The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2006, 07:03 PM   #1
Dan*Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 104
Explain the Weaver Stance

The title says it all. I heard about this thing of "twisting your elbow when shooting being more suited as a revolver technique," then asked about it in one of my topics. They said it was the Weaver Stance. I was just wondering if any of you could explain ome exactly what it is. Is it accurate? Still common? Any pictures of it in use?
__________________
...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. - Luke 22:36

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but because he loves what's behind him."
Dan*Smith is offline  
Old January 10, 2006, 07:27 PM   #2
cje1980
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,385
The Weaver stance is now a very common shooting technique used for quite a few types of shooting. It originated, if I'm not mistaken in a fast draw shooting contest in California, in which Jeff Cooper competed. After watching the first contest take place, Jack Weaver believed that if he could draw and hold the gun with both hands then he could get more control and accuracy from his handgun. He practiced using this style and later won the championship the following year. It is basically drawing and bringing the guns sights up to eye sight and shooting. Just about every shooter that I see at the range shoots in a similar fashion to the weaver stance. I'm not sure what you mean by turning your shoulder. Its basically a two handed hold in which your body is nearly perpendicular to the target.
cje1980 is offline  
Old January 10, 2006, 07:58 PM   #3
Dan*Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 104
Someone else told me it was bending your elbowand bringing the gun closer to your face to aim it, and pulling with that arm. The other arm is used to push the handle in the opposite direction. The ocnflicting strengths holding the gun steady in place.
__________________
...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. - Luke 22:36

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but because he loves what's behind him."
Dan*Smith is offline  
Old January 10, 2006, 08:01 PM   #4
RickB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Western WA
Posts: 5,625
The key element of the Weaver stance is rolling the off shoulder forward, and pointing your off elbow at the ground. This allows, or actually, creates a push-pull effect that helps hold the gun down in recoil. The tension between the strong arm pushing toward the target, and the weak arm pulling down is what separates the Weaver from the more symmetrical "isosceles" stances.
RickB is offline  
Old January 11, 2006, 09:32 AM   #5
Little Silas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2005
Location: Hendersonville, Tennessee
Posts: 183
The Weaver Stance with the gun close to your face is taught in defensive schools.
I'm still not really comfortable with it.
__________________
Smokestack Lightnin'
Little Silas is offline  
Old January 11, 2006, 09:35 AM   #6
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,050
Like this?

The Weaver Stance

From Tarnhelm Supply Co.

Weaver Stance


Isosceles Stance


The Chapman Stance

Never heard of this, but it's the guy in the middle. Weak arm bent, strong arm straight.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is online now  
Old January 11, 2006, 07:01 PM   #7
9mmepiphany
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2000
Location: northern california
Posts: 1,092
the chapman stance is developed and used by ray chapman who won the first international IPSC championship...also owns the chapman academy

it differs from the weaver in that the strong arm is straightened...acting as a rifle stock

during the early years, the weaver stance dominated the practical pistol circuit. while most of its advocates used the 1911, the originator invented it using his smith M-14 6" 38 spl
__________________
the map is not the territory

Last edited by 9mmepiphany; January 11, 2006 at 07:41 PM.
9mmepiphany is offline  
Old January 11, 2006, 07:36 PM   #8
Dan*Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Lake Charles, LA
Posts: 104
What is the most effective and accurate revolver stance?
__________________
...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. - Luke 22:36

"The true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but because he loves what's behind him."
Dan*Smith is offline  
Old January 11, 2006, 07:42 PM   #9
9mmepiphany
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2000
Location: northern california
Posts: 1,092
crouched behind a ransom machine rest

effective for what?
__________________
the map is not the territory
9mmepiphany is offline  
Old January 11, 2006, 07:48 PM   #10
Little Silas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2005
Location: Hendersonville, Tennessee
Posts: 183
No, seated behind a ransom rest.
I like that!
__________________
Smokestack Lightnin'
Little Silas is offline  
Old January 14, 2006, 10:57 PM   #11
Ben Shepherd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,462
A cop named Jack Weaver is the originator. As for it's uses? I use it almost exclusively with anything stouter than 357 magnum. Better recoil ABSORBSION than others. I find the issocoles useless with heavy kickers. YMMV.
__________________
From my cold dead hands.........

