Modified Isosceles vs. Weaver

[Religious Shooter]

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

Since you may be doing this from memory... if they bring that up again point it out to them that the Weaver stance was developed in the 50's.

http://weaverstance.com/order.htm

WWII ended during 1945...

And I've read here and other places about how the Weaver user exposes their vitals more than the iso/mod iso user...

Check out the above link to a picture of Jack Weaver. Using the original Weaver stance I don't see that much of an extra exposure when compared to iso/mod iso.

[Flexmoney]

I would have thought the body, being driven by the subconsciense mind, would make it do what it had been trained to do.

I see this mentioned a lot. I think the key there is the difference in being trained in...and actually training.

It takes a lot of repetitions to make something into a new habit.

Even then, the mind has to decide what situation it is in. It may not register as a gun-fight, so the reaction may be something else entirely.

My $0.02

[Paladin]

Ron Avery covers this topic beautifully in his tape series, Secrets of a Professional Shooter.. understand it is now on DVD.. Brian has it in his store..check it out..

[Duane Thomas]

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

Since you may be doing this from memory... if they bring that up again point it out to them that the Weaver stance was developed in the 50's.

http://weaverstance.com/order.htm

WWII ended during 1945...

Not only could soldiers in World War II not possibly have been using Weaver, but considering the technique was developed in 1959 and the Korean War ended in 1953, it missed that conflict, as well. Actually, considering that IPSC wasn't organized until 1976, and Gunsite didn't start up until 1977, both major milestones in the popularization of the Modern Technique, I have to question how many soldiers there were in Vietnam using Weaver, for that matter.

The status quo of equipment/technique vis-a-vis shooting in police and military circles tends to run about 20 to 30 years behind the cutting edge. (Example: most "combat" competitive pistol shooters switched to auto pistols in the 1960s. Police didn't follow suit until the 1980s.) So even if it were true that most police and soldiers use Weaver today, that's not the solid recommendation it might seem on the surface. There are many reasons for police/military shooting techniques and weaponry lagging behind their civilian counterparts, but one big reason is that, as Grand Master Bruce Gray put it to me (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Police and military trainers tend to become reactionary and dogmatic very quickly. They latch onto one gun, and one technique, and then hold on like grim death until you absolutely prove to them that something else works better. Because they have so many other things to think about, they need to be using something they know works." Whether something else works significantly BETTER is low down on their list of things to worry about.

As to the idea that an advantage of the Weaver over MI is ease of transitioning from long gun to handgun, you might suggest your friends watch Matt Burkett's DVDs on AR-15 and shotgun shooting. Matt makes it very clear that he uses the exact same body position, i.e. squared off to the target, when he fires a long gun as when he fires a handgun. He says there is a great advantage to the squared-off body position versus being bladed to the target when firing a long gun fast, in that the latter allows recoil to twist your body around, causing the muzzle to track to the side in rapid fire. Being squared-off stops that from happening.

[SA Friday]

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

Since you may be doing this from memory... if they bring that up again point it out to them that the Weaver stance was developed in the 50's.

http://weaverstance.com/order.htm

WWII ended during 1945...

The status quo of equipment/technique vis-a-vis shooting in police and military circles tends to run about 20 to 30 years behind the cutting edge. (Example: most "combat" competitive pistol shooters switched to auto pistols in the 1960s. Police didn't follow suit until the 1980s.) So even if it were true that most police and soldiers use Weaver today, that's not the solid recommendation it might seem on the surface. There are many reasons for police/military shooting techniques and weaponry lagging behind their civilian counterparts, but one big reason is that, as Grand Master Bruce Gray put it to me (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Police and military trainers tend to become reactionary and dogmatic very quickly. They latch onto one gun, and one technique, and then hold on like grim death until you absolutely prove to them that something else works better. Because they have so many other things to think about, they need to be using something they know works." Whether something else works significantly BETTER is low down on their list of things to worry about.

This is changing, thank God. When I joined the Military in 1988, technique was lagging. Now, you see units finding top end USPSA shooters for training. I know for a fact that at least one army unit has received training from TWO GM USPSA shooters within the last year. Half of my agents were shooting USPSA in CO. I have ran into local PD firearms instructors at matches in CO and at York, PA. It just takes a little enlightenment. Remember, 10 years ago one could not get streamed video of modern shooting from the internet. I think advancement in communications technology has brought this gap to almost nill in most areas of the US.

[Carlos]

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

Since you may be doing this from memory... if they bring that up again point it out to them that the Weaver stance was developed in the 50's.

http://weaverstance.com/order.htm

WWII ended during 1945...

