Modified Modified Weaver?

[royce]

I'm new to shooting. I studied the basic stances and tried some different things target shooting. One of the things I tried--I know it is not standard--was locking BOTH arms while standing in a Weaver stance. Strangely, I was most accurate this way. Shooting a Glock 19, I could hit a beer can almost every time from about 10 yards. For me, that's REALLY good. I could still hit it a fair amount of the time using the modified Weaver stance, with only my strong arm locked, but I wasn't nailing it over and over as I was with both arms locked. I was least accurate using a standard Weaver with both arms bent. This was only my second serious shooting session. The first was using a .45, and I could barely hit a paper plate from five yards.

In case you wonder how I managed to straighten my weak (left) arm, I just rotated my left hand down until the same arm would lock out. I was still able to lock my strong (right) arm back in the socket. I don't know if it makes a difference, but I have pretty narrow shoulders and frame.

Has anyone else tried this? Is there some good reason why I shouldn't keep doing this? Thanks.

[Hard Ball]

Whatever works fop you is fine.

[evan1293]

Your stance doesn't matter. Its not like a golf swing...your lower body position is irrelevant to shooting accurately (which is why its possible to shoot accurately on the move.)

For placing a single accurate shot, the only thing that matters is sight alignment and proper trigger control. For taking fast, accurate follow up shots, then things like grip, body position, etc come into play. Its important to understand what effects what when shooting otherwise you'll get hung up with the typical 'chasing your tail' when it comes to correcting shooting errors.

What you use for a stance (iso ,weaver, ect) on the square range isn't going to matter once you start moving.

[RGR3/75]

i wouldn't say your lower body stance isn't important because that's your base. unstable shooting platform=inaccuracy. you can still have a steady base when you're walking and shooting. if you're shooting with both eyes open, the weaver is not the way to go. if you lock both your arms and keep a slight bend in your knees, you can take all the recoil traveling back and keep your pistol traveling up and down as opposed to back towards you. therefore making it easier to acquire on follow up shots. when you lock only one arm out, you can tend to pull shots either to the right or the left. it's whatever works for you and allows you to put rounds on target fast and accurately. the key is dry firing your weapon. the fundamentals are the same weather you're shooting a .22 or a .45.

[evan1293]

i wouldn't say your lower body stance isn't important because that's your base. unstable shooting platform=inaccuracy.

Nope...doesn't matter. As long as your sights are on target at the moment the shot breaks and you don't jerk the trigger its going to be a bullseye. This is fairly obvious but there are so many misconceptions out there about shooting that everyone has kind of lost common sense. Granted its more difficult to shoot accurately off an unstable base / platform, but that that doesn't automatically equate to inaccuracy. I've shot targets off a balance beam in competition. The beam would actually swing when the shooter is on it. Its sounds silly but it shows that accurate shots can still be made from an unstable platform. You just need to watch your sights and press the trigger smoothly.

[RGR3/75]

granted you're probably a way better shooter than me, but i'm talking about your body itself. it still has to be stabilized on the surface you're shooting on, moving or not. that's all i'm getting at. you're gonna have to put more than one round in someone to put them down so that steady base is important. whatever platform you're shooting from, and that first round knocks you off balance, you've lost that chance for a fast follow up shot. obviously your trigger squeeze and sight alignment and hand placement are the key, but i believe stance has its part

[evan1293]

You're absolutely correct...I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about firing a single, accurate shot. What is required to place an accurate shot is ONLY proper sight alignment and trigger control (with correct follow-through).

Proper technique includes things like your grip, "stance," finger placement, etc. These are all important for replicating the fundamentals quickly and effectively. So yes, if you're shooting multiple shots, and you want to do so as fast as possible, your stability is very important.

Most shooters get caught up with having to have their feet in a certain position or their arms just so to shoot accurately on the square range. None of that matters for trying to shoot groups with unlimited time. That's where the tail-chasing comes. Often, shooting errors are addressed through irrelevant things rather than focusing on the real issues (sights and trigger)...and 90% of the time its trigger control.

[RGR3/75]

whammy. agreed

[booker_t]

If the sights are aligned when the trigger breaks, you'll put lead on target. The golf swing (or foul shot) analogy is a good one.

Using the strict definitions of the words, having the same solid stance for each shot will certainly improve precision, but will only slightly effect accuracy.

To clarify, if your sight alignment is a foot left, you could have a gun clamped in a bench and it'll be 100% precise, hitting the same spot a foot left every shot every day and twice on Sunday. But you're still a foot left. Very precise, but not accurate at all.

Likewise, you could be shooting sloppy offhand and have that same group of shots all within 3" of the bull. It's fairly accurate, but not nearly as precise.

Which would you prefer?

