in the weaver stance, do you have your offhand arm bent or both straight like the isocoles stance? i had always done bent, but a law enforcement instructor at the range has success teaching the weaver stance with both arms straight. what works best for you?

I shoot with offhand arm bent, and one foot forward of the other. I don't know what kind of stance that is, but it feels the most natural to me. I tried the Isoceles, and didn't like it much at all.

I've done the classes and training , and I've practiced them all .
I'm most accurate one handed point shooting if I'm not pushing for speed .

If I'm pin or plate shooting against competition then I use a modified weaver
stance with the weak hand palm up and the elbow bent .

Quoted: in the weaver stance, do you have your offhand arm bent or both straight like the isocoles stance? i had always done bent, but a law enforcement instructor at the range has success teaching the weaver stance with both arms straight. what works best for you?

If memory serves the weaver is (assume right handed) right arm straight and pushing forward, left bent and pulling back, left foot forward severely.  Body angle is severe.  As much as I like Col. Cooper  have to say...

The above stance to me is impractical, illogical, and serves no purpose. If you want a good description of a stance that allows balance, quicker follow up shots, ability for movement, and utilization of cover, get one of the books from a practical shooter.  Brian Enos does a great job in his book covering and explaining fundamentals (and everything else) and admits you will have to find what works for you, but the concepts is simple.  You should have a balanced platform with equal pressure from both arms and hands.   This allows the gun to recoil consistantly. If you are involved with shooting or any other sport, Brians book is a must have.  www.brianenos.com

i always shoot right arm locked, left arm bent and i lean foward for a more aggressive stance that also allows me to control recoil better. I tend to shoot tighter groups when i lean foward. I don't like isocoles b/c it's not comfortable when you wear a vest. So i try to shoot like i would  if i drew down on a suspect. I want everything to be natural. JMO

J

Quoted: Quoted: in the weaver stance, do you have your offhand arm bent or both straight like the isocoles stance? i had always done bent, but a law enforcement instructor at the range has success teaching the weaver stance with both arms straight. what works best for you? If memory serves the weaver is (assume right handed) right arm straight and pushing forward, left bent and pulling back, left foot forward severely.  Body angle is severe.  As much as I like Col. Cooper  have to say... The above stance to me is impractical, illogical, and serves no purpose. If you want a good description of a stance that allows balance, quicker follow up shots, ability for movement, and utilization of cover, get one of the books from a practical shooter.  Brian Enos does a great job in his book covering and explaining fundamentals (and everything else) and admits you will have to find what works for you, but the concepts is simple.  You should have a balanced platform with equal pressure from both arms and hands.   This allows the gun to recoil consistantly. If you are involved with shooting or any other sport, Brians book is a must have.  www.brianenos.com

I think from this description your body angle is too extreme.  It should be similar to a boxing stance,  which is very adaptable to movment.  No many boxers stand still in the ring.

Kent

Back in the 1960's I SAW Jack Weaver shoot.

The Weaver stance is very natural, sort of a shoot however you happen to be standing.

It's much like a boxer's stance, right foot slightly forward, BOTH arms slightly bent, to act as shock absorbers.  The gun hand is pushing forward, the off hand is pulling back in a isometric "lock".

What made the Weaver so good is, unlike the FBI "crouch" and the other techniques of the 1950-60's, the Weaver didn't use awkward or formal "Stances".

As an example, in the same 1960's I saw FBI instructors teaching the FBI method.
They spend a lot of time teaching stopping, lifting the left foot and moving it sideways several feet and just squatting into a deep crouch.
Also taught was holding the left arm across the chest to "Deflect or stop a bullet" while the gun was held at the waist one handed.

Weaver "blew them away" because in his method, while they were still getting properly stopped, positioning the left foot, and getting squatted properly, he was already shooting.
He just stopped walking and SHOT.

Also, in his method, he challenged the foolishness or allowing a perfectly good arm to be used as a bullet-proof obstacle, when it could be used to support the gun.

While they were holding their gun one handed and shooting using the instinctive pointing method, Weaver was blowing the target to bits by aimed fire with both hands locking the gun against recoil.

The main thing to come out of the California Big Bear shoots was the Weaver-Cooper technique which teaches NO formal stance.  In order to eliminate formal stances like the FBI crouch, these shoots were specifically designed to put the shooter in situations where formal stance couldn't BE used.

One famous course that devastated FBI shooters, was a course that was started by pulling a large red handle.  You ran the course, shooting at multiple targets placed in awkward positions.

The shocker was at the end.  To stop the timer, at the end of the course was another red handle with an arrow pointing to the handle.  The handle was in a tree, with a knotted rope that had to be climbed to reach the handle.
Half way up the rope, a moving target started.  This presented the shooter with the option of dropping to the ground to shoot, or hanging by one hand and shooting.

Needless to say, "stance" shooters didn't fair well at these Southwest Shooting League matches.
What came out of this, was learning to develop NO formal stance, but to learn to shoot from any position, no matter how awkward, and to always use both hands and the sights whenever at all possible.

The Weaver was the most natural, and unlike the way some people teach it today, it's very natural and loose.  Again, right foot slightly forward in a boxer's stand, both arms bent and using an isometric tensioning of the gun, sights used at least as a "flash" sight picture.

Quoted: Back in the 1960's I SAW Jack Weaver shoot. The Weaver stance is very natural, sort of a shoot however you happen to be standing. It's much like a boxer's stance, right foot slightly forward, BOTH arms slightly bent, to act as shock absorbers.  The gun hand is pushing forward, the off hand is pulling back in a isometric "lock".

When you say right foot forward, are you talking about a left-handed shooter?

Quoted: I think from this description your body angle is too extreme.  It should be similar to a boxing stance,  which is very adaptable to movment.  No many boxers stand still in the ring. Kent

I would call it severe when compared to a  modified iso stance.    And yes everyone should use what works for them but most I see who shoot enough don't gravitate in Weavers direction anymore.  Just $.02

I don't know what its called, but I push my left foot severly forward, crouch into a progressively agressive stance, and bend both arms, the left more than the right. My body is turned slightly. Dead on at a 90 to my target is very uncomfortable, with rifle or pistol.

Sorry, I shoot LEFT handed.
For a right handed shooter, you put your LEFT foot forward.

The key to the Weaver is:  Don't worry too much about the form.  That's why Weaver cleaned house way back then.  Everybody else was so concerned about "correct" stance, that they didn't stand a chance against the relaxed Weaver.

Instead of worrying about foot placement and proper crouch, Weaver just shot.

my question is not aimed at foot placement and lower body stance so much as arm position. i really wnat know if, when using any stance with one foot foreward of the other, is your off hand bent or straight?