Stance: Weaver vs. isosceles - Page 2

GoSlash27 · April 14, 2006, 08:38 AM

The quell stance presents a smaller target than any of the above, a quicker presentation, more stability, and less muscle trembling.

Of course...it comes at a price of more muzzle flip and less range of motion for traverse. And that little matter of having to be cross-dominant in order to employ it...

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I play one on TV.

Rightwinger · April 15, 2006, 10:48 AM

I shoot in a modified Weaver stance, I just always have, it's how I was taught.

My wife shot for the first time naturally in an Isosceles, and even slightly bent her knees.

She gives me a hard time (I've heard "Way to go mall ninja!" more than once in the middle of a draw an fire excercise), and I give her crap right back (Recently it's been the nickname TEX because of the cowboy-esque way she shoots). Both are very different, but each work for the individual user.

steveracer · April 18, 2006, 09:47 AM

In the Iso stance, the carbine is very difficult to properly employ. In the Weaver stance, the carbine and pistol can be employed without changing foot position. It makes a sturdy recoil absorbing platform for shotguns, too.

rock71 · April 19, 2006, 06:41 PM

I prefer Isosoles for several reasons.

1. After reviewng vidieos of several shootings, the predominant stance is isosoles. "natural instinctive reaction"?

2. natural point of aim. It is one of the funamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned.

3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance.
Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction.

4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch?

Your results may vary. I like isosoles because it seems more natural with more consistant results.

Sidney Wu · April 19, 2006, 08:56 PM

I have to second this:

I prefer Isosceles for several reasons.

1. After reviewing videos of several shootings, the predominant stance is Isosceles. "natural instinctive reaction"?

2. Natural point of aim. It is one of the fundamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned.

3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance.
Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction.

4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch?

Your results may vary. I like isosceles because it seems more natural with more consistant results.

PS:
It is a good one if you are on the move, if you are just drawing and aiming and shooting I drop down with both knees bent, feet about shoulder width and facing the target, at the same time you raise the pistol. Smaller target.
Quicker to get on target.

Using the Isosceles if you are not careful, you will change the dominant eye. Then you must practice that eye also, good to keep both open.

SW

The British Soldier · April 21, 2006, 09:19 AM

I believe the modified weaver stance is the optimum, because you have the maximum static arc of fire with it. If you compare with isosocles then the arc through which one can move the pistol is reduced and one's personal target area increased. After many years of being taught the wrong way to shoot a pistol, I found that once I was introduced to the weaver stance it was such a comfortable way to shoot that I stuck with it throughout four further tours in Northern Ireland.

Originally I was taught to shoot a pistol in a stance that can only be described as the 'taking a dump in the woods' stance! It was a crouch and it was hellishly uncomfortable on the thighs!

In the mid 80s when I first went to Northern Ireland; and was introduced to the pistol as a primary weapon (prior to that I had an SLR) for carry when we were in civvies, I was not too happy. A happy encounter with a member of the Battalion I was with who really understood pistol shooting led me to completely re-appraise my attitude towards it. He taught me the weaver stance and how to really use a Browning very effectively; it is knowledge that I have passed on to everyone since.

April 14, 2006, 08:38 AM	#26
GoSlash27 Senior Member Join Date: November 26, 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 3,118	Quell, I tell ya! The quell stance presents a smaller target than any of the above, a quicker presentation, more stability, and less muscle trembling. Of course...it comes at a price of more muzzle flip and less range of motion for traverse. And that little matter of having to be cross-dominant in order to employ it... Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I play one on TV. __________________ Bill of Rights Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Not available in all states. Some restrictions apply.

April 15, 2006, 10:48 AM	#27
Rightwinger Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 168	I shoot in a modified Weaver stance, I just always have, it's how I was taught. My wife shot for the first time naturally in an Isosceles, and even slightly bent her knees. She gives me a hard time (I've heard "Way to go mall ninja!" more than once in the middle of a draw an fire excercise), and I give her crap right back (Recently it's been the nickname TEX because of the cowboy-esque way she shoots). Both are very different, but each work for the individual user. __________________ "Appeasement reflects the hope that the crocodile will eat you last."- Winston Churchill

April 18, 2006, 09:47 AM	#28
steveracer Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2005 Location: Virginia Posts: 123	Maybe I wasn't clear. In the Iso stance, the carbine is very difficult to properly employ. In the Weaver stance, the carbine and pistol can be employed without changing foot position. It makes a sturdy recoil absorbing platform for shotguns, too.

April 19, 2006, 08:56 PM	#30
Sidney Wu Junior Member Join Date: April 14, 2006 Posts: 8	Yep I have to second this: I prefer Isosceles for several reasons. 1. After reviewing videos of several shootings, the predominant stance is Isosceles. "natural instinctive reaction"? 2. Natural point of aim. It is one of the fundamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned. 3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance. Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction. 4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch? Your results may vary. I like isosceles because it seems more natural with more consistant results. PS: It is a good one if you are on the move, if you are just drawing and aiming and shooting I drop down with both knees bent, feet about shoulder width and facing the target, at the same time you raise the pistol. Smaller target. Quicker to get on target. Using the Isosceles if you are not careful, you will change the dominant eye. Then you must practice that eye also, good to keep both open. SW

April 21, 2006, 09:19 AM	#31
The British Soldier Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2005 Location: England...that green and pleasasnt land. Posts: 295	I believe the modified weaver stance is the optimum, because you have the maximum static arc of fire with it. If you compare with isosocles then the arc through which one can move the pistol is reduced and one's personal target area increased. After many years of being taught the wrong way to shoot a pistol, I found that once I was introduced to the weaver stance it was such a comfortable way to shoot that I stuck with it throughout four further tours in Northern Ireland. Originally I was taught to shoot a pistol in a stance that can only be described as the 'taking a dump in the woods' stance! It was a crouch and it was hellishly uncomfortable on the thighs! In the mid 80s when I first went to Northern Ireland; and was introduced to the pistol as a primary weapon (prior to that I had an SLR) for carry when we were in civvies, I was not too happy. A happy encounter with a member of the Battalion I was with who really understood pistol shooting led me to completely re-appraise my attitude towards it. He taught me the weaver stance and how to really use a Browning very effectively; it is knowledge that I have passed on to everyone since. __________________ Mike When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains And the women come out to cut up what remains Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Rudyard Kipling.

April 19, 2006, 06:41 PM	#29
rock71 Junior Member Join Date: April 14, 2006 Posts: 3	I prefer Isosoles for several reasons. 1. After reviewng vidieos of several shootings, the predominant stance is isosoles. "natural instinctive reaction"? 2. natural point of aim. It is one of the funamentals of marksmanship correct? No muscles are twisted to get into position. Your toes are pointed at the target. If you simply raise your hands to form a triangle, the tip (gun) is naturally aligned. 3. Mobility. You can roll left or right to shoot around cover or create distance. Linebackers use a similar position for fast movement in any direction. 4. Commonality of tactics. This is the same as the shotgun or subgun position. Why switch? Your results may vary. I like isosoles because it seems more natural with more consistant results.