Weaver vs. Isosceles Stance?
- Thread starter wally
- Start date
- Status
C. H. Luke
Member
"Don't know what Bryce's best was...Anybody?"
Tuner,
A neat article on Jelly:
"On November 12, 1945, Life Magazine ran an unusual story. It was a photographic study of an FBI Agent named Jelly Bryce drawing and firing his .357 Magnum in two-fifths of a second, faster than the human eye can follow…"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This is an interesting picture. Delf Bryce could drop a silver dollar, as shown in the picture, and he could draw and fire before the coin passed the gun which was at waist level. Bryce was one of those incredibly and naturally skilled men who could point shoot and hit everything they aimed at."
From:
http://www.donrearic.com/twodeadlymen.html
Tuner,
A neat article on Jelly:
"On November 12, 1945, Life Magazine ran an unusual story. It was a photographic study of an FBI Agent named Jelly Bryce drawing and firing his .357 Magnum in two-fifths of a second, faster than the human eye can follow…"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This is an interesting picture. Delf Bryce could drop a silver dollar, as shown in the picture, and he could draw and fire before the coin passed the gun which was at waist level. Bryce was one of those incredibly and naturally skilled men who could point shoot and hit everything they aimed at."
From:
http://www.donrearic.com/twodeadlymen.html
OP
OP
wally
Member
Not really, a blink is typically 50 milliseconds, 0.050 seconds, about the time it takes for the sound of a start buzzer to reach you from ~60 ft away.
You see and percieve things you can't possibly react too all the time -- bugs splatting into a motorcyclist's face is a good example
I can get my gun out of the holster about the time the silver dollar hits the floor. Bet I could improve with practice, but getting off an accurate shot WOW!
--wally.
Back on the original subject. One of the early posts said it best. Do what works for you. I started with the isoceles many years ago. I won many match shooting a custom heavy barrel revolver firing match loaded ammo. Liability raised it's ugly head starting back in the late 70's and I urged our department to start using full power duty/carry ammo. Scores and times plummeted. Even the hot match shooters didn't do well with heavy load ammo and standard carry guns, myself included. We invested in some top of the line instruction who taught us the Weaver stance. Using the proper isometric hold all personnel were able to successfully qualify with carry ammo and handguns. If you plan to shoot matches with heavy guns loaded with the lowest power ammo allowed, the Isoceles will work fine for you. Keep in mind those master blasters shoot hundreds of rounds if not more weekly and could probably shoot the gun upside down if they wanted. If you practice any stance for hours daily you will shoot well. However, if you are a typical ccw/le you will not carry your race gun and ammo in the real world. Your best bet may be the Weaver. The Marine site seems to miss the point of the Weaver stance as a properly executed Weaver allows excellent control of heavy recoil handguns, ie. .357 and .45 auto. Find the proper technique for both, try them, and use the best for you.
The assertion that you can't handle heavily recoiling firearms from the modern ISO is a myth. I get the feeling that this myth reached the level of acceptance that it has when Weaver shooters (of the late 70's, as you pointed out, akviper) compared the early and very immature ISO against the Weaver of the time. See: Col. Cooper. I've seen video of the Col. 'proving' that the ISO can't handle the recoil of a .45 (!) by shooting it from a strange ISO-like stance he assumed and then from Weaver and commenting on how the muzzle reached a higher point during recoil from ISO. Which is irrelevant, but then again if you haven't kept up with the state-of-the-art on the ISO, you wouldn't know that.
I get the impression that ISO was thrown into the trash heap by alot of weaver proponents and then never given another look. The platform evolved over time (and still is) and now they are trying to make a case for Weaver by comparing it to a 30-year old version of ISO, which is no longer in use.
Again, the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation. There isn't anything about the modern ISO that handicaps the shooter with full-power loads. It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is.
For curiosity's sake, akviper, have you taken any instruction in the modern ISO and compared it to the Weaver? It would be interesting to hear your opinion as you will then have shot the original ISO, the Weaver and then the modern ISO. That might be a fairly unique perpective to have.
- Gabe
I get the impression that ISO was thrown into the trash heap by alot of weaver proponents and then never given another look. The platform evolved over time (and still is) and now they are trying to make a case for Weaver by comparing it to a 30-year old version of ISO, which is no longer in use.
