Weaver Stance vs Isosceles

[9mmepiphany]

I was taught isosceles in the academy, but when I went to my department, was transitioned to Weaver. Rationale was you presented a smaller target if you were bladed.

...but you compromise the protection offered by your soft body armor, by offering the edge of the panels to the danger

[Country_Jim]

I was taught Weaver in the academy, but now shoot isosceles. I find that I control my pistol better when shooting isosceles and my follow up shots are quicker and more accurate than when I shoot Weaver stance.

Stay safe.

[mikehtiger]

I shoot isosceles. I find it easier to get a consistent stance quickly, more armor facing bad guy and easier to move from. I'd rather give the bad guy a bigger target with more protection than a smaller target with less protection.

[monk]

I get why LEO and MIL use isosceles. However, for those of us who are non-plate carrying civilians, would it even matter? I shoot weaver but only because it's comfortable to me. I never received any formal training.

[9mmepiphany]

If you aren't LEO or MIL, the Modern Isosceles (MI) has several advantages.

1. Foremost is the faster followup shots as the sights naturally return to the original POA and you don't have to realign the sights.

2. Just as important is that it is faster/easier to move both laterally and forward and back from the MI.

3. When shooting from behind cover, the MI allows smoother and more balanced motion coming around the edge

[34marine]

This is the stance I use.



When I first learned it it was strange and took a bit to get used to as I used the Weaver before. In my opinion, the Isosceles is an excellent, solid platform, and a natural accurate stance.

As for the training required to be comfortable...hard to say. Depends on what degree of "comfortable" is acceptable.

I'm with Joe here, this is the way I learned in the academy. Learned weaver in USMC, was not good for me. As a range officer, I see Officers shooting both ways, some good, some bad. I defer to whatever gets hits on target. For the weaver guys, however, I do find that most of the time, they seem to fight the body's natural tendency to move the way the shoulders are pointed. I also show how to move forward, backward, laterally and diagonally while shooting from icosceles with good target acquisition and accuracy and let them figure out what works.

[CinnamonBear723]

I prefer the brokeback prone

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

Started out Weaver as taught in the Academy back then, went to something close to Isosceles when body armor came into vogue (yes, I'm that old). Now it seems like I'm trending back towards Weaver as it brings my front sight back into focus distance, unless I'm in very tight quarters where CAR becomes useful instead.

[roushstage2]

Modern Isosceles

[003]

While I do understand the question posed by the OP, (Weaver Stance vs Isosceles) it appears to me that some of the comments reflect range training, and not real world street situations. When a LE officer uses a firearm, it is not a range exercise and often difficult if not impossible to employ a specific technique.

As the LE officers here on calguns well know, when an officer is involved in a shooting situation, he/she should be moving, seeking cover of some sort and returning fire all at the same time. All well trained officers understand that seeking appropriate cover and moving is part of street survival. Cover can be anything from a street lamp, utility pole, mail box, fire hydrant, car door, engine block, or the side of a building, etc etc, none of which will allow the precise employment of either of the two classic shooting positions.

While proper range training is critical for the effective use of a firearm, and a two handed gripe is the preferred option, I suspect very few officers that are involved in a shooting employ the exact technique they use on the range.

Jack Weaver himself is quoted as saying that that a two handed hold is the most important aspect of accurate fire, with the specific details much less important.

Click the below link for an interesting watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFq5Qkedl3Q

[9mmepiphany]

I suspect very few officers that are involved in a shooting employ the exact technique they use on the range.

I'd be interested in knowing what real world street situation you are basing that suspicion on.

It has been proven time and again that under stress, people will perform to their lowest level of training. It you train and practice a technique, that is what you will default to under the stress of a deadly force situation.

We're not talking about precise foot placement, but more the philosophy of movement and recoil management.

[003]

9mmepiphany:

It appears we are in complete agreement.

[E.T.]

...but you compromise the protection offered by your soft body armor, by offering the edge of the panels to the danger

Agreed. Someone brought that up, and I think the response was "We shoot Weaver."

[K3n]

http://youtu.be/GewbIC2P8Hw

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk