The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 19, 2011, 10:40 PM   #1
cosmicdingo
Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Posts: 64
Weaver Stance

When did it become popular? Only see one handed shootin' in old movies and tv.
cosmicdingo is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 11:12 PM   #2
Chindo18Z
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 23, 1999
Posts: 493
~ 1959

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weaver
__________________
Figure The Odds...
Chindo18Z is offline  
Old January 19, 2011, 11:15 PM   #3
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 572
My preferred stance.

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 10:05 AM   #4
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,115
It's my preferred stance for handgun shooting. I've been using it sine 1980 when I was first trained in handgun use. I was taught to not lock the strong-side elbow and use isometric tension with the support hand. It's my default handgun position and has been for almost three decades.

In the '90s some new firearms instructor tried to teach me the isosceles, but it didn't take. I default to Weaver every time.

LINKY for the difference.
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 10:14 AM   #5
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
cosmicdingo: Internet search is an amazing thing.

Regarding stance and the study/practice thereof, I've said this before and it's worth repeating:

Unless you're competing in bullseye, stance is next to meaningless. By meaningless, I mean completely irrelevant to putting lead on target.

The bullet doesn't care how you're standing, and how you're standing should be entirely independent from your sight picture and trigger manipulation.

If it isn't, you need to carefully re-evaluate your shooting approach and methods.
booker_t is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 10:23 AM   #6
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,542
Quote:
Unless you're competing in bullseye, stance is next to meaningless. By meaningless, I mean completely irrelevant to putting lead on target.
So, what you are saying is that hours of practice using the same stance every time is pointless and a person will obtain the same benefit of practice if they use random stances, holds, just shoot a lot?
dahermit is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 11:13 AM   #7
Archer 9505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 213
Weaver vs Isosceles

I was trained in the Weaver for years. In the last decade or so the Isosceles has surpassed the Weaver in our training. Slicing the pie around a right hand corner (For righties) is very problematic using the Weaver. You could swap the pistol to your support hand (another bad idea). The Isosceles allows you to slice the pie by leaning without exposing too much of your body. Also an isosceles stance is more natural, relying on gross motor skill. If surprised by a sudden loud noise (Think Cherry bomb at your feet) your natural reaction would be to suddenly crouch and bring your hands up in a defensive position (looking something like an isosceles turret). The Isosceles turret position is building on what your body wants to do anyways under stress, it is a natural act. The Weaver is not a natural act.

Although when instructing I have been told that I teach from the Weaver Stance, so I guess it’s still in me.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
It's a free country; in a free country, freedom is for more than just those that conform to the accepted.
Archer 9505 is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 11:13 AM   #8
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
Dahermit, no, that's not quite what I'm saying.

In any dynamic shooting, stance and grip are continually being modified, even if only slightly. What should remain constant is front sight tracking, and that is accomplished through trigger manipulation and focus (focus through observation, not to be confused with concentration). Your objective should be to produce consistent trigger manipulation and front sight tracking regardless of stance or position/movement.

As our bodies change, with every round that we shoot, we should be observing and learning. That means our "technique" is constantly evolving. What works for the new shooter won't necessary work when they are ready to shoot IPSC. Likewise when they are suited up to raid a drug house, those IPSC fundamentals won't necessarily all translate. Even if you aren't going from application to application, if all you do is IPSC or range work for HD, you should be open minded and flexible to allow your stance to change otherwise you will always limit your performance.

And these ideas aren't all my own, I have borrowed them from the greats. If you listen and watch some of the better shooters of our time (Brian Enos, Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett, etc.) you will find these same ideas being consistently repeated. Open yourself up and allow your shooting to grow the way it naturally is inclined to do.

Don't get me wrong, being comfortable with some basic elements of stance and grip are certainly important, especially for the beginner, if for no other reason than safety, but also to provide a sound foundation to work from. This is why I suggest that new shooters who are interested in developing their shooting spend a little money to get training from a quality instructor.

One point of clarification.. sight alignment and front sight tracking are distinct things. I believe (some agree, some do not) that even (active) sight alignment isn't ultimately all that important for dynamic pistol shooting. With practice and a solid index, by visualizing the front sight, your sight alignment has taken care of itself because of a well-developed index. On the other hand, visualizing the front sight's movement immediately following the trigger break is absolutely vital to placing rapid follow-up shots. And the motion of the sight is irrelevant; it can go straight up, it can go to 2 o'clock, it can do a figure 4, but find what it does and watch it intently (the value of both eyes open). If it doesn't do what you expect it to do, then it's telling you what's wrong with your shooting while you're shooting, so you can correct for the next break. "Heady" stuff I know, but worth putting out there.

