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.One good point about the Weaver is that it is a natural defensive position.
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.The weaver is better for weapon retention in a self defense situation.
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?At that distance simply acquiring the target and two quick pulls will hit in either stance.
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 faster followup shots, it won't matter in the real world.
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