Weaver versus Isocoles? Your preference?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Weaver versus Isocoles? Your preference?

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:16:54 PM EDT

Why?

Does body armor play into it?

Is weaver better suited to taking cover / minimizing exposure?

Food for thought. Got me thinking.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:18:39 PM EDT

[#1]

I shoot in whatever position I find myself in. Typically with a pistol it will be a type of Iso. If running a long gun, it will probably look more like a modified Weaver

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:20:39 PM EDT

[#2]

weaver most times but I'm not personally locked into any stance I use both depending on what works better at the time

I do not wear armor so no real need for me to do iso exclusively

I'm sure people will argue but I feel that you have much better recoil control with weaver

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:22:37 PM EDT

[#3]

Another question does the used gun vary which you use. Say stance using a 1911 Vs. Glock Vs. CZ-75?

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:24:23 PM EDT

[#4]

Longtime Weaver shooter, converted to Iso in 2001 and have never looked back.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:27:07 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Longtime Weaver shooter, converted to Iso in 2001 and have never looked back.

Ok I'm learning here so a breif summation of why?

Again is body armor a consideration assuming you have it?

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:27:39 PM EDT

[#6]

Isocoles. I shot weaver for 6 years. Qualification scores were in the 80% to 90% range. Switched to isocoles the last 4 years. My qualification scores are in the 97% to 100% range (took Top Gun in 2005). It works better for me in multiple target engagements too. I just shoot quicker and more accurate with isocoles. A good analysis would be to see what the top competition shooters use too. From the few shows I've seen, it's been predominantly isocoles.

ETA: Body armor is not a consideration for my stance. I carry the Glock 22 on the job. But have qualfied with the Springfield XD9, Sig 226 9mm, and Sig 225 9mm.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:31:19 PM EDT

[#7]

My shooting accuracy improved a great deal when I changed from Weaver to isosceles.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:34:44 PM EDT

[#8]

Shot weaver, switched to a modified iso. Better for moving, less fatiguing.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:36:09 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Isocoles. I shot weaver for 6 years. Qualification scores were in the 80% to 90% range. Switched to isocoles the last 4 years. My qualification scores are in the 97% to 100% range (took Top Gun in 2005). It works better for me in multiple target engagements too. I just shoot quicker and more accurate with isocoles. A good analysis would be to see what the top competition shooters use too. From the few shows I've seen, it's been predominantly isocoles.

ETA: Body armor is not a consideration for my stance. I carry the Glock 22 on the job. But have qualfied with the Springfield XD9, Sig 226 9mm, and Sig 225 9mm.

You would still square to the target without armor? Seems like weaver at least presents less strike area.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:44:37 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
You would still square to the target without armor? Seems like weaver at least presents less strike area.

Your first priority in a gunfight should be to find cover. No, standing sideways is not cover.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:48:58 PM EDT

[#11]

I used to think the iso stance was dorky, but once i found that I shot a lot better using it, i dropped that nonsense.

I feel more consistent with the iso stance.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:49:09 PM EDT

[#12]

Isosceles, it just "feels" right.

I've also noticed that in a lot of police shootout videos, the police tend to crouch down and hold their pistol out in front of them. I know it's not a comprehensive study, but I believe isosceles is closer to what the body tends to do in a high-stress shootout situation.

Here's an example:www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQHJziBfKvw

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:53:38 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You would still square to the target without armor? Seems like weaver at least presents less strike area.

Your first priority in a gunfight should be to find cover. No, standing sideways is not cover.

First is obvious doesn't need saying. Realizing the second more and more the difference seems minimal.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:58:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Started with Iso and sticking with it.

However, I do practive Weavver as it has it's use especially slicing the pie.

Posted: 2/25/2007 9:59:29 PM EDT

[#15]

i used to shoot weaver until i went through the basic firearms part of my LE training and that's when i switched to iso. it's a much more natural, stable position and, if you look at the majority of pro IPSC, IDPA, etc shooters, they all use the iso position.

