Weaver or Isosceles?

[9mmepiphany]

There is nothing wrong with learning both. Isn't it interesting that the two actually trained instructors taught you the same stance?

BTW you do have very good technique in that picture...maybe a slightly straighter (upright) head to take the strain off your neck muscles.

I've shot from a lot of different stances while in LE, some I wouldn't teach to anyone, because it just looks stupid and was actually more of a handicap than anything else. I shot from a Chapman for years and helped several co-workers, who had a hard time qualifying with their guns, learn it and pass the quarterly qualifications. At some point everyone hits a performance ceiling. When I did, I looked for better training than my department offered and discovered the Isosceles...and the thumbs forward grip. My shooting not only became more accurate, but follow up shots were faster without giving up accuracy.

If you understand the logic of each stance and what they are based on, the choice seems pretty obvious.
The Weaver is faster to teach, more comforting to the shooter and will place shots on target if you practice enough.
The Isosceles requires that the shooter be willing to practice, but the payoff is much higher ability to put shots on target at high speed without beating up your joints

[JagerDog]

Hey guys,

I'm still pretty new to firearms and, especially as a female, I tend to get a lot of (unsolicited!) advice on what people think I should do in terms of a stance. It starts to get confusing after a while.


I first received instruction a couple of years ago from a Marine while messing around on the M9 sim at Camp Pendleton. I'm not in the military....I work with the military as a civilian and had joined up with an Army unit for the day.


The Marine was *very* specific about what he wanted me to do. The Marine called it a "warrior stance". Since he was in a cranky mood...I did exactly as he instructed. This is how it turned out:





So what is this? Is this like a modified isoceles stance??


My military friends saw the photo and complimented me on my good technique. My non-military friends ragged on me and said I needed to "blade my feet way more". Though, I remember the Marine told me that I was positioned like this in order to keep my armor facing front and not get shot through the side.


My friend, a CalGunner with LEO training, took me shooting with a real gun (LOL) and taught me a modified weaver so that my weapon would be positioned away from the suspect during field interview.


I now tend to shoot modified weaver (Chapman?). A couple weeks ago, I had a range officer, a former Army weapons instructor, come up and instruct me on a better stance. He promptly put me in isoceles. I think I shoot slightly better in mod weaver, but maybe I need more practice in both.


Help.....how is a new shooter supposed to come to grips with everyone having an opinion? Did you guys just do whatever you felt like as long as you hit the "x"? Did you feel out what your body naturally wanted to do? Or did you force yourself to learn a textbook stance?


BK

Hmmmm...two different stances for two different scenarios...neither which you'll will be likely to incur. My guess is you don't own/possess armor. My guess is you won't be "interviewing" suspects. However a suspect interview MIGHT be closer to what you'd incur. Squared up actually presents a bigger target (with no armor).

Myself, I like something that feels or at least borders on natural. It takes an awful lot of training to go from something totally foreign and make it 2nd nature. I'm also a fan of a position that lends itself to naturally pointing the gun at the intended target. Just my opinion, but a Chapman or Weaver meet these qualifications. I point better with Chapman (strong arm locked), but hold more steady with Weaver (arm bent).

See what works for you. What helps you hit the target? What gives you confidence? What points naturally? In a civilian situation, those are likely to mean more than a Marine or LE scenario. That said, there's nothing wrong with being proficient in a variety. Interestingly enough (at least to me) is no one much talks about grip. IMHO, a "proper" grip means more than how you position your feet, etc.

Aiming while moving, etc. take specific training and above most of our pay grades. Most of us aren't chasing BG's. We're trying to get away from BG's.

[locosway]

My military friends saw the photo and complimented me on my good technique. My non-military friends ragged on me and said I needed to "blade my feet way more". Though, I remember the Marine told me that I was positioned like this in order to keep my armor facing front and not get shot through the side.


My friend, a CalGunner with LEO training, took me shooting with a real gun (LOL) and taught me a modified weaver so that my weapon would be positioned away from the suspect during field interview.


I now tend to shoot modified weaver (Chapman?). A couple weeks ago, I had a range officer, a former Army weapons instructor, come up and instruct me on a better stance. He promptly put me in isoceles. I think I shoot slightly better in mod weaver, but maybe I need more practice in both.


Help.....how is a new shooter supposed to come to grips with everyone having an opinion? Did you guys just do whatever you felt like as long as you hit the "x"? Did you feel out what your body naturally wanted to do? Or did you force yourself to learn a textbook stance?


BK

I personally shoot a modified weaver because that's how I was taught. Most all of the top schools teach Iso now, because it's combat effective and well proven in competition shooting. Weaver stance, i.e. a bladed stance, is good for day to day contacts, but if you're going to move and shoot you'll likely fall into an Iso stance as you move backwards from the target. And being in a dynamic (I hate that word) situation means you need to assess the scene in a 360 degree fashion, which weaver doesn't support as well as Iso.

There is not best stance for everyone. What works for me won't work for you, what works for you won't work for the next person. I have personally been trying to move to Iso because of the advantages, but going from something I'm comfortable with to something new is a slow process.

I suggest taking tactical classes and see what happens. Take all the advice you can get, and then make your own stance work for you. Don't copy others just because they shoot good. Study what they do, and then apply what works from their stance to yours and make it your own.

Depending on where you are in So Cal there's a few reasonable tactical classes and casual shooting events that can help you find your stance/grip.

[Chontkleer]

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?

I like the way you think.

[Chontkleer]

BTW... How was this NOT posted yet???

Modified Hoffman Stance.

[Hopalong]

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.

This is how I feel.

It's just plain more comfortable, steady, and balanced for me.

[limitdown]

Go IPSC/USPSA/IDPA Iso and 360degree grip and never look back.
Watch how world champs like Jerry Miculek and Todd Jarrett shoot and learn from them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7i50yn6-qM