Modern Isosceles v.s. Modified Weaver?

EWB · September 23, 2000, 12:22 PM

I've been doing some research to try and discover the best shooting stance for me. I've seen that most Top shooters including the best Tactical teams in the world go for either one or the other. Can someone give me some insight into these two stances? I can't even really see the differences in the two stances besides bending your support arm slightly more in the Modified Weaver. Are you still bladed to your target with the Modified Weaver?
I've asked this question before here and was told most of the High speed guys are using the Modified Weaver, but since that time I've read a couple of articles concerning the Modern Isosceles being a better all around shooting platform. I know it all come down to what your more comfortable with, but for pure performance which stance offers more? Thanks for your help.

[This message has been edited by EWB (edited September 23, 2000).]

LawDog · September 23, 2000, 01:14 PM

Ah, the Eternal Debate.

You're going to find raving proponents of both stances, and they'll show up with some eloquent responses proving that their stance is best. Just remember that the person squawking about the latest and greatest shooting stance is not going to take your place when the fertilizer hits the rotating/oscillating cooling unit, and some socially maladjusted critter starts pumping vast amounts of lead in your general direction.

Experiment with both stances, and find the one that works for you.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited September 23, 2000).]

Art Eatman · September 23, 2000, 05:26 PM

"What works best for you is the best choice there is." is true for stance, choice of gun, clothing...

So, I'll also go along with LawDog.

I'm comfortable with the Weaver 'cause I've been doing it for 20 years. IMO, it's better with big-honker revolvers on recoil control--but not everybody shoots a lot of .44 Maggie, hot .45 Colt or .454 Casull.

I guess maybe one comparison test, after you've tried both for a while, might be which one lets you have tighter double-taps. Whether or not a real-world second shot is to the same target, it is important that you control the gun--and that means the recoil.

FWIW, Art

EWB · September 23, 2000, 05:59 PM

"I know it all come down to what your more comfortable with, but for pure performance which stance offers more? Thanks for your help".

I Also agree with Lawdog also, but I'm just trying to look at the Pro's and Con's of each stance. What are the real differences between these two stances in terms of posture and grip postion? Also what are the Pro's and Con's concerning these stances used in Competition( IDPA,IPSC ) and Real World use in Self Defense and/or High Speed Units? Thanks for the help guys.

dragontooth73 · September 23, 2000, 07:12 PM

just another cheap $.02, but what's "Position SUL"? i've heard it's a close-to-the-body firing position used for confined spaces that's an alternative to Weaver/Isoceles. any opinions?

wups never mind ... found a description in "Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement"

[This message has been edited by dragontooth73 (edited September 26, 2000).]

SB · September 23, 2000, 07:28 PM

For a general response....

If you need more than that, you'll have to be more specific.

EWB · September 24, 2000, 01:20 AM

SB,

"I have yet to hear anyone who has been involved in a firefight worry about what stance they were in at that time"

But in a Firefight doesn't/shouldn't your body revert back all the training you've been practicing? Whether it be shot placement or shooting stance? And if so, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to know pro's and con's of one stance over the other in Self Defence situations? I'm just wondering If in some situations it would be beneficial to use one stance over the other?

45King · September 24, 2000, 06:54 AM

I usually shoot Weaver, but find that the iso sometimes works better for long range shots. However, as these generally only happen in competitons, one wonders about the real world practicallity.
I think one reason I like the Weaver is that it leaves my torso more free to move in cornering, barricades, etc, than does the "locked out" position of the iso.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

thanatos · September 24, 2000, 01:09 PM

My general practice regimen includes equal time for both, also strong hand only, and weak hand only. Although some time is alloted for carefully aimed shots (2>3 sec), most of the time is spent engaging multiple targets at a rate of approx 1 shot/sec and faster, to 3 shots/sec @ 15yds. I believe in being flexible in training, including sitting in the living room and point the (empty) gun at random targets, then looking through the sights to see how close the point was. Practice reloads w/ eyes closed. When a S&W 629 was my CCW gun, used to practice reloads w/ speed loaders, thousand of times while watching TV, tossing the speedloader into the cylinder time after time until I could do it w/ those eyes closed (middle finger of RH indexing the cylinder, RH holding gun, LH inserting speedloader, & yes, I know that if you are RH'ed, you're supposed to change hands, hold the gun w/ LH, and insert speedloader w/ RH. Takes more time that way, more fumbling).
Practice every conceivable variation, then create new games w/ your shooting partner.

