Weaver vs Isosceles - Page 2

Erik · April 19, 2009, 10:54 AM

"The other big Weaver advantage is that the transition from rifle to handgun feels less abrupt."

It works both ways, though. Note: squared long guns shooting and tactical stances are a part of the training landscape across much of the military and law enforcement communities. For individuals receiving consistent "squared instruction," switching to bladed presents challenges --> There are more and more of such folks each year as the doctrinal transition marches on.

raimius · April 20, 2009, 02:05 AM

If you put in enough practice, either one will become natural to you. I started out with a Chapman stance (extreme, modified weaver), but then trained into ISO. Either one works. Tailor your stance to what is natural, what you practice, and what suits your needs the best.

IMO, each has certain advantages
ISO: The symmetry makes consistency very easy for me. I can bring a pistol back to my chest, and still maintain 6" accuracy out to 10-15 feet. If body armor is worn, the best protection is toward the target (which is part of why LE/mil trainers like it). A squared stance can move in any direction fairly easily (why a lot of IPSC/IDPA competitors use it). One can turn either way without too much difficulty.

Weaver: Initially, pointing to targets was easier for me. You present a smaller target. You can stay steady while taking an impact from the target direction due to the bladed stance. Front/back movement is pretty easy.

Michael Bane · April 22, 2009, 11:42 AM

Interesting thread...I came out of the Cooper/Modern Technique in the 1970s, but shifted to iso when I started shooting a lot of IPSC. When I began shooting more and more heavy caliber revolvers and lots of ARs, I (grudgingly) admitted to Ed Head at GUNSITE that the "square" Weaver did a better job of controlling the heavy recoil than the iso, and it "translated" better when moving to rifle or shotgun.

As I've mentioned before, couple of years ago I lost most of the vision in my dominant right eye (proving categorically that doctors are MUCH more dangerous than firearms!). This forced me to shoot left eye/right hand with the handgun and left-handed with long guns, so now it's almost 100% Weaver (and as yet still a really crappy sporting clays shooter!). Never really appreciated what cross dominance people went through...sorry, guys!

Agree with Biker, however...in a complex scenario you will (or should) typically flow from technique to technique, depending on what the situation calls for. Right barricade, left barricade, traditional rollover prone and some of the newer "urban" prone positions (designed to take advantage of, say, a car's wheel as cover) all can require different shooting techniques.

Back in the early days of IPSC we used to design courses of fire that specifically did not allow that perfect fighting stance, forcing the shooter to take the shot from sometimes seriously awkward positions (I'm thinking of some of the weird "Rhodesian wall" shots)...was a great learning experience!

Michael B

PS: In the documentary on Col. Cooper, JEFF COOPER — A MAN IN FULL, there a sequence of me working the Fun House at GUNSITE, with all my longer shots from iso. The Colonel would no doubt just shake his head sadly...

April 19, 2009, 10:54 AM	#26
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	"The other big Weaver advantage is that the transition from rifle to handgun feels less abrupt." It works both ways, though. Note: squared long guns shooting and tactical stances are a part of the training landscape across much of the military and law enforcement communities. For individuals receiving consistent "squared instruction," switching to bladed presents challenges --> There are more and more of such folks each year as the doctrinal transition marches on. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective Last edited by Erik; April 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM.

April 20, 2009, 02:05 AM	#27
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	If you put in enough practice, either one will become natural to you. I started out with a Chapman stance (extreme, modified weaver), but then trained into ISO. Either one works. Tailor your stance to what is natural, what you practice, and what suits your needs the best. IMO, each has certain advantages ISO: The symmetry makes consistency very easy for me. I can bring a pistol back to my chest, and still maintain 6" accuracy out to 10-15 feet. If body armor is worn, the best protection is toward the target (which is part of why LE/mil trainers like it). A squared stance can move in any direction fairly easily (why a lot of IPSC/IDPA competitors use it). One can turn either way without too much difficulty. Weaver: Initially, pointing to targets was easier for me. You present a smaller target. You can stay steady while taking an impact from the target direction due to the bladed stance. Front/back movement is pretty easy.

April 22, 2009, 11:42 AM	#28
Michael Bane Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Location: Denver area Posts: 43	Interesting thread...I came out of the Cooper/Modern Technique in the 1970s, but shifted to iso when I started shooting a lot of IPSC. When I began shooting more and more heavy caliber revolvers and lots of ARs, I (grudgingly) admitted to Ed Head at GUNSITE that the "square" Weaver did a better job of controlling the heavy recoil than the iso, and it "translated" better when moving to rifle or shotgun. As I've mentioned before, couple of years ago I lost most of the vision in my dominant right eye (proving categorically that doctors are MUCH more dangerous than firearms!). This forced me to shoot left eye/right hand with the handgun and left-handed with long guns, so now it's almost 100% Weaver (and as yet still a really crappy sporting clays shooter!). Never really appreciated what cross dominance people went through...sorry, guys! Agree with Biker, however...in a complex scenario you will (or should) typically flow from technique to technique, depending on what the situation calls for. Right barricade, left barricade, traditional rollover prone and some of the newer "urban" prone positions (designed to take advantage of, say, a car's wheel as cover) all can require different shooting techniques. Back in the early days of IPSC we used to design courses of fire that specifically did not allow that perfect fighting stance, forcing the shooter to take the shot from sometimes seriously awkward positions (I'm thinking of some of the weird "Rhodesian wall" shots)...was a great learning experience! Michael B PS: In the documentary on Col. Cooper, JEFF COOPER — A MAN IN FULL, there a sequence of me working the Fun House at GUNSITE, with all my longer shots from iso. The Colonel would no doubt just shake his head sadly...