Modified Isosceles vs. Weaver

[vrod2011]

I'm not sure if this is the place for this question, but I figure someone here would be able to help me out. I have some friends who are absolutely stuck on weaver as "the way". They are friends, so I'm trying to show them, what I consider, a better way.

They have conceded that Mod. Isosceles might be faster, but tactically much more unsound. Their 2 main arguments are the ease of switching between pistol and long gun, and the "fact" that it is the only proven technique from surviving combat vets from the previous wars up to Vietnam.

I would love any information about current war time situations where people are using Modified Isosceles over Weaver, and are having success.

Again, these are friends, and we are really trying to prove the best way. We are also about to involve several non-shooters to the concealed carry world, and are really trying to hash out the best way.

So, any and all advise is welcome.

:Edited to allow for "Other" in the poll after reading Sandorman's post.

Edited August 27, 2007 by vrod2011

[mlmiller1]

You know, it is a good question but you are asking it on a forum filled primarily with serious competition type folks, & very few tactical, special ops people. Nothing wrong with either of these type people but your results might be a lot different on a website for tactical types. I'd be very surprised if you receive very many if any votes at all for the weaver. Interesting poll, though. MLM

[G-ManBart]

There are obviously several schools of thought on this one, but I'll tell you what I've been taught by the best in the business when I went through firearms instructor school and it makes sense to me.

The Weaver stance is great for controlling the recoil of a powerful handgun and does decrease your profile to the bad guy making you harder to hit. It's also a completely unnatural postion to attempt under the stress of a gunfight (more on that later). Another disadvantage is that it gives access to the one weak part of body armor (the seams/armpit area).

With the advent of police in-car camera systems there have been a lot of gunfights recorded for later study. What has been documented in the vast majority of cases is that the officer assumes a position where the hips and shoulders are nearly square to the threat (stong foot back a bit is common), knees bent noticably, the support hand pushed forward with the palm out in a "stop" sort of motion, and the strong hand doing the shooting driven out to full extention although some rounds were fired before the gun was fully extended in many cases.

If you hear a really loud bang that surprises you, what do you do? You assume a position very much like that described above. It's considered by many to be a purely instinct, fight or flight position from which you can defend, attack or move quickly.

The above is based on reacting to a threat rather than acting on one. Where officers arrived at the scene and had a second or two to think, they then assumed whatever position they'd been taught by their department before firing.

The interesting thing is that officers who'd been taught Weaver/modified Weaver by their departments still went into the crouched postion I described even though they'd never been trained that way.

Another point in the favor of the modified Iso stance is that it allows a much greater range of motion....you can go 90 degrees left or right, high, low, lean to either side etc. From the Weaver you can't pivot very easily to the weak side, the position breaks down if you pivot much to the strong side and you'll have a hard time if you try to squat down and shoot under something.

It's funny, but after all these years it seems the "tactical" instructors have taken a LOT of stuff from the competitive shooting world (read USPSA/IPSC) even though some of them say stuff like "that's just go fast shooting". A good example is how reloads are taught now....they teach it finger indexing on the mag, bringing the gun up nearly to eye level, cant the gun, watch the mag into the gun and then press back out (it allows you to keep the threat in your peripheral vision). Sounds just like a typical IPSC reload to me, but now it's "tactical"

[Sandormen]

Heh, it is a very good poll.

In my case...

I can't really vote, because there isn't a third option!

I've got this aggressively reinforced titanium spine-support, which make my shooting style kind of... ...uhm... ...irregular.

I have a stance that is something between Modern Isoceles, with the stable platform, and the aggressive style, which leads to the Chapman-style, regarding holding the gun. -Due to my broken, but titanium-reinforced neck... Then again, here i often differ in my shooting-style and may very well end up in a Weaver-stance, if the target is straight in front of me. If the target is close, in this latter case, I get this tucked in close-version.If there is a greater distance to the target, I extend my arms, and basically bend forward to lower my head getting a straight line from my eyes, instead of lifting the gun.

-Then again, I am no LEO or G.I.

AFAIK, there is no ONE perfect position. To excel, I believe all stances should be explored. There is always a different situation, where one stand isn't the ultimate.

