WT Forums

Picked up a thread over on the CATM web site that got me thinking about shooting stances for handgun shooting. Back when I'd first left the flight line for the firing line, 1980, the AF was still pushing the old Isosceles stance as a basis for all handgun shooting positions.

I'd learned handgun shooting before I made the move to CATM, from shooting IPSIC and PSAC which are combat/practical shooting compititions. Here, the Weaver stance ruled supreme, and when I made the move to the range, even though the AF higher higher still pushed the face on isosceles stance, I taught Weaver in addition to what the AF mandated me to teach. In the years that followed, I came across some shooters who just could not shoot a full on Weaver stance and so I worked them into a modified Weaver which was really a combination of the 2.

For those who read this but may not know the difference between the Isosceles and Weaver stances:
Isosceles: you maintain a stance perpendicular to your line of fire, or face on to your target. Feet shoulder width apart and your body centered over your feet. Both arms are at full extension holding the weapon as far out in front of you as possible.
Pros: This is a pretty natural possition that can be moved into and out of quickly. The recoil of the shot is distributed equally between both arms and shoulders. In the prone possition you lay in a straight line and become very tough to hit, a very small target.
Cons: You make a much larger target for your opponent to hit. Nothing covers your chest. The recoil of the shoot can cause you to loose balance. The stance changes when you move to a kneeling possition to more of a weaver stance. When shooting from a strong or weak side barricade, you expose nearly half of your body to incoming rounds.

Weaver: you have your body at about a 45 degree angle to the target, your strong side foot is about shoulder width apart from your other foot and slightly behind your other foot. Your shooting arm is at full extension, however your nonshooting arm is bent and the elbow kept low.
Pros: With the stong leg back you can absorb heavy recoil better and without loosing balance. It's the same foot position used for rifle and shotgun shooting. The non shooting arm and elbow act as a shield for your chest. The shooting arm acts like a rifle stock for faster target acquisition. The pistol is gripped in the shooting hand in a straight line with the arm to make shooting as natural as pointing your finger. The angle between your shoulders and your line of fire remains consistant in all shooting positions. You maintain better cover/concealment when shooting R/L barricade, and your weapon is much lower to the ground in a prone position, allowing you to shoot under low slung cars.
Cons: Not as natural of a position to move into initially for many shooters. Body armor has more protection on the front than on the sides. This is a tougher position if you are right handed but have a dominant left eye, or vice versa.

Modified Weaver: In this stance you combine the upper isosceles arm and body position with both arms at full extension with the lower leg position of the weaver stance. While this is more stable than an isosceles, it still provides an ease of aiming with either eye, so eye dominance is not an issue.

So, I'm just wandering, which do you prefer and why?

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

I tend to shot more from the weaver stance. Nobody ever really told me how, it was how I just naturally aimed the first time I shot a pistol. I haven't been pistol shooting in a long time now as part of an effort to break that habit.
A friend of mine recently cross trained to OSI and at FLETC he said all shooting instruction was for isocoles. We used to shoot alot together at Eielson, and he said since FLETC he much more prefers isocoles.

Weaver. It's what the FBI agent recommended while I was deployed. It's natural for me now.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

I've only ever shot in a weaver stance (although i honestly didn't know what it was called) My dad taught me how to shoot and it started with \"stand like this and don't ask questions.\"

_________________
\"I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives\"

Don't feel bad about that Racegal, that's how most of us started out I think.

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

Weaver for the vast majority of shooting needs is what i use. Isocoles could be useful vs multiple targets, but i dont like the way it squares your vitals up for easy blastin'.

Weaver at least give some degree of protection to your vitals.

Weaver, I guess that's what it's called, was how I was trained by the USAF in 1987. I was tasked as a \"weapons courier\" for exercises and had to qual with the .38 revolver. We took that stance to make a more difficult target for the bad guys, and it's just a natural stance for me now with my 9mm personal sidearm.

Actually I think my stance is closer to almost 90 degrees. Shooting arm straight, non shooting arm elbow bent supporting the shooting hand. I'm pretty accurate with that stance. You're not gonna hit me in the chest...heh.

_________________
SoWW #2485
Cave Putorium!

Just got back from some pre-deployment training at DIA, which included M-11 (SIG P-229) qualification. They teach what I guess you'd call a modified Isoceles...pretty much straight on in order to present maximum body armour, but kness bent, and rolled slightly forward, arms locked. Seemed to work OK- I scored a 196/200 which is a personal best.

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

That's isosceles.

How much body armor is on your groin? None. Isosceles is a stupid stance...IMO.

30 Mike Mike makes a very good point! When wearing body armor, the Iso, or Modified, is much better as most vest offer little to no protection to the side of the torso.

Snipe is also right in that with your body square to the line of fire, and feet shoulder width apart, it's not really a Modified. Now if you move your strong leg back about half a step, that would be Modified.

_________________
Slow is Fast, Fast is Slow
Violence may not be the best option, but it IS an option

The vests i have offer pretty decent side protection, in the way of wrap around Class IIIA flaps.

I have a Safariland Class IIIA and i also have a US Armor Class IIIA with frontal Class IV ceramic trauma plate, and a groin flap that houses a Class IV ceramic plate backed up by a soft class II Kevlar spall liner.

I have used both pretty extensively over the years whenever i found myself repoing in the worst areas in Philly. I also used to use my Safariland when i worked serving subpoenas for a local legal service.

Here's a pic of my US Armor vest:



The nice thing about Weaver is that it turns your arms and thighs into armor. Getting shot anywhere would no doubt suck, but getting hit in the arm or thigh instead of the chest or nuts is clearly the better option....

You're right, IP. I failed to mention the short strong-side step to the rear.

One does the best one can with what one is issued, Snipe. I'm just glad they give me the option to carry!

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson