Questioning my Training...Weaver or Isoceles?

[chicagopimp]

When I was trained in the academy, they put a big focus on learning to shoot in the Weaver stance. Although I used to rely on the Isoceles, I was also able to shoot equally well with the Weaver stance. Since then, I've seen a number of articles that stressed shooting Isoceles, as they said most people resort to that stance under stress when shooting.

Does anyone have any reasons why one would be superior to the other?

I apologize if this topic has been beat to death in the past....

[shield20]

I think Weaver as it is a more natural stance, especially since it is close to the standard interview position, which protects your weapon better, & is close to a standard martial arts position.

[jrklaus]

Don't know if it has been beaten to death here or not, but probably a lot of other places....

Taylor likes the Weaver, Ayoob prefers the Isoceles....

Pick the one that works best for you.

[Mannlicher]

Experts, both real, and self proclaimed, praise both stances. For what its worth, my advise would be to practice with both, and then choose the one that you shot best from. Finally, none of this is ever so set in stone, that one stance is 'better' than another for all circumstances. You need to develope the ability to shoot, and survive, in a variety of situations.

[Netzapper]

I find that when I need to move with my weapon held ready, I use a modified Weaver stance.

I will admit that I have never *fired* my weapon while moving, and have only practiced cornering and clearing with an unloaded weapon. But, in terms of maintaining my sight picture while moving, I do far better with the Weaver.

I also find that I have a wider range of fire using the Weaver, since the isometric tension used works well whatever way I'm pointing the weapon.

However, when I shoot at the range, I use an isoceles stance. I definitely show better accuracy from a static position with the isoceles. It also puts the weapon farther away from me, tightening up the slack in my sight picture.

Everybody I've read points out that you're going to behave suboptimally in a fight anyway. I practice several types of shooting when I go to the range, including one-handed, off-handed, and point shooting. When I have time/money to do more than my bi-weekly 100 rounds, I practice shooting in both Weaver and isoceles. If I'm just doing my standard 100-round practice routine, I shoot isoceles for my slow-fire drills.

[Double Naught Spy]

As noted, try both and see what works best for you, but also keep in mind that you do not have to select any one method. I shoot both ways depending on my body orientation relative to the target and whether I am standing still or moving and if moving, at what speed. More often than not, I tend to shoot a version that is a little of both as it feels most natural to me.

Of course for many folks, two handed shooting is not comfortable to them. Neither method fits one-handed shooting.

[MTCowboy]

There is a great deal of foolish discussion bouncing around concerning the proper arm position for serious pistol work. Jack Weaver's classic contribution consists in power control. If you crank that left elbow down and pull positive counter-pressure, you dampen recoil very considerably. If you use mechanical means of reducing recoil, and if you lay great importance upon very rapid bursts of succeeding shots, this may matter, but in the overall picture, I do not believe it does. It hardly matters whether you use the Weaver Stance or the Isosceles "with both arms straight" as long as you get hits, and those hits should be delivered with a major powered sidearm under controlled conditions. The argument is silly, and I wish it would go away.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries July '05

I think he sums it up well, don't you?

[swmike]

In many "coffe break" discussions I have had several mentions of "Weaver" exposing the weakness of the vest, namely the arm hole (even though there are a couple of bones blocking it). In some minds, the isoceles will always present the strongest part of the armor to the threat. Even stronger if the plate is worn. Others will say that weaver presents a smaller profile to the threat (unless some lbs. have been gained from too many coffee breaks). All this being said, weaver suits me better for my personal shooting accuracy. Just though I'd throw these comments in for further commenting :)

[Capt Charlie]

They both have their pluses and minuses. With the elbows locked, the isosceles tends to be more stable on the horizontal axis, but rotation to engage multiple targets requires movement at the waist only. So you're not as flexible, and you present a full-body target. The Weaver looses some of the stability of the isosceles stance, but it makes up for it in maneuverability, and you only present a 3/4 target. For combat, I think the Weaver is just a little better, and I like the isosceles for target, especially PPC. But as someone else said, everybody's built just a little different, and you have to find what works for you.