As the shooter matures from beginner to intermediate (which usually happens pretty quickly), I think there is benefit in not being hung up on techniques or equipment, as people are prone to do in whatever field they are in (photography, fitness, shooting pool, golf, etc.). Perhaps the only area where people don't think better equipment or supplements or "pro secrets" will actually make them better is chess. haha What I'm driving at is, work on the shooter. Shooting isn't a very difficult task, allowing your body to naturally perform without becoming tense from excessive thought is the largest hurdle.

Some resources that may be helpful include:

Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals, Brian Enos
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Shoo...9648679&sr=8-2

Or http://www.brianenos.com/store/books.html, he has a number of excellent books available. I would consider him my go-to author for pistolcraft.

Surgical Speed Shooting: How To Achieve High-Speed Marksmanship In A Gunfight, Andy Stafford
http://www.amazon.com/Surgical-Speed...9648722&sr=1-1

T.A.P.S. Tactical Application of Practical Shooting: Recognize the void in your tactical training, Patrick McNamara
http://www.amazon.com/P-S-Tactical-A...=1CL07PD0KL43J

Tactical Pistol Shooting: Your Guide to Tactics & Techniques that Work, Eric Lawrence
http://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Pisto...9648953&sr=1-1

The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Boo.../ref=pd_cp_b_1

The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry, Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Digest-Boo.../ref=pd_cp_b_2

Stressfire, Vol. 1 (Gunfighting for Police: Advanced Tactics and Techniques), Massad Ayoob
http://www.amazon.com/Stressfire-Vol...u-wl_list-recs

..and no I don't get paid by Amazon.com, but I wish I did! Happy shooting & be safe.

Last edited by booker_t; January 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM.
booker_t is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 11:39 AM   #9
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
The Weaver is going out of style these days for police/IPSC/etc. type shooting. I still prefer it, on a number of grounds. The Weaver can be adapted to big, big power (handcannon class) and I like the patterns of motion it tends to instill (mainly "sideways" from the incoming fire!).

It's downfall is absolutely the pie slice towards the strong side - barrel moving to the right when you're right handed.

Personally, since I'm right handed and left eyed, my solution is to go one-handed in that case. I blade my body the other way into something that looks like a one-handed old-school stance, lead with the barrel and left eyeball. My chosen gun type (Colt SAA near-clone) lends itself well to one-handed shooting so I just do that.

The pie slice the other way works great. And sometimes you get to choose which side to slice - you retreat fast through a doorway, go right instead of left then when you slice back through it'll be a slice in the right direction for a Weaver fr'instance. Same principle behind any cover where you can counter-attack from either side.

Since I'm not a cop of any sort, the odds that I'll have to be doing offensive pie-slicing is low to start with. Cops have to do that all the time - "clearing" any building with a lot of small rooms is a nightmare of multiple potential ambushes.

As a *defensive* shooter, the need to go immediately off-axis from the incoming fire is the most urgent thing and that's where the Weaver shines.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 12:11 PM   #10
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
The so-called isosceles has been around since before WWII, I believe, although writings about such things were not common until much later. For situations where you are able to take the time to use a stance like that (both hands and with both arms straight), you would also generally be using cover and perhaps support for your arms. So in other words, in a gunfight, it is illogical that anyone would stand up straight and facing the target to shoot, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.

One complaint about the Weaver stance was that it was too rigid in that your feet were supposed to be in such and such a position and your arms just so, pushing and pulling with your hands and so on. The complaint came from Weaver himself in an article about how trainers had formalized his style of shooting.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 12:24 PM   #11
Single Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2010
Location: N.C.
Posts: 1,522
I may well be getting in over my head on this one...but here goes. I've been shooting handguns since my mid-teens. I've been full-time LE since my early 20s. I'm now in my early 40s. In all of that time, I've used Jack Weaver's preferred stance, and, "outdated" or not, it works for me. On the range and on the street, it's what I automatically revert to every time. I tend to be stubborn and highly resistant toward change, especially so if confronted with anything that strikes me as a great solution to a non-existent problem. It's why I still don't own a cell phone, or a Blackberry, or whatever else they're known as these days. It's why I quit listening to new Top 40 music right around the time Nirvana showed up and ruined it forever. Heck, at this moment I'm typing on our very first computer, which I also felt no need for, but the wife sneaked out and bought one anyway. Speaking strictly for myself, I see no need to fix what ain't broke. I'll stick with Weaver.
Single Six is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 12:28 PM   #12
Single Six
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2010
Location: N.C.
Posts: 1,522
...and for that matter, I don't claim that Weaver is superior to any and all other stances. I say: Find what works best for you, and stick with it. Whatever best enables you to get hits on target is what you should be doing. Meanwhile, just because you don't see the Weaver used "in old movies and TV", that is hardly a good indicator that it's irrelevant. Hollywood would also have us believe that pistols are supposed to be fired one-handed...and sideways.

