Isosceles Stance Vs. Weaver Stance

[OkieStubble]

(Quoting sfeile) A little off topic, but as an instructor and competition shooter, there are a few reasons that the weaver stance is fading out.

For one, the weaver takes more training to deploy consistently. Since it is a push/pull system, it is more difficult to duplicate it under stress accurately whereas the isosceles is a natural triangular push to your natural point of aim and is easier to duplicate with less training. It is also quicker to deploy from a draw, retention position, or even after being knocked onto your back as it is bringing the firearm to your natural point of aim.

Also with the above said, the weaver is less versatile. Due to the slight angle at which you turn to the target, and the opposing forces used in stabilizing, your mobility is limited. An isosceles stance maintains its point of aim turning both ways as you are squared to the target and pivot at the hips, and you still maintain the original stability throughout. So target transition, moving to cover, shooting while retreating, etc... are all done with a greater amount of control and accuracy.

When the weaver was taught, LE did not have body armor readily available and one of the thoughts behind it was to help minimize yourself as a target. Now with body armor being the norm in most departments, you want it to absorb anything you may be hit by. You actually have a better chance standing square to a perp as the side is the weakest part of the armor.

Also, as you yourself stated, eye dominance. And it is more natural for "point shooting" where you aren't even looking at your sights, because face it, when you are under duress, you are not looking for that super clear sight picture.

Bottom line however, is just as you stated in your opening:
"No question that the ideal shooting techniques are the ones where the shooter-
1. Feels most confident and comfortable
2. Results in the most effective and accurate shot placement."

And might I add, that is a beautiful Ruger you got there sir!

Not at all disagreeing with your analysis of the Weaver stance, however there are a couple of salient points to add. The Weaver uses a defensive "bladed stance" or in LE terms, the "Interview Stance", with the strong side foot to the rear and the off hand foot forward. Also known as a boxer's stance. This affords the officer to have his gun furthest away from the person being interviewed, provides for better weapon retention and is a much more stable fighting position if physical contact is made. If you are shoved while in an Isosceles stance you are going straight down on your ***. Weaver certainly has it's place in my repertoire, as does Isosceles. I use them both as the situation dictates.

I think any formal stance training is useful to a developing shooter. However, concentrating on perfecting a stance is generally counter productive to prevailing in a shooting. While we do teach a basic, modified Isosceles in the academy, It's more for conformity in having a beginning foundation for training, in the basic fundamentals of firearms and shooting skills to 130 cadets at one time, ranging in ages between 21 and 32 years of age.

It also helps with range safety, for a 130 unknown and unpredictable personal skill sets from a 130 future professionals. This is why we call it the "Basic" Academy. While we don't always teach every officer advanced skills in weapons and tactics after the academy, we do, always encourage those officers to seek out advanced training within the LE community, who do not move into a specialty area in LE, where they would automatically receive this training.

Most shootings in general, civilian personal defense or LEO defense while in the performance of their duties, takes place in extremely close distances involving very large targets. Most often than not, active gunfights involve very abrupt and dynamic movements, and are very fast and extremely violent. Actual statistics show, most officer involved shootings, find themselves in awkward positions the moment the gunfight begins.

Individual tactics are much more relevant to your survival than your stance. However, The modified Isosceles we teach in our academy, is an "reactive stance.” The Isosceles, upper body 90 degrees and square to the threat, with hands pushed forward at eye-level and the legs doing what they do in that specific situation, whether moving backwards, forwards, sideways, stationary or whatever, almost exactly mirrors, how humans naturally react when faced with a sudden close threat.

The upper body while in the Isosceles, mimics our natural startled and surprised response, as seen in most videos of officers, when responding to actual threats to life, by punching their handguns out in front of them. It is an natural and instinctive, human physical response to put a weapon between you and a perceived threat.

While the Isosceles is more of a cruder stance than a refined Weaver, combat effective accuracy, only requires hits on target. Preferably, with bullets making their impact, within three to six inches of each other, creating as much damage to multiple organs as possible. At close distances where the Modified Isosceles will most likely be deployed, a high degree of accuracy (think competition grouping) isn't generally necessary for survival. We teach our cadets, that hitting the target first, hitting it well and hitting it quickly and often, is much more critical to winning a gun fight and surviving said gunfight.

