Weaver: Not for Everyone, Not Every Time.

[Mad Magyar]

I don't need statistics to tell me, even though they're available, that for the average J.Q. Public, possibly even LEO's, our confrontations with the bad guy's in terms of shoot-outs will be within feet, not yards...
I will admit my background & experiences are steeped more in Bill Jordan and most recently in such combat authorities, like Brad Steiner, et al.
Instinctively, I find myself reaching & shooting extended one-hand, with all calibers, regardless of perceived recoil...Actually, like in any developed skill, or regardless of form; the more you practice the more proficient one becomes.
Any of you point shooting?
Am I knocking the Weaver stance or other styles? Of course not, but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range

 

[bentwrench]

I agree magyar, at least some of our range/ practice time should be spent trying different stances and techniques.even learning to shoot with either hand
the bentwrench

 

[RodneyKSig]

Doubt the Weaver, doubt the Cooper?

Does this imply that you consider the imortal words of Col. Jeff Cooper USMC (ret.), might I add the father of Modern handgunning not valid or acceptable. I would charge you to find a better style of shooting that can be applied as easily as the weaver shooting stance it seems to have been around since WWII. Speed + accuracy + concentration = termination of the enemy. Read some of his books he addresses these issues. Or not, I happen to think it works but that is my .02$.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I would charge you to find a better style of shooting that can be applied as easily as the weaver shooting stance it seems to have been around since WWII.

Already done. Although Col. Cooper did great work in the field of combat pistolcraft, his technique is no longer state-of-the-art.

I will agree that it's good to practice weapon manipulation, drawstroke, and both sighted and unsighted fire with one hand. Also with your weak hand. The effective combat shooter must be well-rounded.

- Chris

 

[Andrew S]

bentwrench....Mr B from CAF?


I believe I was taught different stances in my CCW course for a reason. Weaver and L/R handed pointing get even attention from me now. I even try isos from time to time.

 

[355sigfan]

You will revert to your level of training if you don't train you enough to develope muscle memory then you will revert to one handed shooting. Its also good to be able to shoot one handed. But I would not give up shooting two handed because un trained people revert to it.
Pat

 

[Mad Magyar]

BTW, Col. Cooper has also had a strong influence on me. Just a historical correction, Jeff was shooting one-handed into the mid-fifties with his shooting buddies, including Jack Weaver, & started their famous shooting contests in CA. He was amazed by Jack's prowess and was converted..But, if you read his writings closely, he is adaptable for different situations and is still influenced by Col. Applegate, another point shooting advocate...

 

[RyanM]

I use the techniques outlined in Shooting to Live. Mostly three quarter hip. It's gotten to the point where I can pick up a gun after not shooting for months while at college, and group as many shots as I want in about a 1-2" group centered on the bullseye, from about 10 feet away, with each shot fired from the draw. That's not really boasting. Anyone can get those kinds of results, using Shooting to Live. Although, if I fire in "bursts" like Fairbairn suggests, the groups really loosen up a lot.

For ranges past about 15-20 feet, I prefer Weaver over Isoceles. I can't shoot Isoceles worth crap. Weaver, despite what critics say, feels much more natural to me.

 

[1911Tuner]

Stance

Mad Magar noted:

>Am I knocking the Weaver stance or other styles? Of course not, but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range.<
***************

Precisely so. A point that I've tried to make for years. Too many "What Ifs"
plug into a fight for life to count on one tactic. You can't count on being able to attain any stance or even a firm, two-hand grip. For those who maintain that a certain pistol is prone to limp-wrist malfunctions...Better get it fixed or choose another gun. Only practice your defensive technique
one way...Weaver or otherwise? You may be betting your life on something that you have less than a 50/50 chance of pulling off. Always use the sights...without exception? When your moment of truth comes, you may have neither the time nor the distance to be able to use them...assuming that you'll have enough light to see them. Chances are very high that you'll find yourself fending off a sudden, close-quarters attack from a knife or bludgeon with your weak hand while clawing at your pistol in a desparate attempt to get it into play before the lights go out.

Nobody has more respect than I for Col. Cooper and the contributions he's made to the defensive pistol technique, but in a 15 foot face-off between Cooper and hip-shooting Bill Jordan or Jelly Bryce...the Colonel would be shot dead before he could clear leather...even if he made the first move.

