Weaver or Isosceles?

[Ninja45]

I am more steady and accurate using Weaver. However, one can use whichever one they are most comfortable with. I don't use a vest, so it is a non-issue for me.

[tacticalcity]

Most people do neither. What most people call the "weaver" would more correctly be called the modified weaver. What most people call the isosceles, really isn't as it is more relaxed form of it. Basically both have evolved since they were first invented and been tweaked over time. Most notably the angle of the stance when doing the modified-weaver and just how harshly you "lock" your arms out on the isosceles (along with a laundry list of little things on both of them) actually run contrary to the rather ridged principles their creators applied to both methods. If you were to dig up the guy(s) who invented them and did them the way commonly thought of as the correct way of doing them today, they would tell you that are doing them completely wrong. They have changed that much.

Why does it matter? Because it is annoying when things are called by the wrong name. It is annoying when people call all SUVs Jeeps, or when they call a magazine a clip, or when reporters call an ordinary rifle a machine gun. Even if you know what you are talking about, if you use the wrong words people dismiss you as just another NOOB.

As for the actual question, I learned the modified weaver first and it is muscle memory. I can do the isosceles (Chapman's version of it), but I have to work at it and I get mixed results. So modified weaver is my default method.

Personally I believe you should learn both and the use the right one for the situation. If you are not wearing body armor or plates then the primary advantage of the isosolese isn't there. It was designed to take maximum advantage of body armor. And since the largest plated surface area is head on, it has withstood the test of time.

The key concept behind the modified weaver is balancing a very stable firing platform with the concept of trying to make your body as small a target as possible.

This is an idea that fans of the isosolese dismiss outright, even though it is the historical reason behind why the military and law enforcement chose to adopt it. They prefer to think of the isosolese as the "new" method and the modified weaver as "so 1980's". But that simply is not true. It is based on the time frame some large police departments made the transition, rather than when they were invented. And that trasition concides with advances in body armor and wide spread adoption of said armor. Namely the time when front plates became considerably more common place.

Yes, I'm the guy in the course who actually pays attention to the history lessons in the lectures.

[Sturnovik]

Love the picture! And I end up using weaver most of the time. I think I'm a hair more accurate with others but i can hold the weaver stance longer, more consistently.

[Maximusmax51]

kung fu horse riding stance or the Equilibrium gun kata stance.

[SIGSHOOTR]

modified isosceles. it's the stance I was taught-- most natural and comfortable for me.

[Str8shutr]

You answered the question for yourself. Your body naturally goes to iso, since we know it to be an effective, stable platform, use it.

[jmsenk]

I learned a modified weaver, but my time in the military drilled me more into a modified isocoles. That is what I use for the most part, but its not the only one in my kit bag. the more I have learned, the more options I have. I have done room clearing (slow style, not a dynamic entry) using a modified (heavily) weaver, and a CAR stance is great for Pieing doors, but any time I might have to move while shooting, I go to Iso.

[ap3572001]

When at the range do you shoot with a weaver stance or isosceles? Back home a few of my police dept. buddies prefer the isosceles to the weaver, and i tend to shoot better too with the isosceles. I can do both but my body automatically goes to isosceles when i draw my pistol.

Weaver and Isosceles are very different.
When surprised Weaver does not work very well.

[Subotai]

I shoot all the above and also shoot like an old timey gangster. Forearm horizontal and gun out. Try it, you'll like it!

[ZombieTactics]

Something I demonstrated once to someone who was predisposed towards a particular stance being "THE ONE":

Consider a threat presenting itself square on to you. What presentation makes sense? Why would you be concerned with adopting a bladed stance at that point when Iso puts the gun on target with no additional movement? Why would you move a large body mass ... torso, maybe legs ... to adopt a bladed stance? How does that make sense unless you only know one way to shoot?

Consider that you handle the first problem ... but now he has a "friend" approaching you from the left at 10 o'clock. Is it your assertion that rotating your entire torso or perhaps even your entire body to maintain that perfect Iso stance is an efficient way of addressing this? Why not drop one elbow and point the damned gun?

Whoops ... BG number 3 appears at your 3 o'clock position. Isn't the smartest thing to transition to left-handed C.A.R. at this point? No? Why not?

This of course assumes you are well-enough versed with these techniques to do as suggested. But isn't it better to have more than one tool in your bag?

[Briancnelson]

kung fu horse riding stance or the Equilibrium gun kata stance.

Heh. I was at a gun range in Arizona about 2 years ago with my Dad when a guy came in to talk to the front desk guy and said he was looking for a range which would allow him to, and I directly quote: "refine his gun kata technique".

After we all finished laughing, and realized he was dead serious, the desk guy told him "I hear the range as far from here as it is possible to get has a class in that" and escorted him out.

[JagerDog]

I like a Weaver or "modified Weaver" (left elbow more to the side). IMHO it's is the basis of more natural shooting with the pistol aligned with my right arm. We all (or I think most all anyways), intuitively point with our finger very well...providing it's lined up with our strong side forearm, etc. I want a stance that maximizes what is "natural". In a defensive situation, sights become superfluous.

[ZombieTactics]

... In a defensive situation, sights become superfluous.

Don't. Seriously, just don't.

[elSquid]

Consider a threat presenting itself square on to you. What presentation makes sense? Why would you be concerned with adopting a bladed stance at that point when Iso puts the gun on target with no additional movement? Why would you move a large body mass ... torso, maybe legs ... to adopt a bladed stance? How does that make sense unless you only know one way to shoot?

Consider that you handle the first problem ... but now he has a "friend" approaching you from the left at 10 o'clock. Is it your assertion that rotating your entire torso or perhaps even your entire body to maintain that perfect Iso stance is an efficient way of addressing this? Why not drop one elbow and point the damned gun?

Whoops ... BG number 3 appears at your 3 o'clock position. Isn't the smartest thing to transition to left-handed C.A.R. at this point? No? Why not?

Because standing in one spot is a great way to get shot by BG number 4, who is at your 6 and has had plenty of time to take careful aim...

-- Michael

[9mmepiphany]

The two stances are just based on different ideas about shooting a powerful gun accurately and at high speed...DVC.

The Weaver, invented by Jack Weaver (for use with a S&W K-38) was based on the idea that if you used a hard enough stance and tightened muscle groups, you'd be able to hold a gun down in recoil or at least bring it back down quickly. The Chapman stance is a modified Weaver. Ray Chapman was a follower of Cooper, who was the Weaver guru, and modified the Weaver by straightening his strong arm to follow the function of a rifle stock. I've found that most folks who claim that they shoot from the Weaver stance are actually using a form of the Chapman...it is more bladed.

The Isosceles was invented by Brian Enos or Mike Plaxco based on the idea that allowing the gun to recoil in a balanced grip/stance would bring it back on target quicker for followup shots. It is now used by most top competitive shooters and is taught at top tier LE and Military training schools, where quick and accurate shots are important. What many confuse the Isosceles with is the old PPC stance, which has the shooter leaning backwards over their feet. Very accurate, but not as fast for repeat shots.

To be a competent shooter, you really should learn both and be able to transition between them seamlessly. If you look at Massad Ayoob's classic Stressfire, his demonstration of the Stressfire Star will show how you would use both while trans versing 270 degrees without moving your feet...it is also useful when trans versing targets laterally