Again, the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation. There isn't anything about the modern ISO that handicaps the shooter with full-power loads. It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is.
For curiosity's sake, akviper, have you taken any instruction in the modern ISO and compared it to the Weaver? It would be interesting to hear your opinion as you will then have shot the original ISO, the Weaver and then the modern ISO. That might be a fairly unique perpective to have.
- Gabe
Walt Sherrill
Member
Makes me wonder, too, if our timer was being a bit generous...
This was with gun up, finger on the trigger, and just reacting to a noise.
Imagine doing the whole packge: moving your hand to the gun, moving it from the holster, getting the hand on the trigger just right, pointing the gun, sighting (or whateverinhell someone like Jordan did), and THEN pulling the trigger -- all in less than twice as fast as MY ability to just pull the trigger.
I'm impressed.
My personal best time was maybe .16, and I didn't do that often. When I'm rested, alert, etc., I can frequently do it in .18 - .20 of a second, with a .17 sneaking in from time to time. And about the same for breaks. And I'm not the slowest guy in our club. (I'm also not the best shot, either. <grin>)
A friend who just got her Ph.D in Physical Therapy said a lot of it depends on a person's muscle/nervous system, and whether the subject has what are called "fast twitch" muscles.
Jordan must have had VERY FAST TWITCH muscles to do what he did, so frequently, with such success. Many top athletes have this innate ability. (In the final analysis I'd have to say that Jordan was a world-class athlete and a damned good shooter and he kept that skill/ability until very late in his life.)
In our informal test (4 guys) I was the fastest by quite a bit. "I suck" meaning as an overall shooter comparatively. Maybe I have a good reaction time, but that's not the whole ballgame.
- Gabe
That's what we were doing. Timer was a PACT Club II, pretty standard.
- Gabe
Last edited:
Playing around with this for a while will give you an idea of what you might do...it's visual, I can't find an audio one at the moment.
- Gabe
PS: Hold the stop button down and release it to get a better idea of what you're time is. The java clocks on the release of the mouse, not the click.
PPS: I'm doing .171's and .172's on that. I'll have to check my logs for that day (I'm sure I wrote down the times), but I'll be boiled in oil if I wasn't doing .13's and .15's off the buzzer...
- Gabe
PS: Hold the stop button down and release it to get a better idea of what you're time is. The java clocks on the release of the mouse, not the click.
PPS: I'm doing .171's and .172's on that. I'll have to check my logs for that day (I'm sure I wrote down the times), but I'll be boiled in oil if I wasn't doing .13's and .15's off the buzzer...
Attachments
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
To Walt
Walt,
I have a copy of Jordan's book: "No Second Chance Winner" if you'd like to
read it. Jordan describes in detail how the draw is accomplished and provides pictures. You're welcome to borrow it if you want. Let me know.
Walt,
I have a copy of Jordan's book: "No Second Chance Winner" if you'd like to
read it. Jordan describes in detail how the draw is accomplished and provides pictures. You're welcome to borrow it if you want. Let me know.
Chris Rhines
Member
That's interesting, GRD. I can't get under a .250 on that one - no wonder my draw time sucks so badly...
- Chris
- Chris
C. H. Luke
Member
"...the vast majority of people shooting, teaching, learning, and winning (both competitions and gunfights) using full-power ammo are doing so from an ISO variation."
Just how have you determined this?
"It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is."
Your personal Opinion, again?
Just how have you determined this?
"It's no more a 'competition-only' platform than the Weaver is."
Your personal Opinion, again?
Well, lets reason this out. I said:
Shooting/Competing: I have personally never seen anyone win a modern pistol competition of any type from Weaver. Now, I wasn't at the IDPA nationals or anything, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that in the top 20, there wasn't a single Weaver shooter. And I know there aren't any Weaver shooters winning USPSA matches. Zero. So, the vast majority of people winning competitions (at least competitions relevant to our discussion here) are shooting ISO. Maybe it's big in some slow-fire events or Bianchi or something...but all the Bianchi shooters I know and all the shooters I've ever seen shot ISO. The winners most certainly are.
So, no, it's not just my opinion.
