CAnnoneer
Member
Good point, pax. I have not thought about that.
Weaver: Not for Everyone, Not Every Time.
- Thread starter Mad Magyar
- Start date
- Status
MCgunner
Member
I also think iso is a lot easier to learn properly and easier to teach.
I started shooting Weaver when I was 10 and slowly over time went to Iso for shooting on the move. Paintball at age 15 indicated that standing proud and upright in my chosen stance was great for the range but would likely get me killed if the other person was armed and halfway competent (or lucky), and an awareness of the importance of cover and concealment (and the difference between the two) was hammered into me.
A close-range encounter with a blade-armed mugger taught me the value of distance (by backpedalling at speed); when the dreaded day finally came that real bullets were inbound I learned that "take your time, fast" was the best gunfight philosophy for me and that tachypsychia & tunnel-vision are very real physiological phenomena.
Learn all that you can, remain flexible in your approach (there is no One True Way) and realise that all the above will become irrelevant if you wander through life in a switched-off state.
A close-range encounter with a blade-armed mugger taught me the value of distance (by backpedalling at speed); when the dreaded day finally came that real bullets were inbound I learned that "take your time, fast" was the best gunfight philosophy for me and that tachypsychia & tunnel-vision are very real physiological phenomena.
Learn all that you can, remain flexible in your approach (there is no One True Way) and realise that all the above will become irrelevant if you wander through life in a switched-off state.
Andy I have to agree and disagree with your post. Not in relation to the stance but rather tactics. We have too long taught police to go to cover no matter what. But this can get you killed in close quarter situations. If your threat is 5 yards in front of you, your number one priorty should be shooting him. Perhaps moving laterally while doing it or moving in in an agressive manner to close the distance. The number one theme amoung winners of gun fights is agression. People who win were agressive to the extreem. Losers are almost always on the defensive and looking for cover hiding or back peddling.
I recently attended a very good training put on by Jeff Hall a former Alaska State Trooper and Vietnam vet and gun fight survivor. He pointed out a lot of videos of shootings in which officers were killed because they were trying to get to cover when they should have been focusing on shooting the threat. Moving to cover in close quarter situations is secondary.
One thing that seems to be a theme with gun fight winners is a cool head, and aggression. In fact most of them remember being angry about what was happening to them. They then used that rage and fought back.
I am not sure if you have a martial arts background but if you did you would have experienced how much energy comes from simply being angry and focusing that energy into your attacker. Same goes for winning gunfights. Just my two cents.
As for stance I started off as an ISO shooter. I was taught by Ron Avery a very good competative shooter. It works well for competition where the only concern is shooting targets. It does not work so well when you have to transition for shooting to unarmed fighting and weapon retention type combat. Personally I don't think stance is very critical in shooting. I have been taught ISO and the 6 point weapon retention weaver stance. The weaver will work so will the ISO. What matters most in shooting is good trigger control and secondly the grip your using. If you have good trigger control you can shoot well in a one arm handstand. What really matters is good trigger control and front sight focus.
Pat
I recently attended a very good training put on by Jeff Hall a former Alaska State Trooper and Vietnam vet and gun fight survivor. He pointed out a lot of videos of shootings in which officers were killed because they were trying to get to cover when they should have been focusing on shooting the threat. Moving to cover in close quarter situations is secondary.
One thing that seems to be a theme with gun fight winners is a cool head, and aggression. In fact most of them remember being angry about what was happening to them. They then used that rage and fought back.
I am not sure if you have a martial arts background but if you did you would have experienced how much energy comes from simply being angry and focusing that energy into your attacker. Same goes for winning gunfights. Just my two cents.
As for stance I started off as an ISO shooter. I was taught by Ron Avery a very good competative shooter. It works well for competition where the only concern is shooting targets. It does not work so well when you have to transition for shooting to unarmed fighting and weapon retention type combat. Personally I don't think stance is very critical in shooting. I have been taught ISO and the 6 point weapon retention weaver stance. The weaver will work so will the ISO. What matters most in shooting is good trigger control and secondly the grip your using. If you have good trigger control you can shoot well in a one arm handstand. What really matters is good trigger control and front sight focus.
Pat
Clipper
Member
Pax...
...My wife is a 46D...Shoots weaver very well.
