[EagleSix]

I’m curious what stance other members here prefer. Although I have my own opinion founded in experience, study and experimentation, I’m always open for learning. I'm an instructor, but before that I'm a student. I teach when I have a student, but I myself am always a student. Firm in my belief of proven principals, but always with an open mind, ears and eyes!
20 years ago the Weaver stance was the professionals choice and more recently it appears the Isosceles stance is most popular. However both of these most likely are more in reference to the manor in which we handle the gun.

The Weaver stance advocates a body posture utilizing angles to manipulate muscles against muscle in an attempt to create isometric pressure to capture the gun providing better recoil control and overall sighting and firing control.

The Isosceles stance is a more natural and relaxed position offering quicker target acquisition and more rapid student skills progression.

Of course there is more to each position than a simple paragraph and I would imagine there are 50-100 different other stances based on these two. Each of these and most all of the variations I have studied are really designed to provide a solid platform for the upper body to more effectively address the target. A good goal grounded (no pun intended) in the logic that a steady hold provides more accuracy. I can’t argue with that.

But I am more interested in the stance itself, as in the feet and legs, not necessarily the rest of the anatomy puzzle, but how to you stand and why. What foot placement do you use and how does this benefit your fighting style in combat?

.

[allmons]

Right handed I use Weaver; left handed I can hit and control better with isosceles. I know, it's weird! But it works for me.

[EagleSix]

allmons,

I have found that not uncommon. I have observed that most of my students while shooting two handed, using the Weaver stance shooting with their primary hand, will take a more Isosceles stance when shooting with their support hand. And it is most prevalent for students who are same side handed and dominance. For example a student who prefers the Weaver stance who is right handed and their dominate eye is their right, will most likely adopt a more Isosceles stance when shifting to using their left hand as the primary gun hand.

.

[ChrisMoore]

Hi EagleSix.

I shoot in the Isosceles...well, a combat Isosceles anyway with the weakside foot slightest ahead (3"-6") of the strongside foot. I haven't used the weaver stance for years now although that is what we were taught when I first entered law enforcement. I found that when I had to move I was transitioning to the Isosceles anyway so I began shooting in the Isosceles.

Now we are being taught (and we are teaching) the Combat Isosceles for law enforcement and military applications, especially in a CQB environment. It allows maximum use of your body armor and works great with movement.

I just recently completed a Tactical Team Instructor course with Operators from 5th and 19th Group SF and we went through various shooting and tactical drills utilizing the Combat Isosceles with both our primary and secondary weapons and I can honestly say it works great.

Christopher

Point Blank, LLC
P.O. Box 31
Jackson, MO 63755
www.pointblanktraining.net
christophermoore@pointblanktraining.net

[sixgunner]

I have had many firearms instructors tell me that no matter what you practice you will end up shooting isosceles in a real encounter. Supposedly the FBI did a study where they watched 100s of actual engagements and in every one both good and bad guy shot from the isosceles stance. At that time none of their agents were trained to shoot that way but "instinct" took over. When I target shoot I use a modified weaver when I am practicing with my carry gun I shoot isosceles. Arguably this is not the smartest plan but so far my results with both stances have improved and that makes me happy.

[Jay]

I use and teach a modified Weaver stance. I also teach the isosceles. It's mostly a matter of preference.

I shoot right-handed...... the toe of my right foot is even with the heel of my left foot, and my feet are outside of shoulder width apart. This is more comfortable for me, and is more stable. If you assume an isosceles stance and have someone bump your hands while you pretend to hold a pistol, your toes will come up...... front-to-back stability isn't as solid for me, as the modified Weaver.

You weren't as concerned with other anatomy issues, but here's a couple anyway......

With the isosceles, the centerline of the bore is between my arms....... forcing my wrists to work harder under recoil. (in my opinion) In my modified Weaver, the bore is inline with my wrist, forearm, and elbow, and recoil is much less of an issue. (for me)

That's the nice thing about this hobby, you can pick what suits you. It's really a personal preference, or everyone would be shooting the same way.

[ranger_sxt]

I tend to teach both, and let the student use whatever works best for them.

I usually shoot in the "modern" Isosceles.

[JoeLee]

The Clint Eastwood stance,AKA the determined stance.

[jeepcreep927]

I have focused more on Isosceles both as an instructor and as a student based on all of the things mentioned above. Practically speaking, it is more natural, more stable, maximizes movement options and allows body armor to be used as it was intended. Both from an accuracy standpoint as well as a tactical standpoint, I have not found any pros to using the weaver. The thought that the Weaver minimizes your profile doesn't seem to be much of a selling point for me.

[matt g]

When I shoot, it will almost look like I'm shooting a rifle. I stand 45 degrees to the target, with my elbows relaxed. It's all ass backwards, but I can consistently hit a 6 inch steel at 50 yards with a short barreled .45 ACP.