Handgun shooting stances

[Saddlebag Preacher]

I know this is probably rehashed, but I just have a question. Years ago I was taught by my dad and later in the Police academy to shoot in the weaver stance.

I'm retired but I see on all the shooting shows everyone using the Isosceles stance. (Just learned the name by the way).

I'm just wondering if that is what is being taught now in the acadamies and the military. I'm not against it, updating is sometimes good, but I just can't seem to make my body change to the newer stance, so I keep using the weaver.

 

[brboyer]

I think you'll find about 90% ISO.

Use what works for you.

 

[holdencm9]

Not sure what they teach but the competitions seem to have gone to isosceles.

I think it is impossible to do the isosceles "stance" with the weaver arms. So if you are trying to change your footwork but not your arms, or vice versa, it may be difficult. Remember isosceles just means a triangle with two equal sides. Your arms represent the two equal sides. So if you have your support arm bent at the elbow and fully extend your strong arm, you will force yourself into a weaver (or as I like to call it, "scalene" .... j/k )

 

[9mmepiphany]

The Weaver was based on a certain philosophy to repeatedly place shots quickly on target. That philosophy has been disproved though testing back in the late 70s. The Modern Isosceles, stance and grip, has been proven to be a better technique, than the Weaver or Chapman (Modified Weaver) for accurate rapid placement of shots on target.

LE and the Military have always been slower to adopt changes in technique...I was still taught the FBI Crouch in my academy in the late 70s. Most advanced LE agencies and military units are now teaching the Modern Isosceles...it is also the standard approved for NRA pistol instruction.

The foot placement (stance) is the same between the original Weaver and the Modern Isosceles, the only difference is the arm geometry and force vectors

 

[NMPOPS]

I disagree that the Weaver and Chapman haved been "disproven". This was the way I learned and have shot for almost 40 years. I too have tried the Isoceles but find it uncomfortable so I stick with what works best. As a police firearms instructor, I demonstrated both and encouraged officers to use what worked best for them.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sam1911]

LE and the Military have always been slower to adopt changes in technique...

Certainly so. Sometimes painfully so. Especially as the military has a very minimal, back-burner (maybe "back burner, on an unplugged stove, stored in a closet, in an abandoned building, on a "BRAC'd" base) attitude towards handguns in general.

This is one area where the "civilian" competition world provides both a test-bed for development and a quick study in what is the very best that humans have figured out how to do, up to the minute.

As the generations metriculate through their careers, better techniques start to trickle in, but it takes time. The good news is that there is a current explosion in the shooting disciplines right now (and, less happily, a war going on which promotes adoption of better practices much faster as a means to win and bring the boys home safely) which is pushing a realignment of the entire shooting community toward best practices.

 

[Sam1911]

This was the way I learned and have shot for almost 40 years.

Perhaps "disproven" is not the very best way to describe it. "Superceded" would be more accurate.

Certainly many people were taught old ways of doing things and they adopted those ways and pounded home that form and technique until they could do it to the best of their capabilities.. Re-learning can be practically impossible without spending many thousands of rounds in the dedicated effort to do so.

The broader picture, however, does show that the newer techniques are more successful for "most" people and get them putting more rounds on target both faster and more accurately.

 

[pendennis]

I was taught the Weaver/Chapman at the outset, back in the 1960's, and I've never seen the need to change to the Isoceles, or its variants. One distinct advantage the Weaver offers, is that it naturally provides some protection of the user's center mass. The off hand arm provides protection to the torso. The "natural" push/pull, or isometric grip helps provide balance. The slight offset of the feet also provide a stance in which the user is not so easily pushed off balance. Neither arm is fully extended, providing cushioning from recoil, and allowing recoil to come straight back, and not taking the arms upward, obscuring the target.

I've been to several self-defense classes where the isoceles was taught, but not one instructor has ever been able to establish any edge for the isoceles stance.

They also teach techniques for closing the slide on a semi-auto, which runs counter to the design intents of the semi-auto. For instance, students are taught to grasp the slide with the off hand, pulling and releasing it to put the gun into battery. I was taught to use the slide release, keeping one's eyes on the target. By covering the slide, there is the possibility of riding it, increasing the chances of the weapon not going into battery. There's also the possibility of "missing" that is, not grasping firmly enough to disengage the slide lock, especially with a wet, or sweaty palm.

However, in the grand scheme of things, learn and practice what works for you.

 

[Cosmoline]

I disagree that the Weaver and Chapman haved been "disproven".