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:01:25 PM EDT

[#16]

Square to target, full extension. What even the hell that is called.

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:02:28 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Started with Iso and sticking with it.

However, I do practive Weavver as it has it's use especially slicing the pie.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:11:13 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Started with Iso and sticking with it.

However, I do practive Weavver as it has it's use especially slicing the pie.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I agree. Weaver is useful when "slicing the pie."

Just watch what you're slicing around, drywall is not bulletproof.

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:13:19 PM EDT

[#19]

I prefer shooting while moving.

eta: Dynamic cover, yo.

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:14:48 PM EDT

[#20]

Weaver, more erect than stooped

I prefer a posture that lends to mobility and is more skeletol rather than muscular

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:24:59 PM EDT

[#21]

Squared up is the only way to shoot

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:41:52 PM EDT

[#22]

I was using the Isosceles stance before I knew what it was, it works.

Posted: 2/25/2007 10:57:35 PM EDT

[#23]

Isosceles. I find it easier to assume than the Weaver with its push & pull thing.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:14:43 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

You would still square to the target without armor? Seems like weaver at least presents less strike area.

Lack of body armor should be the least of your concern in a gunfight. If having/lack of body armor is a major concern, your mindset is that you are expecting to get shot. This kind of mindset is self-defeating and you have already lost half the battle. Threat acquisition, available cover, and amount of ammo on hand should be your top priorities in a gunfight.

Like another poster already mentioned, Weaver is good for slicing the pie. Other than that, I'll stick with isocoles, since it works for me the best. Whatever stance you decide on, practice practice practice.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:23:20 AM EDT

[#25]

Got pics of the various stances.

I shoot how Sully at Defensive Edge taught me.

Do not know what the hell it is called.

In a gunfight if you have a proper stance you are not moving or using cover and concealment.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:25:59 AM EDT

[#26]

Like Ernest Langdon suggests, its probably a smart idea to expect that you will be shot and have to do your job anyway. I don't think thats defeatist. Perhaps a bit fatalist, but we're talking about gunfights here, so that doesn't seem too out of place...

Even Gunsite's Weaver is squared up to the target now.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:30:46 AM EDT

[#27]

Weaver for me, it just feels natural.

Iso just feels unnatural...to me, YMMV.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:37:47 AM EDT

[#28]

The position that I'm in when my booger-hook hits the bang switch is whatever I happen to have fallen into.

Recently, I have started to worry less about whose camp on "position" I fall into and worry more about drawing weak-handed, shooting weak-handed, shooting from the ground and using movement and/or cover.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:42:50 AM EDT

[#29]

Some call it "modified weaver", some call it "modified isoceles" we just call it the combat stance.

Off side leg forward.

Posted: 2/26/2007 5:42:55 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Ok I'm learning here so a breif summation of why?

Again is body armor a consideration assuming you have it?

I took a shooting course very similar in content to Andy Stanford's book Surgical Speed Shooting. I fired about 1200 rounds in two days and, as asked at the beginning, did it their way at least for the duration of the course. I saw all aspects of my shooting improve over that time, especially transitioning between multiple targets and on the move.

The body armor factor didn't really make a difference until a few years later, but the partially bladed stance in Weaver does put the strong side armhole directly toward the bad guy.

Now, six years later, I have so many successful repetitions of draw-grip-front sight-press-follow through-cycle trigger-reacquire front sight that it would take some real quantum advancement in the field of handgun deployment for me to consider changing again.

Posted: 2/26/2007 8:45:39 AM EDT

[#31]

Watch all the top competitors in IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, etc. Sevigny, Koenig, etc. They are all shooting isosceles, or something darn close to it.

That said, in a fight you do what you need to do.

Posted: 2/26/2007 8:48:04 AM EDT

[#32]

Modified Isoceles... But if I were in a shootout I doubt I'd be in any true stance.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Weaver versus Isocoles? Your preference?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us