...My wife is a 46D...Shoots weaver very well.
Oh, I agree that the situation dictates the tactics. I didn't mean "dive for cover" in every case, and at close-range, shooting the threat would be my primary concern as well. One small point - aggression does not always mean "Damn the torpedoes" followed by a forward charge - one can maintain the aggressive mindset while fighting in reverse-gear. I did this against a knifeman in Cape Town - I didn't close the distance because I didn't want my belly opened, rather I backpedalled which gave me the time to draw and at the same time rendered his weapon pretty much useless. Just tactics, and I won.355sigfan said:
bluto
Member
Outstanding pics from Iraq Andy. They really convey a sense of the being there. Thanks for posting.
bluto
bluto
ColoradoKid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 80
Stances
AndyC,
A question......your definition of the term tachypsychia..??. It's strictly for FYI for me. I can't find it in my dictionary.... Thanks..
AndyC,
A question......your definition of the term tachypsychia..??. It's strictly for FYI for me. I can't find it in my dictionary.... Thanks..
Spec ops Grunt
Member
Whats the Weaver and Isociles?
Vern Humphrey
Member
CAUTION: What follows is an explanation, not a tutorial.
Both are two-handed grips for shooting a pistol.
In the Isosceles you face the target squarely and wrap your weak hand around your strong hand.
In the Weaver (named for the orginator, Jack Weaver) you turn half right (for a righ-handed man) and grip the gun in the same manner. You pull back with the weak hand, and push forward with the strong hand -- about 40 lbs of pressure.
The Weaver tends to snap the gun back into firing position for a quick second shot ("double tap.") The Isosceles is a bit more flexible in engaging targets at different angles.
Not a problem, bluto - glad you liked them. I'll add more when I get off my lazy butt sometimebluto said:
The weird sense that time has slown down during a short period of intense stress or focus eg. in a fight, playing baseball, etc. - I'm sure others can put it better than that, but that's my description.ColoradoKid said:
Edit: Wiki of Tachypsychia
The modern iso., or modified iso. is not the same as the squared off iso. of old. FWIW, the modern iso. and related grip were developed under the old power factor when .45s kicked in IPSC. The grip, balance, and stance was specifically developed to manage recoil, to shoot quickly, and to provide for movement. Unfortunately, too many folks are quick to crticize the platform when they haven't mastered it themselves.
This is a debate that will never be resolved, for both stances have great merit.
For LEO, the Weaver is best for many reasons . . . from exposing less of the chest in a frontal area, to a better fighting stance if things end up not requiring shots to be fired . . . to slightly faster (maybe) shots at a huge B-27 stationary target during annual qualifications.
The Isoceles, IMHO, is more stable when executing longer range shots when hunting, and faster at engaging multiple targets at different distances for the competitive shooter who might also need to be moving himself.
The "weakness" of the Weaver to me is that human targets AREN'T going to remain stationary at 10-15 feet, like a B-27, while someone is lifting a gun to shoot them! The sudden shifts in direction and speed of a running target, either to the left or right exposes the weaknesses of the Weaver . . . and validates the accuracy on moving targets, and/or when moving yourself, of the Isoceles.
My experience in competitive shooting matches and while handgun hunting for whitetail deer has convinced me that Isoceles, or a version of it, is most effective for me.
For instance, I've twice downed three deer in the past few years with my .44mag. Two fell literally nose to nose with separate shots, and the third one fell instantly while running full tilt away, with a broadside heart shot at 65 yards. I use a Bushell Holosight red dot sight on the revolver and all three shots were taken in a wide open clearcut with no way to brace the gun.
I simply cannot shoot my deer rifles and carbines that fast . . . again due to a sideways, Weaver-like stance required to hold a rifle that limits the smoothness and accuracy in tracking with the sight when swinging the firearm.
Two years ago a buck spotted me in a ladder stand in a hardwoods forest. He bolted, swung in front of me and I nailed him at 35 yards, also through the heart, swinging the .44 with the deer and touching off the single round as he cleared into a small gap between trees.
I practice both stances, plus single handed with both hands. We ALL need to do these things. I find that handgun grip, trigger control and pull and correct focus on the sights is even more important than the variation of stance used.