Ditto this. They're all just variations on similar themes, with different strengths and weaknesses. Modern isosceles helps ensure that the front of a bullet-resistant vest is facing the threat, and it offers a good platform for low recoiling service sidearms. Weaver is generally better for more potent magnums and can be fantastic, but requires more complex positioning and tension. I've gone with Chapman because it allows me to aim the revolver a little like a rifle, which seems more natural to me.

There are dozens of variations between these basic stances, as well. It's a mistake to assume that because the leaders in a particular kind of shooting sport are all using X stance, X stance is the best for the real world. What's best is what works best for you and your firearm. That could be an old-fashioned stance, or the newest en vogue one.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I disagree that the Weaver and Chapman haved been "disproven". This was the way I learned and have shot for almost 40 years. I too have tried the Isoceles but find it uncomfortable so I stick with what works best. As a police firearms instructor, I demonstrated both and encouraged officers to use what worked best for them.

I didn't say that the Weaver and Chapman had been disproven. I said that their philosophy of recoil control being more efficient had been disproven.

The Weaver (as taught by Cooper, not Weaver) and Chapman are based on the belief that the 1911 being held or pulled down during recoil would allow faster follow up shots. When compared to the Modern Isosceles, this has proven to be a unsubstantiated belief. It is faster to manage the recoil so that the gun returns to the original POA and the shooter can see the sights sooner for followup shots.

It is much like the fallacy of the original Double Tap, where the belief was that you could take one sight picture and trigger two rounds on target fast enough, while holding the gun down, that both would strike the target before the gun rose off the target...it can't be done, the gun needs to cycle between shots.

I shot the Weaver for years...it was a huge improvement over the FBI Point Shoulder...and still teach it to shooters who don't have the inclination to practice enough to become better shooter. It is also a fix for new shooters who need to feel more in control of the gun.

It isn't a easy switch from the Weaver to the Isosceles, it is the difference between control versus flow, tension versus no-attitude.

 

[Sam1911]

I didn't say that the Weaver and Chapman had been disproven.

Oops! Sorry! English isn't my first language and...

(Wait...DOH! )

 

[Brink]

Seems like the Judge is more comfortable to shoot with the Weaver stance, and I have started shooting other pistols with Weaver too.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's more to shooting than 1911's and 9x19's, and more considerations than getting 1/10th of a second faster to improve a score. Try shooting an SRH Alaskan with hot Casulls in Isosceles. It can be done, but might be best left to the pros.

The bottom line is, they aren't me. They don't have my arm length or chest size or finger length. A one-size-fits-all approach to shooting is never going to work well for everybody.

 

[Striker]

I concur totally with pendennis. (was the way I was trained also).

Other considerations: Weaver/Chapman reduces profile and target area to threat, allows easier lateral movement, and maximizes efficient strong hand cover/barrier engagement.

As always, YMMV. What works for me may not work for you.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I was taught the Weaver/Chapman at the outset, back in the 1960's, and I've never seen the need to change to the Isoceles, or its variants. One distinct advantage the Weaver offers, is that it naturally provides some protection of the user's center mass. The off hand arm provides protection to the torso.

The FBI Crouch used to have us place our closed fist in front of our hearts to deflect bullets too...we don't do that anymore either

The "natural" push/pull, or isometric grip helps provide balance. The slight offset of the feet also provide a stance in which the user is not so easily pushed off balance. Neither arm is fully extended, providing cushioning from recoil, and allowing recoil to come straight back, and not taking the arms upward, obscuring the target.

I would contend that enveloping the grip frame of a gun completely is more natural than an isometric grip. Have any child or untrained person hold a bat or stick, they just envelope it in their hands...they don't push/pull.

The recoil cannot come straight back, unless they bore line is below the center line of your hand, in-line with your forearm. Besides which your wrist, elbow and shoulder joints are working at off-set angles also...unless you are a Terminator. That displacement is what causes muzzle flip...it is also what allows us to call our shots

I've been to several self-defense classes where the isoceles was taught, but not one instructor has ever been able to establish any edge for the isoceles stance.

