Weaver or Isosceles?

[Paradiddle]

I shoot isoceles, seems to work well for me but as others have said and will say, whatever works for you should be what you utilize.

I don't mean to sound like one of "those" guys who go around spouting wisdom from tactical instructors so I can be the most tacticool Azn guy on the block, but Kyle Lamb makes a good point in that Weaver was developed for shooting balloons while Isoceles was being used in the business of shooting bad guys WAY before that, something to keep in mind... especially if you tend to do one more than the other.

Not sure of the source - Jack Weaver was one of the first combat pistol competitors in the United States (and probably the world) when he shot with Jeff Cooper, and gang in Big Bear. They literally invented the sport of combat shooting.

Weaver was one of the first guys to shoot two handed (along with Cooper) - most of the other guys had come out of bullseye where you have specific rules about how you hold the pistol.

That said - I much prefer isosceles - after reading Brian Enos' book you get a whole new perspective on the physics of grip and stance.

Jeff

[Paradiddle]

In a defensive situation, sights become superfluous.

I think you meant to put "rear sight" becomes superfluous - FRONT SIGHT!!!!

[elSquid]

I think you meant to put "rear sight" becomes superfluous - FRONT SIGHT!!!!

There's a really great interview with Jack Weaver on youtube where he mentions that the one big plus of the stance he developed was that he could use the sights to make hits. Apparently this gave him an advantage over the competition.

When I get home from work, I'll find the link and post it. ( Unless someone beats me to it. ) It's really worth watching.

-- Michael

[ZombieTactics]

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...

Noted ... but it's not fair to alter my scenario to fit your desired conclusion.

I share your opinion that MOVING is a very necessary part of the equation.

[JagerDog]

I think you meant to put "rear sight" becomes superfluous - FRONT SIGHT!!!!

Do you need a front site to accurately point your finger? Can you point your finger in the dark (providing the target is lit)? To me, it (short range SD) is about instinctive shooting. Not dissimilar to wing shooting, or old skul archery. Eye is on the target, the launch pad is a blur if seen at all.

Now of course, it takes practice to develop the muscle memory...but we've been pointing our finger since we came out of the womb. Stands to reason that a grip/stance which mimics the action we've done since, lends itself to the desired result. A laser is a terrific tool to practice instinctive shooting with as it gives instant feedback. With a proper grip (pistol aligned with forearm...none of this offhand stuff I see most people do when grabbing a pistol at the store), instinctive shooting is a reality. I have no doubt I could hit a human head sized object, in a pretty quick acquisition, at my longest in-house distance if you took the sights off my Sig 220 or 1911.

Now of course, give me time, and I'll take any tool available (sights) to make that apple or golf ball sized. But the closer my "natural point" comes to being dead on, the less I'm going to have to tune my sight picture.

[BigDogatPlay]

I've been shooting a modified Weaver so long that it's kind of hard to shoot any other way. It just happens when I execute the draw. I can and do shoot isosceles for fun, but when I train I always come back to modified Weaver.

Foot position has a lot to do with it. As a LEO I trained to blade my stance in virtually every contact situation so working through the draw to present in a modified Weaver came very naturally.

[The Virus]

ISO

[ZombieTactics]

... As a LEO I trained to blade my stance in virtually every contact situation so working through the draw to present in a modified Weaver came very naturally.

Weaver seems to be a natural approach from Field Interview position. It's got to be better for weapon retention.

[The Virus]

Lot's of discussions going on here.
I would like to point out, Let's use IDPA for an example.
The buzzer sounds and you start, it's a fast moving very dynamic stage.
Can you possibly say what stance you used and what you remember your sight pictur to be?
I know I can't, it is all some form of "modified" technique.
My next match one of my squad is going to video me so I can see what I really look like. It should be entertaining.

[Subotai]

Shooting under 15 yards, I agree with you. I don't use sights if doing some quick shooting. I also shoot traditional archery instinctively. It takes a ton of practice to get good. Old West gunfighters didn't learn in a weekend.

Do you need a front site to accurately point your finger? Can you point your finger in the dark (providing the target is lit)? To me, it (short range SD) is about instinctive shooting. Not dissimilar to wing shooting, or old skul archery. Eye is on the target, the launch pad is a blur if seen at all.

Now of course, it takes practice to develop the muscle memory...but we've been pointing our finger since we came out of the womb. Stands to reason that a grip/stance which mimics the action we've done since, lends itself to the desired result. A laser is a terrific tool to practice instinctive shooting with as it gives instant feedback. With a proper grip (pistol aligned with forearm...none of this offhand stuff I see most people do when grabbing a pistol at the store), instinctive shooting is a reality. I have no doubt I could hit a human head sized object, in a pretty quick acquisition, at my longest in-house distance if you took the sights off my Sig 220 or 1911.

Now of course, give me time, and I'll take any tool available (sights) to make that apple or golf ball sized. But the closer my "natural point" comes to being dead on, the less I'm going to have to tune my sight picture.

[elSquid]

Noted ... but it's not fair to alter my scenario to fit your desired conclusion.

Sorry - couldn't resist.

The interview with Jack Weaver I mentioned before...



-- Michael

[Victor346]

I prefer Weaver. Isosceles feels kinda unbalanced for me. Weaver feels much more steady, probably because it comes from a bladed stance as opposed to the isosceles where you have to square up with your target.

[desertmedic]

For those of you saying they use a "modified Weaver"... Are you referring to the Chapman Stance? Thats what I use and it works great for me.

[JagerDog]

Shooting under 15 yards, I agree with you. I don't use sights if doing some quick shooting. I also shoot traditional archery instinctively. It takes a ton of practice to get good. Old West gunfighters didn't learn in a weekend.

When I was a kid,my folks shot competitive archery. Sights were just coming onto the scene. I've never shot anything but instinctive archery. Are compound bows with sights more accurate? Heck yes. But the targets still got holes in the right places and deer died. Probably the biggest difference is extending the efficacious range of what was doable with recurves and instinctive shooting.

[well206]

Has anyone ever actually attached a laser to his finger to see how accurate his pointing really is?

Pointing may be natural, but is it naturally accurate? How many times have we pointed at something and people think we are pointing at something else?