- Gabe
Teaching/Learning: I know of only one major training outfit that still teaches Weaver, and even they don't force students into it, so only a percentage of their students (probably almost all of the entry-level students) are shooting Weaver. So, if only one of the major schools is teaching Weaver, then the vast majority of teachers are teaching ISO. From that, it stands to reason that vast majority of students are learning ISO...and they're shooting real ammo, too. I'll defer to the cops on the board to chime in if they are being taught Weaver in local department-mandated training. I doubt we'll find too many.
Shooting/Competing: I have personally never seen anyone win a modern pistol competition of any type from Weaver. Now, I wasn't at the IDPA nationals or anything, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that in the top 20, there wasn't a single Weaver shooter. And I know there aren't any Weaver shooters winning USPSA matches. Zero. So, the vast majority of people winning competitions (at least competitions relevant to our discussion here) are shooting ISO. Maybe it's big in some slow-fire events or Bianchi or something...but all the Bianchi shooters I know and all the shooters I've ever seen shot ISO. The winners most certainly are.
The vast majority of trainers are teaching ISO, we've established this. That is just reality. Again, there is only one major school (correct me if you know of more than that one...but even if there is more than one you'd have to show at least, what, 40% are teaching weaver to refute the 'vast' term and show at least 51% to refute 'majority'...good luck with that) still teaching Weaver. And these people are not teaching 'How to Win IDPA Matches' classes.
So, no, it's not just my opinion.
- Gabe
C. H. Luke
Member
"The vast majority of trainers are teaching ISO, we've established this."
Your rhetoric is as believable as the John Kerry Campaign quote:
"I'm a gunner..."
What's this "We" Stuff?
Your rhetoric is as believable as the John Kerry Campaign quote:
"I'm a gunner..."
What's this "We" Stuff?
Walt Sherrill
Member
Nor has C.H. Luke offered a credible counter-proof.
Island Beretta
Member
Ankeny: Quick one.. how important do you feel the 'heel weld' is at the back of the gun for recoil management and transitions in the isosceles?
I have noticed that my clamshell grip doesn't quite result in a firm heel weld and maybe therefore I am not optimising recoil management.. should I sweat it?
I have noticed that my clamshell grip doesn't quite result in a firm heel weld and maybe therefore I am not optimising recoil management.. should I sweat it?
This thread began with discussion of isosceles versus the Weaver stance. I am no expert, but I think these are both 2-hand methods.
The end of the thread speaks of drawing and firing quickly as in an IDPA match. Do these rapid draw-and-fire times include getting a grip with both hands? Seems like 1-hand grip would be faster...
The end of the thread speaks of drawing and firing quickly as in an IDPA match. Do these rapid draw-and-fire times include getting a grip with both hands? Seems like 1-hand grip would be faster...
Jammer Six
member
It wasn't Luke's claim, it was GRD's claim.
It wasn't up to Luke to provide proof, counter or otherwise.
When asked for what is commonly known as a citation, GRD failed to provide anything other than opinion. There are formal standards from many disciplines for what constitutes a citation, and none of GRD's many answers met any of them.
Without a citation, what GRD says is simply opinion, unless he personally has some claim or credentials as an expert. Since this discussion would require expertise in shooting, competition, and firearms instruction as well as law enforcement and shootouts, or as a statistician who has studied those fields, I'd be interested in what those credentials could be.
Even then, those with such credentials would be able to cite their sources when making the number and types of claims that GRD has made.
No one is above being asked to provide citations.
At least, no one with any credibility.
Without those credentials, or without a citation, Luke is absolutely correct: the claims GRD has made are simply another opinion.
It wasn't up to Luke to provide proof, counter or otherwise.
When asked for what is commonly known as a citation, GRD failed to provide anything other than opinion. There are formal standards from many disciplines for what constitutes a citation, and none of GRD's many answers met any of them.
Without a citation, what GRD says is simply opinion, unless he personally has some claim or credentials as an expert. Since this discussion would require expertise in shooting, competition, and firearms instruction as well as law enforcement and shootouts, or as a statistician who has studied those fields, I'd be interested in what those credentials could be.
Even then, those with such credentials would be able to cite their sources when making the number and types of claims that GRD has made.
No one is above being asked to provide citations.
At least, no one with any credibility.
Without those credentials, or without a citation, Luke is absolutely correct: the claims GRD has made are simply another opinion.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Jammer Six:
This is like a political or religious discussion. <grin>
GRD said he knew of ONLY ONE major training program that used/taught the Weaver stance. I, personally, didn't know of ANY schools teaching Weaver. That "one" was a surprise to me. (Gunsite?) He used a little hyperbole, too.
