Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?

[OF]

One good point about the Weaver is that it is a natural defensive position.

This might sound good, however, videos of officer-involved shootings show that even those trained to Weaver will snap to a crouched ISO-like stance almost every time when the threat presents itself. The fact is that ISO is much more natural to assume under stress than the relatively complicated Weaver.

The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation.

I'd love to see some data showing gun snatches from Weaver v. ISO. I'll bet there isn't a lick of difference. The bit about the gun being closer to the body doesn't make any sense. The gun is no farther away from you in an ISO than it is in a classic or modified Weaver. Try it out.

At that distance simply acquiring the target and two quick pulls will hit in either stance.

This is also not true. Getting a good first-round hit is no walk in the park. Video of actual shootings bear this out. Just because the target is close-in doesn't mean you can just yank on the trigger and get hits. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement - are you suggesting that even though the ISO is a superior platform for getting better hits faster, that's not important enough to factor in?

As for faster followup shots, it won't matter in the real world.

I also disagree with this. It's my understanding that people don't tend to just fall down on the first round with any great regularity.

As for what is taught, the ISO is taught in almost all modern handgun schools, and many of the top-flight subgun and carbine trainers are now teaching a more ISO-like stance (see: Pat Rogers, et al.).

- Gabe

 

[Group9]

I agree that ISO probably has more going for it for defensive shooting once you are into it. I just always enjoy hearing explanations on how it is faster to change from your defense to shooting stance, and then shoot, rather than just shoot from your defensive stance.

 

[357SIG]

From an LE standpoint, the Weaver stance is bad.

What's the strongest part of your body armor? What's the weakest part?

The strongest part of your body armor is the front, with or without a trauma plate, and is the place you would want a bullet to strike, if it were to happen. In contrast, the side is the most unprotected part of your armor, mostly consisting of velcro and the vest cover with very little Kevlar/Zylon overlap. If you stand in the Weaver stance, you are exposing your unprotected side to the subject.

Which platform is more stable, Weaver or isosceles?

In the Weaver stance, you are placed slightly off balance. If a BG shoves you hard enough, you're going to either step off balance or hit the ground. Either way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by giving the BG an extra second or two of time, where seconds can mean life or death. From the isosceles stance, you are already in a basic defensive/fighting position. It will be much harder for a BG to catch you off guard in this stance than it would be from the Weaver. In SRT/SWAT/ERT/Whateverit'scalledatyourdepartment, basic shooting positions are based off the isosceles stance.

As far as "interview stance" is concerned, it is not really the Weaver or isosceles position. Besides, the State of Florida teaches students to get into a defensive position should anything go south. It takes a very short slide of the foot to go from interview stance to the isosceles stance. Don't always go by the standard DT instruction anyway; out in the field, about 80% of your DT training goes out the window anyway, should TSHTF. I've found that the transport and takedown moves taught in DT class are best suited for drunks and old folks.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

35 years ago I shot a S&W 58 from Weaver today...

35 years ago I shot a S&W 58 from Weaver, today I shoot a fancied up 1911 with thin grips ISO. Then I could, on a good day, win some bets running rifle gongs at 100+ yards - today I'd empty a magazine to hit one gong. I am reminded that Jack Weaver started with a revolver and today given a magnum N-frame I'll go Weaver every time for accuracy and controllability -ISO only for really slow fire gallery load on the range with the big revolvers.

But with the 1911, of which I have good or at least expensive variations in .45 ACP and 9x23 with thin grips, I find no disadvantage to ISO - at least as fast and just as accurate and just as quick to run a rack (no not tuning diesel engines) and something I fall into naturally anyway so that's a good thing. I don't know whether it's training or grips or habit or custom or transition from single handed bullseye that leads me to ISO with the 1911 but I'd find it as hard to go Weaver with a .45 as to go ISO with a Model 29.

