Isosceles vs Weaver

[Rodenmg]

Could someone help me understand the difference? Watching these the only real difference I see is the placement of the right foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I01I-...e_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR3L0...e_gdata_player

[Longitude Zero]

With isoceles you hold the gun directly in front of you and both arms are fully extended. Think of the turret of an Abrams tank.

I am right handed so with the weaver stance my right foot is back and basically I am facing 30-45 drgrees to the right. My right hand (gun) is pushing the gun towards the target. My left hand is pulling backwards. It is referred to as dynamic tension.

I learned isoceles first and went to the weaver when I changed to carrying a semi-auto. I have now switched back to isoceles with a semi auto. I feel it works better for me. A lot of tactical instructors are moving away from the weaver stance.

[Husky44]

What Zero said; Isoceles give you a more symmetrical stance; you have less force pulling back into the gun; both arms extended same amount. Biggest drawback in isoceles, IMHO, is that you have less front-to-rear stability because feet are aligned with your hips. Weaver stance gives you a more stable platform, front to rear. Not necessarily a big deal from a shooting standpoint, but it's valuable from an overall combatant standpoint.

Go with what works for you.

[muggsy]

The draw back to the weaver stance is that it limits your ability to pivot and move in either direction. In the isosceles you can move right or left with greater mobility. The Weaver stance does offer a somewhat smaller target area to your adversary. I prefer the isosceles stance.

[Barth]

Lol - Let's Dance

What Zero said; Isoceles give you a more symmetrical stance; you have less force pulling back into the gun; both arms extended same amount. Biggest drawback in isoceles, IMHO, is that you have less front-to-rear stability because feet are aligned with your hips. Weaver stance gives you a more stable platform, front to rear. Not necessarily a big deal from a shooting standpoint, but it's valuable from an overall combatant standpoint.

Go with what works for you.

As much as 15 years ago it seems that professionals were gravitating to Isosceles.
Seems like most competitive action shooters today use this stance too.

I have tried it.
But 10,000+ rounds of modified weaver have ingrained that stance in my muscle memory.
I can definitely shoot Isosceles.
But just haven't put in enough range time to get comfortable with it.

Eventually it dawned on me what this poster is saying.
First and foremost;
1) I'm a 3rd Degree Black Belt
2) A handgun is just another weapon
3) For weapon retention, and transition to knife / hand to hand?
I naturally, and sub concisely, I prefer a handgun stance
that mimics my martial arts fighting stance - modified weaver.

[JimBianchi]

All of my civilian, military and police real world and training experiences in the past 30-odd years have shown me that the isosceles is the natural, dominate position your body will default to when you are experiencing a life-or-death situation.

I trained in the early 1980's with the Weaver Stance. It was taught by the USCG and the USAF back then. First time I pulled my firearm (1981) my body went to isosceles, and I was moving laterally (moving to cover and almost stepped off the boat!!)

Later when I was on an EST unit (USAF SWAT) we did additional training with the LA County Sheriffs Dept SEB (SWAT) and they, as a practical matter, only used what was natural.

Those guys are the freak'n gold standard in self-defense training. Every guy on the team was a master marksman and they moved like a machine, in pairs or as a squad.

If it all goes bad some day, I want them responding to help me.

Ever since then I have only used what my body does automatically, isosceles.