[Joe4d]

Weaver is a really good technique for shooting heavy recoiling DA revolvers, which it should be Weaver was a revolver shooter and so was everyone else, The fact military tactical types used it means nothing. The only large group of military pistol shooters were cavalry as in horses, and the Army still taught that technique for years after horses were gone or anybody even knew why they shot that way. Go see a Bullseye or service match. They are sill shooting like they are on a horse. Strong hand only extending out to the side where you can see around the horses head, weak hand holding the reins. Weaver is a decent stable target stance, or offensive attacking a known target, but it basically has zero flexibility. But honetsly the different holds are all tools. Like tools in your tool box good to have you pull out the one you need depending on the job at hand.

[Mick]

I've been teaching recruits at two academys for 19 years. I always offer both Weaver and Isosceles as

options for them. Then I show them the "Isoscel-Weaver" modified stance/position that most of the competitiors use for high speed/low drag shooting on the move etc...

Most migrate to the Isosceles when we push them for time from the holster.

One really good Weaver shooter refused to give up his stance when pushed for a 1.5 second first shot from the holster. He was always late as he had to come around his body. He said the need wasn't there for that much speed. I said I'd put a fella with a big knife 10 feet in front of him and watch him do a modified "failure drill" ( a bill drill to the chest and one to the head ) as fast as he could and most likely would be in some sort of Isoscles when he did it.

Suppossedly NYPD found folks migrating to Isosecles too even after they DID NOT teach it to a recuit class.

Always use what works best for you but be prepared to change if you need speed or movement.

I forget which state lost a Trooper when he was shot while in a Weaver stance. His "bladed body" left his week side armpit area exposed and he took a round there whereas an Isoscles would've left that area more protected by the vest and a round would not have had a chance to penetrate vital organs from that angle if it passed the vest.

In this day of high speed/low drag gunfights you must be mobil and able to engage in any direction for multiple threats. The Isosceles or modified form will give as good a chance as any and more so.

We teach a modified Isosceles with the AR as well...

[G-ManBart]

I've been teaching recruits at two academys for 19 years. I always offer both Weaver and Isosceles as

options for them. Then I show them the "Isoscel-Weaver" modified stance/position that most of the competitiors use for high speed/low drag shooting on the move etc...

Most migrate to the Isosceles when we push them for time from the holster.

One really good Weaver shooter refused to give up his stance when pushed for a 1.5 second first shot from the holster. He was always late as he had to come around his body. He said the need wasn't there for that much speed. I said I'd put a fella with a big knife 10 feet in front of him and watch him do a modified "failure drill" ( a bill drill to the chest and one to the head ) as fast as he could and most likely would be in some sort of Isoscles when he did it.

Suppossedly NYPD found folks migrating to Isosecles too even after they DID NOT teach it to a recuit class.

Always use what works best for you but be prepared to change if you need speed or movement.

I forget which state lost a Trooper when he was shot while in a Weaver stance. His "bladed body" left his week side armpit area exposed and he took a round there whereas an Isoscles would've left that area more protected by the vest and a round would not have had a chance to penetrate vital organs from that angle if it passed the vest.

In this day of high speed/low drag gunfights you must be mobil and able to engage in any direction for multiple threats. The Isosceles or modified form will give as good a chance as any and more so.

We teach a modified Isosceles with the AR as well...

I think it was a Georiga State Trooper on I-95. He had a short little dumpy guy pulled over and the guy wouldn't take his hand out of his pocket. When the trooper forced him to, he pulled out a little .22 or .25 and they struggled. The trooper shot the guy several times with a .357 (the rounds didn't get much past his body fat) and was calling on the radio with his arm up to his collar mic when he got hit in the armpit. Sickening...

[SA Friday]

Ya, Mick and G-Man have the main reason to not use Weaver, is exposes the least protected part of the thorasic cavity to gunfire. Granted, firefights are dynamic to say the least, but why train and practice something that will expose your heart and lungs to gunfire when it's not necessary. There's a vid of a medic getting sniped while he was in Iraq. In the beginning of the vid, he is sideways to the shooter. The shooter waited until he was facing him to shoot, and ended up shooting him in his BP plate. I remember thinking the first time I saw the vid that the sniper was going to take the side shot. I was dumbfound when he waited for the frontal shot. It's a good illustration of the above potential danger.