I don't know how to ask Mr. Weaver but I wonder if he wasn't pushing harder than I ever could to match the 1911 with his revolvers?

 

[C. H. Luke]

"Some instructors of martial arts who also gun train teach the weaver because of that."

If one has ever studied Tai Chi for a year or so you'll know the above statement is true. Neither is there any "...put the weight on the balls of your feet" stuff, etc.

 

[Island Beretta]

Allow me to clear up a few cobwebs:

1. Weaver became famous during competition when a guy called Jack Weaver came to letterslap matches and started beating Col. Cooper et al silly at these matches. Then came Ray Chapman shooting what is called the Chapman or modified weaver.. then came Shaw, Leatham, Enos, Plaxco who took the isosceles of old (used by the FBI then) and did a few modifications esp. leaning more into the stance 'nose over toes' etc.

2. Isosceles has actually been proven both on the street and psychological tests to be the deferred stance i.e. facing your opponent squarely.. during high stress SHTF situations.

3. Do a search for Ron Avery, he has done a tremendous article on the Weaver vs. Isosceles debate and in his video series he goes into an indepth review of both, leaving you to decide which one you want!! Oh by the way Ron was a world-ranked competition shooter, a LEO and a martial artist.. go tell him that competition skills are meaningless on the streets..

 

[Ankeny]

I took a class from Ron Avery. Also in the class was an instructor from one of the better known self defense shooting schools. He had a raven on his hat (hint, hint). Avery tried to get the guy to try a modified iso. stance just once. You know, just try it out. The guy flat refused to even consider anything but his old Weaver. Never mind Avery was coming off of a National Championship win. Forget he is one of the premier trainers in the country (both defensive and competition). Never mind he has a history in law enforcement. None of that matters one lick. It's a matter of dogma. The guy (the duck of death dude) absolutley sucked in comparison to the rest of us, but he knows what is best...

 

[C. H. Luke]

"...go tell him that competition skills are meaningless on the streets.."

None the less, if Iso is so great, no one would be comparing it to the antiquated Weaver....

 

[Walt Sherrill]

None the less, if Iso is so great, no one would be comparing it to the antiquated Weaver....

Your logic doesn't match your enthusiasm.

You could say the same thing about Weaver with just as much validity: if Weaver was so great, nobody would be comparing it to the ISO stance...

A lot of us learned from our fathers. A lot of our fathers learned from GI instructors in WWII or later. Ditto, cleaning guns -- most of the stuff the military taught'em was designed around corrosive ammo. Things have changed, but the "received truth" hasn't kept up.

 

[Ankeny]

Frankly, I don't care what stance a person uses. Just grip it, rip it and forget it.

 

[C. H. Luke]

"He had no previous pistol experience."

"...like a fish to water."

So, it was like giving an aborigine a mirror for the first time?

Couldn't care less what stance others shoot from or even if they wear Football "Speed Shoes" with cleats when they play their gun game.....

 

[Island Beretta]

Ultimately you want to build 'your' shooting platform. That said you will hit the ground running if you build on what is available. I personally used to shoot Weaver but once introduced to Isosceles I liked it more because I felt more relaxed in it and 'seemed' faster.

Eventually I moved to a flexible platform (which is based on the mod iso) which varies depending on circumstances but the constants are always 1. appropriate focus (sometimes target, sometimes sights) 2. trigger control 3. weapon control.

 

[Drakejake]

I prefer the Isosceles stance because it is simpler than the weaver and seems to provide greater resistance to recoil. I also see many competitive shooters using it.

Drakejake

 

[OF]

So, it was like giving an aborigine a mirror for the first time?

Something like that, yeah

I only mentioned it to point out that Weaver is not the default preferred platform for martial artists - and yes, I showed him both a classic and modified weaver. I didn't offer him the choice of what to learn, however. It's my class and we shoot ISO.

- Gabe

 

[Jonathan]

Please humor me, I'm new to this stuff.