EWB · September 24, 2000, 04:26 PM

45King,

Thanks that's what I was looking for. It seems to me that someone in the longer range shooting competions would benefit more from the isosceles. Where as a Swat team member or civilian using his sidearm to clear building or his home would probably be better off training more with the Modified Weaver since it's easier to manuever around corners and barricades, while offering less of a target to the suspect. I also agree that you need to train with as many different stances as you can, because you never know what you'll face in a real world situation.

sigmund · September 24, 2000, 07:56 PM

For more info, suggest you check out the article "The Modern Isoceles" by Ron Avery in the current edition (Nov/Dec 2000)of American Handgunner.

EWB · September 25, 2000, 12:01 AM

sigmund,

That was actually one of the articles that got me thinking about the two stances. Great article.

45King · September 25, 2000, 06:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EWB:
45King,

Thanks that's what I was looking for. It seems to me that someone in the longer range shooting competions would benefit more from the isosceles. Where as a Swat team member or civilian using his sidearm to clear building or his home would probably be better off training more with the Modified Weaver since it's easier to manuever around corners and barricades, while offering less of a target to the suspect. I also agree that you need to train with as many different stances as you can, because you never know what you'll face in a real world situation.[/quote]

There it is. It's good to know how to shoot your gun accurately from just about any position you can aquire; strong, weak, upside down, on your side, on your back, etc.
How many of you practice shooting weakhand freestyle? It can be useful for clearing corners on your strong side.

I remember going to an IPSC match once where there was a really weird setup requiring one to shoot from beneath a bar that was just a bit too low to squat for, and it was around the left side of a barricade. Lots of people came up and dropped to a low kneeling position, etc. When I shot it, I just ran up to the barricade, put my body against it, and then bent over so I was aiming & shooting the gun upside down under the bar. I got in and out of that box quicker than anyone else did, and had no misses either.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

Gunfighter · September 26, 2000, 07:57 PM

As a matter of fact I just got off the range from teaching inservice. As a firearms instructor and a shooting survivor I can tell you that the majority of people go into an Iso stance in a combat setting. This means squaring off to the the target. Great especially if you are wearing body armor. Most cops are killed with rounds that go between the panels or the armpits. You will punch the gun straight out to the target and have a convulsive grip on the gun. Watch some tapes of actual shooting and you will usually see this. The mammelian response to a threat is to lower your head to protect your throat and bring your arms up to protect your heart and lungs. Don't fight instinct. I am talking about combat and not shooting paper. Plus the Iso lends itself to switching hands without moving your feet. The Iso also works well from a sitting position. I am also a SWAT trainer and this is some of the things I teach my people.

------------------
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

tprT · September 26, 2000, 08:27 PM

Gunfighter,
I've followed this thread off and on for a couple of days but did not post. I finally wanted to step in with my two cents but came across your post and see you beat me to it. My position exactly. The weaver stance has no place in combat shooting. A police firearms instructor who teaches weaver is only hurting his officers. My department unfortunately does teach the weaver stance, though I will not.
Anyway, great post. I'll be watching for more. stay safe.

tprT

------------------
If not you, then who?