Heard whisperings that there are some Special Ops and SWAT personnel center mounting SMGs instead of in the shoulder. They are placing the buttstock in the center of their chest instead of the shoulder for a more natural point of aim while move shooting. I don't know if this is still being taught or in routine practice. Just heard about it once.

[CDRODA396]

I'm a retired Army guy, having spent ten years as a paratrooper, then ten years in special operations, so I'll throw my thoughts out there. There are very few specialties in the Army that are issued the handgun as their sole, or secondary, weapon. MPs come to mind, but then only in a permissive, policing type environment. Even MPs carry long guns when in high threat areas. When I was in the Infantry, only machine gunners and mortar men carried pistols, and when it came time to qualify, they drew rifles and qualified with the rest of us. It wasn't until I got into SpecOps that I was issued a handgun and a rifle and received any training on the pistol whatsoever. I think the Marines still only issue a sidearm (handgun) to officers and senior NCOs, but I can't say for sure.

So, when discussing pistol marksmanship, you have to keep in mind that a sidearm is a back-up weapon system for use in close quarter engagements only. When you're in a running gun battle up and down a street and your primary (rifle or carbine) goes down, you don't transition to your handgun and keep engaging targets unless they are "in your face." You seek cover and get your primary back into operation then rejoin the fight. However, when you enter a structure, and your primary goes down, there isn't time to address your stoppage, so you transition and engage the threat. Once the immediate engagement is over, you bring your primary back up, gather the rest of the friendlies in the room and move to the next room.

For this reason, at least in the Army, there are very few courses that conduct more than very rudimentary handgun training outside of the Special Operations community.

Having said that, the modified isosceles is the stance of choice of that community for several reasons, not in any particular order.

As GManBart pointed out, several studies have shown that the modified isosceles is more akin to the stance that many humans will adopt when startled by a perceived threat, even when trained in the Weaver. The need for self preservation subconsciously drives the human to a natural defensive position it feels best suited to be able to execute during the fight or flight imperative once the conscious mind makes that decision. If you watch a street full of people react to a car backfiring, many of them will end up in a position very similar to a MI, while they look around to see if they need to head for cover.

The MI stance is similar to the "fighter's stance" which places you "in balance," able to move/react easily in any direction quickly, which of course is why fighters use it.

When facing square to your threat, you are afforded the greatest amount of peripheral vision...the Weaver severely limits your peripheral vision to your weak, non-firing side, especially those that "tilt" their head to align their eyes. Try both stances and have someone walk a semi-circle around you at about 15 feet and track them while maintaining your focus down your sights until they go out of your vision. In a room that might have multiple entrances, situational awareness of the greatest area possible is a highly desirable attribute.

Once you identify a threat in your peripheral vision, the MI allows you to easily rotate at the waist and cover the widest area left and right of 12 o'clock....while the Weaver allows just as much movement, you are limited to the weak side, unless you move your feet, if that makes sense.

And of course, the strongest piece of your body armor is the trauma plate, directly over your heart and lungs, and the weakest area is the arm holes. The MI exposes the strength and minimizes the weakness of your armor to your threat.

Finally, as competitive shooters we know that a stance is just a base or foundation that should be mastered to build and grow from, but ultimately we attempt to progress and master shooting on the move. The MI allows you to make the transition, to "be the tank", much easier. If you accept that when moving you need to separate your upper and lower body, the upper being like the turret of a tank, able to sweep left and right while the lower is the hull of the tank, moving in the desired direction, it is far easier to move and swivel, especially to the weak side, if you are starting from a MI type stance.

I've known some who would argue each and every one of these points, have very solid counter-points, and could definitely shoot, but generally speaking, the MI for the above reasons is the preferred stance for the tactical shooter and the one currently taught by the Army's handgun training courses.

[Mick]

I think it was a Georiga State Trooper on I-95. He had a short little dumpy guy pulled over and the guy wouldn't take his hand out of his pocket. When the trooper forced him to, he pulled out a little .22 or .25 and they struggled. The trooper shot the guy several times with a .357 (the rounds didn't get much past his body fat) and was calling on the radio with his arm up to his collar mic when he got hit in the armpit. Sickening...

That's the one...We were all a little pissed over that one. I thought the trooper had 38s but whatever he shot the fatboy with, it didn't work!