Now setting up the same way each time, regardless of how you set up, is something that can result in consistency, so long as the general fundamentals are observed. You may find that one stance leads to 80% of your shots being within 3" of the bull. Not bad, right? Well that might be the limit with that given stance, because something about it is inherently leading to inconsistency. But I wouldn't worry about that too much, do what's comfortable to put the gun in a position such that you can reliably align the sites and provide a smooth trigger pull.

Check out hickok45 on YouTube, he has some practical shooting stance/grip/trigger videos, along with Todd Jarrett, Rob Leatham, etc. Listen and read as many people's descriptions as possible, and try to incorporate pieces that seem to fit your body mechanics and physiology.

Some other things.. off the top of my head:

1) Determine which eye is dominant, and read about eye dominance in shooting to address it. Try the scotch tape/grease/other methods to get to where you can always see a crisp front sight with your natural point of aim.

1b) Training your eyes to automatically adjust focus as you raise the gun is tough (well it was for me) but worth the effort, and you can do it at home during commercials or whenever. Just be SAFE (physically check no mag, check cleared chamber, rack slide multiple times, pull trigger in safe direction, ammo in separate room... each time, every time, multiple times).

2) Keep your eyes open through the shot. Easier said than done for some people. Work with a partner and watch each other.

3) Check out the Army Marksmanship Unit videos.

4) Practice shooting single handed (duelist style), it forces you to focus more on trigger control (I think). Then add your 2nd hand.

5) Play with respective hand grip strength. I typically hold with about 40% of the grip pressure in my right (shooting) hand and 60% in the left.

6) If your range allows it, shoot kneeling (supported and unsupported) and prone (supported and unsupported, flat and rolled over on your shoulder). It's NEVER too early to start shooting from behind cover if you ask me.

7) Be safe (see above).

[MrBorland]

For placing a single accurate shot, the only thing that matters is sight alignment and proper trigger control. For taking fast, accurate follow up shots, then things like grip, body position, etc come into play.

Well, if that one accurate shot isn't a fluke, one would also be able to place a group of shots accurately as well. As such, while I completely agree it's all about the fundamentals, they need to be applied well consistently, to be consistently (i.e. truly) accurate. A lower body that's off balance or not relaxed, a stance that makes it difficult to be consistent or a grip that's inconsistent from shot to shot undermines your ability to apply the fundamentals consistently.

As mentioned, trigger control is one of the biggies. Check out this vids as an example of trigger control. A smooth action certainly helps, but total relaxation is key. This little trick wouldn't be possible if I was fighting any imbalance or inconsistency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI


To the OP - nice job. There's no one perfect stance. You have to experiment to see what works best for you and the type of shooting you're interesting in. If shooting for pure accuracy, though, maybe experiment with the isosceles stance as well, as there's less push/pull on the gun, which some find makes it tougher to hold the gun consistently between shots.

[royce]

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't practicing double-taps or rapid follow-up shots with any regularity, so I have no idea how this double-arm locked Weaver would manage barrel rise from recoil. I'll have to try that next time--maybe I'll learn why people don't do it. I hadn't considered that stance might be more about accurate follow up shots than about an accurate first shot.

I'll try the isosceles also. I didn't really give that one a fair try, but focused on the Weaver because that seemed best to me. One of the stance videos I watched was Hickok45's. I liked his idea (or the one he mentioned anyway) of sighting down your strong arm like a rifle and, although I hadn't thought about it until now, I am definitely shooting with my left eye closed. And placing my rear foot in line with the barrel axis felt solid and aggressive, like a cannon. It's a bit awkward and uncomfortable to lock out the left arm, but it seemed to me that once it was locked, my hold on the pistol was very tight and precise.

[Thanks for the vid, Mr. Borland. Part 1 was easy! (On my Glock, ha.) I have no idea how you did Part 2.]

[RGR3/75]

it also has a lot to do with your draw. i'm not pulling my pistol out unless main weapon goes down, so i'll be in the same stance that i was shooting my rifle from. so i just practice that way. i've seen some crazy ass stances out there but however you can rapidly put rounds down accuratley is the way to go.

[MrBorland]

Royce -

Regarding stance, my only other piece of advice is to not get too fancy. I think this was the gist of Evan's advice.

The standard stances (isosceles, Weaver, modified Weaver) are standard stances because they've been found to work. You'll have to figure out which one is best for you, but before you spend time modifying them, spend some time learning and evaluating them in their strict and proper form.

Either way, if you want to become a good shot, spend most of your time on the fundamentals. As Brian Enos, the great competitive shooter said, "you never really get beyond the fundamentals, you just apply them faster".

[CWPinSC]

Stance-Schmance. Shoot the way YOU shoot the best.

[CWPinSC]

Stance-Schmance. Shoot the way YOU shoot the best.