EWB · September 26, 2000, 09:35 PM

Check out this Link. Click here: GunSpot

Gunfighter · September 27, 2000, 09:40 PM

tprT-I know how you fell brother. Some folks jsut don't get it. Why shoot one round using something that does not work in combat. All my target shooting is training for combat. In my shooting I landed my shot with one hand at ten yards and had to shoot through a 6 in space between a water tank and building. The whole thing was ended with four blasts from my Moss 590. Here is another one, how many guys carry a shotgun with no sling? Like not wearing a holster. Can you say transition drills? It is hard to be an instructor sometime especially with the admin pukes. You can see a story about one of my encouters in the JAN 00 issue of Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement in Police Stories. Keep the faith and watch that front sight.

------------------
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

tprT · September 27, 2000, 10:17 PM

Gunfighter,
I have a better one than a shotgun with no sling. I am the only one at my station that even takes one on patrol (out of about 18 tprs) and I haven't always done that. We don't even have a place to put them in our cars! After 10 years of going without I finally decided I'd pushed my luck long enough. I knew better and it was stupid but now I "won't leave home without it".
Glad you're around to tell your story - look forward to hearing more from you.

T

------------------
If not you, then who?

Gunfighter · September 28, 2000, 09:42 PM

TprT- We have 37 sworn personel. Most guys have take home cars and also shotguns. They do not however have racks. Mine is in a padded case in my trunk. One guy came to class today with his 870 shorty in a garbage bag amd wanted to know if that was bad for it. What state are you in? If you don't mind me asking. Working for a smaller agency is good since when I teach it is only 3-5 officers at a time. Good for you dragging that shotgun out. It will be worth the effort if you need it it was for me. Stay Safe

------------------
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Ivanhoe · September 29, 2000, 12:21 AM

Gunfighter, do you mean also using the Iso footwork as seen with the IPSC shooters (i.e. feet basically shoulder-width apart, side-by-side)?

Having taken LFI-1, I agree with the ideas behind using the Isoceles, though having been Weavering for years I'm finding it hard to change. But I kinda prefer the Weaver footwork, both for torso stability and for dealing with CQB/retention situations.

Here's something I've been thinking about. The Iso seems to dovetail in with instinctive behavior, whereas the Weaver may require a more cool head. Now it seems to me that if I am "overtaken by events" then I'll be in a reactive mode, and thus might do better with Isoceles, whereas if I know I'm going into battle, then Weaver might do as well or better. But as the conventional wisdom indicates, if I know I'm going into battle, then I oughta be carrying a long gun. So basically the manual of arms for mne would be one-handed at 0-5', Isoceles from 5-50', and transition to long gun for everything else. How do you folks look at these questions?

M1911 · September 29, 2000, 07:29 AM

Ivanhoe:

I just took LFI-II this summer. Ayoob teaches that the strong side foot should be to rear when using Isosceles. Basically, put your feet in an interview stance, but shoulders square to the target. You don't have to have both feet even to use Isoscelese.

He uses a very similar foot position for Isosceles, Weaver, and Chapman.

M1911

tprT · September 29, 2000, 08:30 AM

Gunfighter,
I work in New York State. That would be nice to have only a few guys to teach at each session. Are you the one in charge of your firearms training? How about DT?
How often do you get to train?

T

------------------
If not you, then who?

Gunfighter · September 29, 2000, 11:39 AM

Ivanhoe- I don't get caught up in foot placement. You may have to shoot from a car or desk. For me the Iso is simply both elbows locked out punching towards target. Try this drill. Stand with feet shoulder width apart. Draw strong hand. Shoot one round in strong hand then keeping the gun up and in the middle of your chest bring your week hand up and shoot a round with it. Do this and shoot the whole mag. Can' you do this with a weaver, not without moving your feet. Train with one technique for 100 different situations. Not 100 techniques for a 100 situations. I train my officer's to the point where they have confidence that if they have a gun in either hand in any shooting position you can win a gunfight. F$ck paper targets you must train to kill bad guys. A gunfight is brutal and not for the faint hearted. And yes if you are going into battle you bring the biggest gun you can get your digets on.

