Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Explain Like I'm 5: Weaver/Modern Technique vs. Isosceles

  1. #21
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Uhm, what is that?

  2. #22
    Tactical Nobody Guerrero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Quote Originally Posted by Erick Gelhaus View Post
    Uhm, what is that?
    The American Jackus Bauerus. They used to thunder across the plains in herds of thousands (well, actually 24). They've been hunted to the brink of extinction by terrorists (and network executives), such that modern school-age children have never seen one in the wild.



    As for the grip, it would charitably called "none of the above."
    "The victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so."
    ― Ennius

  3. #23
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    As for the grip, it would charitably called "none of the above."
    Gotcha

  4. #24
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    PA
    Lee: please dedicate a podcast episode to explaining/discussing why overemphasizing recoil control creates more problems. Thanks! /JRB

    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    Weaver defined as isometric tension is a Cooper/Plahn definition of Weaver (not a Weaver definition of Weaver). It's pushing with the strong arm while pulling with the support arm as a means of recoil control.

    Isosceles relies on the skeletal structure of the body for recoil control rather than muscular tension.

    Quite frankly, I think an overemphasis on recoil control actually creates more problems than it fixes, but that is a different conversation.

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Location
    Idaho
    Hey, what do I know, my interest in handguns is 99% for gaming.

    When I first stated shooting USPSA I probably used some version of the modified weaver stance, left foot forward and body partially bladed to the target. Ala gun mags, movies, etc.

    Over the years I’ve migrated more towards the isosceles probably for a number of reasons. Main one being I like to shoot with a somewhat wide stance, with knees bent, for more stability plus easier to get moving to the next position. Recoil control is probably better going straight back rather than push/pull.

    But for combat when people are shooting back, I guess I can see an advantage to presenting less of your upper torso that the weaver offers. Unless you’re wearing body armor in which caae maybe it’s better to take it straight on into the chest where you have plates instead of the unprotected side?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ECK View Post
    But for combat when people are shooting back, I guess I can see an advantage to presenting less of your upper torso that the weaver offers. Unless you’re wearing body armor in which caae maybe it’s better to take it straight on into the chest where you have plates instead of the unprotected side?
    Name:  Change my mind.jpg
Views: 328
Size:  41.7 KB
    Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....

  7. #27
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    SouthNarc: “A stance is a moment in time. A stance is a moment in time.” ECQC, circa 2005.
    Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.

    Don’t tread on volcanos!

  8. #28
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    https://www.amazon.com/Stressfire-Vo.../dp/0936279036

    Holy Scripture. Read and heed. It covers Weaver to Isosceles to Reverse Weaver, while, if necessary, planted in one spot. IOW, a stance is a moment in time.

    Written by P-F member @Mas Ayoob. Use the link so that a portion of your purchase goes into the P-F tip jar.
    Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.

    Don’t tread on volcanos!

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    Isosceles relies on the skeletal structure of the body for recoil control rather than muscular tension.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    ...and all that's required is using your hands to grip the gun so it doesn't move around in the grip.
    Additional points/questions about isosceles:

    What about bending the elbows a bit and moving them up so that they point outward?
    I do so and think most good shooters do. Compared to fingers and wrists, the elbows are quite relaxed, shoulders are also relaxed. Elbows act as shock absorbers. In effect during recoil, gun and muzzle move less upward but a bit backward.

    What about isometric tension or overextension in the wrists?
    The wrists should not be limp. I'm not sure if tension in the wrists comes automatically by gripping the gun hard or is an extra/deliberate effort.
    Last edited by P30; 02-01-2023 at 09:40 PM.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SATX
    Does anyone in this conversation go back far enough to have been trained in "Weaver/Modern" by an organization or department? I was as recently as 1992!

    Jack Bauer seems to be employing the hybrid tea-cup method(?). I still see actors using that same old style on TV and in movies.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •