everyone three times straight at Bear Lake.

That's Big Bear...it is in the hills above L.A. CA

So, now we've come full circle, and everything that Cooper taught has become common sense and defended doctrine. I wonder what "new," better technique that will delay us considering?

I think you are a bit behind current doctrine...the big resistance is now from Weaver shooters not wanting to shoot Thumb Forward Modern Isosceles

 

[Wapato]

When the doctrine is *written into* your muscle memory it's darned difficult to change. Almost painful. So it's not just like accepting that the world is round, you have to reeducate your muscles and reactions. It's much easier to stick with what you know.

Also you're probably going to do worse with the new thing a bunch of times evne if you try it. So that makes experimentation tricky.

Hmmmm, also I don't think you can really see all the isometric stuff, so you'd be missing out on that unless somebody explained it to you.

 

[Loosedhorse]

the big resistance is now from Weaver shooters not wanting to shoot Thumb Forward Modern Isosceles

Well, I don't want to shoot isosceles unless I'm wearing body armor.

That's Big Bear...it is in the hills above L.A. CA

Yes, I've hiked and skied there.

When the doctrine is *written into* your muscle memory it's darned difficult to change

It's not just that: all of us are different. Skeletal and muscle structure, injuries, etc. I've tried isosceles, classic Weaver, modified Weaver--and I practice them all--but modified Weaver is "my" stance. More natural, quicker recovery, etc. Unless, as I said, I'm wearing armor--then isosceles has the advantage.

 

[TexasRifleman]

When the doctrine is *written into* your muscle memory it's darned difficult to change

This. I just spent a week at Gunsite fighting this very problem. I am completely "bought into" the advantages of the Weaver for combat shooting, but have been shooting isosceles since I was 15. It's almost impossible to go back and undo all that muscle memory. It will take me several thousand rounds I suspect, if I can do it at all.

 

[AirForceShooter]

And the next big thing will be:

The Gangster Stance

Trust me

AFS

 

[g.willikers]

And then there's the notion that, in a real situation, one handed shooting might be what's needed, as the other hand will be occupied, or even damaged.
Skill with all the methods would seem to be best.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Well, I don't want to shoot isosceles unless I'm wearing body armor... More natural, quicker recovery, etc. Unless, as I said, I'm wearing armor--then isosceles has the advantage.

Having just spent the week at Gunsite, learning from the folks who brought it to the forefront, I can now say that the difference between the Weaver, as taught by folks who worship at the alter of Cooper, and the Modern Isosceles, as taught at most competition and High Speed Military training isn't that different in stance...if at all...but really only differs in how the gun is held, the force vectors used to manage the gun in recoil and the orientation of the support thumb/wrist

1. There is no advantage when utilizing body armour...maybe a bit more forearm exposed
2. The Isosceles offers faster follow up shots with the same accuracy

 

[Loosedhorse]

1. There is no advantage when utilizing body armour...maybe a bit more forearm exposed

The Weaver requires a more bladed presentation of the torso, so that it is turned slightly toward the gun arm rather than straight at the target. As a result, the armpit area of the support side is presented, and there is no armor there. That's for my Weaver, the stance I shoot best from; your Weaver may be different.

The isosceles allows a frontal presentation to target, maximizing the areas covered by the armor.

2. The Isosceles offers faster follow up shots with the same accuracy

Glad that's true for you; seems to be true for many. Not so for me.

 

[CraigC]

Glad that's true for you; seems to be true for many. Not so for me.

And we cannot forget that not everyone is shooting IPSC or training for combat. The individual must decide the difference between changing what works and simply resisting change because it's different. Newer is not necessarily better. The isosceles and modern isosceles might work great if you're banging away at steel with a 9mm but it's a different world when you trying to connect on a relatively small target at 75yds with a .44Mag, or bigger. Shooting traditional isosceles with a hard kicker will result in physical pain. One size does not fit all.

Two-handed shooting is certainly best under ideal conditions but I think that folks do themselves a disservice by not training with one hand. Your weak hand gets injured and you can quit a match. Do that in a gunfight and you're dead.

 

[BBQLS1]

Everything evolves. Sometime priorities change. Concepts evolve after study of the application and results.

At one time, people thought that turning so that your side faced the enemy and firing one handed was good because it revealed less of a target.... but later some realized that a hit could go through both lungs and the heart. Some later realized that faster follow up shots were achieveable with both hands on the gun.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The Weaver requires a more bladed presentation of the torso...That's for my Weaver, the stance I shoot best from; your Weaver may be different.

That's the way I was taught the Weaver too...actually it was more of a Chapman with the gun arm straightened, almost in an old hunting rifle stance.

That isn't the way it is taught at Gunsite...the foot placement is almost identical. The only difference between the Modified Isosceles and the Gunsite Weaver is the dropped support arm elbow, the wrist/hand orientation, and the force vectors applied

The picture you provide of Jack Weaver is taken from his left side. If it had been taken from head on, with the bore aligned with the camera, his body would be presented full on

 

[Loosedhorse]

If it had been taken from head on, with the bore aligned with the camera, his body would be presented full on

Well, you're free to suppose that, and I'm free to suppose not, as I don't think we have such a photo.

We do have these (great website):

Maybe the "Chapman" should be called the "Reed"?

In some ways it doesn't matter: as I do my Weaver (or Chapman, or Reed) in a way that does expose my armpit, I'll go to isosceles if I ever wear armor.

BTW: Apparently I do my draw from shoulder-holster "wrong" as well, but I'll keep doing it my way, as I'm less likely to sweep my arm or others to the left with my method than Cooper's:

Heresy, I know. But there it is.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Weaver requires a more bladed presentation of the torso...That's for my Weaver, the stance I shoot best from; your Weaver may be different.

That's the way I was taught the Weaver too...actually it was more of a Chapman with the gun arm straightened, almost in an old hunting rifle stance.

That isn't the way it is taught at Gunsite...the foot placement is almost identical. The only difference between the Modified Isosceles and the Gunsite Weaver is the dropped support arm elbow, the wrist/hand orientation, and the force vectors applied....

My experience has been that same as 9mmephany's.

Both the Isosceles and Weaver (and Weaver variations, like the Chapman) have evolved a good deal over the years, as have other elements of "The Modern Technique." If one focuses on the characteristics of the Isosceles and Weaver as primarily relating to the arm, hand/wrist, force vector dynamics, it's really possible, and effective, to use either in a variety of foot and body orientations.

 

[Loosedhorse]

it's really possible, and effective, to use either in a variety of foot and body orientations.

Absolutely. I think you're probably familiar, fiddletown, with transitioning between stances as you shift pistol aim compared to body position: if I'm pointing 90 degrees to my strong side, I'm in a one-hand hold. By the time I'm down to 30 degrees toward strong-side, I'm in isosceles.

Start to pull that isosceles any past center and I'm in a Chapman/modified Weaver, which drops to a Weaver by about 50 degrees weakside.

I can shoot in all those orientations. But there is a sweetspot for me...and it's not isosceles. Mileage will vary.