The status quo of equipment/technique vis-a-vis shooting in police and military circles tends to run about 20 to 30 years behind the cutting edge. (Example: most "combat" competitive pistol shooters switched to auto pistols in the 1960s. Police didn't follow suit until the 1980s.) So even if it were true that most police and soldiers use Weaver today, that's not the solid recommendation it might seem on the surface. There are many reasons for police/military shooting techniques and weaponry lagging behind their civilian counterparts, but one big reason is that, as Grand Master Bruce Gray put it to me (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Police and military trainers tend to become reactionary and dogmatic very quickly. They latch onto one gun, and one technique, and then hold on like grim death until you absolutely prove to them that something else works better. Because they have so many other things to think about, they need to be using something they know works." Whether something else works significantly BETTER is low down on their list of things to worry about.

This is changing, thank God. When I joined the Military in 1988, technique was lagging. Now, you see units finding top end USPSA shooters for training. I know for a fact that at least one army unit has received training from TWO GM USPSA shooters within the last year. Half of my agents were shooting USPSA in CO. I have ran into local PD firearms instructors at matches in CO and at York, PA. It just takes a little enlightenment. Remember, 10 years ago one could not get streamed video of modern shooting from the internet. I think advancement in communications technology has brought this gap to almost nill in most areas of the US.

Good point. At Quantico, the HRP or High Risk Personell training program brought in Ron Avery to improve their shooting ability. He was not teaching them Weaver. Many, many of the marines through that program went to Iraq, Afganistan, etc. - taking along the wisdom and experience gained through Ron's many years of shooting IPSC/USPSA.

[Mick]

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 don't think this is where you can validate the Weaver stance. Being a wrestler from HS I learned to square off and NOT have the trailing leg. If you dive in on me, I will kick out and be on top because of my position. Look at Jack Weaver's website, he's not using his sights, the gun is too low and he's dropping his head. When you go into a Weaver position you loose a lot of of your fluid motion. Better to stand straight, take recoil in your arms/shoulders and have your head BEHIND the sights.

Weaver had a good deal for his time but the Weaver stance is obsolete for the active shooting we do now. Go work an Area Match or larger match and watch, Weaver is all but gone. We show the Weaver in our Academy but it is rarely used once the holster gets used. In fact, we get folks who lock into the Isosceles too hard with their arms and then lose their fluidity.

For new shooters we let this go for awhile but later on they need to release their arm lock at the elbows. I had a two tour Iraq combat veteran in my class who also does IDPA. He has a strong ISO, so much so that his transitions between close targets became .50+ splits. I had to get him to let go at the elbows so he could roll those splits better. Better to shoot El Prez with .18 splits and .20 transitions (all As) than .16 splits and .50+ transitions!

[G-ManBart]

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

Since you may be doing this from memory... if they bring that up again point it out to them that the Weaver stance was developed in the 50's.

http://weaverstance.com/order.htm

WWII ended during 1945...

The status quo of equipment/technique vis-a-vis shooting in police and military circles tends to run about 20 to 30 years behind the cutting edge. (Example: most "combat" competitive pistol shooters switched to auto pistols in the 1960s. Police didn't follow suit until the 1980s.) So even if it were true that most police and soldiers use Weaver today, that's not the solid recommendation it might seem on the surface. There are many reasons for police/military shooting techniques and weaponry lagging behind their civilian counterparts, but one big reason is that, as Grand Master Bruce Gray put it to me (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Police and military trainers tend to become reactionary and dogmatic very quickly. They latch onto one gun, and one technique, and then hold on like grim death until you absolutely prove to them that something else works better. Because they have so many other things to think about, they need to be using something they know works." Whether something else works significantly BETTER is low down on their list of things to worry about.

This is changing, thank God. When I joined the Military in 1988, technique was lagging. Now, you see units finding top end USPSA shooters for training. I know for a fact that at least one army unit has received training from TWO GM USPSA shooters within the last year. Half of my agents were shooting USPSA in CO. I have ran into local PD firearms instructors at matches in CO and at York, PA. It just takes a little enlightenment. Remember, 10 years ago one could not get streamed video of modern shooting from the internet. I think advancement in communications technology has brought this gap to almost nill in most areas of the US.

Good point. At Quantico, the HRP or High Risk Personell training program brought in Ron Avery to improve their shooting ability. He was not teaching them Weaver. Many, many of the marines through that program went to Iraq, Afganistan, etc. - taking along the wisdom and experience gained through Ron's many years of shooting IPSC/USPSA.

