Stance - Isosceles, Weaver, and Other

[TCinVA]

I'm curious about this, because I'm a relatively new shooter, and I've noticed I seem to shoot better, or at least more accurately, with a more asymmetrical stance. I was taught that your grip is the only thing that really matters, and from the forearms back, "use whatever works for you."

There are multiple angles to the question. The first is defining what "good enough" looks like. Every person's definition of "good enough" can vary based on personal experience, personal expectations, and personal interests. My "good enough" might be a far higher standard than the next guy's "good enough". Another person's "good enough" might dramatically exceed my "good enough". Etc.

There are people who, without question, are "good enough" in their own mind and may even exceed the standard of "good enough" held by others even with inefficient techniques. In other words, with the appropriate practice and training you can do much better than most even if your technique is "wrong". To put it as bluntly as possible, no one has ever lost a gunfight because they were using the wrong stance.

...so to an extent those who hold it to be irrelevant are correct.

It's also true, however, that some techniques are more efficient than others. The modern iso stance and the correct grip on the gun provide the best level of control for running a handgun. Using the correct grip and stance you can deliver shots with more accuracy and with more speed, which is generally considered to be a universal good as it comes in handy during a competition or a gunfight.

If we were to take two versions of Dave Sevigny and program one to use Weaver and the other to use his existing technique, I don't doubt that the Weaver-programmed Sevigny would still probably easily destroy most modern iso shooters on any set of drills you could conceive of...but I doubt he could beat the modern iso version of Dave Sevigny.

If we're going to learn and if we're going to try and improve, it generally makes sense to get rid of any techniques that are inherently limited. Weaver suffered from a physical handicap that made his stance a necessity. If you aren't limited by that handicap it would probably be best to use the more efficient techniques. Simply adopting the new technique won't transform you into a rock star overnight...but it will help you break through personal plateaus if you're interested in doing so.

[vecdran]

I've noticed a direct correlation of people using proper thumbs-forward grips and aggresive iso stances and being at the top of the heap at competitions...and this is at normal club level matches.

You want to stand up straight as a board, using a revolver grip? Your choice. I have seen some very accurate shooters shooting like this. I'm a less accurate, but shoot three times faster than them, so in the end, I win.

[orionz06]

Has anyone ever switched to Weaver?

[jthhapkido]

IMO....

Weaver is a great stance for pin shooting, actually. Standup, not moving, multiple shots but in a small area (so small transitions)---this is where the Weaver really shines.

That being said, modern iso works just as well as Weaver for those cases (or can, given enough practice---I've noticed that with Weaver it is easier to teach new shooters to lock their upper body properly for good recoil control, compared to modern iso*) AND where MI really shines is the ability to handle fast followup shots on wide angle transitions, along with movement.

Nothing wrong with Weaver if you are doing a stand-and-shoot, and if you can set your body angle (and foot placement) exactly where you want them prior to the start of the shoot. Without those two requirements, however, Weaver is much less effective than modern iso---and defensive shooting and many types of competition (such as IDPA and IPSC) just don't give you those two requirements.

Or another way of putting it: If you have to move, react quickly, and shoot in different directions, modern iso is going to give you a much better chance. Can people shoot well from Weaver? Most certainly! But I bet they only really shine in stand-and-shoot situations.

T.
----------

*I see a lot of people locking their elbows and shoving their shoulders forward when told to "lock out" in modern isoceles. [sigh] Both of those things just make recoil control (plus good smooth, fast movement) harder. I don't even say "lock out" to students anymore, because then I have to go back down the line and get everyone to relax again. In a Weaver stance, "locking" that elbow down is exactly what you want to do, however, and is much easier to initially learn. Mod Iso is still better, though.

[Aray]

Has anyone ever switched to Weaver?

Good question, I'd be interested to hear why if they did.

I shot Weaver in the beginning, and as I progressed in training and pushing for more speed/competence, I found myself doing more and more Iso things. I tried switching to Iso and broke my personal plateau at the time.

I also find I have more flexibility left and right with Iso compared to Weaver, as well as much better muzzle control for followup shots.

Accuracy for the first shot has not had much at all to do with grip in my experience, it's all sight picture and proper press.

As always YMMV.

[KentF]

What do you see Sevigny and others winning national championships with, Kent?

Glocks... Still doesn't make me want to go out and buy one.

[KentF]

There are multiple angles to the question. The first is defining what "good enough" looks like. Every person's definition of "good enough" can vary based on personal experience, personal expectations, and personal interests. My "good enough" might be a far higher standard than the next guy's "good enough". Another person's "good enough" might dramatically exceed my "good enough". Etc.

There are people who, without question, are "good enough" in their own mind and may even exceed the standard of "good enough" held by others even with inefficient techniques. In other words, with the appropriate practice and training you can do much better than most even if your technique is "wrong". To put it as bluntly as possible, no one has ever lost a gunfight because they were using the wrong stance.

...so to an extent those who hold it to be irrelevant are correct.

It's also true, however, that some techniques are more efficient than others. The modern iso stance and the correct grip on the gun provide the best level of control for running a handgun. Using the correct grip and stance you can deliver shots with more accuracy and with more speed, which is generally considered to be a universal good as it comes in handy during a competition or a gunfight.

If we were to take two versions of Dave Sevigny and program one to use Weaver and the other to use his existing technique, I don't doubt that the Weaver-programmed Sevigny would still probably easily destroy most modern iso shooters on any set of drills you could conceive of...but I doubt he could beat the modern iso version of Dave Sevigny.

If we're going to learn and if we're going to try and improve, it generally makes sense to get rid of any techniques that are inherently limited. Weaver suffered from a physical handicap that made his stance a necessity. If you aren't limited by that handicap it would probably be best to use the more efficient techniques. Simply adopting the new technique won't transform you into a rock star overnight...but it will help you break through personal plateaus if you're interested in doing so.

Thanks TC, this is what I was hoping for. I wasn't aware Weaver had a physical handicap.

[Ed L]

Weaver suffered from a physical handicap that made his stance a necessity.

I had not heard this. What handicap did he suffer from?

I rememebr at one time having a major problem with my left shoulder so I could only shoot Weaver without discomfort. When the shoulder healed, I went back to Iso.

I have a friend who likes the CAR stance because he is cross-eye dominant. I ran out of energy trying to convince him there were better choices.

[GJM]

My wife recently got Andy Stanford's book, Surgical Speed Shooting, on Kindle on the IPad, and browsing it, Stanford makes one of the most thoughtful arguments for the Modern Isosceles over the Weaver I have read.

[jlw]

The isosceles does all of the following "better" than the Weaver:

-squares body armorer to the threat rather than exposing the weakest point of the armor

- allows for a greater field of fire (thing addressing targets on the support side)

-easier to move lateral and rearward movement