In the Weaver stance, you are placed slightly off balance. If a BG shoves you hard enough, you're going to either step off balance or hit the ground. Either way, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by giving the BG an extra second or two of time, where seconds can mean life or death. From the isosceles stance, you are already in a basic defensive/fighting position. It will be much harder for a BG to catch you off guard in this stance than it would be from the Weaver. In SRT/SWAT/ERT/Whateverit'scalledatyourdepartment, basic shooting positions are based off the isosceles stance.

Try to push someone in a good Weaver and then push same in ISO. Weaver will recover quickly and solidly, ISO they just fall over.

I'd greatly appreciate any clarifications to this, especially pictures. Are you referring to a "classic" ISO involving legs squared to the target?

The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation. The firearm is closer to the body and easier to keep control of. having both arms out is not conductive to keeping control should anyone attempt to take control of the handgun.

The bit about the gun being closer to the body doesn't make any sense. The gun is no farther away from you in an ISO than it is in a classic or modified Weaver. Try it out.

How does ISO deal with arm placement when you are not working with full extension? Likewise, transitions between contact-distance gun holds, etc?

 

[Ankeny]

GRD:

Of course we both know you are correct. Ron Avery refers to the modified or modern Iso as the "natural action stance". I suppose that's why your martial artist student fell right into the platform. Frankly, I find the iso stance very natural, extremely comfortable, rock solid, and very flexible. FWIW, I used to shoot Weaver.

 

[OF]

My cousin gave me a cool tip (actually awhile back when I first showed him how to stand when shooting a pistol) that I should try keeping my feet either perfectly parallel (like standing on railroad tracks) or even toe-in a bit. This puts the strong base of the triangle to your rear and improves stability even further. It's a bit unnatural-feeling for a while, but I'm used to it now and it's very cool. You feel like a rock anchored to the ground.

- Gabe

 

[Darkmind]

I use a combo of both,Isosceles grip and a weaver stance. I can turn out groups like this at 7 yards and i'm getting close to that at 15 yards with a Glock 23.






I used the Isosceles grip and weaver stance combo the whole time in the Corps and I always did very good come qual time with the M9.

 

[OF]

I've got a question: are there any Weaver shooters here who used to shoot ISO and switched to Weaver? Not people who 'tried' ISO, but actually shot it for real, lets say for a minimum of a year.

- Gabe

 

[C. H. Luke]

"...try keeping my feet either perfectly parallel (like standing on railroad tracks)..."

Sure, that's straight from Tai Chi,called "Horse Stance" but a very small component of it ....Centuries old. {In no way to be confused with "Horse Sense"}

 

[OF]

It was new to me There might be something to that old Chinese stuff...

- Gabe

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was going to stay out of this, but after yet another regference to Tai Chi I can't. I'm no master, but I have a couple of friends who are masters, and instructors. Everything they have shown me has started from what would equate to an iso stance -- feet spread apart to shoulder width, parallel to the shoulders, weight slightly forward or on the balls of the feet. That's the basic stance from which all other moves/positions progress, and to which you return at the end.

As to shooting, I'm old enough that when I shot on a competition team in the army we fired handguns "duelist" style -- right shoulder to the target, right arm and gun extended, left hand behind the small of the back. Going to a two-handed shooting position was a big transition for me. The iso feels natural and helps compensate for aging eyesight. Weaver just doesn't feel right or natural, and I feel it makes me pull the gun off target.

JMHO ... YMMV

 

[OF]

I'm old enough that when I shot on a competition team in the army we fired handguns "duelist" style -- right shoulder to the target, right arm and gun extended, left hand behind the small of the back.

Now that is old school.

- Gabe

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Re: "duelist-style" and "old school"


Probably black powder, too.

Seems like that's what we used when I was in the military.... long, long ago. <grin>

 

[Island Beretta]

GRD: I don't think you will find someone switching from iso to weaver but like you I anxiously await replies to this query..