An old saw could apply:

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

 

[Mad Magyar]

"Chances are very high that you'll find yourself fending off a sudden, close-quarters attack from a knife or bludgeon with your weak hand while clawing at your pistol in a desparate attempt to get it into play before the lights go out."
Tuner, so aptly put....We have a "perp" in town who's flashing his lights like a LEO, and when they stop & he engages the victims (mostly women): your scenario describes half the incidents...The SOB actually stopped a female, Animal Control Officer in his latest attack..She fended him off with her baton, too bad she wasn't licensed for CCW....:banghead:

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Weaver stance has two major advantages, it allows fast shooting, and is adequate for most defense situations.

To be well-trained, START with the Weaver. Ingrain it in your muscle memory, and then learn other techniques. One common shortcoming in training is failing to build a solid base, so the reaction under stress is to revert to the "untrained" state.

It's kinda like golf, the rules allow 16 clubs -- and I'm so flustered I don't know which one to use.

 

[Q-Lock]

"It's kinda like golf, the rules allow 16 clubs -- and I'm so flustered I don't know which one to use."


They only allow 14 clubs..but I get your point

Regards,

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well, I only played golf once, when I was about 13.

 

[Chipperman]

Good practical shooting exercises will show that there is no single perfect stance.

You need to become proficient in one hand, two hand, weak hand; as well forehand, backhand and Isoceles stances.


Use the grip and stance that circumstances dictate. Things will not be the same if a mugger accosts you when alone vs carrying your 6 month old child.

 

[Archie]

One other important, but obvious, point...

Sometimes, you just don't have both hands to use.

I mean, on the way back from the croissant place...

Seriously; as either a lawman or a citizen, one does not always have the luxury of both hands - or proper stance - or several other things assumed in current two hand shooting.

Keep in mind, one doesn't always have one's strong hand, either.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.

 

[Charles S]

Already done. Although Col. Cooper did great work in the field of combat pistolcraft, his technique is no longer state-of-the-art.

Excellent point.

You need to become proficient in one hand, two hand, weak hand; as well forehand, backhand and Isoceles stances.

I agree.

These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.

True, but Isosceles is an excellent starting point also with many virtues.

The truth of the matter is that if you are really interested in learning to shoot under stress, quickly and proficiently you will get professional instruction.

Shooting skills can be learned on your own, but one single well taught class will advance your skills much more in a week than you could on your own in years.

I have a close friend who espoused point shooting as the be all and end all of self defense. This gentleman was a very accomplished shooter. During a night course he attempted to use his point shooting technique and completely missed the target at 7 yards.

With training aimed fire can be as fast as point shooting and you will not miss.

Point shooting is a very iffy proposition for most shooters. There are naturals and exceptions to every rule, but on the whole you will hit what you are aiming at if you use your sights.

Charles

 

[1911Tuner]

Stance

Vern said:

>These are all good points, but before trying to become proficient in a dozen different stances, one should thoroughly master one stance. In considering which stance to start with, the Weaver has much to recommend it.<

Agreed. Without a foundation, you could find yourself floundering at a critical
moment. Who was it that said: "You won't rise to the occasion. You'll default to your level of training."

 

[Jim March]

The Weaver has two interesting advantages for me:

* It can handle bigger power levels than Isosceles; once you hit strong 44Mag recoil or above, the ability to let the gun recoil up to the SIDE of your head matters. A lot. Linebaugh, Casull and the the rest of that wild'n'crazy "handcannon" crowd are all Weaver proponents and if you want to ever work your way up to those power levels for handgun hunting or woods defense...

* I think the Weaver promotes better footwork; the place where you're at when the shooting starts is the place where incoming fire is going, it's a really bad place to be. This goes double if you actually hit the other guy and he's shooting wounded or partially stunned - he'll pump fire into the place trouble came from almost as a reflex. The Weaver is compatible with footwork taking you sideways and backwards from the initial contact point. Backwards is good because odds are you're a better long-range shot than the average goblin if you're paying attention to the Weaver-vs-Isco debate! Sideways is good to avoid that "incoming fire zone" problem. The Weaver promotes combining them...

The flipside is, the Isco promotes faster shot-to-shot speed at low to medium power levels of ammo, up through about the 357/40S&W/45ACP horsepower range.

Me, I'm a wheelgunner. I don't need to dump ammo out as fast as I can, I sure as hell better not! I'd rather place my first shot on target damned fast and then both move and evaluate in the next instant. Movement is with knees bent and still allowing a decent level of aimed fire while moving.

And all of this scales up to serious ammo horsepower levels with minimal retraining.

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed. Which can work with Isco for sure, but in the Weaver I get an interesting advantage: if I want to take a long-range or precision shot, I can extend my right arm to basically straight, lean my head over so my left eye is lined up with my gun's sights (gun held vertical), and I can form a literal cheek-weld with my right bicep. This weird variant of the Weaver is only available to cross-eye-dominant shooters and is an incredibly stable braced position.