[SamD]

Do whichever is most comfortable for you and practice it a lot.
Learn to shoot from whatever contortion you can get into, when push come to shove, I suspect that you will shoot from whatever "position" you can manage to get into, maybe even no "position" at all. If there is lots of time get into your favored one, but do not lock yourself into a habit that says I can only shoot from this position.

And learn to shoot on the move.

Sam

[chicagopimp]

I've tried to practice from the Weaver stance as often as I could, just because, as someone had mentioned, it is a smooth transition from the interview stance. I, personally, never had a problem with it....I just saw enough articles praising isoceles that I began to question whether or not I was missing something.

Thank you for all of the feedback on this subject. I read all of the posts and all of the opinions were much appreciated!

[perception]

I was taught the isocoles, and I used it for a while. I never felt comfortable doing it. I always felt off balance awkward. I switched to the weaver stance, and to me it just feels much more natural, and my shooting improved dramatically. They both have advantages and disadvantages, you just have to decide which is the most natural for you.

[STEVE M]

I remember reading Jim Cirillo saying to learn to shoot from as many

positions and akward positions as possible, because you never know how you

will have to shoot.

[Para Bellum]

try to run and shoot at the same time. I can do that in isoceles, but not in weaver.

[Capt Charlie]

One of our exercises involves running at the 15 yd. line parallel to 4 targets. Two rounds to each target, reload, and run back doing the same thing. Timed and scored fire. Almost Impossible with the isosceles, and if you're right handed, very difficult on the return run without switching to a weak hand Weaver. So practice both stances, AND PRACTICE WEAK HAND SHOOTING! (which nobody likes to do :D )

[Para Bellum]

PRACTICE WEAK HAND SHOOTING! (which nobody likes to do )
I actually love it (because it's very easy to beat real good - strong hand -shooters if you have the slightest skill with your weak hand....)

[HighValleyRanch]

when you are referring to "weak hand shootin" are you referring to reversed two handed, i.e. trigger weak, support strong hand, or weak handed-one handed shooting?

[BreacherUp!]

I have the exact opposite thoughts as Capt Charlie. I find that during combat shooting and CQB, the modified isosceles works much better for me. Moving to the left, shooting right with the Weaver is just awkward. I have equal grip pressure whether I'm shooting left/right/moving left/right, etc.
I have also studied the "startled response" in humans. After many different gun battles on camera, all the shooters initially ducked their heads, rolled up the shoulders and shot from the modified isosceles (even practiced Weaver shooters). It is just natural human response to protect the vital neck area with the shoulders (hard to shoot this way when in the Weaver).
Modified Isosceles (MI)= feet shoulder width apart with weak side foot about one step forward, waist bent slightly forward, legs bent into a partial crouch (not standing straight up with head upright), shoulders up and head forward (not upright). This is the "startled response" seen in many shootings caught on camera.
Obviously, I'm in favor of the MI, and I used to shoot Weaver before learning this technique. Try them both. Not just at the 15 bullseye, but in combat-type courses.

[k9lwt]

I shot weaver for years and was completely comfortable with it. I recently became a firearms instructor and one of the first things they did was they broke down both stances and fully explained them both. For the entire week I (along with my partner) used the isoscoles. I really liked it and continue to use it. I can't really say that I saw a con to using it over the weaver. I do like the idea of being square to your target and getting the full protection of your armor. It was kind of like learning all over and I am still getting used to it. I guess the bottom line is try many, figure out what works for you and stick with it.

[CyberSEAL]

I like to use a thai boxing stance, which centers my weight.

[Scott Evans]

If my tactical shooting environment were likely to involve me being decked out in full body armor then the isocoles stance would be the most advantageous. The combination of the armors bulk and the direction of best protection favor being squared off to the target. It’s silly to expect to reach across a chest full of magazine carriers atop ballistic armor with the weaver.

If armor is not likely in my scenarios then the Weaver Stance is what I would train with. It is more stable with follow-up shots when shooting full power ammo and also presents a slightly smaller target to the BG.

Of course training and frequent practice are the most important aspect regardless of what stance you go with. Be sure hover to be geared out as you are likely to be when things go wrong.

[buzz_knox]

How about neither or all? I use Chapman most of the time, but will find myself switching among all three stances depending on what's going on.

[Bob F.]

