[rlfd27]

Which stance do you prefer and why? I was raised on Weaver but can see some benefits to both.

Larry
G26 gen 4

 

[Jigo23]

I too was raised on weaver and for ME it is the most comfortable position (puts less strain on my bad back) and it is the position I can most accurately put lead on target. My son recently graduated from the FBI Academy and they are training to shoot isosceles, or possibly a modified isosceles. Really weird thing for me was how far forward they were being taught to point their thumbs along the side of the pistol too. I know it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but He finally got me to try it out (after 20 mins getting my body contorted into the proper position LOL)
Right away I didn't like the strain in put on my back (6 surgeries now, and it was just not comfortable for me). Having played sports all my life I easily grasp the concept...it is a good overall athletic position and probably the best way to teach new shooters nowadays....I reckon. Just not for me. If I were able to train exclusively that way for ohhh, 5 or 6 years lol, I might change my mind. Then again....I might not
Personally I just don't see that it much matters either way in real world applications. In a real gunfight, unless you are doing a High Nooner shoot out in the middle of a dusty street, both methods are likely to go out the window and your shooting "stance" will be determined by your environment...available cover, angle of attack, force on force #'s
Personally, in tactical situations, I find the Weaver (Modified Weaver) as the most versatile, natural, and survivable positions to fight from. I'm definitely old school though so would love to hear the other side of the coin. Honestly though, other than standing at the firing line while qualifying, I just haven't seen the isosceles used elsewhere?

 

[os-wiz]

I too was raised on weaver and for ME it is the most comfortable position (puts less strain on my bad back) and it is the position I can most accurately put lead on target. My son recently graduated from the FBI Academy and they are training to shoot isosceles, or possibly a modified isosceles. Really weird thing for me was how far forward they were being taught to point their thumbs along the side of the pistol too. I know it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but He finally got me to try it out (after 20 mins getting my body contorted into the proper position LOL)
Right away I didn't like the strain in put on my back (6 surgeries now, and it was just not comfortable for me). Having played sports all my life I easily grasp the concept...it is a good overall athletic position and probably the best way to teach new shooters nowadays....I reckon. Just not for me. If I were able to train exclusively that way for ohhh, 5 or 6 years lol, I might change my mind. Then again....I might not
Personally I just don't see that it much matters either way in real world applications. In a real gunfight, unless you are doing a High Nooner shoot out in the middle of a dusty street, both methods are likely to go out the window and your shooting "stance" will be determined by your environment...available cover, angle of attack, force on force #'s
Personally, in tactical situations, I find the Weaver (Modified Weaver) as the most versatile, natural, and survivable positions to fight from. I'm definitely old school though so would love to hear the other side of the coin. Honestly though, other than standing at the firing line while qualifying, I just haven't seen the isosceles used elsewhere?

I also grew up trained in Weaver style, weak eye closed. And certainly understand how your back issues kind of forces you into the Weaver. After getting my CCW and taking a few hours of defensive training, some IDPA (just getting started), I've adopted the isosceles and both eyes open. Keeping both eyes open took a little getting use to, but it, in a gun fight, opens up your field of view tremendously -- something you might try.

 

[SteveC]

I began with Weaver but transitioned to isosceles with both eyes open as I got interested in competition. Weaver (among other things) has some disadvantages for transitioning between targets, so if you're shooting at more than one target I think the advantages of isosceles become more evident. I think one can shoot with Weaver effectively, though, especially if like jigo it makes less strain on a troublesome back. Here's a link to a Jerry Miculek video where he has some points about the two.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s[/ame]

 

[scott_see]

I began with Weaver but transitioned to isosceles with both eyes open as I got interested in competition. Weaver (among other things) has some disadvantages for transitioning between targets, so if you're shooting at more than one target I think the advantages of isosceles become more evident. I think one can shoot with Weaver effectively, though, especially if like jigo it makes less strain on a troublesome back. Here's a link to a Jerry Miculek video where he has some points about the two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s

This guy is a walking, shooting miracle. I've been a modified weaver fan, but I'm going to switch to isosceles after watching this video.

Personally I don't sweat stance too much. It's all about the trigger pull and front sight.




Sent from my iPhone using Glock Forum

 

[NoKz]

This guy is a walking, shooting miracle. I've been a modified weaver fan, but I'm going to switch to isosceles after watching this video.

Personally I don't sweat stance too much. It's all about the trigger pull and front sight.

Miculek is the man.

 

[40caljim]

Very good video. We trained law enforcement for years to use the weaver or as we referred to it the "Violator Contact Stance" since it kept your weapon side away from the bad guys. Now that I shoot competition I have switched gears and use the isosceles shooting position just as Jerry recommends. Jerry Miculek is amazing. I got to meet him and his wife at one of our local USPSA matches a few years ago and watching him in person was a rare treat. I have a good picture on my wal of me with Jerry and his wife Kay, right next to my picture of me and Jessie Duff.

 

[Thesarge]

I have shot Weaver for about 32 years now and there I stay. Tried iso many, many times and still like and shoot best Weaver. I have no problems shooting at speed on multiple targets while moving. My emphasis has always been combat training. I like Weaver for close quarters and don't favor shoving the pistol at arms length all the time. The main thing though is to always use what works best for you. Bill

 

[9mmsRock]

At the range I practice isosceles although in a defensive situation that may not be the stance I would ultimately use. However, I would probably use part of it just from muscle memory.

 

[dwcfastrice]

As they say, "First learned, best retained".

I first learned weaver, then learned Modified Weaver, and then, most recently, learned isosceles.