Last edited by Single Six; January 20, 2011 at 01:16 PM.
Single Six is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 01:28 PM   #13
skifast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2008
Posts: 226
In the past, I have used both Weaver and ISO.

Over the past year, I have transitioned to Center Axis Relock. For me, it is faster and combat accurate.
skifast is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 01:32 PM   #14
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Don't feel bad. Jack Weaver used that position because it worked for him. Nobody told him to use it, although you should be aware that he developed it for shooting games. No one should underestimate their own ability to develop a system that suits their own circumstances better than any other, though I imagine some overestimate their ability. And by the way, I always thought handguns were supposed to be fired one handed, too. How else could you hold your cigar when shooting or hang on when riding on the running board?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 03:31 PM   #15
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by booker_t
...In any dynamic shooting, stance and grip are continually being modified, even if only slightly. What should remain constant is front sight tracking, and that is accomplished through trigger manipulation and focus (focus through observation, not to be confused with concentration). Your objective should be to produce consistent trigger manipulation and front sight tracking regardless of stance or position/movement....
Excellent post and spot on.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 06:54 PM   #16
Eagle0711
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 782
For me the Weaver or modified Weaver works best. Probably because I was taught that method in the early 1980s. I like the feel and stability, and can shoot more accurately.

However, as mentioned the Iso works well especially for fluid shooting.

Taught to use one hand only both Rt. and Lf. Doesn't hurt to practice all methods that include sighted and so- called point shooting.

Given a choice it's the Weaver looking for rather than at the front sight.

An old dog should learn new tricks. Bow Wow!
Eagle0711 is offline  
Old January 20, 2011, 07:34 PM   #17
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
I agree with Booker. Further, I find all of the emphasis on stance to be a significant waste of time - if you're truly training for combat, you have to consider what is my likely posture in an actual shooting event? More than likely, you're going to be moving, or crouching behind cover, or even doing both at the same time.

I'd say it's far more important to be able to control your sights and your point of aim regardless of your physical position - whether that be upright, on your back, crouched, whatever. That and keeping a cool head is what's going to save your life should you ever be in that unfortunate scenario, not what textbook stance you attempted to engage.
csmsss is offline  
Old January 21, 2011, 09:06 AM   #18
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Mixed bag

I personally like the Weaver for practice purposes, as I shoot well from it. But I also practice isosceles, one handed, and off-handed.

Thing about the Weaver that I like is that it's fundamentally similar to a martial arts front stance, and so it's a natural posture for me to assume (IE, muscle memory tends to put me into a similar posture when I feel threatened).

Its similarity to a front stance probably isn't an accident. It provides a good, balanced position.

Is it the be all and end all? No. Is it likely that one will take the time to assume a "formal" stance when in a gunfight? Again, no. That doesn't make it useless, though.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 21, 2011, 11:18 PM   #19
Jeff22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2004
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 582
Weaver Stance?

THE TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE:
(1.) Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target (boxer stance)
(2.) Legs are locked at the knees.
(3.) Firing arm is slightly bent at the elbow (pre-lock).
(4.) Support arm elbow is sharply bent and pointing down at the lead foot.
(5.) Firing hand pushes out.
(6.) Support hand pulls in
(7.) Because the bent arms may lower the position of the gun, the head may have to be tilted to the side to achieve proper sight alignment.

The advantage of the traditional Weaver Stance is that the bent arms and isometric tension of the pushing and pulling muscles create a shock absorber effect that significantly reduces felt recoil and snaps the gun rapidly back on target. Since the gun is closer to the body, it feels lighter and in fact exerts less leverage weight on bent arms than it would on fully extended, locked out arms.

The disadvantages are that the stance is uncomfortable for many people. Shooters with shorter arms, greater upper body mass, or women with big bosoms (!) find it difficult to blade in relation to the target and reach across their chest. Sometimes the strong arm will over-power the weak arm, sending bullets high to the left side for the right handed shooter. More often, the shooter may not lock the elbow of the support arm down enough, which results in the stance becoming unlocked and causes shots to drift low right for the right handed shooter.



THE CHAPMAN MODIFIED WEAVER STANCE:
1.) Body slightly bladed in relation to the target.
2.) Weak side foot forward
3.) Strong side foot back
4.) Weight balanced slightly on the lead foot.
5.) Center of gravity slightly forward.
6.) The foot position should be like driving a punch -- the forward leg bears the weight and the rear leg is the drive leg.
7.) Elbow of the strong arm is locked.
8.) Elbow of the support arm is bent down and aimed at the lead foot
9.) Lead shoulder over the lead knee
!0.) Isometric Tension -- strong hand pushes out and weak hand pulls back.
11.) Bring the head down to the sights. If you bring the gun UP to your eye,
you may shoot HIGH.
12.) Cheekweld the side of your jaw on the strong side upper arm, just like
cheeking a rifle stock. This consistently positions your eyes in relation
to the sights, every time.
13.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base