[Scooter]

A lot of the military guys who carry MP5's for entry have switched to using modified isosceles with the sub gun placed centered on the chest. Basically where ever they look with the upper body, the gun will be pointed in that direction. It also makes movement easier.

[Carlos]

A lot of the military guys who carry MP5's for entry have switched to using modified isosceles with the sub gun placed centered on the chest. Basically where ever they look with the upper body, the gun will be pointed in that direction. It also makes movement easier.

Back when Phil Strader owned his own range & gunshop, he also acquired a registered, full auto/select fire, British L1A1 (British military .308 FAL).

Using the "center of chest" technique you describe, I witnessed him on several occasions fire an entire 20 round magazine of milsurp .308 ammo into the A zone of a USPSA target in one long continuous burst. The technique you describe can also be used for recoil management.

[jasmap]

I think it was a Georiga State Trooper on I-95. He had a short little dumpy guy pulled over and the guy wouldn't take his hand out of his pocket. When the trooper forced him to, he pulled out a little .22 or .25 and they struggled. The trooper shot the guy several times with a .357 (the rounds didn't get much past his body fat) and was calling on the radio with his arm up to his collar mic when he got hit in the armpit. Sickening...

That would be Trooper Benji Coates. I've been in LE for 9 years and that is still one of the 2 worst images of death I've seen. Nothing shuts up a room of Type A personalities quicker than this video. And you are correct, Coates carried a .357 and he did shoot that fat bastard several times and the guy lived.

Edited August 27, 2007 by jasmap

[G-ManBart]

I think it was a Georiga State Trooper on I-95. He had a short little dumpy guy pulled over and the guy wouldn't take his hand out of his pocket. When the trooper forced him to, he pulled out a little .22 or .25 and they struggled. The trooper shot the guy several times with a .357 (the rounds didn't get much past his body fat) and was calling on the radio with his arm up to his collar mic when he got hit in the armpit. Sickening...

That would be Trooper Benji Coates. I've been in LE for 9 years and that is still one of the 2 worst images of death I've seen. Nothing shuts up a room of Type A personalities quicker than this video. And you are correct, Coates carried a .357 and he did shoot that fat bastard several times and the guy lived.

Thanks for adding the name, my memory isn't that good and Trooper Coates clearly deserves to be remembered.

I'm with you....I've been in LE for 14 years (a few years off in the middle) and that video is incredibly clear in my mind...and it's been a long time since I've seen it. Gut wrenching barely describes how hard that was to watch.

[sfinney]

Just keep in mind that anyone saying "this is the officially approved stance" may not have the best or up to date info.... just what they have been indoctrinated in.

When the Us Army was first teaching pistol marksmanship in the 1800's, they taught troopers to shoot revolvers one handed.... that carried over until well into the mid 1900's with 1911s. It was "the approved way"; what they forgot was that the reason the Army first taught shooting a pistol one handed originally, was that they were shooting from horse back.

Then came Weaver, then Isosceles, then mod-Isosceles, etc. Then throw fist-fire, point shooting, and all the other techniques in the mix. Point being, technique is constantly evolving - staying stuck in the past is keeping a very closed mind indeed.

[38supPat]

Both 'stances' are static by design, since combat is dynamic I chose "other"

[CenTX]

A good example is how reloads are taught now....they teach it finger indexing on the mag, ......"

When I took a class from Jeff Cooper in the 1979-81 time frame that's what I was taught. The reason being, you know where the tip of your finger is and therefore you knew where the top of the mag was. We wern't taught to look it in, IIRC we did the mag chnge without looking at the magwell, which was either stock frame or a slightly beveled frame, no big funnels. Of course most of us were using 7 or 8 rounds 45 single stack mags and 1911s. Of course back then the competition and tactical shooters were the same people.

[Carmoney]

Great responses here, guys. I'm pleasantly surprised to see people are pretty open-minded, I sorta figured a bunch of people would jump in here claiming the only way to shoot properly is the L/E mod isosceles....

I shoot from a Chapman myself. But I trained my kid to shoot a mod isosceles.

Not a bad idea to know both.

[Julien Boit]

As a sport shooter I do use a modified isocele stance. I've witnessed lots of competitor coming from LE circles using weaver stance.