I will always teach and shoot Isoceles first in non-pressure situations including competition. The key to doing something well is consistent, repeatable processes. Since your arms are the same length all the time, it's easier to do ISO more consistently. ISO also has has much better recoil management properties than either Weaver or Mod-Weaver.

In "surprise"/"stress situations", however, I find myself reverting to weaver unless i'm wearing a vest or harness, then i'll use ISO.

d

 

[HMUP2011]

We were taught isosceles in the military because it keeps your armor square facing the bullets.


Sent from my iPhone using Glock Forum

 

[rlfd27]

Thanks for everyone's opinions. I've been trying to get comfortable with isosceles, but it still feels so unnatural. My body just naturally goes to a Weaver stance. Muscle memory I guess. Like I said in my first post, I can see why people prefer one or the other, but I think I'll be sticking with Weaver since that's what comes naturally to me.



Larry
G26 gen 4

Sent from my iPhone using Glock Forum

 

[GrizzlyG27]

The Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy teaches Isosceles for the same reason HMUP2011stated about the Military. However, both the Military, at least the MP's while I was in and when I went through the OPOTA Peace Officer basic were still using the weaver stance. However that was many moons ago. Do to an injury suffered to my dominate eye a few years ago I have been forced to adopt the Isosceles stance and it did take alot of time and practice to get used to.

 

[Dark Knight]

Have you tried to find a modified version of both that's more comfortable for you

 

[combatglock17]

I too was raised on weaver and for ME it is the most comfortable position (puts less strain on my bad back) and it is the position I can most accurately put lead on target. My son recently graduated from the FBI Academy and they are training to shoot isosceles, or possibly a modified isosceles. Really weird thing for me was how far forward they were being taught to point their thumbs along the side of the pistol too. I know it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but He finally got me to try it out (after 20 mins getting my body contorted into the proper position LOL)
Right away I didn't like the strain in put on my back (6 surgeries now, and it was just not comfortable for me). Having played sports all my life I easily grasp the concept...it is a good overall athletic position and probably the best way to teach new shooters nowadays....I reckon. Just not for me. If I were able to train exclusively that way for ohhh, 5 or 6 years lol, I might change my mind. Then again....I might not
Personally I just don't see that it much matters either way in real world applications. In a real gunfight, unless you are doing a High Nooner shoot out in the middle of a dusty street, both methods are likely to go out the window and your shooting "stance" will be determined by your environment...available cover, angle of attack, force on force #'s
Personally, in tactical situations, I find the Weaver (Modified Weaver) as the most versatile, natural, and survivable positions to fight from. I'm definitely old school though so would love to hear the other side of the coin. Honestly though, other than standing at the firing line while qualifying, I just haven't seen the isosceles used elsewhere?

By far isoceles is going to benefit you more overall..
Also with two eyes open..
Tactically speaking your field of fire is 180 deg with isoceles being your squared up to the POA with 90 on both sides with both eyes open.. it's also alot harder to maneuver walking weaver like a crab.. it's a Def disadvantage when a threat comes from your turned back side .. the other consideration is skills deficiency when having to break a corner on your non dominant shooting position that the weaver will naturally cause you to have.. on the other hand the isoceles will force you to adapt to both shooting positions right or left as well as a balanced forward or reverse walking profile due to its inherent design...

 

[Woodrow75]

When I was in MSG school back in 1996, we were taught the weaver stance by DOS and the Marines mainly because you presented less of a target. MP School and modern military days we were taught isosceles due to our body armor.

I mainly use the isosceles and the modified isosceles as well because that is what I feel the most comfortable with. That mainly applies to just the range. Keep in mind outside of that, stance is not going to play a huge part as you are mobile and situation may dictate.

 

[40caljim]

Isosceles is great for target and competition shooting but the weaver/modified weaver/violator contact position is better for combat/defensive purposes. Anytime your feet are side by side (as in the Isosceles) you can be knocked off balance very easily. Maintaining balance is critical when being confronted by an attacker. So both positions have their advantages. I use the Isosceles quite a bit in my competition shooting but I train CHL and LEO students to use the weaver/violator contact stance for everything else.

 

[combatglock17]

Isosceles is great for target and competition shooting but the weaver/modified weaver/violator contact position is better for combat/defensive purposes. Anytime your feet are side by side (as in the Isosceles) you can be knocked off balance very easily. Maintaining balance is critical when being confronted by an attacker. So both positions have their advantages. I use the Isosceles quite a bit in my competition shooting but I train CHL and LEO students to use the weaver/violator contact stance for everything else.

True assuming the assailant gets within arms reach. . My experience showed isoceles has given me the best movement and vision in tactical operations and execution. .

 

[walkingwolf]

I use whatever stance meets the situation or cover. My first thought in any incident, is NOT get in that predicament in the first place. The second is how to get out of it, and that means using cover or retreat rather than standing face to face with a threat.

Far too much thought is put into getting out of a situation that one should never get in. Citizens have been defending themselves successfully for decades without all this fanfare. Most people used to buy a gun, shoot it maybe once, put it in a drawer, then retrieve and use it successfully.

Training the mind IMO is much more effective at surviving. The brain is the greatest weapon. What it boils down to is the will to survive, no matter what.

 

[walkingwolf]

Isosceles is great for target and competition shooting but the weaver/modified weaver/violator contact position is better for combat/defensive purposes. Anytime your feet are side by side (as in the Isosceles) you can be knocked off balance very easily. Maintaining balance is critical when being confronted by an attacker. So both positions have their advantages. I use the Isosceles quite a bit in my competition shooting but I train CHL and LEO students to use the weaver/violator contact stance for everything else.

And makes a person a bigger target, as well as is worthless when trying to use cover.