Just because someone teaches it, doesn't always mean they completely understand it's properties...especially if they wouldn't automatically point out the advantage of faster followup shots. Beside this the Modern Isosceles is:

1. More natural. The normal startle response is to square up with the threat
2. Working with the body. The body will always tend toward equilibrium, it will always try to unwind to equal tension on both sides. The late Paul Gomez has a very good video clip demonstrating this.
3. Faster to move from. Being a more balanced and fluid stance, you can move in any direction faster...that is one of the reasons the military uses it in movement training with the M4

They also teach techniques for closing the slide on a semi-auto, which runs counter to the design intents of the semi-auto. For instance, students are taught to grasp the slide with the off hand, pulling and releasing it to put the gun into battery. I was taught to use the slide release, keeping one's eyes on the target. By covering the slide, there is the possibility of riding it, increasing the chances of the weapon not going into battery. There's also the possibility of "missing" that is, not grasping firmly enough to disengage the slide lock, especially with a wet, or sweaty palm.

This would really be better discussed in another thread, however I'll address it briefly...
The reason it is taught is that it is more universal and is not dependent of the function of the platform to work. It works:
1. with an injured hand...you don't need a thumb present
2. regardless of the slide lock placement or presence
3. because you can't ride the slide down as the gun is driven out of the grasp of the support hand by the strong hand
4. when the slide has closed on an empty chamber.
5. because it is part of the universal stoppage drill and requires no additional muscle memory training

However, in the grand scheme of things, learn and practice what works for you.

This shouldn't be taken to imply that the Weaver has no place in modern shooting. Whenever shooting while moving laterally across targets, I'll use the Weaver

 

[nyresq]

I had read some years ago that Jack Weaver shot that way due to a previous shoulder injury that prevented him from extending his off side arm straight out. It was only the fact he was an excellent pistolero that people started to mimic him.

I originally learned to shoot weaver and slowly transitioned to a modified weaver stance to a kind of offset iso stance.

If you are shooting static targets the weaver works, but when you have to transition from side to side and have a full range of motion, the weaver limits this.

I have seen this proven time and time again to people that were devout weaver shooters. a few simple drills run with a weaver stance and with a modified iso stance will make believers in a short amount of time.

The weaver works if you are limited in your field of fire, but going through some entry schools and serving on a warrant squad made me move away from the weaver to an iso stance with a slightly dropped back (1/2-3/4 foot length) strong side foot.

If it works for you, do it, but never be afraid to give something new an honest try. I have changed over the past 25 years of shooting from a full weaver with thumbs over grip to a modified iso with a thumbs forward grip... If I can change, anyone can...

 

[Sam1911]

Try shooting an SRH Alaskan with hot Casulls in Isosceles. It can be done, but might be best left to the pros.

I'll admit I haven't, but based on my heavy .44 Mag shooting (4" 629), I certainly would. I've run "Bill Drills" with 300 grain/1,250fps loads, and done weak-hand only work as well. Good technique is good technique.

Here's Jerry Miculek explaining good revolver grip with various sizes of gun.

http://www.myoutdoortv.com/shooting/shooting-usa/jerry-miculek-revolver-grip

When he finishes up with the .500 Mag, notice that he doesn't see any need to switch to Weaver to handle it. I know he's a pro, but I'd rather accept and try to learn from what the pros do than come up with reasons why ANYTHING they're doing must be "left to the pros." It's shooting, not magic rocket surgery. If THEY do it because it works, YOU can do it because it works.

 

[Saddlebag Preacher]

Interesting points from everyone. I was just noticing it more and more on the sportsmen channels.

It's kinda like we were taught at point blank range to throw up our left hand to block our attacker and pull our weapon at the hip and fire two quick rounds. Now I see where it is taught to make a fist to your chest to keep from shooting your own hand. Makes sense.

Everything changes. we all become our dads and grandads at some point, thinking about the good old days. We were all heros in our own minds once..

 

[pendennis]

I would contend that enveloping the grip frame of a gun completely is more natural than an isometric grip. Have any child or untrained person hold a bat or stick, they just envelope it in their hands...they don't push/pull.

Shooting any handgun, like learning to swing a bat, is learned behavior. No one does it naturally. A specific set of muscles, learning a specific task, is what enables one to do any athletic endeavor. Isometrics is also a learned muscle task, so it must be taught.

The recoil cannot come straight back, unless they bore line is below the center line of your hand, in-line with your forearm. Besides which your wrist, elbow and shoulder joints are working at off-set angles also...unless you are a Terminator...

With the arms extended, a la isoceles, the elbow joints, if and when they flex, will come up, regardless the bore axis relationship. With slightly bent elbows, a la Weaver/Chapman, the elbows, already flexed, will flex further, bringing the recoil more to the rear than upward.

