Weaver or Isosceles? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > General Handgun Discussion > Weaver or Isosceles?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-26-2010, 07:37 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas,Texas
Posts: 93
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Thanks for that, robo. As I was reading this post, I was wondering why philosophies had changed over the years. Back in the late 90's it seemed one-handed and weaver were the preferred methods to engage a target, and weaver only for stability. I hadn't thought about the lethality of a single hit, tho.

__________________
dallascj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 04:25 AM   #22
WDB
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nonya,WA
Posts: 3,991
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Robo as always great insight.
Most of us don't wear body armor daily and I truly respect those that have to. While I respect your input the Weaver stance is what I use. A smaller target and considering the prospective shooting expereince of a hostile person I may encounter as a civilian it seems right for me. Then again I am somewhat set in my ways and can't image giving a large target to an aggersor witrh out wearing body armor. Most of us practice on targets that display full body, and learn to shoot two or three shots center mass, few targets for the Weaver stance. I what my bad guy squared up just like the targets I shoot.

__________________

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benning Boy View Post
If you're really bored, I'm your huckleberry. If you really want a challenge, I'm the one.

If you're really smart, you'll just peddle your paint.
WDB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 07:47 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
HighSpeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cleveland,OH
Posts: 203
Liked 28 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDB View Post
Robo as always great insight.
Most of us don't wear body armor daily and I truly respect those that have to. While I respect your input the Weaver stance is what I use. A smaller target and considering the prospective shooting expereince of a hostile person I may encounter as a civilian it seems right for me. Then again I am somewhat set in my ways and can't image giving a large target to an aggersor witrh out wearing body armor. Most of us practice on targets that display full body, and learn to shoot two or three shots center mass, few targets for the Weaver stance. I what my bad guy squared up just like the targets I shoot.
As someone who does wear body armor daily, and was trained in Modern Isosceles, I've just recently realized that when I have a suspect at gunpoint or I'm advancing on a threat with my gun drawn, I am usually either in motion or a modified Weaver... I've never noticed until about a week ago that I do it.
__________________

The only time you can have too much ammunition is if you're swimming or on fire!

Gun stores: Where the morbidly obese can pretend to be mercenaries, allude to past experiences in Special Ops, and overuse words like "tactical" and "piece of kit".

HighSpeed is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 08:48 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
diggsbakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pueblo,Colorado
Posts: 1,680
Liked 8 Times on 5 Posts

Default

I shoot with the Weaver most often and feel strongly that it gives the shooter the most stability. In addition the Weaver allows readiness to move if necessary, in order to engage a second or multiple targets.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
Weaver does make you a slightly smaller target, but the available target is more vital. Thank God I'm a lefty!

If you are bladed to the right, your left arm pit/side is exposed. A single bullet can take out both lungs and heart/aorta. If you are wearing body armor, you have exposed the seam and rendered the armor all but useless.

If you are facing the threat (Iscosoles), your armor covers more of your vitals. You got a spare set???
I see the logic in that if you are wearing body armor, but for the general public, that won't apply.

I'm gonna ask a question about individuals and Body armor, but not in this thread.
__________________
diggsbakes is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 09:07 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stafford, Virginia,The state of insanity.
Posts: 14,043
Liked 34 Times on 29 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggsbakes View Post
I see the logic in that if you are wearing body armor, but for the general public, that won't apply.
What you don't have Level 3 body armor with three extra trauma plates duct taped to your front and back? What the hell is wrong with you?
__________________
cpttango30 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2010, 09:16 PM   #26
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5732 Times on 3358 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpttango30 View Post
What you don't have Level 3 body armor with three extra trauma plates duct taped to your front and back? What the hell is wrong with you?
If you didn't use OD duct tape, those extra plates are virtually worthless.




Seriously though, it is good to hear the LEO side of this discussion. I had wondered if they worried about their arm holes and seams; i sure would.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Heads up on Weaver Tactical M14sRock Optics & Mounts 9 09-22-2010 05:34 AM
Range Report - switched from weaver to isosceles feedsasquatch Range Report 1 07-02-2009 10:38 PM
Mossberg 500 weaver scope mount, fluffo63 General Shotgun Discussion 0 03-26-2008 03:08 PM