Tprt- For right now I don't do DT except for Chemical Sprays. We train dept wide twice a year and my SRT team trains once a month. I have a lot of respect for my Ayoob. However to my knowlege he has never shot anyone. For my money it would be someone like Jim Cirillo from the old NYPD stakeout squad. I am a dyed in the wool Col Applegate man and his teachings are what I train with. Stay Safe.

------------------
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Ivanhoe · September 29, 2000, 07:43 PM

M1911, that's the dilemma; if you do the Ayoob thing with your upper body in an Isoceles form, and your lower body in Weaver form, some situations you get the best of both, however some situations its worse. The example which bugs me is weak-hand firing around cover/concealment. If you always train strongside foot back, then sooner or later it seems like you risk going *ss over teakettle.

Gunfighter, your statement "Train with one technique for 100 different situations. Not 100 techniques for a 100 situations." ought to be written down somewhere. That is good stuff.

With the feet side-by-side stance, if the BG closes to arms length, two things need to happen; the arms repositioned to a retention position, and the feet repositioned to a boxer-type stance to prevent getting knocked over. A complicated reaction in a high-stress situation. Maybe it'd be better to go to ground intentionally to prevent loss of the weapon and retain the ability to fire?

Gunfighter · September 29, 2000, 11:43 PM

A gunfight is a fluid situation. If you stand still the enemy will out flank and kill you. Look at the Miami shootout. If I have my gun out and someone charges me I will shoot. They are coming after your gun. They want to kill you with it. Work on shooting while moving backwards and left and right. Get out of the hole. Going to the ground in the street is to be avoided. My .02cents. And thank you for your compliment.

------------------
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

September 23, 2000, 12:22 PM	#1
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	I've been doing some research to try and discover the best shooting stance for me. I've seen that most Top shooters including the best Tactical teams in the world go for either one or the other. Can someone give me some insight into these two stances? I can't even really see the differences in the two stances besides bending your support arm slightly more in the Modified Weaver. Are you still bladed to your target with the Modified Weaver? I've asked this question before here and was told most of the High speed guys are using the Modified Weaver, but since that time I've read a couple of articles concerning the Modern Isosceles being a better all around shooting platform. I know it all come down to what your more comfortable with, but for pure performance which stance offers more? Thanks for your help. [This message has been edited by EWB (edited September 23, 2000).]

September 23, 2000, 01:14 PM	#2
LawDog Staff Emeritus Join Date: September 15, 1999 Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket? Posts: 4,194	Ah, the Eternal Debate. You're going to find raving proponents of both stances, and they'll show up with some eloquent responses proving that their stance is best. Just remember that the person squawking about the latest and greatest shooting stance is not going to take your place when the fertilizer hits the rotating/oscillating cooling unit, and some socially maladjusted critter starts pumping vast amounts of lead in your general direction. Experiment with both stances, and find the one that works for you. LawDog [This message has been edited by LawDog (edited September 23, 2000).]

September 23, 2000, 05:26 PM	#3
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	"What works best for you is the best choice there is." is true for stance, choice of gun, clothing... So, I'll also go along with LawDog. I'm comfortable with the Weaver 'cause I've been doing it for 20 years. IMO, it's better with big-honker revolvers on recoil control--but not everybody shoots a lot of .44 Maggie, hot .45 Colt or .454 Casull. I guess maybe one comparison test, after you've tried both for a while, might be which one lets you have tighter double-taps. Whether or not a real-world second shot is to the same target, it is important that you control the gun--and that means the recoil. FWIW, Art

September 23, 2000, 05:59 PM	#4
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	"I know it all come down to what your more comfortable with, but for pure performance which stance offers more? Thanks for your help". I Also agree with Lawdog also, but I'm just trying to look at the Pro's and Con's of each stance. What are the real differences between these two stances in terms of posture and grip postion? Also what are the Pro's and Con's concerning these stances used in Competition( IDPA,IPSC ) and Real World use in Self Defense and/or High Speed Units? Thanks for the help guys.

