Which stance provides more accurate placement for you?

[TXAZ]

Which stance, Weaver, Isocoles (or something else) gives you personally the best shot placement, in a range environment?

[Buzzcook]

If I'm having a good day the classic T stance off hand.

On more normal days a bastid Weaver.

[Wishoot]

Usually a modified Weaver.

[Kreyzhorse]

Weaver has always worked for me.

[dayman]

I've been trying to transition into isosceles, because all of the bio-mechanical advantages do make sense.
However, because I'm so used to it, I still shoot best using a modified weaver.

Being cross-dominant (right hand, left eye) complicates figuring out a new stance because I have to place my head funny.

I'm going to take a 2 day course over the summer, and I'm hoping I can get some good feedback/help.

[MrBorland]

Isosceles. The Weaver & it's variants have too much push/pull to apply consistently, IMO.

[g.willikers]

For sport or range, the isosceles provides the best balance and less strain on the body.
But otherwise, knowing all of them can be useful.
Best to practice everything - weaver, modified weaver, reverse weaver, isosceles, one handed (either hand), prone, under, over and around cover, chicken wing, 'etc.
No telling which one would be needed, depending on the situation.
It will take lots of practice to be able to smoothly go from one to another, but really good shootists know them all.

[Polinese]

Isoceles hands down. I also personally find it significantly easier to move and shoot/properly use cover with isoceles vs weaver.

[Sgt127]

A modified Weaver. I've torn up my shoulders after a lot of years and its the most comfortable for me. Plus, I grew up with it shooting IPSC. It works well enough.

As a matter of fact, when I teach classes (usually not beginners) I tell them up front, stance is a very small part of the equation. If you have to force your body into the Weaver...or isosceles....it's not the best for you. Try a few different stances, see what's comfortable and forge on.

From a purely biomechanical standpoint, the isosceles may have a little advantage.

[mete]

The only way is to try both and pick the best for you .For you , don't pay attention to the A is better or B is better groups.
Easy to do really.
I started out with isoceles but permanent damage to my elbow has changed it to halfway between iso and weaver !

[boondocker385]

For a range....using a rest results in the best shooting....

For real world....I practice and use all sorts of stances including single handed and kits of "weak hand"

[Marty8613]

Right handed, isoceles; left handed, weaver.

I make sure to practice one handed more lately though.

[Brian48]

Modified weaver.

[Theohazard]

I originally learned to shoot using the Weaver stance, but I switched to isosceles a while back and it improved my shooting. I think other stances can still be useful though; for example, Chapman is good for quickly addressing a target slightly to my left; Weaver is good for quickly addressing a target ever farther to my left. Also, Weaver can be good for tight quarters when I don't have room to fully extend into isosceles.

That said, my default shooting stance is always isosceles. I find it controls recoil better and it gives me a more consistent sight picture because the gun is always the exact same distance from my body; something that's more difficult to do consistently with Weaver. There's a reason why most top-level instructors teach isosceles over Weaver these days.

[Sabrewolfe]

Pretty much exactly what Theohazard said. I like the idea of the Weaver and how it blades my body somewhat to the threat and I've tried really hard to make it work for me, but Isosoles let's me shoot significantly faster with tighter groups and less fatigue. Plus it just feels more natural to me than the Weaver.

[zincwarrior]

I would proffer not to get hung up on stances. Practice all of them. Practice shooting one handed. Practice shooting on one foot or in no stance whatsoever.

[ghbucky01]

Which stance, Weaver, Isosceles (or something else) gives you personally the best shot placement, in a range environment?

Isosceles, by a long way.

I learned the weaver, but when I got serious about sport shooting, I wasn't getting consistent accuracy. When I read Brian Enos' book that goes into great detail on mechanics, I switched to the isosceles and have never looked back.

Once I was able to understand how to put into practice what I was reading, my accuracy improved dramatically, basically overnight.

[Skans]

I'd say I use a modified weaver stance. I lean into the shot slightly with a slight bend in my forward/left knee.

[Erno86]

Truth be told...you'll always revert to an Isosceles stance in a gunfight, whether you are trained for the Weaver stance or not.

[James K]

Some years ago, I encountered some folks who had trained to always assume a "correct stance". They were students of those who followed slavishly the dictates of the "gurus". If the ground wasn't perfectly flat, with the proper feel, and they couldn't get into a proper position, they were lost and couldn't hit anything. I have to suggest (heresy!!!) that one never become wedded to some "correct" stance and position (even for the range) that one cannot respond to an emergency unless one can stand the "right" way.

Jim

[zombietactics]

Originally Posted by OP

Which stance, Weaver, Isocoles (or something else) gives you personally the best shot placement, in a range environment?

In a range environment, you have as long as you like to line up that sight. The difference between Weaver, Iso, bullseye or whatever isn't going to make much of a difference.

The bullet is going to go where the gun was pointed at the moment the trigger breaks. You can point the gun very well using Weaver or Iso.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Isosceles has been my main stance but I have old injuries that affect the way I need to/can stand for target accuracy. Because of that I have adopted a modified Weaver. YMMV

[MrBorland]

Originally Posted by zombietactics

The difference between Weaver, Iso, bullseye or whatever isn't going to make much of a difference.

The bullet is going to go where the gun was pointed at the moment the trigger breaks.

It ain't quite that simple. The bullet is going to go where the gun was pointed at the moment the bullet leaves the barrel.

Fine accuracy involves, among other things, consistency. The stance and grip you apply most consistently is the better one. Stand or grip inconsistently, and the gun moves a wee bit differently every time bullet goes down the barrel.

Speed also involves, among other things, consistency. It ain't the muzzle rise & fall that slows down one's shooting - it's having to re-establish a new sight picture for every shot. An effective stance & grip allows the muzzle to come back to the same place every time, so the shooter only has to confirm before breaking the next shot.

[zombietactics]

It ain't quite that simple. The bullet is going to go where the gun was pointed at the moment the bullet leaves the barrel.

If you are stating that there might theoretically be some subtle movement of the barrel between the time the trigger breaks and the bullet leaves the barrel (about .0012 seconds) you are correct.

If you are suggesting that this movement is caused by recoil, that really doesn't happen. Slow motion photography and motion studies have falsified that notion decisively.

[1stmar]

For repeatable accurate shooting, body alignment is critical. I've always found it easier to adjust body alignment from an isosceles position, not to say you can't do it from a weaver, just seems like there is more variability. Also I have found for follow up shots, isosceles is more predictable. The gun recoils and returns more naturally. Weaver is ok for a first shot but IMO, shooting groups is easier from isosceles.