 

[nortac]

So Rob, are you saying that they still teach some officers the Weaver stance as an advanced skill or has it totally gone by the wayside in your department's training? I was initially taught the "hard" Weaver at Gunsite many years ago. Truth be told, I use a "soft" Weaver mostly and it is easy to transition in and out of Weaver to Isosceles and back again as you are moving. The modified Weaver also keeps the gun closer into your body as you move about, potentially making it less likely to be disarmed or telegraph your presence as you negotiate corners, etc. Also, another reason the Weaver stance was developed was to control the recoil of heavy magnum firearms used back in the day with it's push-pull action of the dominant and support hands, not so much an issue with today's duty weapons.

 

[jamesspo]

I default to the Weaver stance, and that feels far and away the most natural to me. It's so ingrained in me that it's tough for me to even raise a firearm with out automatically entering that stance on the way up. Obviously that's just from habit. However, I practice shooting from all kinds of weird positions, wrong hand, always both eyes open, etc, and can shoot well (and fast) from all of them. I think that's more important than dwelling too much on training stance. As said, in an actual incident the basic shooting fundamentals combined with practice of combat level accuracy are going to be more important than stance.

 

[OkieStubble]

So Rob, are you saying that they still teach some officers the Weaver stance as an advanced skill or has it totally gone by the wayside in your department's training? I was initially taught the "hard" Weaver at Gunsite many years ago. Truth be told, I use a "soft" Weaver mostly and it is easy to transition in and out of Weaver to Isosceles and back again as you are moving. The modified Weaver also keeps the gun closer into your body as you move about, potentially making it less likely to be disarmed or telegraph your presence as you negotiate corners, etc. Also, another reason the Weaver stance was developed was to control the recoil of heavy magnum firearms used back in the day with it's push-pull action of the dominant and support hands, not so much an issue with today's duty weapons.

We only teach the modified Isosceles to Cadet/Patrol officers. The reasons for this are several. For one, it is expedient in time, money and the level of training for line/patrol officers. Also,The FBI’s “Violent Encounters” study (2006) revealed that more than 97% of shootings begin with the suspect shooting first.

It also falls in line with the instinctive reaction to a human’s “startle response” to surprise actions and in spinning to directly face the threat, hands up at face level and extended to protect the eyes and throat, with the spine forward in a semi-crouched position. However, these natural human factors precludes the Weaver hold/stance which is counter to the body’s natural reactions in a sudden shooting situation.

This does not not mean, that all training has to be of a natural, reactive origin. But it does mean, that it has been determined, that it takes more experience and a higher "elite status in the level of training, where the person's mental circuitry can overrule and dictate, opposite the bodies natural and reactive responses. It is the rare and highly trained officer, who, in a Modified Weaver method, that does not react to sudden and unexpected gunfire by instantly moving into an Isosceles upper body transitions, In scenario type training applications, where there is no expectation of actual injury and with only minor pain penalties when hit by marking cartridges or airsoft pellets.

This shows, the possible sudden response to unexpected “deadly threats” by “Weaver-trained” shooters where the training has not been of a high level or ingrained in the mental circuitry over time that comes with advanced training, it is almost always, invariably reverted back, to an Isosceles type "reactive response." This is even witnessed on the academy range, where there is no personal peril whatsoever.

But to answer your specific question. Yes, SWAT and other elite, tactical units, train and use both modified Weaver and modified isosceles stances and movements, because they are better and higher trained for specific scenarios and tactics.

 

[Slash McCoy]

My perhaps less than expert opinion...

Isoceles for the first few sessions at the range. The simplicity and straightforwardness makes it easy to concentrate on sight picture, trigger control, and overall safe operation.

Weaver, after basic handgun handling and operation skills are learned. Prep for real world tactical training and general practical readiness. It is a more natural stance, offering easy movement options and transition to and from strong hand from the hip shooting, which frees the off hand for protection against surprise grabs for the weapon and improves weapon retention at very close ranges, where a lot of stuff can happen pretty darn quick. First time I ever picked up a handgun to fire it, I remember I naturally gravitated toward what I now reccognize as a Weaver-like stance though without the isometric push-pull stabilization, and I was quickly corrected into a "proper" isoceles stance before I could fire. That wasn't a bad thing but to me it illustrates the natural tendency to fall into this stance which gives excellent elevation stability while offering quick panning from side to side. But isoceles removes a lot of wild cards and variables while mastering the basic mechanics of shooting. Just my opinion for what it is worth from a layman.

 

[Acmemfg]

There isn't much question that the Weaver stance was developed for the law enforcement community. For sure, it can work great for any shooter, but the ability to shoot from a proper Weaver stance does take practice. And, as mentioned, once it is ingrained into your shooting discipline, it is all but impossible to revert to another position. Yes, it can be done, but it's like work.