Normally I shoot with my gun leaned slightly left lining the sights up with my left eye, head held closer to upright. Gives me better movement and better peripheral vision than the "cheek weld" variant Weaver.

But I can transition from one Weaver to the other very quickly and naturally.

 

[MCgunner]

I've always shot from Weaver, but I've transitioned to isosceles recently. I find it easier to move in Isosceles and just as accurate and somewhat more natural. Most of your better shooters shoot isosceles. And, if you're leaning into the gun as you should be, isosceles fights recoil, too. I have some pretty hard kicking .45 colts and don't have a problem from isosceles, though when hunting I tend to be shooting off some sort of rest, not off hand. I never wanna be shooting off hand at a deer 80 yards away.

Yeah, I practice weak hand, strong hand, don't mean I ain't more accurate two hand isosceles OR weaver. My go to is two hand hold. I ain't gonna draw and fire instinctively one handed, no way, no how. I'm instinctive with a two hand hold, point shoot better that way, figure it offers better gun retention if a BG tried to take my weapon, and in isosceles I can bring the weapon close to my body if there is such an attempt, and still fire point shooting at close range.

For IDPA or any competition, nobody, but nobody fired one handed unless the exercise requires it. That's the way I approach life. If I'm hit in the strong arm and can't use it, I'll fire weak hand, of course, but I won't rely on it.

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed.

Right handed, left eyed here. I can relate.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I don't feel stable in the isosceles at all. It makes me slightly bob back and forth, which degrades aim.

Weaver is fine, but after a prolonged session, I feel twisted. Then I sometimes do the one-hand duelist, just in case my other hand is disabled. I also shoot with my weak hand too. It seems more accurate because by that time my strong hand is already tired. Perhaps it is time to try the wrist-over-wrist cop style too.

 

[pax]

Oh yeah. One more detail. I'm right handed, left eyed. Which can work with Isco for sure, but in the Weaver I get an interesting advantage: if I want to take a long-range or precision shot, I can extend my right arm to basically straight, lean my head over so my left eye is lined up with my gun's sights (gun held vertical), and I can form a literal cheek-weld with my right bicep. This weird variant of the Weaver is only available to cross-eye-dominant shooters and is an incredibly stable braced position.

Jim ~

The stance you describe is great for target shooting, but not good for defense shooting. In that position, with your head tilted clear over, you have literally blinded yourself to everything else except a very narrow field of view very close to your target. It is even more restrictive than simply closing one eye.

It's good to focus on your front sight. It's also good to have some peripheral vision left over, especially given the tendency toward tunnel vision under stress. The cross-dominant Weaver stance greatly magnifies the tunnel vision problem.

Weaver is better for some folks, Iso for others. Based on the above, it is my opinion, Iso is better for cross-dominant shooters doing defense work.

pax

 

[Clipper]

The Weaver advantage...

Get two people to take each stance and examine them:

Iso gives little vertical support. Try forcing each subject's arms up and down from the hand juncture. A proper Weaver grip is much better supported, hence steadier. Weaver also affords much better recoil control and return to target for me.

Iso gives no cover to vitals against return fire. Only a band between the shoulders. I believe that anyone who does not try to mentally prepare themselves for the very real possibility of taking a hit in a close combat situation is kidding themself... The Weaver puts the weak arm (not to mention two thicknesses of bone) between the BG's gun and your heart & lungs. Keep in mind the reports that have shown that even .45ACP is pretty much prevented from penetrating the chest cavity after having to penetrate arm tissue & bone before encountering the rib cage.

While I always practice one hand, weak hand, and instinctive, I have completely abandoned Iso, and discourage its use by anyone I teach.

 

[MCgunner]

I CAN shoot either. Of course, behind cover I'll go to Weaver to take advantage of the cover. I just find I'm quicker, just as accurate, and more mobile shooting isosceles. I think that's why most of the better action pistol shooters shoot and teach isosceles. Don't hurt to use and train with both as well as weak and strong hand shooting.

Far as an arm blocking a shot, I'd rather be moving, myself, and finding that cover. That's why I've converted to isosceles as my number one shooting stance. A brick wall or a car or something is far better cover than an ulna.

 

[pax]

Clipper ~

I hope you rarely teach women. Weaver tends to be better for folks with more upper body strength, while Iso tends to be better for those with less upper body strength. Iso also tends to work better than Weaver if the shooter's hands are a little too small for the gun. Furthermore, well-endowed women often find that a correct, stable Weaver is nearly impossible to achieve because the rack gets in the way. (Chapman usually works a little better than Weaver in most such cases.)

pax