If you're talking about the HRT, Hostage Rescue Team, they do bring in professional shooters pretty frequently and I wouldn't doubt that Ron Avery was one of them. They also have a full-time guy there who's name you would definitely recognize....he's a threat to win at matches on the national level.

[Carlos]

"If you're talking about the HRT, Hostage Rescue Team, they do bring in professional shooters pretty frequently and I wouldn't doubt that Ron Avery was one of them. They also have a full-time guy there who's name you would definitely recognize....he's a threat to win at matches on the national level."

FYI - Different outfits, same Quantico (which is both a USMC base & the FBI's training ground).

FBI's HRT = Hostage Rescue Team. The well-known guy you are likely referring to is Scott Warren. Their mission is to respond to certain hostage situations. Their jurisdiction is generally domestic, with very limited jurisdiction overseas. I have no idea if HRT has received instruction from Ron Avery.

HRP is HRP: High Risk Personnel. They are not part of FBI, but rather, part of the USMC. Their job involves security for high ranking military personnel and others in need of such security as ordered. As with all Marines, they are generally deployed overseas. They have received training from Ron Avery, among others.

C.

[00bullitt]

This is a good clip on Downrange TV from Benos member Bear1142(Erik Lund) who is also a federal agent/federal firearms instructor,GM,and a serious threat to win at almost every 3 gun match

It is shown with the rifle but the platform can be applied to all firearms.

Erik Lund aka Bear1142 on Benos explaining the fighting stance at a USSA class

Edited March 14, 2008 by 00bullitt

[benos]

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

Nice!

Although I didn't think it through, that's why I chose "other" too.

I remember reading a golf instructor (who's name I can't remember now but his teaching I really related to) who said, "I never swing the club the same way twice." I remember thinking, Whoa! That's deep.

be

[Bill Nesbitt]

The new American Handgunner has an Interview with Jack Weaver. There is also a video on their website. It's pretty cool about 3/4 of the way through the video. Weaver was explaining that he was winning all the matches so he decided not to try so hard and let others win. He then shot better than ever.

[Calmwater]

One of the hardest things to teach new officers to do as a law enforcement trainer in either defensive tactics or shooting is to TAKE GROUND. The aggressor usually wins in confrontations unless there is a major difference in skill level. The modified Isosceles with your hips squared and weight balanced provides a better platform for forward movement or any movement for that matter than the weight back Weaver. Officers end up wanting to back up or at best stay put when they should be taking ground or moving laterally to flank. We do sims training quite a bit and a senior trainer at our department who also has a competitive shooting background told me a long time ago if you keep moving you will do all right. Forward and lateral movement tend to decide a lot of these simulated fights. I , of course, am a little biased having been trained this way and having a Judo background that makes me want to square up anyway.

[Revopop]

I haven't seen the vid, but I just read the Weaver interview in Handgunner. The thing that I found most interesting was that when asked if there was one thing he wanted to clear up about the stance that he invented, he said basically "It's not a rigid thing and you should do what works best for you." He explained that the whole reason he started doing it in the first place was that it flat-out worked for him, and the results of the "Leatherslap" contests was proof. When the writer of the article shot with him and asked if he was doing it right, Weaver asked him if it felt right.

Kind of puts the whole "stance vs. other stance" thing in perspective.

[SA Friday]

Here's a new twist to this discussion. I recently tried on one of the new level 4 vests (paracleat) for my deployment to Iraq. The vest is different from the one I wore over there a couple of years ago, more bulky and a little heavier. The very first thing I noticed was it severly restricted my arm movements when trying to get my arms out for a iso/modified iso stance. I shoot with fairly straight out arms, and could not even get close to my normal shooting position in an iso stance with a handgun. The level 4 plate and accumulation of other materials would not allow it. I will have to practice with this vest to really understand shooting with it on, especially for indoors situations. I can see practicing in a stance more like a weaver in this vest. With the rifle, all is GTG.

[AikiDale]

I had to go with 'Other.' Tell your tactical friends if they are in a good stance, a proper stance, then they are either not moving or they are not taking advantage of available cover.

[Singlestack]

This Forum is about Competitive shooting. Please take any Defensive or Tactical shooting techniques elsewhere.

Thank you

Your Rogue Moderating Staff

[AikiDale]

Not to be argumentative John, but would not the discussion of two traditional shooting stances fall within the proper realm of conceptual discussion? The emphasis in this thread overall seems to be related to the shooting effectiveness of stance. With the possible exception of my last comment, mea culpa.