I haven't made an effort to familiarize myself with a lot of different training programs. I'm not really "up" on the various schools. I've been to three classes (classes, not schools), myself and all three focused on the ISO stance and worked to get folks OUT of the Weaver stance. The instructors explained why they were doing that, and it seemed to make sense.
Nearly everybody was shooting better and faster when they were done -- but that might have been true if the instructor were teaching Weaver, too. Classes typically have that effect on folks.
The easiest way for someone to shut GRD up would be to falsify his claim -- by offering up the names of schools using Weaver. That hasn't happened, yet. Maybe it will. Perhaps C.H.Luke's right and GRD's wrong! I'd love to seem some proof, one way or another.
riq9thrk:
Re: one-handed and two-handed first shots.
If we're talking about aimed shots, rather than point shooting, I suspect the one-handed shot might even be slower, becuase for most folks its marginally more difficult to get the gun steady on target with one hand than two!
I don't think two hands are really slower, because:
1) The left and right hands are working independently; it doesn't take more time to position the left hand if you're right-handed, or vice versa.
2) the strong hand is already pulling the gun into position it should be in regardless of whether one or two hands are being used (i.e., sight alignment). There will be minor differences, but the guns going to ABOUT the same place, regardless of whether you're using a one-handed or two-handed grip.
3) Wrapping the off-hand around the grip shouldn't add that much time, and for the same reason as 1), above.
4) two hands will give you a much more stable aiming platform.
5) Recoil control is harder with one hand, so rapid followup shots are more difficult. In this type of shooting, one shot typically isnt' enough. <grin>
In my experience (which admittedly isn't all that broad) when folks shoot try to shoot fast using one hand they typically shoot less well than when they use two hands. Even when they take extra time to aim carefully. I don't know about point shooting; I suspect that's different.
One of the strings in the first stage of the IDPA Classifier calls for you to shoot strong hand only, drawing from the holster. People slow down when they do that, and still don't shoot as well as when they shoot two-handed.
Perhaps its psychological, and training would get them past this seeming hurdle. I doubt it, but have no proof.
This is like a political or religious discussion. <grin>
GRD said he knew of ONLY ONE major training program that used/taught the Weaver stance. I, personally, didn't know of ANY schools teaching Weaver. That "one" was a surprise to me. (Gunsite?) He used a little hyperbole, too.
I haven't made an effort to familiarize myself with a lot of different training programs. I'm not really "up" on the various schools. I've been to three classes (classes, not schools), myself and all three focused on the ISO stance and worked to get folks OUT of the Weaver stance. The instructors explained why they were doing that, and it seemed to make sense.
Nearly everybody was shooting better and faster when they were done -- but that might have been true if the instructor were teaching Weaver, too. Classes typically have that effect on folks.
The easiest way for someone to shut GRD up would be to falsify his claim -- by offering up the names of schools using Weaver. That hasn't happened, yet. Maybe it will. Perhaps C.H.Luke's right and GRD's wrong! I'd love to seem some proof, one way or another.
riq9thrk:
Re: one-handed and two-handed first shots.
If we're talking about aimed shots, rather than point shooting, I suspect the one-handed shot might even be slower, becuase for most folks its marginally more difficult to get the gun steady on target with one hand than two!
I don't think two hands are really slower, because:
1) The left and right hands are working independently; it doesn't take more time to position the left hand if you're right-handed, or vice versa.
2) the strong hand is already pulling the gun into position it should be in regardless of whether one or two hands are being used (i.e., sight alignment). There will be minor differences, but the guns going to ABOUT the same place, regardless of whether you're using a one-handed or two-handed grip.
3) Wrapping the off-hand around the grip shouldn't add that much time, and for the same reason as 1), above.
4) two hands will give you a much more stable aiming platform.
5) Recoil control is harder with one hand, so rapid followup shots are more difficult. In this type of shooting, one shot typically isnt' enough. <grin>
In my experience (which admittedly isn't all that broad) when folks shoot try to shoot fast using one hand they typically shoot less well than when they use two hands. Even when they take extra time to aim carefully. I don't know about point shooting; I suspect that's different.