NRA certified rifle, pistol and shotgun instructor.
Hunter education instructor
Ben Shepherd is offline  
Old January 15, 2006, 09:43 AM   #12
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 4,920
IT was taught to me by an old and good cop

Right handed, You stand with your body turned about 20 to 30 deg's away from the target troward your strong side. The right arm is straight (if you can) and the left is bent at the elbow and supports the strong arm.
There is kind of a push pull, the strong arms pushes into the weak hand and the weak hand supports the gun toward the rear.
The idea on turning slightly away from the target is to also present a smaller target.
I find that this position VS the straight sholders facing the target gives much better support and just feels better.
If you notice from the pictures above none of the shooter have there sholders alighned to the target and also there feet are turned away from the target toward there strong side.
Ozzieman is offline  
Old January 15, 2006, 10:07 AM   #13
HSMITH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2002
Posts: 2,019
The 'modern' isoscoles has become by far the most popular in the action shooting games for auto pistols and revolvers. Simple reason for that too, it works better.

The Weaver is what I was taught at an early age, and changing something as important to shooting as your normal stance is very difficult. The biggest difference I have noticed going away from the Weaver and into the modern iso is the amount of tension in my body has dropped ten fold, this allows me to recover from recoil so much faster it isn't funny. The lower tension also allows you to move athletically from one target to the next or from one position to the next. Increased accuracy is another gain, without the tension your 'wobble zone' is a lot smaller. Another large gain is the placement of the weak hand on the grip helps control the tracking of the sights much better than it can when pulling on the fingers of the strong hand.

Even with very heavy recoiling revolvers the Iso is the way to go IMO, especially since your strong hand wrist, elbow and shoulder don't take the pounding of the recoil. Instead they all work together like a shock absorber.
HSMITH is offline  
Old January 16, 2006, 09:26 AM   #14
NDTerminator
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Posts: 59
Like most LEO's who began in the late 70's-early 80's, I was taught the Weaver Stance from the jump. We pretty much all shot wheel guns back then, and it's primary advantage was that it helped control the recoil of heavy 357 loads.

On the downside, the Weaver is a fairly complex method that takes a lot of practice to get right and become smooth & accurate. That push-pull has to be balanced out just right, or a guy will push-pull his shots left-right badly. The gun arm is bent slightly at the elbow, bringing the sights a little closer to the eyes than I personally like. Some guys bent the arm so much that it looked like their nose was darn near touching the hammer!

I've pretty much seen and taught all the stances that have come down the pike since those days. The method I (and every other LEO Firearms Instructor I know) teach new officers now is the Isocleles, as it's KISS Simple and works well.

I do get kind of a nostalgic lump in my throat, however, when I'm out on the range shooting personal wheelguns with another old fart grey haired Patrol Sergeant/Firearms Instructor I work with.

Invariably, when he draws his 44 mag and addresses the target, he shifts smoothly into a perfect Weaver Stance...
__________________
To my great mortification, my father once told me; "you care nothing but for dogs, shooting, and rat catching, you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"

Charles Darwin
NDTerminator is offline  
Old January 17, 2006, 02:00 AM   #15
Gazpacho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2004
Posts: 555
I like the added mobility I get with the Weaver stance. Take a look at any starting position athletes take. Track, Basketball, Hockey etc. None of them start off with their feet squared with their apponent, or direction of action. Well, in CCW action, evasion and retreat are just as important. One of my CCW instructors taught that the best place to be in a gunfight is miles away. Preferrably with a concrete parking garage over your head and a mountain range between you and the flying lead. In my mind, a successful retreat is better than a stopped badguy. Yes, puttng down the badguy is great, but I'm not a LEO, nor Military. My job to to bring my backside home and safe to my family. From a mobility standpoint, the Isoscoles stance makes me slow off the mark. Lateral movement is so-so. Forward and backward are slow and off balance. Also, the most natural movement to make is straight forward in relationship to your hips. In the Isoscoles, your hips point straight at your target. In the Weaver, they angle away from your target, thus your first most natural movement is in a direction making you harder to hit.

Oh, and the Weaver stance is WAY more cool, so there!
Gazpacho is offline  
Old January 17, 2006, 07:18 AM   #16
Lebben-B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2005
Location: WHy is an Infantryman being sent to Ft Sill?
Posts: 132
Where the iso really shines is in the engagement of multiple targets. With Weaver the strong side is angled away from the threat. Transitioning to targets on the strong side is quick, transition to weak side targets is slower because you must twist the trunk against the hips to get on target. .mil and LEO hooahs wear body armor, so the "hips square to target" attitude of iso promotes presenting the most protected area of the body to the target vice showing a thinly armored/unarmored side.

Weaver/Chapman still have their place. In buildings or areas that offer cover, the narrower profile of Weaver/Chapman allows one to more easily fire from a covered position like a corner.

Learn them all. Then learn to do them from the weak side.