Another reason the Weaver stance is beneficial to a tactical shooting environment is it facilitates a solid shooting platform while moving (like say clearing a building). Also allows you to backpedal away from an adversary somewhat easier.

Shoot like you train-train like you shoot.

 

[dojpros]

IMNSHO, if your wear body armor for a living and your "default" shooting stance does not have you as square up to the threat as possible putting as much armor coverage out front as possible, you are compromising your safety. Having said that, training enough to know what you can hit cold, today, right now, on demand, with what you carry, how you carry it, is far more important.


I am sure there is some guy out there who learned to shoot a full on bladed weaver back in the 80's and still does. He carried the same gun concealed in the same place with the same belt/holster combination every day. He live fires 50-100 rounds at least 1x month and dry fires a couple of times a week for 5 minutes at a time max. He does not do stupid things with stupid people in stupid places and understands that just because he carries a hammer, not everyting sticking up needs to be pounded back down by him.

 

[Slash McCoy]

IMNSHO, if your wear body armor for a living and your "default" shooting stance does not have you as square up to the threat as possible putting as much armor coverage out front as possible, you are compromising your safety.

Very good point, and one that does not immediately spring to mind, to those of us who don't. Thanks for that insight.

 

[sfeile]

Disclaimer:
Just to be clear, my comments are observations from my experience, and not meant to be taken as being 100% accurate for everyone.

I have no LE experience or training. A big part of my personal training has come from a retired S.E.A.L., followed by many hours of competing in defensive shooting and range time, refining with as many sources as I can.

When I first started shooting handguns, I started with a Weaver stance because that was what I knew. When I met my friend, he explained why the teams teach isosceles, such as natural point of aim, mobility, ease of learning, etc...
For me personally, the switch mad a huge improvement in my shooting. But, I am no bullseye shooter. I look for a relatively small rapid group, not a slow one hole group.

When I instruct civilians, I teach them the basic stance of isosceles for it's natural position and for ease of instruction. My main goal is firearm control however, not making sure the stance is 100% textbook. If it works better for the shooter to bend an arm to a modified weaver, then that's what we go with. My main goal is good fundamentals.

If I get to a more advanced teaching, it changes a bit. I still go with isosceles because that is what I am comfortable teaching and it is more naturally picked up an utilized. It is good for room clearing, and things like that because of it's inherent flexibility for left and right hand shooters working either side of the pie.

We also work a lot of "unorthodox" shooting positions as well with the understanding that you will very rarely ever get the chance to stand there and square up with a target. In reality you will probably already be on the ground fighting or running away to cover someplace.

From my experience, and granted it is very limited compared to many out there, there is NO "one way" to do things. I always try to make this clear in my teaching, and I try to make that a staple in my own training. What works for one, may not for another, and it definitely won't work for every situation.

The biggest parts of any firearms training from basic to advanced, is being confident and comfortable with your firearm and your fundamentals, practice to proficiency, and never be afraid to learn. There is always someone out there that can teach you more.

 

[nortac]

^ I'm in total agreement. I have trained with several well known trainers and each has his own take on things and something to add to my tactical toolbox, even when trainers disagree on the "right way". The trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff, internalize what works for you and make it your own.

 

[jamesspo]

I am sure there is some guy out there who learned to shoot a full on bladed weaver back in the 80's and still does. He carried the same gun concealed in the same place with the same belt/holster combination every day. He live fires 50-100 rounds at least 1x month and dry fires a couple of times a week for 5 minutes at a time max. He does not do stupid things with stupid people in stupid places and understands that just because he carries a hammer, not everything sticking up needs to be pounded back down by him.

That's me, but replace 80's with 70's .

 

[Acmemfg]

Weaver?? Isosceles?? Ha!!
Let us go back into yesteryear. Back when REAL pistoleros ruled the streets!!

 

[Slash McCoy]

Weaver?? Isosceles?? Ha!!
Let us go back into yesteryear. Back when REAL pistoleros ruled the streets!!

View attachment 680228

Hah! Dig that crouch! Looks like cap and ball gunfighter days lol!

 

[ShaverGN]

Most important thing is not the stance itself. You must look good when firing your handgun and have a backup weapon.

 

[OkieStubble]

Most important thing is not the stance itself.