I practice the Isoceles out to 100 meters too. It's a wonderful stance for hunting and shooting targets that move!
Sincerely,
Tom
For LEO, the Weaver is best for many reasons . . . from exposing less of the chest in a frontal area, to a better fighting stance if things end up not requiring shots to be fired . . . to slightly faster (maybe) shots at a huge B-27 stationary target during annual qualifications.
The Isoceles, IMHO, is more stable when executing longer range shots when hunting, and faster at engaging multiple targets at different distances for the competitive shooter who might also need to be moving himself.
The "weakness" of the Weaver to me is that human targets AREN'T going to remain stationary at 10-15 feet, like a B-27, while someone is lifting a gun to shoot them! The sudden shifts in direction and speed of a running target, either to the left or right exposes the weaknesses of the Weaver . . . and validates the accuracy on moving targets, and/or when moving yourself, of the Isoceles.
My experience in competitive shooting matches and while handgun hunting for whitetail deer has convinced me that Isoceles, or a version of it, is most effective for me.
For instance, I've twice downed three deer in the past few years with my .44mag. Two fell literally nose to nose with separate shots, and the third one fell instantly while running full tilt away, with a broadside heart shot at 65 yards. I use a Bushell Holosight red dot sight on the revolver and all three shots were taken in a wide open clearcut with no way to brace the gun.
I simply cannot shoot my deer rifles and carbines that fast . . . again due to a sideways, Weaver-like stance required to hold a rifle that limits the smoothness and accuracy in tracking with the sight when swinging the firearm.
Two years ago a buck spotted me in a ladder stand in a hardwoods forest. He bolted, swung in front of me and I nailed him at 35 yards, also through the heart, swinging the .44 with the deer and touching off the single round as he cleared into a small gap between trees.
I practice both stances, plus single handed with both hands. We ALL need to do these things. I find that handgun grip, trigger control and pull and correct focus on the sights is even more important than the variation of stance used.
I practice the Isoceles out to 100 meters too. It's a wonderful stance for hunting and shooting targets that move!
Sincerely,
Tom
Jim March
Member
Pax: believe me, I realize how screwed-up the "cheekweld Weaver" leaves me for anything other than delivering a long shot. Movement and peripheral vision are trashed.
The odds I'd ever need a very long shot with a wheelgun from behind cover are really remote, but not beyond possibility.
The odds I'd ever need a very long shot with a wheelgun from behind cover are really remote, but not beyond possibility.
MCgunner
Member
Mmm, motorcycle crashes tend to be that way for a while. After a dozen or two get offs, you get used to it and things don't really slow down anymore. It becomes a familiar experience, almost normal. Might be an adrenalin thing, eh? That's what I'd speculate anyway. I have experienced it, not in combat, though.
TonyB
Member
My theory for what it's worth:
You learn the basics and then adapt them to work for YOU....People are all built different(as Pax pointed out)and have different abilities.I for one have severe arthritis that prevents me from gripping a hand gun "properly"....I have adapted and actually do pretty well at IDPA.I think people need to find what works for them.Heck if you can shoot better with one hand(like a buddy of mine does)why not do that?I have a problem with "teachers" who want everyone to do things their way 100% of the time.The best teachers inspire us to find our own way.(sorry if that sounds like a fortune cookie )
You learn the basics and then adapt them to work for YOU....People are all built different(as Pax pointed out)and have different abilities.I for one have severe arthritis that prevents me from gripping a hand gun "properly"....I have adapted and actually do pretty well at IDPA.I think people need to find what works for them.Heck if you can shoot better with one hand(like a buddy of mine does)why not do that?I have a problem with "teachers" who want everyone to do things their way 100% of the time.The best teachers inspire us to find our own way.(sorry if that sounds like a fortune cookie
)Vern Humphrey
Member
I used to work for Colonel Andy O'Meara when he was head of the Army Training Board.
A lot of people object to training, using the excuse that "if you over-train them you stifle their initiative."
So Andy had me find him a picture of Andy Warhol's famous tromp l' oeil of a can of Cambell soup -- and he used this as the opening slide in all his briefings and speeches. The message got through -- you have to master the basics before you're qualified to use your initiative.
A lot of people object to training, using the excuse that "if you over-train them you stifle their initiative."