I remember a commentary by two announcers on a certain pro golfer...he swings too flat, his stands too far from the ball, his head moves too much, and on and on. The golfer they were talking about? Lee Trevino. I rest my case.

[James K]

Well, defensive pistol shooting is NOT like a golf stance, or a modified modified and so on. In golf, you get to pick your stance, take all the time you want to get set, try a few practice swings, even consult the caddy or have a quick brew.

In self defense, the OTHER guy decides when and where and how. HE, not you, initiates the action. HE, not you, has a chance to get in the best position. HE, not you, has all the advantages.

When you decide to fight back, you are already reacting to HIS initiative, so you are at a disadvantage from the start. And anyone who does pistol games and counts on having the time to get set and take the proper stance is going to be dead. You might be caught with a grocery bag in your gun hand (as an acquaintance of mine was), or getting in a car, or going up stairs, or running away, or carrying your baby daughter, or knocked flat on the ground.

Your attacker will not be nice enough to give warning, and you can't call time out and ask for a review of the play. No red flags or time out calls in a gunfight.

The best defense tactic is to prepare for anything, from any direction, of any likely magnitude. That does not jibe with practice that consists of taking special stances and shooting at a stationary target from a fixed position.

Jim

[booker_t]

Jim, I don't disagree with you, but...

1) The OP is a new shooter.

2) The OP said nothing about self defense, it sounds like he's just target shooting to start.

3) While practicing and training everything and anything sounds great on paper, fact is you can't. A new shooter has to start somewhere. As a new shooter, he's better off at the range, under supervision, simply getting the fundamentals down so he can get decent groups at 5 yards, while ingraining basic firearm safety habits and learning to maintain his weapon(s).

4) There's nothing wrong with finding a stance and setup that works, then modifying that to suit the first defensive situation you wish to practice (with consideration of proven techniques), and then the next, and continuing to apply those fundamentals to more difficult static and eventually dynamic shooting.

That is all.

[evan1293]

10-4... I agree

[Jim March]

The proper terminology:

* Weaver

* Modified Weaver

* Heavily Modified Weaver

* Barely Recognizable Weaver

* Weaver-So-Screwed-Up-Jack-Would-Roll-Over-In-His-Grave Weaver

* Crack Addict Weaver

...and so on.

You're welcome.

[cje1980]

What is the objective of your practice? Is it to be an accurate target shooter? Is it to be effective in a self defense situation? It wouldn't be a good idea to stand with your center of mass exposed with both arms locked when engaging an attacker. Just keep that in mind.

If you shoot better at the range that way that's fine but you do need to practice other positions as well that are more practical in defensive situations. The reason why the Weaver and modified Weaver stances are effective is because it really helps control the recoil, especially when firing quick repeat shots. I would think that having both arms locked would put a lot of stress on your upper body making quick repeat shots difficult.

[booker_t]

cje1980: The isoceles is actually quite good at recoil management because it creates opposing tension in your arms. Allowing the elbows to flex slightly (not locked) brings the front sight back to your original, indexed point of aim every time. A slight forward lean and solid grip means fast, accurate shots.

But, that's not the only way to get fast accurate shots. hickok45 using a fairly modified weaver that fits his physiology and can dump a mag with ease.

Find what works and go with it! Then tweak little things, one at a time, preferably under the eye of an established expert.

[Jim March]

There's a point at which isosceles will break down under major recoil. For a lot of folks it happens when you shoot high-end 44Mag out of a modest-size 44 gun...for some more, for some less. Once you hit 454Casull/500S&W territory you really need the asymmetric stance of a Weaver hold to bring the gun back past your body.

Take a look at Linebaugh's opening video where he does that one-handed:

http://www.customsixguns.com

From a Weaver it's even easier to take the gun past the right side of your head if you're right-handed. Iso causes you to have to pry the front sight out of your forehead. This is considered sub-optimal by many.

[booker_t]

Jim, good point. Larger calibers definitely require different treatment.

Just checked out customsixguns.. them be some mighty fine shootin' irons! I really dig the Smith & Wesson 25-5-45 Colt in blue, 4" barrel.

[FM12]

Use whatever works for you. Be consistant and practice !!

Remember, the bullet goes where the front sight is pointed, no matter how you get it pointed that way.

[Jim March]

Jim, good point. Larger calibers definitely require different treatment.

Welll...yes and no.

If you DO shoot handcannon-class guns and loads, or you plan to down the road, you might consider standardizing on a Weaver-based hold from the get-go. I believe one should do all one's handgun shooting the same basic way, regardless of the particular handgun.

Within reason of course, an NAA mini won't feel the same as an S&W X-frame.

But you can shoot them both from a Weaver or Weaver-oid hold.