The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Competition Shooting

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 9, 2000, 12:15 AM   #1
Join Date: September 18, 2000
Posts: 76
I have read tons about these two different methods. I find that most successful IDPA shooters use the Isosceles because it is supposedly quicker to shoot on the move and handles recoil better with the static contraction hold of the pistol (granted these pistols are mostly 38 super, not a lot of recoil to begin with). I am trained in the Weaver stance (aka push/pull technique). I am in law enforcement and have been trained and use the Weaver on duty and it works well with me and transfers to rifles, and shotguns well. I shoot .45 cal and it handles that recoil very well. However, I am thinking of giving the Isosceles a try. What do you all use and why? Would you use one technique during competition and another just shooting on the range? Some insight please....Raven
raven1 is offline  
Old November 9, 2000, 11:39 AM   #2
Steve Smith
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 1999
Posts: 4,131
Raven, I'm about three steps in front of you. I've already asked all the Q's, and I've decided to start training with only the Isoceles, and with a new grip to match (support hand further forward). so far, I'm happy with the just feels weird to my Weaver accustomed body.
Steve Smith is offline  
Old November 9, 2000, 11:46 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: April 20, 1999
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Posts: 116
Raven1, I had been shooting the weaver for many years, and received training from Frontsight in the Weaver as well. However, since I have gotten into IPSC and IDPA shooting, I noticed some weaknesses in it. I found that I would over do the push pull and cause myself to fatigue quickly, I also noticed that I could not shoot on the move very easily. I got a quick two hour lesson in the Isocelese stance from the local LE instructor, and was amazed with the results. I went from poking along and finishing in the lower half of the pack at matches to winning my division in a steel match, and d-calss at the USPSA 3-gun nationals. At the steel match I lost three of the first four rounds using a weaverish stance. After that I concentrated on the Iso and won every other round by at least 3 plates until victory. If I had not had experianced this first hand, I would not have believed it. If you want to give the Iso a try, get a hold of an A-class or above IPSC shooter in your area, or an instructor that teaches it, if you give it a fair shot, I think you will be amazed at how much easier and more natural it feels. Also, I shoot 45s for competition with a 200 grain handload at about 950fps. This ain't a wuss load, and the Iso works just fine.
Hemphill is offline  
Old November 9, 2000, 03:53 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2000
Posts: 646
i've also been switching back and forth a lot. i've decided finally on the isosceles. every time i'm at the range and there's an instructor there if i'm shooting with a weaver stance he always tells me i should shoot with an isosceles stance. a few weeks ago an FBI instructor told me the same thing and he said all FBI agents are now being trained to use the isosceles stance. its working well for me so far.
Russell92 is offline  
Old November 9, 2000, 10:33 PM   #5
Ned Roundtree
Senior Member
Join Date: December 8, 1999
Location: Lexington, KY,USA
Posts: 738
Have been shooting the weaver for a while. Started experimenting with isosceles. Like you I think I will go isosceles more. But sometimes, I forget.
Ned Roundtree is offline  
Old November 10, 2000, 11:33 AM   #6
Join Date: September 18, 2000
Posts: 76
Another question.... I don't believe the Iso is very functional for police work like shooting behind cover or around a wall. How do you shoot from behind cover in IDPA with the Iso stance? It seems if you shot this way, your shoulder would be exposed after you exit cover since it is centered on your body and you would be vulnerable before you see your target, and real targets in LE fire back! I am still a little cautious to switch. I do like the shooting grip of the Iso better though. (by moving my support hand more forward) Any comments on real life, LE use, or IDPA? Thanks in advance.
raven1 is offline  
Old November 10, 2000, 02:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: April 20, 1999
Location: Reno, NV, USA
Posts: 116
For LE work I have heard the Iso is more popular because it presents the bullet resistant vest more directly rather than the un protected side and armpit area. As for cover, I tend to squirm around and get into any position I can that minimizes my exposure. Sometimes this is a weaverish position, sometimes an Iso. The best shooters I have seen shoot IDPA use whatever the can, so I think flexibility of techniques is a good skill to learn.
Hemphill is offline  
Old November 10, 2000, 04:33 PM   #8
4V50 Gary
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 19,342
Use both. From position of cover, use Weaver as you minimize your exposure. When moving or when you lack cover, use Isoceles. Like Hemphill says, it maximizes use of your vest. After all, why expose the unprotected side?

At a recent instructor's conference, we learned of one instructor who trained for years and fired thousands of rounds using the Weaver. When startled, yep, just like Col. Applegate taught, he resorted to Isoceles. Bruce Siddle wrote an interesting article about human response under stress and why Isoceles works better. In short, we tend to face towards the threat and using Isoceles capitalizes on it.
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old November 12, 2000, 12:38 AM   #9
Ron Ankeny
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2000
Posts: 316
Other than die hard PPC shooters, I don't think anyone uses a pure Isosceles stance anymore. The modified Isosceles stance is what most of the good shooters use now.

No one on this forum is going to be able to coach you through your transition because grip, balance, stance, and so on are pretty much individual preferences. Find what works best and remember to experiment a little along the way.

[This message has been edited by Ron Ankeny (edited November 12, 2000).]
Ron Ankeny is offline  
Old November 12, 2000, 07:56 PM   #10
Join Date: October 26, 2000
Posts: 20
What is the differance between the Iso and Modified Iso. I have heard of this but never had it explained.
VinceMP is offline  
Old November 19, 2000, 01:25 AM   #11
Join Date: July 31, 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Ned Roundtree summed up my same current situation with this topic pretty well...

In LFI-1 with Massad Ayoob we were coached in three stances: Isoceles, traditional Weaver and modified Weaver. (The qualifier course of fire later had portions specified in each.)

Though Ayoob is known as a proponent of isoceles for many good reasons (the position many will revert to under extreme stress, minimizes exposure for LEOs wearing armor, solid platform, excellent and even absorbtion of the recoil impulse, etc.), he actually encourged us students first to find which stance worked best for each of us most of the time; and then directed us that, sometimes, you might need to suit the stance to the immediate task at hand.

A simplistic example would be when an isoceles shooter is kneeling near cover and gets surprised by a threat to the left side. Then, a modifed Weaver is quickest and allows the most reach with the pistol.

American Handgunner's "Tactical Annual 2001," on newsstands now, has a well-written piece on this very topic by trainer Andy Stanford. Titled "Evolution of a Stance"; check it out.
mib2000 is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 11:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13072 seconds with 9 queries