Modified Isosceles vs. Weaver

[Boyd]

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?

We get shot anywhere we leave exposed.....

[Flexmoney]

Elbows will get you killed...will get the thread closed.

Please folks. Not here.

- Admin.

[sheik_djibouti]

*newbie alert* (aka- dont crush my spirit)

what is "tactical"? if it is what looks better when wearing a blackhawk vest with your limited edition rambo knife, then i'd vote for weaver, as that is definitely the more martial-arty of the two stances. if the real meaning of "tactical" is what most effectively gets rounds on target, quicker and more accurately, then i'd have to change my vote. the body armor issue doesn't really prevent mod-iso, but encourages it. straight up iso is arms locked out, which you can't do with a full body armor setup with plates, so you become mod-iso by default. the big disadvantage of weaver seems to be recoil management with rapid-multiple shots, and shooting on the move. and you can make a mod-iso stance universal for all weapons platforms- not just pistol. the whole police-video thing should stop this argument cold. for a more local example, i like to point out how good shooters shoot on the move and transition from target to target.

[Duane Thomas]

I'm not really convinced that Weaver is more martial art-y. The history of both stances is identical: both were developed in competition, then adopted in the wider world for self-defense/tactical usage. But if we really wanted to analogize them to the martial arts, we could say that Weaver is a "hard" technique, whereas mod iso is a "soft" technique.

There are fair number of people in the world shooting Weaver simply because that's all they know. They were taught to shoot that way and have never learned anything else, or they developed their technique through reading articles in books or gun magazines and mimicking the pictures therein. They've never been exposed to mod iso. For those who have been exposed to both techniques, the vast majority of people do wind up choosing mod iso.

For those who don't, I feel the reason has very little if anything to do with an open-minded assessment of the virtues and vices of the two techqnies, and everything to do with personality type. Every shooter I've ever known who started out Weaver, eventually received good instruction in mod iso, and then stayed with Weaver afterward, has had one personality trait in common: they've all been serious control freaks. If you ask them why they prefer Weaver, they always say the same thing: "Because it's the only technique that allows me to bring my personal power to bear on the gun so I can feel like I'm in control." I have heard this time after time. And if they say anything different, it's only a few words different, the gist is always the same. You can take them out to the range and show them you can outshoot them, using the same guns and loads, with mod iso, and it makes no difference, you still can't get past that "I need to be in control and Weaver allows that" wall they have in their mind.

[Kaizer]

Tactical Question

You're righthanded. Imagine you're trying to clear down a flight of stairs with the end opening going towards your right. Running weaver, I think one needs to be walking almost backwards down the stairs in order to face the opening on the right? Tripping is high on such instances IMHO. With ISO, atleast one is walking 'normal' down the stairs and has around 45degrees of advantage movement stability.

IMHO, tactical also requires versatility and fast adaptation to the unknown, not rigid, right?

[Duane Thomas]

This is not really the site for tactical questions. From the Forum Guidelines:

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.

We're about pushing the limit in this thread already.

[uscbigdawg]

I'm not special ops, but I also didn't watch Behind Enemy Lines 2 or 3.

IPSC/USPSA kept me alive on multiple deployments. Some discussed here. Some not. So as for which is better, I'd say whatever the stance that Matt Burkett taught me back in the late 90's. Tactical applicability? If what you used kept you alive, then it's tactically correct for you and your experience. Translation: There is no hard fast rule. Do what works for you and keeps you coming home, but be open to everything else.

Rich

[38supPat]

I'm not special ops, but I also didn't watch Behind Enemy Lines 2 or 3.

Lol...I may modify that one for my sig..."I'm not Spec Ops...but I play one when I watch TV!"...lmao