September 23, 2000, 07:12 PM	#5
dragontooth73 Junior member Join Date: August 2, 2000 Location: Honolulu, HI, USA Posts: 210	just another cheap $.02, but what's "Position SUL"? i've heard it's a close-to-the-body firing position used for confined spaces that's an alternative to Weaver/Isoceles. any opinions? wups never mind ... found a description in "Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement" [This message has been edited by dragontooth73 (edited September 26, 2000).]

September 23, 2000, 07:28 PM	#6
SB Senior Member Join Date: November 9, 1998 Posts: 415	For a general response.... If you need more than that, you'll have to be more specific.

September 24, 2000, 01:20 AM	#7
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	SB, "I have yet to hear anyone who has been involved in a firefight worry about what stance they were in at that time" But in a Firefight doesn't/shouldn't your body revert back all the training you've been practicing? Whether it be shot placement or shooting stance? And if so, wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to know pro's and con's of one stance over the other in Self Defence situations? I'm just wondering If in some situations it would be beneficial to use one stance over the other?

September 24, 2000, 06:54 AM	#8
45King Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 1999 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 1,033	I usually shoot Weaver, but find that the iso sometimes works better for long range shots. However, as these generally only happen in competitons, one wonders about the real world practicallity. I think one reason I like the Weaver is that it leaves my torso more free to move in cornering, barricades, etc, than does the "locked out" position of the iso. ------------------ Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

September 24, 2000, 01:09 PM	#9
thanatos Member Join Date: August 23, 2000 Location: West Linn, OR USA Posts: 44	My general practice regimen includes equal time for both, also strong hand only, and weak hand only. Although some time is alloted for carefully aimed shots (2>3 sec), most of the time is spent engaging multiple targets at a rate of approx 1 shot/sec and faster, to 3 shots/sec @ 15yds. I believe in being flexible in training, including sitting in the living room and point the (empty) gun at random targets, then looking through the sights to see how close the point was. Practice reloads w/ eyes closed. When a S&W 629 was my CCW gun, used to practice reloads w/ speed loaders, thousand of times while watching TV, tossing the speedloader into the cylinder time after time until I could do it w/ those eyes closed (middle finger of RH indexing the cylinder, RH holding gun, LH inserting speedloader, & yes, I know that if you are RH'ed, you're supposed to change hands, hold the gun w/ LH, and insert speedloader w/ RH. Takes more time that way, more fumbling). Practice every conceivable variation, then create new games w/ your shooting partner.

September 24, 2000, 04:26 PM	#10
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	45King, Thanks that's what I was looking for. It seems to me that someone in the longer range shooting competions would benefit more from the isosceles. Where as a Swat team member or civilian using his sidearm to clear building or his home would probably be better off training more with the Modified Weaver since it's easier to manuever around corners and barricades, while offering less of a target to the suspect. I also agree that you need to train with as many different stances as you can, because you never know what you'll face in a real world situation.

September 24, 2000, 07:56 PM	#11
sigmund Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2000 Location: Urbandale, Iowa Posts: 346	For more info, suggest you check out the article "The Modern Isoceles" by Ron Avery in the current edition (Nov/Dec 2000)of American Handgunner.

September 25, 2000, 12:01 AM	#12
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	sigmund, That was actually one of the articles that got me thinking about the two stances. Great article.

September 25, 2000, 06:26 AM	#13
45King Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 1999 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 1,033	<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EWB: 45King, Thanks that's what I was looking for. It seems to me that someone in the longer range shooting competions would benefit more from the isosceles. Where as a Swat team member or civilian using his sidearm to clear building or his home would probably be better off training more with the Modified Weaver since it's easier to manuever around corners and barricades, while offering less of a target to the suspect. I also agree that you need to train with as many different stances as you can, because you never know what you'll face in a real world situation.[/quote] There it is. It's good to know how to shoot your gun accurately from just about any position you can aquire; strong, weak, upside down, on your side, on your back, etc. How many of you practice shooting weakhand freestyle? It can be useful for clearing corners on your strong side. I remember going to an IPSC match once where there was a really weird setup requiring one to shoot from beneath a bar that was just a bit too low to squat for, and it was around the left side of a barricade. Lots of people came up and dropped to a low kneeling position, etc. When I shot it, I just ran up to the barricade, put my body against it, and then bent over so I was aiming & shooting the gun upside down under the bar. I got in and out of that box quicker than anyone else did, and had no misses either. ------------------ Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

