Stance - Isosceles, Weaver, and Other

[KentF]

What impressed me aside from SLG's excellent instruction, was how squared away the students were. No problematic hobby pistols, no weaver stances, and spare mag carriers and good holsters were in abundance. Proper Isosceles stances were the rule of the day - no exceptions. The students I worked with needed only fine tuning. All in all, I believe these facts speak very highly about the makeup of this forum. We are shooters, not simply owners. Everyone there was truly there to learn.

With regards to SLG's instruction, I will bet money that there are many that have paid for instruction that did not rival the quality of SLG's. I've had the privilege of learning from a few distinguished folks (ToddG, Larry Vickers, Kyle Defoor), and I was making mental notes while Simon spoke and instructed.

What's with the hate for the Weaver Stance? I was taught the Weaver back in the early 1980's when I was LEO. I've tried Isosceles and have had some good luck with it, but for me -being cross-eye dominate- I find using a modified weaver it is easier to line up my sights.

I have no real preference one way or the other, but I am curious as to why the weaver has seemed to fall out of favor so much.

[joshs]

What's with the hate for the Weaver Stance?

This should probably be split off into its own thread, but I'll post the short answer version of why I dislike weaver.

-It doesn't look anything like what our bodies naturally do under stress.
-It sucks for shooting on the move.
-It isn't as good for recoil control.

That said, the modern isoceles isn't really a single stance, many shooters probably think of themselves as mod iso shooters, but there are many individual variations. For example, when I get to choose how to place my feet, I prefer to have my strong side foot significantly farther back than most iso shooters. I also roll my elbows out and up which keeps my arms from looking anything like a triangle. I find the rolled out elbows helps me use my chest to grip the gun.

[JV_]

This should probably be split off into its own threadI moved his post before you finished replying, but your reply ended up in the correct thread, pretty slick!

[LittleLebowski]

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

[joshs]

I've tried Isosceles and have had some good luck with it, but for me -being cross-eye dominate- I find using a modified weaver it is easier to line up my sights.


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

Sorry, I forgot to address cross dominance in my previous post, but its interesting that Sevigny's stance was mentioned because I think he is also a cross dominate. If you move the gun toward your dominant eye side slightly, it should line up perfectly with your dominant eye and the target. Doing a press out helps because you will be aligning the gun with you dominant eye during the press out, so everything should be lined up by the time you reach extension. If moving the gun feels to awkward, you can try turning you head a very small amount to line up the sights.

[Tamara]

What's with the hate for the Weaver Stance? I was taught the Weaver back in the early 1980's when I was LEO. I've tried Isosceles and have had some good luck with it, but for me -being cross-eye dominate- I find using a modified weaver it is easier to line up my sights.

I have no real preference one way or the other, but I am curious as to why the weaver has seemed to fall out of favor so much.
Because champion shooters use modern isosceles, and therefore if you use modern iso, you are a champion shooter, or as the selection you quoted put it, it is tribal signaling that "We are shooters, not simply owners." Whereas that guy holding his pistol like some black-and-white photo of Chuck Taylor with sideburns is kinda... *snicker behind the hand* ...you know, just an "owner". Amirite?

And no, I haven't consciously shot from a Weaver stance myself in eleven years, because all the cool guys stopped doing it and only the old farts were anymore.

Now, I don't pick up that vibe at this forum, of course, but you know it's out there. You've seen it.

[YVK]

Because champion shooters use modern isosceles, and therefore if you use modern iso, you are a champion shooter, or as the selection you quoted put it, it is tribal signaling that "We are shooters, not simply owners." Whereas that guy holding his pistol like some black-and-white photo of Chuck Taylor with sideburns is kinda... *snicker behind the hand* ...you know, just an "owner". Amirite?

And no, I haven't consciously shot from a Weaver stance myself in eleven years, because all the cool guys stopped doing it and only the old farts were anymore.

Now, I don't pick up that vibe at this forum, of course, but you know it's out there. You've seen it.

There is truth to that, of course, but there is a counterargument. You don't need to look at champions to realize Iso's benefits, you just need to pay attention.

SecondsCount dragged me out to my first-ever pin shoot yesterday. Lot's of fun, BTW. There were 36 shooters, different levels, all ages, different guns, different styles. No champions, just dudes. A bunch shoot Weaver, many of them were very accurate, but none turned in great times due to slow follow-up shots. Just a random observation from a random shooting event involving regular earth people.

[Tamara]

SecondsCount dragged me out to my first-ever pin shoot yesterday. Lot's of fun, BTW. There were 36 shooters, different levels, all ages, different guns, different styles. No champions, just dudes. A bunch shoot Weaver, many of them were very accurate, but none turned in great times due to slow follow-up shots. Just a random observation from a random shooting event involving regular earth people.

