Isosceles vs Weaver, need advice...

[hillbilly]

I would agree with lots of folks here on stances. Learn them all.

When I teach, I have my students try out different stances, and then urge them to practice, practice, practice and use what works for them.

It's sort of like asking which batting stance to use in baseball.

Well, Ted Williams sure didn't have a stance like Pete Rose, but man, they both could hit.

Just some other terms and ideas to know about.

1) Weaver, with the gun arm straightened, is actually a modified Weaver, or sometimes even called the "Chapman" stance. In real, "pure" Weaver, both the off arm and the gun arm are bent slightly at the elbow, with the gun hand pushing forward slightly and the off hand pulling slightly back against the gun hand.

Yeah, same stance has many names, just to be even more confusing.

2) Cops are taught isoceles a lot because if you wear body armor or bullet resistant vests, you WANT your chest squared up to an armed attacker so the bullets hit the vest and don't go down the arm hole.

But practice practice practice and find what works for you. Shoot from behind barricades. Shoot from a sitting position, shoot on your knees, shoot with your weak hand and weak eye, shoot lying on your back.

You never know, in a real violent confrontation, where you will be or what you will be doing when the bad guys show up.

The key is to find what works for you, and the only way to know what works for you and what doesn't is to go shoot several thousand rounds.

hillbilly

 

[Keith]

Those are good illustrations.

It should be pointed out that many (maybe most) people use a "modified" Weaver. Commonly, the right arm is bent instead of extended. This brings the gun closer to the individual and seems to change the recoil so that the gun comes back slightly instead of rising. If you can follow me - with both arms bent they tend to act like shock absorbers and help keep the sights on the target, the gun coming back slightly instead of rising.
In the pure Weaver (see illustration) the arm is rigid and the muzzle tends to rise on recoil.

Keith

 

[Smoke]

Weaver (or a modified version) allows easier movement (run to cover) and easier transition (weapons systems).

At least it works for me. I use the same basic stance whether unarmed, using an impact weapon, knife, pistol, shotgun or rifle. At least I START in the same stance.

In a gunfight, rarely will the stance you start with be the stance you end with. I hope when the shots die down you will be cowering behind cover, your gun smoking, threats eleminated, and screaming "Damn! I hope there aren't any more!" "Somebody HELP!"

My $.02

 

[pax]

What Correia said. Any one of the stances can be chosen as a starting point, but it is very likely that as you shoot more, you will modify the stance you started with to suit you and your style.

There are a lot of variables even when you are looking at a good place to start.

The ideal stance for you can change depending on the size of the gun you are shooting -- or, more precisely, on the size of your reach compared to the distance between the backstrap and the trigger. A good Weaver really depends upon getting the gun lined up with the bones of your forearm. If you need to shift the gun slightly to one side in order to get a good trigger pull, Weaver isn't going to work as well for you as it does for someone whose reach is a bit longer. Similarly, if your hands are large and the gun smaller, you may find that Weaver works better for you than Isoceles because you will naturally point the bones of your forearm at the target when you go to shoot, and then be able to just 'check' for sight alignment.

Eye dominance comes into play, too. Isoceles tends to work better than Weaver for those who have crossdominance issues, because with the gun centered in front of you it is easy to line the gun up with either eye. With Weaver, the gun is naturally lined up behind the eye which corresponds to the dominant hand. So an Iso-type stance may work best for you even if the gun and your hands match well for a Weaver stance.

Finally, you might have some physical ailment which makes one stance or the other better for you. For instance, I worked with a lady a few weeks ago who had a rotator cuff injury that she was just getting over. For her, the Iso stance was excruciating, but she had no problems at all with Weaver. Even without an outright injury, many people find that one stance or the other simply 'feels' better -- perhaps because of an underlying flexibility issue, perhaps for no real reason at all. It may be worthwhile to fight that feeling and use the uncomfortable stance anyway, but absent any other issue, why bother?

Having said all that, you can't choose which stance is best for you until you've tried more than one of them. To begin with, you should learn them all, and then listen to the tale your targets have to tell you.

