When did the weaver stance die?

[BadMonk]

Didn't know that the Weaver Stance actually died. RIP. The full bladed stance is very awkward for me. It's not a natural angle and isn't a fighting stance, in my book. The isosceles is also awkward for me. It makes for slow movement (I'm slow enough on my own, thanks) and I'm unbalanced, forward and rearward. The modified weaver/fighting stance is better for me. I'm not at a weird bladed angle and, with my support foot back a little, my balance is checked in all four directions. If I need to scoot, my feet are in a better position to move. If I need to protect my head and body from strikes or deliver strikes, I'm in position. YMMV.

[Yoder]

The whole push pull thing makes no sense to me. Why would you want to pull back ever? The gun is recoiling back, you don't want to help it. I think this died more like 15 years ago. If you shoot weaver I think you are missing out.

[Maquis]

Weaver or modified Weaver is near identical to how you hold a rifle...that's the sweetness...you're firing hand is more forward with a pistol but everything else is the same...still, do what's best for you...I used a modified Weaver to get an Expert Badge on the 1911 pistol range in the USMC in 1984 and never had a reason to change but do what works for you.

[PAcarrier]

I'm right-handed and my left eye is dominant, meaning that is the "stronger" eye. For best results with iron sights, a shooter should align the sights in front of the dominant eye. In the isosceles stance, this means presenting the pistol slightly to the left of where a right eye dominant shooter would. The Weaver stance (for a righty) puts the left eye forward, this seems to make sight alignment easier for me, less tendency to present in front of the right eye or somewhere between the two. Of course, thousands of reps in dry-fire training would work, too. But I'm lazy.

Have you considered the CAR (Center Axis Relock) method? It takes advantage of cross-dominance while being a smaller presentation.

http://www.sabretactical.com/index.html

Sorry to derail, OP.

[EZ3]

Have you considered the CAR (Center Axis Relock) method? It takes advantage of cross-dominance while being a smaller presentation.

http://www.sabretactical.com/index.html

Sorry to derail, OP.

Isn't that what they used to call "Chapman" or 'modified Weaver"?

[PAcarrier]

Isn't that what they used to call "Chapman" or 'modified Weaver"?

Great question because they do look a little similar.

CAR seems to be much tighter to the body, actually tucking your elbow into your ribs for support. Plus a right-handed shooter aims through their left eye, which is why I thought it appropriate for the cross-dominant shooter.

[ColtShooter]

Modified Weaver here but I was taught by old guys with military and competitive shooting skills back in the day. The stance actually relies on weight distribution and a solid body "platform" that forms the foundation to shoot from. It does have some similarities to some martial arts stances and does allow for rapid movement from side to side and to retreat without losing your stance. The arm push/pull takes practice. You have to put the time in to make it work properly and you have to keep in practice. I can outshoot a couple of the guys I know. I try to make myself a smaller target too. It's a dying stance....everyone wants to square up. It doesn't make sense to me.

As they say, do what works for you to put rounds on the target.

[Justin///M]

A few days ago, I was watching a video with Jerry miculek and he talked at great length about how none of the competitive shooters use the weaver stance anymore and how they use more of an isosceles stance.

Just a few years ago, everything I would find online was weaver stance. After reviewing more videos, I am prone to agree with Jerry that none of the top shooters are using a weaver stance.

I tried shooting in the isosceles stance and I was actually impressed by how much faster I could shoot. However, my body still wants to revert to weaver.

This got me thinking, in a self defense situation, making myself smaller (as in the weaver stance) or being faster buy more exposed (isosceles stance). There is no right or wrong.

Any thoughts?

-Zach

As I found out in my defensive situation, you will react to the way you train. My bet would be that if you're prone to go back to weaver, that's what you would do. I've been training with isosceles for years now, and when I had to draw, I naturally went to that stance without thought.

Now, I've tried the weaver now and then to compare, and I personally shoot much better with isosceles. YMMV

Jutin

[stainless]

Interesting thread because I have been working on this myself recently. I always shot Modified Weaver and am trying to retrain to "Gerry's" method. (Some people think that I taught him to shoot, it's not true...)

Anyway, I am having trouble keeping my head totally erect. I had the habit of dropping and pushing my head forward somewhat to be more inline with my shoulders. I kept my arms parallel to the ground and dipped my head to adjust for it. Hard to explain any other way.

Now I am concentrating on keeping my head totally erect. Hard to do it without concentration thus far.

[Justin///M]

Interesting thread because I have been working on this myself recently. I always shot Modified Weaver and am trying to retrain to "Gerry's" method. (Some people think that I taught him to shoot, it's not true...)

Anyway, I am having trouble keeping my head totally erect. I had the habit of dropping and pushing my head forward somewhat to be more inline with my shoulders. I kept my arms parallel to the ground and dipped my head to adjust for it. Hard to explain any other way.

Now I am concentrating on keeping my head totally erect. Hard to do it without concentration thus far.

Yeah when I'm practicing, I hear his words in my head about not lowing head to gun, bring gun up to where it needs to be. There's a 25 minute video of his called "How to shoot a pistol" and that's where I picked up some of his teaching. I can't link it right now as I'm at work. Perhaps someone could be good enough to do it for me.

Justin