True. I bring this up mainly because I have a friend who's been going to gun school for his vacations for years and years, since the early '90s, which means he has a LOT of hours mostly under old-school Modern Technique instructors. And he shoots very well, a lot better than me (which isn't saying much, granted), but at some point it has obviously just become ingrained in him that "This is how you shoot a pistol."

[hoodoo_operator]

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."

[YVK]

Not an expert by any stretch, but I think most would agree that grip per se doesn't affect accuracy that much. Add speed component, and then things change.

[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. :rolleyes:

[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

[Jay Cunningham]

Take ECQC with SouthNarc and you'll learn some eye-opening information regarding stance... in addition to all of the other information.

[ford.304]

I honestly thought that the experience of Jay on Top Shot (I assume some others watched it?) showed just how much more important sight alignment and trigger control are than proper stance or grip to making single accurate shots. If you're just learning and plinking on the range (especially if your range has rapid fire limitations) you may not actually be trying to go fast enough that the correct stance will give you any advantage. Most if not all of the advantage of ISO doesn't come into play until you are firing strings of shots both quickly and accurately.

[NGCSUGrad09]

I believe in finding what works for each shooter.

That being said does anyone know why the Weaver was popular (and remains popular with older guys)?






It's very good for people that are blind as bats.

[jslaker]

I believe in finding what works for each shooter.

That being said does anyone know why the Weaver was popular (and remains popular with older guys)?






It's very good for people that are blind as bats.

Amusingly, Weaver became popular because it was better than the single handed, from the hip point-shooting that ruled competition when it came about.

[TCinVA]

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


To the best of my recollection, he had some sort of shoulder injury that caused him to adopt that stance as a way of working around it.


Amusingly, Weaver became popular because it was better than the single handed, from the hip point-shooting that ruled competition when it came about.

This is also a rather important factor. At the time the "modern pistol technique" way of thinking was a revolutionary approach that was vastly superior to any other approach. A great deal has been learned since the days when Jeff Cooper was trying to convince people that using two hands on a handgun really was the bee's knees.

[virginiatactical]

To the best of my recollection, he had some sort of shoulder injury that caused him to adopt that stance as a way of working around it.

I believe it was a farming accident. I read this thread earlier today and I have been rummaging through my Pubs to verify it before posting, but I just can't find it. I thought it was a farming accident when he was a kid, but I can't find the proof. If I can find it I will post the source.

[JV_]

This is an interesting read about Jack Weaver and the Weaver stance history:
(I didn't see any mention of an injury - but it was still a good read)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_193_32/ai_n24941612/

[Pistol Shooter]

This is an interesting read about Jack Weaver and the Weaver stance history:
(I didn't see any mention of an injury - but it was still a good read)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_193_32/ai_n24941612/

Very good read, thanks for sharing. :)

[jumpthestack]

A few people wrote that iso is superior for shooting on the move.

I've found the opposite; I shoot iso when standing still or moving straight forward or back, but when moving laterally or diagonally I found it more comfortable to do something Weaverish. When I'm moving to my right, I turn my feet to the right and walk to the right while shooting downrange with my upper body twisted to the left. When I'm moving to my left, I turn my feet to the left and shoot right handed only with my upper body twisted to the right.

I don't see how one can shoot iso while moving laterally unless you are sidestepping which feels very awkward and slow to me.

For those who advocate iso for moving laterally, are you pointing your feet in the direction you're going, or are you side stepping?

[joshs]

When moving laterally you can still shoot iso by pointing your feet in the direction of travel and twisting your upper body like a tank turret. Once you get to the point where you are overexerting yourself with the twist, switch the direction of your feet so you are backing up, but still moving in the same direction. Having a lot of bend in your knees makes it easier to twist further if you are having problems with flexibility.

[vecdran]

As josh described, and as Todd teaches.

Crouch, keep upper body stable, let your feet instinctually do what they've been doing your entire life...walk.

Using this technique, Todd had our entire GetSOM class hitting a small water bottle at fifteen yards while moving laterally. Everyone got it within three shots on the first or second run.

[NickA]

What about shooting from behind cover/barricades? Seems a more weaveresque stance would help you stay covered. (I've had very little training on barricade shooting so I'm not advocating one way or the other, genuinely curious)

[Lon]

What about shooting from behind cover/barricades? Seems a more weaveresque stance would help you stay covered. (I've had very little training on barricade shooting so I'm not advocating one way or the other, genuinely curious)


Not if you know how to use cover correctly.