One of the strings in the first stage of the IDPA Classifier calls for you to shoot strong hand only, drawing from the holster. People slow down when they do that, and still don't shoot as well as when they shoot two-handed.
Perhaps its psychological, and training would get them past this seeming hurdle. I doubt it, but have no proof.
That would be something.
Re: opinion: What kind of 'credentials' or 'citations' would possibly be available for this? Unless someone has done a formal (or even informal) survery of all shooting schools, department training, competition, etc. what we have to work with here is observable evidence. The evidence is that there are hardly any schools teaching Weaver. Which leads logically to the statement "The vast majority of..." If anyone has any evidence to the contrary of this current hypothesis, lets have it. I believe this thread has now been reduced to indicting me for not stating "I hypothesize that the vast majority..." when stating what, for all intents and purposes, is the obvious.
In the absence of any formal study about the prevalent platforms being taught/used, I made a statement concluded from the observable evidence, then expanded on the reasoning behind it when asked to do so. If you are going to hang your hat on the fact that nobody in this thread is going to pull an honest-to-god peer-reviewed statistical survey out of their ass to prove that Weaver is yesterday's news, you certainly have that right.
I can't go any farther than that, who here can? But I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. The observable evidence is overwhelming. Jammer is correct, I can't provide a 'citation' to any peer-reviewed studies of what is being taught...frankly, I doubt one exists.
So you get off on a technicality.
I can live with that.- Gabe
PS:
2,700 and counting, so good luck with that.
Last edited:
Jammer Six
member
I have no idea.
It's one of the reasons I'm not making the claims you are.
I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing supporting any of your claims beyond your opinion.
I didn't realize it was a religious argument. Personally, I'm a Chevy guy, so I understand that concept, and I would go on to extropolate that since proof that Fords are better wouldn't convince me of jack, I disagree that any "counter" proof would "shut GRD up", quickly or otherwise.
I will now return to the silence Chevy guys are famous for, and let you believe whatever you wish.
We're famous for silence because we Know.
Not true. There's a healthy quantity of observable evidence to support the statement.
That's not enough for you, I'm fine with that. But don't tell me it's 'nothing'. If I said "I think tomorrow the world will end," that would be an opinion based on nothing.
That's it. I'm out. Back to debating the merits of W. v I.....I hope.
So, hey: if you take a torso hit from the front in Weaver the chance of the round penetrating multiple vital parts is higher than if you take a torso hit from ISO.
<duck and run>- Gabe
ClarkEMyers
Member
Is anybody running classes with handguns for big bears?
As noted above I have no doubt Iso is preferred for everything in an autoloader - with the possible exception of Wildey? some of the Jurras loads in an Automag? - in fact I prefer it myself as well. I can't imagine anyone at all setting out to shoot Weaver in a race gun or what have you for SSC, Limited 10, IDPA or any other practical sport.
I still think there is a difference given that Jack Weaver started with revolvers - different bore line, trigger pull and lots of other incidentals of use.
Just the same I'm curious about Weaver for the .454/.460/.480 and on up to .500. Anybody teaching classes in how to handle a charging bear (take away his credit card?) with repeat shots at moving targets from painful handguns?
Again I find myself falling into a Weaver with an N-frame magnum and I'd certainly expect to go Weaver if I'm ever gifted with an X-frame? Any actual experiences out there?
As noted above I have no doubt Iso is preferred for everything in an autoloader - with the possible exception of Wildey? some of the Jurras loads in an Automag? - in fact I prefer it myself as well. I can't imagine anyone at all setting out to shoot Weaver in a race gun or what have you for SSC, Limited 10, IDPA or any other practical sport.
I still think there is a difference given that Jack Weaver started with revolvers - different bore line, trigger pull and lots of other incidentals of use.
Just the same I'm curious about Weaver for the .454/.460/.480 and on up to .500. Anybody teaching classes in how to handle a charging bear (take away his credit card?) with repeat shots at moving targets from painful handguns?
Again I find myself falling into a Weaver with an N-frame magnum and I'd certainly expect to go Weaver if I'm ever gifted with an X-frame? Any actual experiences out there?
Jammer Six
member
Cite, please.
Without a cite, it's merely opinion, with nothing supporting it.
Oh, wait, this is where I came in, isn't it?
Enjoy your Ford, GRD.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
