Weaver vs. Modern Isoscles Shooting Platforms

[9mmepiphany]

Bladed also allows dropping down on your knee without repositioning the feet. Try that with Isosceles.

So does the MI and the Original Weaver. They taught the technique with the Weaver at Gunsite when I attended a 250 class. I just used it out of the MI this afternoon during an IDPA match stage. The COF was 6 shots standing, reload and going to kneeling, 6 more shots before another reload and going prone. Bladed shooters (we have a lot of Front Sight alumni) had to assume a one-knee down position to avoid being off-target without having to reposition their feet, while MI shooters just dropped to their knees while still facing their targets

For one-handed shooting, I blade the other way, and more severely; virtually a straight line down the arm and across the body, from muzzle to weak hand shoulder.

Interesting, as I used to do this also. Since utilizing the MI, I now just maintain my body position and extend my shooting arm forward...there really isn't a need to switch sides. Plus blading to shoot one-handed is unduly torquing the body and interferes with rapid movement

Try traversing toward your strong side with a rifle from the Isosceles.

The MI when used with a long gun, as currently utilized in the military is based on balanced movement. When you reach the end of your comfort range, you just step forward (or back) and turn the stepping foot in (or out) to face the target

 

[MachIVshooter]

Bladed shooters (we have a lot of Front Sight alumni) had to assume a one-knee down position to avoid being off-target without having to reposition their feet, while MI shooters just dropped to their knees while still facing their targets

That was my point. Dropping onto one knee is controlled; dropping to both knees is an abrupt, disruptive movement. Getting up from a one-knee kneel is also faster and more fluid. It's not like I haven't tried it both ways.

The MI when used with a long gun, as currently utilized in the military is based on balanced movement. When you reach the end of your comfort range, you just step forward (or back) and turn the stepping foot in (or out) to face the target

Again, that's the point. I can traverse almost as far weak side and MUCH further strong side without repositioning my feet from a bladed stance. It is nigh impossible to go 90* strong side with a rifle from the isosceles without moving your feet (unless you switch hands)

There were 6 of us shooting today. Some of these guys like Isosceles, some MW. I'm more bladed than any of them. Guess who had the best times?

I don't discourage people from using other stances if it works for them. But for me, blading heavily is the most controlled, most balanced and most accurate.


ETA:

All the stance stuff is fun to talk about, but I think we should point out that it pretty much flies out the window in more advanced simulations. Trying to shoot under a vehicle or around cover, stances are simply not used, nor are they when shooting on the move. That said, I do blade my torso a bit when shooting and moving.

 

[9mmepiphany]

All the stance stuff is fun to talk about, but I think we should point out that it pretty much flies out the window in more advanced simulations.

Than perhaps we can drag it back to the original point of the thread...and mostly the reason I posted the video.

Do you push-pull as taught in the Weaver doctrine or utilize a more uniform arm geometry?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Do you push-pull as taught in the Weaver doctrine or utilize a more uniform arm geometry?

Push-pull. I very much strong-arm guns.

I actually tend to move my body and handle most things with much more force than necessary. Not sure why, and it does make for more painful miscalculations in movement; not uncommon for me to skin a knuckle on door trim when reaching for a light switch.

 

[Ankeny]

Do you push-pull as taught in the Weaver doctrine...

Short answer is no. The discussions about this stance vs. that stance will continue. Beginners need a place to start and the basics of grip, balance, and stance are the foundations of a working shooting platform. Fact is, if the bore of the pistol is in proper alignment with the target face, and if the bullet leaves the bore without disturbing the alignment, you will get the hit unless the target moves. Doesn't matter if you use the Weaver, modern iso., or the ruptured egret stance.

In my experience, those shooters who have a solid foundation, a superior shooting platform, and the most miles behind the gun, seem to have the best chances of getting the hit under less than ideal shooting conditions. Of course I am talking about the square range. FWIW, the fundamental shooting platforms of the vast majority of our best "practical shooting" champions are very similar. Like Ron Avery said, "The choice is yours."

 

[Bill4282]

Everybody knows that Marines are bullet-proof per the DIs so a straight on sighting stance is OK. As a boot, we got to fire 7 rounds of .45 and, at the time, only NCOs got to carry .45s in place of M16s. All iron sights, everybody had a bayonet. SNCOs got a Kabar.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Push-pull. I very much strong-arm guns.

That is what I would have guessed...it is a personal control issue. As Avery said, you have to make your own choice for your comfort zone.

It really is a philosophical decisions between control vs. management; brute force vs. efficiency

 

[holdencm9]

9mm, thanks for starting this thread. It has been interesting to read. I agree with you that "stance" is somewhat of a misnomer. It is more about the philosophy.

When I first started shooting pistols, I was all about the weaver, without even knowing it. For feet and arms. When I started to try getting serious about it, reading things online, and I adopted the Isosceles philosophy in the arms, I greatly improved. It was a revelation to realize, "Wow, I don't need to fight the recoil, I can just accept it" or manage it, as you say.

I still sometimes revert back to weaver feet (modified isosceles?), but apparently my torso is still twisted toward the target, and I maintain the isosceles arms somehow.

Regardless of which "stance" someone chooses, I think the argument (in favor of weaver) that the weaver presents a smaller target to the bad guy...is rather weak.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I adopted the Isosceles philosophy in the arms, I greatly improved. It was a revelation to realize, "Wow, I don't need to fight the recoil, I can just accept it" or manage it, as you say.

That is the reason my shooting philosophy evolved also.

Avery has an interesting take of taking the recoil with the forward leaning body, rather than fighting against it with your arms...something I've never heard before.

My background is in Internal Power martial arts and leans more toward accepting the recoil through correct structure and transferring it downward into the ground.

I think it is just a Western vs. Eastern perception of power transfer