This is probably the most important thing that can be taken from this thread. While all of my personal history working as a law enforcement training instructor, was/is teaching at the Cadet/Patrol level, In my own personal career, of seeking out advanced training for myself, I have met, observed and trained with many, who serve in our elite tactical units and who depend on a higher level of training and tactics in the performance of their everyday jobs.

from my own personal observations and training, I have bore witness to the fact, that no "modern officer" uses a hard Weaver or hard Isosceles stance as they did 20 years ago. They are all modified stances, that officers, move, shoot and engage from. In fact, I have sat around and just watched SWAT officers as they were just casually going thru preliminary warm up movements before an assigned training course, and just in their casual like warm up movements, I observed them moving and shooting at a full bore tilted run, using a modified Weaver.

at the same time, most if not all of them would immediately transition into a modified isosceles, the very second they stopped running, but continued in laying down fire. I have observed them walk and shoot using a modified weaver and again, immediately transition into a modified Isosceles, if they suddenly turned to engage a threat to one side or the other.

what really showed in their level of training. was that while I know we teach Isosceles to young Cadets because of the helpful instinctive reactionary movements when surprised by sudden gunfire, the SWAT officers were so fluent in their movements, that if you were told that Weaver went counter to everything "reactionary" you would of never known it with these guys.

 

[OkieStubble]

I have noticed most of the posters in here who say they use a Weaver type platform, are older shooters. I am curious about where all you guys first picked up your knowledge and training with the Weaver stance? I remember John stating he learned at Gunsite under the tutelage of the late, great col. Cooper. But what about the rest of you guys?

Acme? Slash? James? David? Mike?

 

[sfeile]

^ I agree with you. I have to admit that I do tend to flex my left arm a bit and should probably be considered more of a modified weaver shooter than a "true" isosceles shooter. As you pointed out, a lot of what is "instinctive" relates to how you train. If you are looking at a new shooter, it could be argued that isosceles is "the most" instinctive. To those of us that have had more trigger time under unique situations, that argument could be easily lost.

One thing we all seem to agree on however, is that you need to train and train some more without limiting yourself to that one magic method.

Slow typer here. You snuck one in on me.

 

[bberg100]

Argument that has no end, just like what is the best cartridge...

 

[OkieStubble]

Disclaimer:
Just to be clear, my comments are observations from my experience, and not meant to be taken as being 100% accurate for everyone.

I have no LE experience or training. A big part of my personal training has come from a retired S.E.A.L., followed by many hours of competing in defensive shooting and range time, refining with as many sources as I can.

When I first started shooting handguns, I started with a Weaver stance because that was what I knew. When I met my friend, he explained why the teams teach isosceles, such as natural point of aim, mobility, ease of learning, etc...
For me personally, the switch mad a huge improvement in my shooting. But, I am no bullseye shooter. I look for a relatively small rapid group, not a slow one hole group.

When I instruct civilians, I teach them the basic stance of isosceles for it's natural position and for ease of instruction. My main goal is firearm control however, not making sure the stance is 100% textbook. If it works better for the shooter to bend an arm to a modified weaver, then that's what we go with. My main goal is good fundamentals.

If I get to a more advanced teaching, it changes a bit. I still go with isosceles because that is what I am comfortable teaching and it is more naturally picked up an utilized. It is good for room clearing, and things like that because of it's inherent flexibility for left and right hand shooters working either side of the pie.

We also work a lot of "unorthodox" shooting positions as well with the understanding that you will very rarely ever get the chance to stand there and square up with a target. In reality you will probably already be on the ground fighting or running away to cover someplace.

From my experience, and granted it is very limited compared to many out there, there is NO "one way" to do things. I always try to make this clear in my teaching, and I try to make that a staple in my own training. What works for one, may not for another, and it definitely won't work for every situation.

The biggest parts of any firearms training from basic to advanced, is being confident and comfortable with your firearm and your fundamentals, practice to proficiency, and never be afraid to learn. There is always someone out there that can teach you more.

Excellent post Sfeile.. To be honest, I am a modified Isosceles guy myself. Maybe because I had just taught it to entry level officers for so many years, or because of the fact that i simply just suck at accuracy, shooting from a stationary Weaver.

But i can tell you, as long as I have been doing this, I can tell from what you write in your posts, that you still have a great well rounded knowledge of training, which is impressive, because you took the effort to seek out after it.

Well done sir.

 

[OkieStubble]

Argument that has no end, just like what is the best cartridge...

I didn't know we were arguing? I have learned alot and enjoyed every single persons post in this thread.