Joined
·
13,938 Posts
Well, now that I have your attention, I'm just messin' with you a bit. Seemed like a good way to draw your attention to a discussion where we can see who likes what, why, etc. No more than just a discussion among friends, so let's all realize this is just a fun and hopefully helpful and interesting discussion.
I'll get us started. Because of my extensive training at Gunsite and Thunder Ranch, I've always been a modified Weaver kind of guy. There was a point that I thought that should be the only way, but I realized a lot of people preferred the Iso (isosceles) stance, not that we'll necessarily get into a stance in a SD situation........
So, I decided to go to Blackwater and take their Handgun Level I and Handgun Level II course because they teach the 'I' stance. My level II course was actually better than my level I course as far as specifics of the Iso stance. I heard how that as the pressure goes up the Iso is what you'll revert to anyway.
So all week long, I made an all out effort to use the Iso right down to the smallest detail. Long about Thursday (5 day class) they did our timed five draw and fire drills. And I'm gonna brag a bit, I was the oldest guy in the class, was shooting a Beretta 92SF DA/SA with some trigger work I had done myself. That's not what I'm bragging about - it's this - nobody beat my draw and fire time and all five shots were 'A' hits. There were 17 of us if I recall correctly, comp shooters with their high speed Glocks and all. So why'd I say all that? Oh yeah, to say this.
After the drill, an instructor walked up to me and said, "Do you realize everyone of your draw and fires were in a Weaver stance?" I was taken aback to say the least. I kept my cool and said, "I thought you assured me that as the pressure went up, I'd revert to an Iso.?" He said, "Well, I guess you won't."
Since the Blackwater course, I have shot diligently from the Iso, about two years now. But I still notice that as I speed up, I drift into no man's land somewhere between a modified Weaver and an Iso.
Just in case some of you are not familiar with the modified Weaver, it is essentially the Weaver with a slightly bent elbow. You are bladed a bit to the target, not as much as some would have you believe, and the 'strong' hand is pushing on the gun and the weak hand is pulling to form pretension, purportedly better resisting recoil than the Iso.
I realize that's a pretty strong statement since most comp shooters shoot from a Iso, but I have seen some demos of the modified Weaver and I was re-impressed with it. Plus, I read of a trainer that had a shooter in his class and he was a national champion in another nation. He declined to try the modified Weaver and could not meet the course requirements and yet most of the other students with much, much less shooting experience did.
So like everything, there's pros and cons. Right now, at this point in time, I've gone back to the modified Weaver. Apparently it is deeply ingrained in me and as I've compared the Iso to the modified Weaver, I find I shoot just as well if not better from the modified Weaver than the Iso.
Tactical advantages:
Because of the bladed stance of the Weaver, the gun (holstered), is more awkward for an assailent to reach if he wants to try, and in the case of a rear take away (holstered) there's not enough difference to matter. The gun is exposed to him no matter which way you are standing.
Second, the Weaver has a built in retention position. It locates the gun near your side and your side is away from the assailent, and you can raise your elbow of your weak hand and have a solid 'rejector'.
Some say you can't move efficiently from a Weaver stance. I've done both over and over and over and over in training schools, and honestly, I can't see one bit of difference.
Dealing with corners. Weaver is better on strong side corners, about the same as the Iso on weak side corners.
A subtle thing about the Weaver has to do with what people shoot at. Some studies show that in a gunfight, there is a strong tendency to shoot the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the gun. If that's true and I don't know that it is, then we have this: If you are in an Iso, and the BG does fire at the gun but misses low right, low left, just plain low, you get hit in a bad place. If you are in a Weaver and he misses to the strong side low or high, there's a good chance the bullet will miss you and even if it hits you it's not as bad as it could be.
OK, I know I focused on the Weaver, not because it's best or anything like that, but over the years, after lots and lots of training, I went from the modified Weaver to the Iso and back to the Weaver, and I think I'm just gonna stay there.
But enough of me, what about you guys, what do you like, pros, cons, let's hear it.
I'll get us started. Because of my extensive training at Gunsite and Thunder Ranch, I've always been a modified Weaver kind of guy. There was a point that I thought that should be the only way, but I realized a lot of people preferred the Iso (isosceles) stance, not that we'll necessarily get into a stance in a SD situation........
So, I decided to go to Blackwater and take their Handgun Level I and Handgun Level II course because they teach the 'I' stance. My level II course was actually better than my level I course as far as specifics of the Iso stance. I heard how that as the pressure goes up the Iso is what you'll revert to anyway.
So all week long, I made an all out effort to use the Iso right down to the smallest detail. Long about Thursday (5 day class) they did our timed five draw and fire drills. And I'm gonna brag a bit, I was the oldest guy in the class, was shooting a Beretta 92SF DA/SA with some trigger work I had done myself. That's not what I'm bragging about - it's this - nobody beat my draw and fire time and all five shots were 'A' hits. There were 17 of us if I recall correctly, comp shooters with their high speed Glocks and all. So why'd I say all that? Oh yeah, to say this.
After the drill, an instructor walked up to me and said, "Do you realize everyone of your draw and fires were in a Weaver stance?" I was taken aback to say the least. I kept my cool and said, "I thought you assured me that as the pressure went up, I'd revert to an Iso.?" He said, "Well, I guess you won't."
Since the Blackwater course, I have shot diligently from the Iso, about two years now. But I still notice that as I speed up, I drift into no man's land somewhere between a modified Weaver and an Iso.
Just in case some of you are not familiar with the modified Weaver, it is essentially the Weaver with a slightly bent elbow. You are bladed a bit to the target, not as much as some would have you believe, and the 'strong' hand is pushing on the gun and the weak hand is pulling to form pretension, purportedly better resisting recoil than the Iso.
I realize that's a pretty strong statement since most comp shooters shoot from a Iso, but I have seen some demos of the modified Weaver and I was re-impressed with it. Plus, I read of a trainer that had a shooter in his class and he was a national champion in another nation. He declined to try the modified Weaver and could not meet the course requirements and yet most of the other students with much, much less shooting experience did.
So like everything, there's pros and cons. Right now, at this point in time, I've gone back to the modified Weaver. Apparently it is deeply ingrained in me and as I've compared the Iso to the modified Weaver, I find I shoot just as well if not better from the modified Weaver than the Iso.
Tactical advantages:
Because of the bladed stance of the Weaver, the gun (holstered), is more awkward for an assailent to reach if he wants to try, and in the case of a rear take away (holstered) there's not enough difference to matter. The gun is exposed to him no matter which way you are standing.
Second, the Weaver has a built in retention position. It locates the gun near your side and your side is away from the assailent, and you can raise your elbow of your weak hand and have a solid 'rejector'.
Some say you can't move efficiently from a Weaver stance. I've done both over and over and over and over in training schools, and honestly, I can't see one bit of difference.
Dealing with corners. Weaver is better on strong side corners, about the same as the Iso on weak side corners.
A subtle thing about the Weaver has to do with what people shoot at. Some studies show that in a gunfight, there is a strong tendency to shoot the immediate threat. The immediate threat is the gun. If that's true and I don't know that it is, then we have this: If you are in an Iso, and the BG does fire at the gun but misses low right, low left, just plain low, you get hit in a bad place. If you are in a Weaver and he misses to the strong side low or high, there's a good chance the bullet will miss you and even if it hits you it's not as bad as it could be.
OK, I know I focused on the Weaver, not because it's best or anything like that, but over the years, after lots and lots of training, I went from the modified Weaver to the Iso and back to the Weaver, and I think I'm just gonna stay there.
But enough of me, what about you guys, what do you like, pros, cons, let's hear it.