"If you have a proper grip, solid stance and perfect sight picture..............



YOU AIN'T MOVING FAST ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Paraphrased from "The Rules of Gunfighting" by what's-his-name, a formerly famous gunzine writer.

At least I think that's where it from. Works for me. (No grammar lectures, please.)

Stay safe.
Bob

[LAK]

Shield20I think Weaver as it is a more natural stance, especially since it is close to the standard interview position, which protects your weapon better, & is close to a standard martial arts position.
This is exactly the way I see it.

While very stable, it is a more versatile or "dynamic" stance. This is important should sudden movement be needed, or a sudden contact engagement is presented for example.

Having said that, I think it is good to learn both, and try the minor variations. A preference is usually developed by the individual themselves.

[The Rabbi]

The late Col. Rex Applegate has a very salty talk, reproduced somewhere here on the Net, about Weaver training and how bad it is. He is very much a proponent of the one-hand stance in close quarters. It is an entertaining read.

[Morgan]

If you really think the old school, straight-strongarm Weaver is better, go shoot an IPSC/USPSA match, and be prepared to be embarrassed. Especially for fast follow-ups, the modified Weaver/bent arm iso stance is clearly superior.

[Jeff22]

Just so everybody is clear on the differences between the various shooting stances:

TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE
--Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target
--Legs are locked at the knees
--Firing arm is slightly bent at the elbow (pre-lock)
--Support arm is sharply bent and the elbow points down at the lead foot
--Firing hand pushes out
--Support hand pulls in
--Because the bent arms may lower the position of the gun in relation to the head, the head may have to be tilted to the side to achieve proper sight alignment.

The advantage of the traditional Weaver Stance is that the bent arms and isometric tension of the pushing and pulling muscles create a shock absorber effect that reduces felt recoil and snaps the gun rapidly back on target. Since the gun is closer to the body, it feels lightler and in fact exerts less leverage weight on bent arms than it would on fully extended, locked out arms.

The disadvantages are that the Weaver Stance is uncomfortable for many people. Shooters with shorter arms, greater upper body mass, or women with big bosoms (!) find it difficult to blade in relation to the target and reach across their chest. Sometimes the strong arm will over-power the weak arm, sending bullets hight to the left side for the right handed shooter. More often, the shooter may not lock the elbow of the support arm down enough, which results in the stance becoming unlocked and causes shots to drift low right for the right handed shooter.

THE CHAPMAN MODIFIED WEAVER STANCE
--Body slightly bladed in relation to the target
--Weak side foot forward
--Strong side foot back
--Weight balanced slightly on the lead foot
--Center of gravity slightly forward
--The foot position should be like driving a punch -- the forward leg bears the weight and the rear leg is the drive leg
--Elbow of the strong side arm is locked or nearly locked (pre-lock)
--Elbow of the weak side arm is bent down and aimed at the lead foot
--Lead shoulder over the lead knee
--Isometric Tension -- strong hand pushes out and the weak hand pulls back
--Bring the head down to the sights. If you bring the gun up to your eye, you may shoot high
--Cheekweld the side of your jaw on the strong side upper arm, just like cheeking a rifle stock. This consistently positions your eyes in relation to the sights, the same way every time
--Wide stance/pyramidal base

(this stance is my personal preference. I find that bringing my head down to the sights, establishing a cheek weld with the upper arm on my strong side, and keeping the center of gravity forward works very well when firing multiple rapid shots or when engaging multiple targets.)

THE MODIFIED ISOCELES STANCE (aka "the turret")
--Wide stance/pyramidal base
--Weak side foot slightly forward
--Strong side foot slightly back
--Weight on the lead foot/shoulders forward of the feet
--Center of gravity slightly forward
--Arms locked out
--Slight crouch/knees unlocked
--Lean into the gun

With the torso bent slightly at the waist and the gun straight out ahead in both hands, the body is balanced by the flexed knees, which automatically compensate for balance by lowering the center of gravity for the body in the pelvis. This technique can be made even stronger by taking a step toward the target with the weak foot and bending the lead knee, applying the weight forward. Think of it as leaning into the gun.

The body is now poised to move instantly forward or bak, or side to side, and a considerable portion of upper body weight, coupled with the muscular tension of the locked arms, helps snap the gun down in recoil.