September 26, 2000, 07:57 PM	#14
Gunfighter Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 1999 Posts: 128	As a matter of fact I just got off the range from teaching inservice. As a firearms instructor and a shooting survivor I can tell you that the majority of people go into an Iso stance in a combat setting. This means squaring off to the the target. Great especially if you are wearing body armor. Most cops are killed with rounds that go between the panels or the armpits. You will punch the gun straight out to the target and have a convulsive grip on the gun. Watch some tapes of actual shooting and you will usually see this. The mammelian response to a threat is to lower your head to protect your throat and bring your arms up to protect your heart and lungs. Don't fight instinct. I am talking about combat and not shooting paper. Plus the Iso lends itself to switching hands without moving your feet. The Iso also works well from a sitting position. I am also a SWAT trainer and this is some of the things I teach my people. ------------------ When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

September 26, 2000, 08:27 PM	#15
tprT Member Join Date: September 24, 2000 Posts: 36	Gunfighter, I've followed this thread off and on for a couple of days but did not post. I finally wanted to step in with my two cents but came across your post and see you beat me to it. My position exactly. The weaver stance has no place in combat shooting. A police firearms instructor who teaches weaver is only hurting his officers. My department unfortunately does teach the weaver stance, though I will not. Anyway, great post. I'll be watching for more. stay safe. tprT ------------------ If not you, then who?

September 26, 2000, 09:35 PM	#16
EWB Member Join Date: February 18, 2000 Posts: 26	Check out this Link. Click here: GunSpot

September 27, 2000, 09:40 PM	#17
Gunfighter Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 1999 Posts: 128	tprT-I know how you fell brother. Some folks jsut don't get it. Why shoot one round using something that does not work in combat. All my target shooting is training for combat. In my shooting I landed my shot with one hand at ten yards and had to shoot through a 6 in space between a water tank and building. The whole thing was ended with four blasts from my Moss 590. Here is another one, how many guys carry a shotgun with no sling? Like not wearing a holster. Can you say transition drills? It is hard to be an instructor sometime especially with the admin pukes. You can see a story about one of my encouters in the JAN 00 issue of Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement in Police Stories. Keep the faith and watch that front sight. ------------------ When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

September 27, 2000, 10:17 PM	#18
tprT Member Join Date: September 24, 2000 Posts: 36	Gunfighter, I have a better one than a shotgun with no sling. I am the only one at my station that even takes one on patrol (out of about 18 tprs) and I haven't always done that. We don't even have a place to put them in our cars! After 10 years of going without I finally decided I'd pushed my luck long enough. I knew better and it was stupid but now I "won't leave home without it". Glad you're around to tell your story - look forward to hearing more from you. T ------------------ If not you, then who?

September 28, 2000, 09:42 PM	#19
Gunfighter Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 1999 Posts: 128	TprT- We have 37 sworn personel. Most guys have take home cars and also shotguns. They do not however have racks. Mine is in a padded case in my trunk. One guy came to class today with his 870 shorty in a garbage bag amd wanted to know if that was bad for it. What state are you in? If you don't mind me asking. Working for a smaller agency is good since when I teach it is only 3-5 officers at a time. Good for you dragging that shotgun out. It will be worth the effort if you need it it was for me. Stay Safe ------------------ When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