My .02

pax

Most people can't understand how others can blow their noses differently than they do. -- Ivan Turgenev

 

[ahenry]

If you are not careful Weaver can cause you to exert differing amounts of pressure on your grip, which will usually cause you to shoot to the side of your target. Meaning your shots will group left for right-handed shooters and group right for lefties.

 

[444]

There are any number of truely great shooters that shoot with one or the other stance. As a very broad generalization, it seems that a lot of gamers shoot isoceles and a lot of "combat" shooters (major shooting schools etc) shoot Weaver. I don't think there is any right answer to this question. I see the discussion of stances as similar to discussions over which style of martial arts is the best. I think the bottom line is that any of them will work if the person using it has mastered the technique.
Starting out, sure, you need to pick one. Pick one, and practice until your hands bleed. If you ever have to use it for real, the fact that you put the time in practice will be far more important that your stance.
If you ever reach the very pinnacle of handgun shooting, then maybe you can decide if the subtle differences will make a difference to you.

 

[Hutch]

I'm untrained, unschooled and unskilled, but I read a lot. I have read that regardless of how trained and indoctrinated one might be in the Weaver stance, that if the balloon goes up, almost everyone reverts to a crouch isocoles stance. Captured on film/tape, even during the debrief, those that THOUGHT they had assumed the weaver stance had actually iso'd.

 

[Keith]

I have read that regardless of how trained and indoctrinated one might be in the Weaver stance, that if the balloon goes up, almost everyone reverts to a crouch isocoles stance.

I'll buy into that, partially.

It used to be that most people started out with long guns at the age of 5 or 6 (BB guns), and then graduated to a .22, a .30/30 (perhaps), a shotgun, etc.
By the time they picked up a handgun as a teenager or young adult, they were thoroughly trained and indoctrinated into a rifle (Weaver) stance.
That's not the case any more. More and more, people are being introduced to firearms at adulthood, with very little background in long guns; or any type of gun.

And there's no doubt in my mind that those people who go to an Isosceles under stress don't have that long-gun background. And that would include MOST people - a person with a deeply ingrained rifle habit would probably revert to a Weaver under stress, there's just fewer of those people around.

So, back to my original thesis: If you're a long gun shooter, there's no point in fighting all your previous training - go with the Weaver.
If not, then start out with isosceles.

And again, in training people I've found this theory to be valid. Rifleman/shotgunners seem to instantly adapt to the Weaver. Complete gun novices nearly always prefer the Isosceles.

Keith

 

[dsgrntldPW]

Over the years I have tried and used both stances in training and competition. In my current line of work I have the pleasure of being attacked by aggressive, unfriendly puppies who may weigh up to 90 lbs. This normally occurs 3-5 times a year, though I've actually only been bitten a handful of times. In my canine "lovefest" encounters I have always reverted to an Isosceles style stance instinctively when facing the threat. Actually, I think it is more like the goofy looking old FBI crouch you see in the pictures, knees bent and the butt down with both arms outstretched. I have taken this to mean that this is the stance I would most likely respond with in a quickly unfolding threat situation, and try to adapt my shooting stance to this.

While you may always train with a stance you feel you would likely use for a serious social situation, when the CaCa hits the blades I'm gonna say you revert back to instinct. Picture yourself hearing an "Uh Oh" kind of noise behind you, and as you turn you see a 70 lb Rottie heading your way (And he ain't collecting money for the ASPCA!) and you can't really run. Would you instinctively assume the Weaver stance? As you may guess I think the Weaver is OK for competition, but not real life.

 

[444]

"As you may guess I think the Weaver is OK for competition, but not real life."
I think you will find that most of the top action pistol shooters use the isosceles stance in competition.