The modified Isoceles Stance is essentially Isoceles from the waist up and Weaver from the waist down, and seems to be the most comfortable for many people.

I find that most shooters find the modified Isoceles Stance the most comfortable, followed by the Chapman Stance (in about a 60/40 ratio). I find almost nobody using the traditional Weaver Stance anymore, unless they're an old time IPSC shooter. In my experience, Shooters with longer arms and more upper body flexibility generally tend to find some kind of technique that looks like a Chapman, and shooters with shorter arms or greater mass in their upper body prefer some variation of the Isoceles.

(I personally prefer the Chapman Stance)

It's all a matter of personal preference, and preferences and comfort levels will change. I know a couple of IPSC & IDPA shooters who had back or shoulder injuries that made them switch from a modified Weaver to an Isocles. We have one guy on the PD who shot from Weaver who tore a rotator cuff making an arrest. When he came back to work after the surgery, we had him experiment with Isoceles to see if that might work better for him, and it did not. In his particular case, Isoceles was actually painful and the modified Weaver worked much better . . . I know another guy (an IPSC & IDPA shooter) who shot using the Chapman Stance for YEARS and then when he got old and had to get bifocals, he found he had to switch to Isoceles to get the front sight out just a little farther so that it was back in focus with his new glasses.

There is no one best way, there are just alternatives, and you have to experiment a little bit to see what works best for you. If you're an instructor, you need to know and be able to explain and demonstrate and trouble shoot all the common variations, because you don't know what combination of techniques will work best for your students.

[Hard Ball]

You should practice shooting from the stance you will use in actual combat. And watch out for stance "reversion" under combat stress. Many police shootings recorded on surviellance tapes show officers who were trained in the Weaver style "reverting" to the Isosceles stance when under fire.

[buzz_knox]

How about going back to basics? After you learn what the stances are, focus on shot placement, movement, and multiple target engagement. Your body will naturally find the balance and you'll find yourself moving into fairly stable positions based on the position. Weaver works well when your moving in some situations, isoceles works well when advancing, etc. Focussing too much on one stance can easily cause you to try to get into the stance before fighting (which costs time) or where moving your feet is a bad idea (i.e. when attacked on stairs).

[dawg23]

QUOTE from Morgan: If you really think the old school, straight-strongarm Weaver is better, go shoot an IPSC/USPSA match, and be prepared to be embarrassed. Especially for fast follow-ups, the modified Weaver/bent arm iso stance is clearly superior.

I'd suggest watching some of the IPSC or IDPA national matches on TV (like the IPSC Factory Gun Nationals). You'll have to look awfully hard to find any Weaver shooters (as defined by the isometric tension aspect).

The Weaver "push-pull technique" (forget "stance" for a minute) was predominant in the late 1950's and 1960's - was used by most all the top shooters. That changed when the Isosceles "method" arrived on the competitive scene. Now virtually every top shooter uses some version of the Isosceles.

Fast follow-ups don't require the bent arm push-pull technique. Your STANCE will vary depending on the position you are shooting FROM. If you're shooting around a barricade, you'll use some sort of bent arm stance, and it will vary depending on which side of the barricade you are shooting from. Plus you'll likely cant the gun somewhat. And if you're moving parallel to a row of targets, you'll adjust your technique accordingly. BUT all of these can be done quite well with the MI grip and a variety of "stances."

Bottom line: If the weaver were a superior shooting technique, the top pros would still be using it. If you want to modify your stance to alter the target you are presenting, fine. But don't confuse that with the notion that you need to control recoil with isometric tension. :)

[Morgan]

Jeff22 -

Your assessment of the modified Isoceles stance is not as I know it. The largest change from the original to the modified is that the elbows are NOT locked. Locking the elbows, one of the problems with the way some shoot Weaver, transmits recoil directly to the body and then to the head, not letting the wrists and elbows absorb the recoil. The shooter is still generally square to the target, though many adopt a slight weak foot forward stance.

I've got a GREAT video of Blake Miguez shooting a stage, with a Limited (no compensator or optic sight) gun, showing the flexibility, recoil control, and general superiority of this stance.