I don't dispute that the bore axis relationship acts on the movement of the gun in recoil. My assertion is that the Weaver/Chapman will minimize muzzle flip.

1. More natural. The normal startle response is to square up with the threat...

I've been told that the natural response is an isoceles stance. However, that is not my experience.

I've had the opportunity to shoot in a well-set up scenario, in which I didn't know the source or exact position of the threat. When it came, I assumed my Weaver stance, and drew my firearm, exactly as I had been taught.

I understand that my experience is anecdotal, but that was my response in the drill.

 

[shep854]

Another factor influencing the use of the Isoceles stance is the widespread use of body armor. With the Isoceles, the shooter can keep the armor facing the opponent, whereas the Weaver requires a degree of angle, which can expose weaker sides and arm holes to fire.

This is also a benefit of the collapsible stocks of AR carbines. While originally intended to simply shorten the weapon for easier handling, it was discovered that it allows a rifleman to 'square' his body armor to a threat while delivering aimed fire.

 

[MrDig]

Most of the time I stand with my left foot pointed forward my right foot back shoulder width and placed crossing the plain of my left foot. (If I stood with my feet together they would make a T)
My left arm is folded and cupping my right hand holding the grip, index finger extended along the trigger.
When I begin shooting at a silhouette I start aiming at the lower left of what would be body mass and let the recoil bring the gun up to center body mass as I continue to shoot. If done correctly I leave a diagonal line from low left to upper right of the silhouette.
I've tried shooting with both feet pointed at the Target shoulders squared but it doesn't feel right.
I don't compete but when I do shoot I shoot to put as many holes in the paper as quickly as possible.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Shooting any handgun, like learning to swing a bat, is learned behavior. No one does it naturally. A specific set of muscles, learning a specific task, is what enables one to do any athletic endeavor. Isometrics is also a learned muscle task, so it must be taught.

That is my belief also, I was commenting on your quoted posting that the push/pull was more natural

With the arms extended, a la isoceles, the elbow joints, if and when they flex, will come up, regardless the bore axis relationship. With slightly bent elbows, a la Weaver/Chapman, the elbows, already flexed, will flex further, bringing the recoil more to the rear than upward.

In the Modern Iso, the elbow should not be locked and should always flex. My current personal arm geometry applies some Tai Chi structure to the Iso arm position and both my elbows point downward at about 45 degrees...taken from the Xing Yi posture

I don't dispute that the bore axis relationship acts on the movement of the gun in recoil. My assertion is that the Weaver/Chapman will minimize muzzle flip.

The is the part of the philosophy that was disproven. If you can make followup shots faster while not having to fight muzzle flip...why should you?

I've been told that the natural response is an isoceles stance. However, that is not my experience.

I understand that my experience is anecdotal, but that was my response in the drill.

That is the difference, the advantages of the Isosceles over the Weaver have been tested and proven over years and thousands of rounds fired

 

[9mmepiphany]

It's kinda like we were taught at point blank range to throw up our left hand to block our attacker and pull our weapon at the hip and fire two quick rounds. Now I see where it is taught to make a fist to your chest to keep from shooting your own hand. Makes sense.

FWIW the newest response it to bring the off-hand (non-drawing) up to the side of your head. There it is not only out of the line of fire, but also keeps it from being grabbed (to throw you off balance) and uses the forearm to protect against bows to the neck/head.

It is based off the startle response of bring your hands up to protect your head

 

[coolluke01]

While having your feet pointed in different directions may be a good way to stand for you when still shooting, it's a very bad habit to have if you ever have to move and shoot. In a SD situation the Isosceles stance will allow you to shuffle side to side.

As I said on the grip post, I changed the way I shoot about 2 years ago. I have seen a great improvement in speed and accuracy by developing the habit of the Isosceles stance with a thumbs forward hold.

Give the ISO a chance. It will help a great deal with recoil management. These statements that having an arm bent and a foot back farther than the weak side foot, will help absorb recoil are just flat out wrong. Sorry to be blunt, but this has been shown over and over. It may work well for you, but a better stance may be just that, better!
It's up to the shooter to decide if they would like to improve their ability or if they want to just keep doing what they've been doing for 40 years. Just because it's how you have been doing it and it works doesn't mean it's the best way for you.

Arms straight with shoulders rolled up will manage recoil and come back on target better than any other hold.

 

[MrDig]

I should add that my right arm then crosses my body forward past my left shoulder.
I guess it's an extremely modified Weaver Stance.