We tried to "educate" them on isocele. Bullet proof vest being now issued to all LE men and women in France, they now starts to teach an isocele position. The idea is to present the most covered area of the body squared to the threat, also presenting the body armor on its biggest part.

We demonstrated many times the fact that with Weaver position, even with body armor, all vital organs are aligned and reachable under the arm, making a hit less survivable.

As for the center chest technique, I saw it used with Shotguns, SMGs and rifle with very good results. It was mainly applied by officers or operators using heavy body armor and using that extra thickness as a recoil absorber.

Both techniques have pros and cons.

[CenTX]

We demonstrated many times the fact that with Weaver position, even with body armor, all vital organs are aligned and reachable under the arm, making a hit less survivable.

Concealable bullet proof vests were available ( Second Chance, Safariland etc.), but not in use by most officers when the Weaver started to spread in law enforcement circles. One of the advantages of the Weaver was that you actually presented a smaller target, that was an advantage if you did not have a vest. If bullet proof vests had been in wide use at that time the Weaver probably would not have been so widely accepted by Law Enforcement.

[10ring]

A friend of mine is a SWAT team member in a local S.O. He was demonstrating to me their manipulation of the sub-gun. Basically, from the right side of cover, shoot from the right shoulder. From the left side of cover, shoot from the left shoulder. Keep elbows tucked in. While I didn't ask him, I suspect pistol manipulation would be similar.

I'm surprised about the recorded proof of an officer reverting to an isocelese sort of stance under extreme pressure. I would have thought the body, being driven by the subconsciense mind, would make it do what it had been trained to do. Likely a Weaver sort of stance. That would imply that the fight or flight reflex takes a higher priority than the subconscience.

I've studied and believe I understand how to get the most out of the isocelese stance. Is there anyone on this forum who can explain how the Weaver is suppose to work? More than the "push here, pull there" sort of description. How does it really manage recoil?

[vrod2011]

Well, since this debate started with my friend, he uses as his justification:

Weaver is the stance for any fighter, be it boxer, karate, anything.

Switching between pistol, rifle, or shotgun, you all use weaver.

The pistol is not only in the middle of your hand, but the middle of your arm all the way back to your shoulder.

Using isometric tention, for example pushing your hands together in front of you, they are less likely to move if an outside force is applied, than any other way of holding your hands.

If you ask any combat veteran from WWII up to Vietnam, you will find they used Weaver.

Standing in weaver, you are more stable. Someone is less likely to push you over from behind.

These are his justification, but rest assured, he will see this post.

[G-ManBart]

Well, since this debate started with my friend, he uses as his justification:

Weaver is the stance for any fighter, be it boxer, karate, anything.

Switching between pistol, rifle, or shotgun, you all use weaver.

The pistol is not only in the middle of your hand, but the middle of your arm all the way back to your shoulder.

Using isometric tention, for example pushing your hands together in front of you, they are less likely to move if an outside force is applied, than any other way of holding your hands.

If you ask any combat veteran from WWII up to Vietnam, you will find they used Weaver.

Standing in weaver, you are more stable. Someone is less likely to push you over from behind.

These are his justification, but rest assured, he will see this post.

I know those aren't your points, but...

I don't know about all of the fighting sports, but I know the Judo, Jujitsu (sp?), wrestling, and Tai kick boxing all use what we'd call a modified Iso stance. In boxing you stand with the strong side back so you can get more power out of your strong side AND put your jab closer to you opponent...it's not a good comparison to shooting.

If you're in a Weaver stance and someone were to strike you from your strong side, they could easily knock you on your butt because you're balanced only front to back, not side to side.

In most of the grappling sports when you lock up with your opponent one of the most important things to do is get your hips square to them with your center of gravity lowered. If your hips aren't square to them they're going to control you easily.

[CDRODA396]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BT..._24/ai_65910635

I believe this gentleman about summed up all of my points beautifully...worth the read.

[G-ManBart]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BT..._24/ai_65910635

I believe this gentleman about summed up all of my points beautifully...worth the read.

While that article was written back in 2000, I was happy to see it mentioned the phenomenon I talked about where LEOs trained soley in Weaver actually went to Iso during gunfights....there have been a lot of in-car camera videos of gunfights since then that support the early findings. Fascinating stuff!