"I have read that regardless of how trained and indoctrinated one might be in the Weaver stance, that if the balloon goes up, almost everyone reverts to a crouch isocoles stance."
I don't buy this in it's entirety. What you do under pressure is largely what you have been trained to do under pressure. If you do something else instictively, then you didn't train to the extent that it became an ingrained response. Let me give you an example: you wern't born with the knowlege of how to drive a car. You were trained to some extent and you developed the lions share of your skills at driving through the repetition of doing it over and over sometimes for hours and days at a time. Some people are better drivers than others because they paid attention to what they were doing and tried to improve. Some people also have the ability to think and make decisions while under stress. These are the people who get into a hairy situation and instead of just throwing their arms up over their eyes, instead evaluate the situation, make decisions about the situation, and react to the situation in fractions of a second. It might be a sudden patch of ice, it might be a blowout, it might be a child that suddenly ran into the street in front of you, it might be an accident you come upon suddenly. Your reaction to these events is based on your skills and training. Most of us don't shoot nearly as much as we drive, therefore it is logical to imagine that we might not fall into an ingrained response under stress. It takes thousands of hours of practice to develop the muscle memory to make everything an automatic response. Luckily, we don't have to spend thousands of hours on the range to develop these skills. We can do it right in our own homes with dry practice.
I have never been in a gun fight.
But, I have a hard time with the idea presented on-line that everyone just falls to pieces when TSHTF. To read most of this stuff, we are totally incapable of making any kind of a decision, or assembling any type of logical thought. Again, I have never been in a gun fight, but I have been in situations that were life threatening and was able to think and react to the situation. I was scared, I was even trembling, but I didn't just fall apart. I realize that if someone takes me totally by surprise at very close range, I am not going to have time to do anything but react. This is a worst case senario and if I managed to draw before being killed I seriously doubt I would be in any kind of a classic shooting stance. I would be trying to get rounds on target as fast as possible with no regard to how I was standing. That being said, again, you would fall back to either your training, or to nothing.

 

[dsgrntldPW]

I do not really believe that everyone would "fall to pieces" in an intense situation and I agree to an extent with what is said about what you do under pressure is what you train to do under pressure. And I realize if you have the time to recognize a threat you can prepare yourself in whatever stance you have trained with. But these types of situations can develop very quickly, with little or no time to react. That's why I prefer to try to let my natural instincts and reactions to immediate danger take over and become the basis for my training and mental preparation.

The squaring off toward the danger, along with the crouching and putting the arms straight out, has been a natural instinctive reaction by man since not too long after we first started walking upright. Why not use these inherent reactions for our benefit? Many years ago people such as Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate recognized this instinctive reaction and made the most of it in their training. They recognized that their men did not have the luxury of lots of time to practice their skills and adapted their training to meet this requirement. Today, most people do not have the time to train as we should. This is why I favor this type of instinctive training as it is natural and can easily be done at home, as can training in the other stances. But I really do feel that a person will more readily fall back to their instinctive reactions in situations which develop with rapid and explosive intensity. This is why I prefer the "FBI crouch" or Isoseles stance.

 

[americanbulldog]

Used to shoot strictly weaver until I took a class from a SigArms certified instructor. Now I shoot isosceles exclusively.

 

[Island Beretta]

In simulated training, I have noticed that the isosceles position is used when the participant is standing or is not as pressured..when the pressure is turned up and the trainee is on the move they default to a weaver setup and you can see grip milking taking place. I myself have had myself video-taped whilst 'gunning and running' and stance switching and grip changes are surprisingly frequent. Hence i support the point that learn them all..

in some video tape of live shootings that I have seen, guess what??? One hand point-shooting is the norm. Even at distances (10 yds or up) where you would think the shooter should pause to get the fundamentals right for a clean shot, the shooter raises the gun, point and fire. That's why when in gunfights you hear of the numerous shots fired with few people shot, people will say that the police and/or the criminal cannot shoot..

Hence I support the point that learn them all, point shooting included..

Overall, there are so much factors involved in a gunfight that we should try to cover as much as possible all the factors we can in training so as to tip the scales a bit (hopefully). That is why I do not get into 'better than' arguments.

i do not believe that you default to your level of training, i believe that you are who you are and if your training is complementary to that then you will be a better fighter (a shooter is not necessarily a fighter). Darren Laur has some excellent research on this area and why your training needs to complement you and your body's response to threat, not the other way around.