So Andy had me find him a picture of Andy Warhol's famous tromp l' oeil of a can of Cambell soup -- and he used this as the opening slide in all his briefings and speeches. The message got through -- you have to master the basics before you're qualified to use your initiative.
All have their advantages, but it seem that most schools are going to the isocoles or actually the modified isocoles stance as a frontal position. Shooting around barracades is essentially a weaver stance or facimile thereof, and it makes sense in this and other scenarios.
I try to practice different positions while shooting, and with both hands. On some range days, I declare weak hand only. On that day of practice, I will only shoot left hand-single or left hand-double hand hold. It has forced me to be quiet humble in front of other shooters, but over the years, it has paid off.
The modified isocoles works best for me for the frontal position, because there is little or no muscle contradiction. With the Weaver, the shooting arm is always pulling away from the body, supposidly countered properly by the pulling hand and arm. When tired, I have noticed a tendancy to drift to the right(right hand shooter) because of the continuous stress of muscle fatigue. Under extreme stress, this would be no better.
So, throughout the years and from differernt training, I have come to believe the same as the bulleye shooter of yonder year will tell you...natural point of aim. Assuming time and conditions will allow, don't cause your body to work against itself.
Just a thought,
Dobe
I try to practice different positions while shooting, and with both hands. On some range days, I declare weak hand only. On that day of practice, I will only shoot left hand-single or left hand-double hand hold. It has forced me to be quiet humble in front of other shooters
, but over the years, it has paid off.The modified isocoles works best for me for the frontal position, because there is little or no muscle contradiction. With the Weaver, the shooting arm is always pulling away from the body, supposidly countered properly by the pulling hand and arm. When tired, I have noticed a tendancy to drift to the right(right hand shooter) because of the continuous stress of muscle fatigue. Under extreme stress, this would be no better.
So, throughout the years and from differernt training, I have come to believe the same as the bulleye shooter of yonder year will tell you...natural point of aim. Assuming time and conditions will allow, don't cause your body to work against itself.
Just a thought,
Dobe
Clipper
Member
Jim March...
...If you're cheek is touching your arm, you're not shooting Weaver, but something else. Weaver uses bent elbows. A true Weaver hold is quite versatile. I myself shoot offhand better than I can Iso...
...If you're cheek is touching your arm, you're not shooting Weaver, but something else. Weaver uses bent elbows. A true Weaver hold is quite versatile. I myself shoot offhand better than I can Iso...
ColoradoKid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 80
tachypsychia
Andy,
Thank you...the definition was fine
Andy,
Thank you...the definition was fine
Vern Humphrey
Member
I am right-handed and right eye dominant. But as I grew older, I became far-sighted in my right eye, and near-sighted in my left. I had to retrain myself to aim with the left eye (which gives me pin-point focus on the sights) and use the right eye to see the target (try it.
)As a result, I shoot a modified Weaver, with the right cheek touching the shoulder. If I shoot Isosceles, I still have the right cheek touching the shoulder.
rayra
member
"but combat shooting demands flexibility which is rarely seen on a typical firing range"
False premise. Or at least infers that 'flexibility' has priority. Flexibility is a necessary skill, but so are reflexive actions / muscle memory. ALL techniques have their place and time.
False premise. Or at least infers that 'flexibility' has priority. Flexibility is a necessary skill, but so are reflexive actions / muscle memory. ALL techniques have their place and time.
Mad Magyar
Member
Rayra, I stand by what I said but understand where you are coming from. Muscle memory: "a phrase referring to the body's ability to memorize, or perform automatically, a well rehearsed motion." I have a problem with the "automatically" implication. This might get you in dire straits one of these days. If you call draping off the hood of your pick-up plinking leisurely at cans/targets "muscle memory", good luck! BTW, whether you are doing this in a standing Weaver or Isosceles doesn't make any difference. True, your mind need some repetition on the entire shooting sequence from unholstering to firing, but you must also be able to adapt in milliseconds to the threat at hand which calls for alternative actions beyond "muscle memory". My point was very few pistoleros, from my observation, are practicing different routines in their shooting styles, shooting cadence, and various threat scenarios. They much prefer to pride themselves in slow-fire target shooting from 15 to 25 yds. out...Maybe, I just don't get it...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