It's too large to post, but I'll e-mail to anyone who asks.

[Jeff22]

Morgan -- you're correct on the other variations of the Isoceles Stance, i.e. shooting with unlocked elbows. That's how Jerry Barnhart and others teach it. Those descriptions of the various stances are based on how LFI teaches them, and there are endless other variations out there.

I didn't post those descriptions with the intent of insulting the intelligence of anybody on this forum because I think this is (usually) a very knowledgable group. However, I went to a police firearms instructor update last spring, and this topic came up in discussion and we quickly determined that not everybody was using the same terminology to describe the same things . . . hence the descriptions.

And as many posters on this thread have mentioned, you can't get too hung up on any one stance or postion. In a match or in (god forbid) a gunfight, your feet will be where your feet are and you'll shoot from whatever position works at the time. If you ever get a chance to do force-on-force training with airsoft guns or the Simunitions FX system, you'll find this out IMMEDIATELY.

I shoot occassionally in local IDPA and IPSC and PPC matches. Four or five years ago I shot an IPSC match at my local club. The match designers had just come back from Area 5 or the Nationals or someplace (don't remember now) where there were a number of stages specifically designed to make competitors shoot from weird and awkward positions from behind cover and through doors and tunnels and so forth. The guys didn't do so good in the match, so they wanted to duplicate it and practice it. It was excellent practice. We all shot a little too fast and we all sucked, but it was a good exercise because proper use of available cover is probably more important to your survival in a gunfight than pure marksmanship skill is, and you never know what cover might be available, how it is configured, and how the dynamics of the situation might develop.

[LAK]

The RabbiThe late Col. Rex Applegate has a very salty talk, reproduced somewhere here on the Net, about Weaver training and how bad it is. He is very much a proponent of the one-hand stance in close quarters. It is an entertaining read.
And this is a very important point, something that competition shooting does not address. I think there not just a "good case for" - but that it is an essential element - to be able to shoot with one or either hand up close. The nonshooting hand used for support, blocking, balance or whatever else is called for.

The idea that a two-handed stance of any kind is going to be the answer for any and all sudden close encounters is ridiculous.

[Jeff22]

And addressing the concept of whether or not techniques used in IDPA or IPSC apply to the "real world" -- what technique some IPSC competitior shooting an open class gun with an electronic sight and recoil compensator drawn of a goofy competition holster is pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do in real life. What techniques are successful for an IPSC shooter in "production" class or an IDPA shooter in "stock service pistol" class is somewhat more relevant to the actual use of a handgun in self defense.

[Capt Charlie]

The idea that a two-handed stance of any kind is going to be the answer for any and all sudden close encounters is ridiculous.
Absolutely, positively correct! One of the most valuable drills we do at each and every qualification is a close encounter drill where you stand 2 feet from the target, body bladed some so that your weapon is away from the target. At the whistle, you bring your left arm up (for right handers) in a defensive sweep, while quick drawing and firing one round from a hip tucked position, into the hip / gut / groin. Then you immediately walk backwards while switching to a two handed grip and firing three more into center mass. I think it's the most realistic and practical drill we do.

[The Rabbi]

Thats a good drill, Capt. How often do people shoot themselves in the arm?

[Capt Charlie]

Well Rabbi, we do have one or two fellers that can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but nobody's winged themselves yet :D . If it happens though, I'll bet that guy will only do it once :eek: :D :rolleyes: .

Seriously, that is a concern, and is why we start that one off slow, and build up speed. The one drill that scares the beegeebee's out of me is the one-hand rack. Your weak hand goes in your back pocket and stays there. One mag is loaded with a couple of duds thrown in randomly. Shoot one-handed and when the "misfire" occurs, you must rack a new round home (Glock 17's) by placing the front edge of the slide either on the edge of your gunbelt or boot and pushing the slide back, and continue shooting. I guess it's practical, but I don't like chambering a round with the muzzle that close to my body.

[HighValleyRanch]

Capt:
We learned to use the sights to rack, not the front of the slide. That way, the muzzle can be pointed away from the body.
Hook the rear sight on your belt or boot top.
I tried with the front edge of the slide on my belt and my pants almost fell off.Couldn't do it on my shoes either. Glock 19-----empty of course.