Intent

This Forum is for firearm, technique, and conceptual discussions pertaining to training and competition. (And various unrelated topics.) While the occasional defensive shooting post is not prohibited, in general, defensive shooting discussions or debates are discouraged.

[Singlestack]

Not to be argumentative John, but would not the discussion of two traditional shooting stances fall within the proper realm of conceptual discussion? The emphasis in this thread overall seems to be related to the shooting effectiveness of stance. With the possible exception of my last comment, mea culpa.

Intent

This Forum is for firearm, technique, and conceptual discussions pertaining to training and competition. (And various unrelated topics.) While the occasional defensive shooting post is not prohibited, in general, defensive shooting discussions or debates are discouraged.

It does and thats why I did not close it. My point was to keep the topic of discussion as it relates to competitive shooting and not defensive or offensive scenarios.

[GrumpyGrizz]

I've been in LE for 12 years now. I have been taught Weaver by one agency and "do what works" by another. I have enjoyed the competitions I have been to. I even watched Mr. Avery clean everyones clock on a stage, even after clearing two malfunctions. I have been more convicened to try different stances and methods by watching some amazing shooters perform. I think this is the key to "re-educating" LE. My request is, when cops show up at shoots, please lead by example. Performance will always trump lecture.

[Religious Shooter]

The new American Handgunner has an Interview with Jack Weaver. There is also a video on their website. It's pretty cool about 3/4 of the way through the video. Weaver was explaining that he was winning all the matches so he decided not to try so hard and let others win. He then shot better than ever.

Here's link to those who haven't seen it.

Interesting to note that at 2:40 they are "drawing" in front of a video camera. The original Weaver stance doesn't appear to expose the seam.

[Boyd]

I started as a Weaver Shooter back in the early 80's. As a LEO trainer, I migrated to the Isosceles around 1990 and have never looked back. I found that any technique that requires a push-pull aspect will fail under high stress (many officers end up shooting way too low when they are nervous and try to go fast.). Studies of actual gunfights and my anecdotal experience show that when a fight suddenly erupts, shooters thrust the gun straight out in fornt and start working the trigger. I always tell my students, "you're going to shoot this way (Iso) in real gunfights, do you want to work on technique while someone is trying to kill you or do you want to be good at it before the gunfight?"

In one study of (I believe) Portland PD officers, about 95% used the ISO in actual gunfights despite the fact that the Weaver was taught. The remaining 5% reported that they were already "set up" in a Weaver stance before things escalated.

We are sympathetic beings and our bodes seek symmetry under stress. To try to interject a stance that includes opposing actions really does not work.

Finally, we are now centering long guns on our bodies the same way we center pistols. Tactically, the days of the elbow out and the butt seated in the pocket of the shoulder are past. Today it's about dynamic force overwhelming the bad guys.

Can the older styles work well for marksmanship etc? Absolutely. Just like going form one handed shooting to two handed shooting, techniques evolve to meet problems.

Thanks

-MB

[Religious Shooter]

Finally, we are now centering long guns on our bodies the same way we center pistols. Tactically, the days of the elbow out and the butt seated in the pocket of the shoulder are past. Today it's about dynamic force overwhelming the bad guys.

That's interesting.

From what I've seen the vast majority of the 3Gun crowd still uses "elbow out and butt seated in the pocket of the shoulder". Of the good shooters only Lund and maybe Burkett does the centering hold with long guns.

[Boyd]

Finally, we are now centering long guns on our bodies the same way we center pistols. Tactically, the days of the elbow out and the butt seated in the pocket of the shoulder are past. Today it's about dynamic force overwhelming the bad guys.

That's interesting.

From what I've seen the vast majority of the 3Gun crowd still uses "elbow out and butt seated in the pocket of the shoulder". Of the good shooters only Lund and maybe Burkett does the centering hold with long guns.

I don't want to start an argument, but the thread is about tactical (life saving aggressive shooting with a high emphasis on not getting shot so one can stay in the fight) shooting. Three gun is great and can teach us a lot. Just like Open, Limited etc, some aspects do not translate to real life. Elbows out is one of those things that will get you "sent home" early from a real life shooting. The Creedmore position works great for its purpose, but it's not a survival tool either.

With Respect,

-MB

[Religious Shooter]

No real argument here.

I just find the differences between the two "disciplines" interesting and I like knowing why they do certain things.

As such... were a lot of people getting shot in the elbows or banging them in structures while doing tactical work?