Mike
__________________
"But officer, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are three of my favorite things."
Lebben-B is offline  
Old January 17, 2006, 01:02 PM   #17
SW40F
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2001
Location: Western MI
Posts: 558
Quote:
What is the most effective and accurate revolver stance?
Holding the revolver at the ready as the Bad Guy runs away...
SW40F is offline  
Old January 17, 2006, 06:50 PM   #18
walt65
Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Posts: 86
The weaver allows you to shoot around cover. Otherwise, you would have to square off and expose your whole body.
walt65 is offline  
Old January 17, 2006, 09:58 PM   #19
IndianaDean
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Indiana(obviously)
Posts: 362
Quote:
Better recoil ABSORBSION than others. I find the issocoles useless with heavy kickers.
I'd have to agree, because whenever I've experienced limp wristing or brass in the face issues with 40's or 45's, it's been while using the isocolese. I usually eliminate these issues when I switch to a Weaver.
IndianaDean is offline  
Old January 18, 2006, 12:34 AM   #20
Pointer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,559
The guy on the left has it right...

Both arms straight and leaning into the target...

Pushing forward with shooting hand and pulling backward with the other...

Most stable, and it involves your whole body in the stance providing a great platform.
Pointer is offline  
Old January 18, 2006, 08:35 AM   #21
NDTerminator
Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Posts: 59
Leben took the words right out of my mouth...

When shooting Isoceles from cover, you simply lean out a touch, just enough to address the target...

Can't say I've ever run into recoil control problems shooting the I Stance, and I regularly shoot 44 Mag with it. Properly done, you shift your weight toward the target slightly, while rolling your shoulders forward a touch (it's easier to show & teach than describe).

If done correctly (i.e., not letting your wrist or elbows break) any function issues will be your auto's fault, not your's...

Bear in mind that even though it's less complex than the Weaver, The I still requires practice to master...
__________________
To my great mortification, my father once told me; "you care nothing but for dogs, shooting, and rat catching, you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family"

Charles Darwin
NDTerminator is offline  
Old January 19, 2006, 01:09 AM   #22
KNJoe
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Posts: 14
I already tried answering this thread once, but after I hit 'submit' it sent me to an invalid thread message, and the post had been deleted. ****** me off enough that I didn't bother writing it again until today, which isn't too great because there was alot of info in that first message. Some stuff on the actual PROCESS of recoil obsorbtion, accuracy threshold validation, et cetera... So here's a summary.

I invariably use a modified Weaver, as do most military or equivelent non-civilian throughout the world. Essentially, everyone who requires impeccable mobility, accuracy, and sustained prominence. Few mainstream law enforcement agencies fall under this category, especially in America. In orthodox form, it has a very high accuracy threshold with minimal experience, which is what most people need. This may be why Weaver stances are so stereotipified; most people never exceed the accuracy threshold in will enable you.
Most shooting any of you will ever need to do is at a closer range, maybe a thirty metre maximum. After all, a distance greater than that and you have no reason to be nvolvedin the gunfight anyway. Tactical mobility is a great phrase, and refers to GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE. At that range, the Weaver stance will not impede on your shooting.
The stability offered by it allows for increased mobility--from standing to prone, from side to side, back and forth. I'll be damned if I'd ever draw my gun and then stand there; talk about a prewritten obituary. Neither will anyone with an ounce of training or understanding of tactical or strategic shooting would ever do such a thing.
You're also less likely to be struck directly in the COM area, unless you're being shot at by something that will travel straight through you.


Isosceles is an extremely good stance for training purposes--there is less margin for those horrible habits that veteran shooters develop over a period of time. It also has an extremely high accuracy threshhold.
Unfortunately, it lacks in all strategic or tactical benefits; good mobility, lack of perspective restraint (you wind up tunelling alot in high stress circumstances) though by then you're probably dead anyway because it takes SO LONG to draw it.
That's probably the biggest drawback, the clumsiness of the stance means slower drawing schism. The frontal form also means that a good torsal hit is extremely probably lethal. Not so if you're wearing body armor, but then, if you're wearing body armor and have your pistol already drawn, this can be a very promising method of fire.


The Chapman stance I have taught, on occasion, to women who only carry lower-recoil/smaller calibre pieces for personal protection. If you think that's stereotyping of me, head down to the range and fire a nice heavy calibre a couple hundred times from this. At the least, you'll sprain your elbow and it sure won't be too nice on the cartiledge. I have never seen any true tactical value in a Chapman form, but for civilian defensive use, it fits criteriae.



Yes, that was the short form. I'm not going to bother explaning much of any of that, nor am I (again) going to go link-hunting. Read and enjoy (or not, I don't care).

*edit* HAHA, it did it to me again, but this time I had copy-pasted onto notepad first...
KNJoe is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12819 seconds with 7 queries