September 29, 2000, 12:21 AM	#20
Ivanhoe Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 1998 Location: Virginia Posts: 412	Gunfighter, do you mean also using the Iso footwork as seen with the IPSC shooters (i.e. feet basically shoulder-width apart, side-by-side)? Having taken LFI-1, I agree with the ideas behind using the Isoceles, though having been Weavering for years I'm finding it hard to change. But I kinda prefer the Weaver footwork, both for torso stability and for dealing with CQB/retention situations. Here's something I've been thinking about. The Iso seems to dovetail in with instinctive behavior, whereas the Weaver may require a more cool head. Now it seems to me that if I am "overtaken by events" then I'll be in a reactive mode, and thus might do better with Isoceles, whereas if I know I'm going into battle, then Weaver might do as well or better. But as the conventional wisdom indicates, if I know I'm going into battle, then I oughta be carrying a long gun. So basically the manual of arms for mne would be one-handed at 0-5', Isoceles from 5-50', and transition to long gun for everything else. How do you folks look at these questions?

September 29, 2000, 07:29 AM	#21
M1911 Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2000 Posts: 4,055	Ivanhoe: I just took LFI-II this summer. Ayoob teaches that the strong side foot should be to rear when using Isosceles. Basically, put your feet in an interview stance, but shoulders square to the target. You don't have to have both feet even to use Isoscelese. He uses a very similar foot position for Isosceles, Weaver, and Chapman. M1911

September 29, 2000, 08:30 AM	#22
tprT Member Join Date: September 24, 2000 Posts: 36	Gunfighter, I work in New York State. That would be nice to have only a few guys to teach at each session. Are you the one in charge of your firearms training? How about DT? How often do you get to train? T ------------------ If not you, then who?

September 29, 2000, 11:39 AM	#23
Gunfighter Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 1999 Posts: 128	Ivanhoe- I don't get caught up in foot placement. You may have to shoot from a car or desk. For me the Iso is simply both elbows locked out punching towards target. Try this drill. Stand with feet shoulder width apart. Draw strong hand. Shoot one round in strong hand then keeping the gun up and in the middle of your chest bring your week hand up and shoot a round with it. Do this and shoot the whole mag. Can' you do this with a weaver, not without moving your feet. Train with one technique for 100 different situations. Not 100 techniques for a 100 situations. I train my officer's to the point where they have confidence that if they have a gun in either hand in any shooting position you can win a gunfight. F$ck paper targets you must train to kill bad guys. A gunfight is brutal and not for the faint hearted. And yes if you are going into battle you bring the biggest gun you can get your digets on. Tprt- For right now I don't do DT except for Chemical Sprays. We train dept wide twice a year and my SRT team trains once a month. I have a lot of respect for my Ayoob. However to my knowlege he has never shot anyone. For my money it would be someone like Jim Cirillo from the old NYPD stakeout squad. I am a dyed in the wool Col Applegate man and his teachings are what I train with. Stay Safe. ------------------ When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

September 29, 2000, 07:43 PM	#24
Ivanhoe Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 1998 Location: Virginia Posts: 412	M1911, that's the dilemma; if you do the Ayoob thing with your upper body in an Isoceles form, and your lower body in Weaver form, some situations you get the best of both, however some situations its worse. The example which bugs me is weak-hand firing around cover/concealment. If you always train strongside foot back, then sooner or later it seems like you risk going *ss over teakettle. Gunfighter, your statement "Train with one technique for 100 different situations. Not 100 techniques for a 100 situations." ought to be written down somewhere. That is good stuff. With the feet side-by-side stance, if the BG closes to arms length, two things need to happen; the arms repositioned to a retention position, and the feet repositioned to a boxer-type stance to prevent getting knocked over. A complicated reaction in a high-stress situation. Maybe it'd be better to go to ground intentionally to prevent loss of the weapon and retain the ability to fire?

September 29, 2000, 11:43 PM	#25
Gunfighter Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 1999 Posts: 128	A gunfight is a fluid situation. If you stand still the enemy will out flank and kill you. Look at the Miami shootout. If I have my gun out and someone charges me I will shoot. They are coming after your gun. They want to kill you with it. Work on shooting while moving backwards and left and right. Get out of the hole. Going to the ground in the street is to be avoided. My .02cents. And thank you for your compliment. ------------------ When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.