(this position is my personal favorite by far. I find that bringing my head down to the sights, establishing a cheek weld with the upper arm on my strong side, and keeping the center of gravity forward works very well when firing multiple rapid shots or when engaging multiple targets. )

MODIFIED ISOCELES POSITION (aka the "turret" ):
(1.) Wide stance -- pyramidal base
(2.) Weak side foot forward
(3.) Strong side foot back
(4.) Weight on the lead foot/shoulders forward of the feet
(5.) Center of gravity slightly forward
(6.) Arms locked out
(7.) Slight crouch -- kneels unlocked
(8.) Lean into the gun

With the torso bent slightly at the waist and the gun straight out ahead in both hands, the body is balanced by the flexed knees, which automatically compensate for balance by lowering the center of gravity for the body in the pelvis. This technique can be made even stronger by taking a step
toward the target with the weak foot and bending the lead knee, applying the weight forward. Think of it as leaning into the gun.

The body is now poised to move instantly forward or back, or side to side, and a considerable portion of upper body weight, coupled with the muscular tension of the locked arms, helps snap the handgun down in recoil.

(this position is essentially Isoceles from the waist up and Weaver from the waist down, and seems to be the most comfortable for many people)

What works for you can be determined through experimentation, and may well change over time. Also, in a dynamic confrontation where you are moving and they're moving and shots are being exchanged, you won't be too worried about stance. Your feet will be where they are, you'll adjust your upper body gun mount as you need to to stay on target and possibly to conform to available cover, and you'll just shoot . . .
__________________
You can only learn from experience if you pay attention!
Jeff22 is offline  
Old January 22, 2011, 07:04 PM   #20
oldcspsarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 11, 2008
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 441
http://www.quickshoot.com/

Turnipseed's enhanced Weaver really works !
oldcspsarge is offline  
Old January 22, 2011, 09:09 PM   #21
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,594
I'm long-armed and fairly slender-built, so the modified Weaver came easily. Early on, it seemed to me that my right arm was like a rifle stock, and I've been a rifleman for eons.

I particularly like the recoil control aspect. I used to shoot a lot of full-house .44 Maggie, and the Weaver made life better.

Motion has alway seemed easy, whether dropping down behind cover or pushing off sideways out of sight. To me, it was much like a boxer's stance, or as earlier said, martial arts.

Not being an LEO, I doubt that room-clearing or clearing a building will be part of my deal. I'm far more likely to be retreating than advancing. Yellow racing stripe and all that.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old January 22, 2011, 11:00 PM   #22
orionengnr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
personally like the Weaver for practice purposes, as I shoot well from it. But I also practice isosceles, one handed, and off-handed.

Thing about the Weaver that I like is that it's fundamentally similar to a martial arts front stance, and so it's a natural posture for me to assume (IE, muscle memory tends to put me into a similar posture when I feel threatened).
Bingo.

Quote:
THE TRADITIONAL WEAVER STANCE:
(1.) Body bladed about 45 degrees in relation to the target (boxer stance)
(2.) Legs are locked at the knees.
Really? Guess I was taught wrong. See above...

However, this brings up a recent discussion with one of my trainers...and we disagreed about fundamental benefits of each stance.

My thought is that "blading" ones body will provide the smallest possible target. His opinion is that blading will only allow you to have several organs penetrated by one hit, where the Isoceles will allow only one organ at a time to be penetrated. Being a rather slender individual, I think I'll take my chances with blading and hoping he will miss me altogether.

without attempting to thread-jack, I'd like to hear some opinions.

Last edited by orionengnr; January 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM.
orionengnr is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 03:51 AM   #23
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Blading...

... I like the smaller target aspect; I also like putting more muscle (left arm, pec, lats) between vital organs and bad guy. (Hey, maybe he opted for HP ammo in a low-powered round...)

OTOH, I normally don't wear body armor.

Guys that do wear body armor tend not to like blading, as it points the exposed armpit at the other guy's muzzle. This is especially true for guys who wear armor with plates in the front. Better off facing squarely, and letting the armor do what it does.

So it depends on equipment, in large part.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 05:09 AM   #24
Win_94
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 214
Quote:
how you're standing should be entirely independent from your sight picture and trigger manipulation.
Indeed!

I learned how to become a better marksman in the woods, hunting. One can't just take-up the Weaver stance sideways on a hill.

I'll shoot every position with all my firearms; I'll shoot prone with my handgun, if that's how I can hit the mark.
Win_94 is offline  
Old January 23, 2011, 10:03 AM   #25
steve54
Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 29
I was taught Weaver 40 years ago but now we teach isosceles
steve54 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 02:21 AM.


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 0.14226 seconds with 7 queries