[Jay Cunningham]

Not if you know how to use cover correctly.

Let's try and be a little less "I know a secret" and a little more "let's try and educate each other", mmmmmkay?

[John Hearne]

Interestingly, Jack Weaver did not have an injury that affected his shooting position. Jeff Cooper did and what we see termed the Weaver is more of a modification that Jeff made and people copied without understanding it. For a long time, "Weaver Stance" meant two hands on the gun which was in direct contrast to the one-handed point and squat shooting put forth by the FBI and others of the day. If you look at a picture of Jack Weaver shooting, he looks suprisingly "modern" in terms of body position.

To me, the main difference between the two is a theory about managing recoil. Weaver uses Isometric tenstion to lock the gun down and fight recoil. "Modern Iso" (which isn't Iso) tends to let the recoil "happen" and focus on getting the gun back down to the same consistent point.

"Stance" is but a starting point. When I reviewed my videos of the 360 degree shoot house from the NTI, I saw that I used everything when solving the problems presented. My default shooting platform is more Modern Iso-ish. However when working a right handed corner, I unconsciously used a Weaver-ish stand and ended up using something CAR-ish on left handed corners. Again, none of this was intentional but the byproduct of solving the problem presented in a fairly dynamic environment.

One of my sneaking suspicions is that the best shooters rely a lot more on arm strength to control the gun than most of us appreciate. For a starting shooter with little such strength, the Weaver idea of recoil management may offer some benefits worth considering. The problem is that the maximum performance will ultimately be limited at some point down the line. This maximum could be stretched a bit more with something more Modern Iso-ish.

[Lon]

Let's try and be a little less "I know a secret" and a little more "let's try and educate each other", mmmmmkay?

Wasnt trying to be cryptic. The proper use of cover would probably be better served in it's own thread with a pic or video tutorial. Neither of which I have right now otherwise I would have posted them. Was just giving a short, concise answer to the question.

[jslaker]

Interestingly, Jack Weaver did not have an injury that affected his shooting position. Jeff Cooper did and what we see termed the Weaver is more of a modification that Jeff made and people copied without understanding it. For a long time, "Weaver Stance" meant two hands on the gun which was in direct contrast to the one-handed point and squat shooting put forth by the FBI and others of the day. If you look at a picture of Jack Weaver shooting, he looks suprisingly "modern" in terms of body position.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5104/weaverp.jpg

[ToddG]

"Stance" is but a starting point. When I reviewed my videos of the 360 degree shoot house from the NTI, I saw that I used everything when solving the problems presented. My default shooting platform is more Modern Iso-ish. However when working a right handed corner, I unconsciously used a Weaver-ish stand and ended up using something CAR-ish on left handed corners. Again, none of this was intentional but the byproduct of solving the problem presented in a fairly dynamic environment.


This is the key point that often gets lost in "Weaver vs. Iso" debates. People think of it in terms of foot and arm position when it's much more about balance and grip.

I've shot from some absolutely ridiculous positions. Calling any of them "Weaver" -- regardless of where my feet and arms were -- would be wrong.

This is why I don't get excited about Weaver-era instructors who adopt a triangular stance but maintain the push-pull and neutral weight distribution.

Watch joshs shoot sometime. He's as far from a traditional "feet on the firing line" iso stance as you can be, but he is definitely an iso "style" shooter.

[GJM]

To me, the main difference between the two is a theory about managing recoil. Weaver uses Isometric tenstion to lock the gun down and fight recoil. "Modern Iso" (which isn't Iso) tends to let the recoil "happen" and focus on getting the gun back down to the same consistent point.

John, through someone we both know, both Robbie L and Mike V both say they use substantial isometric tension with their support hand, forming a "clam shell," to control recoil. Both also say that hand and arm strength is very important to an effective Modern Iso stance.

[jthhapkido]

To me, the main difference between the two is a theory about managing recoil. Weaver uses Isometric tenstion to lock the gun down and fight recoil.


John, through someone we both know, both Robbie L and Mike V both say they use substantial isometric tension with their support hand, forming a "clam shell," to control recoil.

I'm thinking a main difference here is that Robbie and Mike are talking about lateral (left-right) isometric tension (for the most part), and the Weaver style is (mostly) about front/back isometric tension. Yes?

[GJM]

I "ain't" them, but I understood it to be all around isometric tension that controlled muzzle rise as well as left/right, and the more the caliber recoiled, the tighter they gripped.

[hoodoo_operator]

This thread has been pretty enlightening to me. I've always thought of stance as "weaver is with your weak arm bent, and iso is when both are straight" but clearly there's a lot more to it.