Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42
  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Glenmoore, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,708
    Rep Power
    21474846

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunsnwater View Post
    Close your left eye. Find a gun that fits. Use the bead. Keep your right eye open (don't flinch) and call your shot. For us cross dominants the standard how to shoot a shotgun is worthless. Both eyes open, point don't aim. Hogwash for us. If you can not tell why you missed or hit, it becomes a lottery.
    Thanks Guns, that's exactly what I do...

    What I need is more practice, I don't get out enough.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    3,829
    Rep Power
    21474843

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAKIII View Post
    Thanks Guns, that's exactly what I do...

    What I need is more practice, I don't get out enough.
    Browning A5 is the gun that finally fit me. Now when I miss I know it because I wasn't on target. It feels much better than not knowing what was different about the hits and misses. I would see two barrels and try to put the clay between them, like I was using a blow gun. It works for the blow gun but not the shotgun. Shotgun barrels arnt lined up between your eyes like a blow gun.

    Night sights play hell with cross dominant eyes. I see 4 rear dots and two front. With light I don't get this problem. I learned from a great instructor that my need to see the sights was an obstical to night shooting. Learning to trust yourself after the work has been put in, that is a big step.

    I would put follow through right up there with all the other fundamentals. The shot doesn't end with the trigger break. We sometimes pack our bags and go home after the trigger breaks. Mentally. Like hey jobs done.

    It is something to marvel in that to drive a nail, to hit a baseball, to drive a golf ball, throw a dart or shoot a gun. They all require the same attention to the same details.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    I prefer a modified isosceles or modern combat stance. When I first got on the police department is was weaver we were taught. But over the years they adjusted because of rounds striking above the sides of the body armor as mentioned above. In the Marines we shot a modern combat stance which realistically is a combination of the weaver and isosceles. But like anything else situation dictates. I feel that with the boxer stance it let's me use my hips more for engaging multiple targets, point my hips towards the target bending at the knees is more fluid like and the arms follow through. Tank turret engagement is slower, you look like a white guy on the dance floor, and I'm a white guy and that's why I don't dance.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    age: 55, Dillsburg, Pennsylvania
    (York County)
    Posts
    965
    Rep Power
    2327725

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Interesting insights on the subject. One of you said that you have trouble keeping your head erect while in the stance, and yet keeping the head down into the sights with the body and shoulders forward is exactly what Ayoob teaches. He shoots isoceles and well forward into the stance. I prefer a "chapman" stance, somewhere between the two. It feels natural to me. It would be interesting to see what I would revert to if the balloon goes up. I think it is important to know how to shoot from all of them so the body is automatically able to assume whatever position the circumstance calls for. Being able to put heat on target is what will matter in the end. How it got there isn't as important. Being familiar with many things would seem to make all things possible when called for. I doubt any of us will be thinking which stance we prefer when doom comes calling.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Detroit (but Pittsburgh is always home), Michigan
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    2795156

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Just a thought: The key question is what you are trying to do.

    Competitive shooting is not quite the same thing as a self-defense situation. In the former, the paper, wood, and steel isn't going to bean you on the noggin with a baseball bat.

    The real advantage to the Weaver stance and its progeny is that it is more of a CQB fighting stance. The trade off may very well be less accuracy in competitive target shooting.

    That said, I've heard a lot of people 'default' to iso when they're truly under fire in a bolt-from-the-blue attack. Weaver probably does require regular training to stay fresh. (But, aren't you supposed to be training regularly anyway?)

    This is one of those things where, I suspect, the differences are really on the margins that most people won't reach. Like the match-grade barrel in my Kahr pocket pistol. Or the 300HP engine in my BMW. Cool, but barring a major change in my lifestyle and career over the next 30 years, I'm probably not going to be in the zone where I could actually make use of the last 1/10th of potential they offer. I just need minute-of-bad-guy at 10 feet.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Cornwall, New York
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Isosceles stance just has more practical application for majority of the population. It's more aligned with human natural reaction to a threat, it takes less practice to get right, and allows the user to be deadly accurate inside 15m.

    Weaver stance by no means is dead, its just not the go-to stance for training from the start. Guys I've seen on the USMC shooting team use both extremely effectively. As regular Marines, we're taught through the Combat Pistol Program to use the Isosceles stance. The pubs say square shoulders, maybe one boot forward, etc. When you get to the range, coaches tweak from individual to individual until you see the full spectrum from straight square up to pure Weaver. Bottom line, these guys are in the business of taking a very average person and making them a killer with a handgun. It is all based on the needs of the individual, experience, body type, and physical fitness all play into the equation.

    Full disclosure, I always thought I was a Weaver guy until i got some tape of me this last year. I draw into a modified Iso stance under pressure.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Detroit (but Pittsburgh is always home), Michigan
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    2795156

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Quote Originally Posted by HerkBubba View Post
    Isosceles stance just has more practical application for majority of the population. It's more aligned with human natural reaction to a threat, it takes less practice to get right, and allows the user to be deadly accurate inside 15m.

    Weaver stance by no means is dead, its just not the go-to stance for training from the start. Guys I've seen on the USMC shooting team use both extremely effectively. As regular Marines, we're taught through the Combat Pistol Program to use the Isosceles stance. The pubs say square shoulders, maybe one boot forward, etc. When you get to the range, coaches tweak from individual to individual until you see the full spectrum from straight square up to pure Weaver. Bottom line, these guys are in the business of taking a very average person and making them a killer with a handgun. It is all based on the needs of the individual, experience, body type, and physical fitness all play into the equation.
    Good points. And even then, the threats Marines are training to deal with are, broadly speaking, not the same as a civilian carrier in an urban scenario (and which also might be different than a civilian in a rural scenario.)

    Full disclosure, I always thought I was a Weaver guy until i got some tape of me this last year. I draw into a modified Iso stance under pressure.
    Nice! You're probably not the only one. Took a class with Randy Cain some years back, who was a former Gunsite trainer, and later spent time working with Louis Awerbuck doing military, leo, and civilian training. Would've expected him to be a Weaver guy, too, but even he asked people to do the modified Iso/Weaver stance (square on, but with one foot forward) that you describe. His argument was that it was simple, gave some stability for CQB, worked well enough, and that it was what you were likely to go into under pressure anyway, so you might as well train that way.

    Even so, I don't think anyone uses the 'pure' Weaver that was originally taught at Gunsite in the '70s, which involved standing straight-up, neither leaning forward nor backward. Most of the instructors I've had have emphasized leaning forward whatever stance you were otherwise using.

    After spending time at Gunsite myself and years of going into Weaver when I train, I suspect I naturally fall into the Weaver stance when I react now...but I should probably film myself like you did just to see how I react suddenly.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    1,799
    Rep Power
    21474844

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Quote Originally Posted by HerkBubba View Post
    Isosceles stance just has more practical application for majority of the population. It's more aligned with human natural reaction to a threat, it takes less practice to get right, and allows the user to be deadly accurate inside 15m.

    Weaver stance by no means is dead, its just not the go-to stance for training from the start. Guys I've seen on the USMC shooting team use both extremely effectively. As regular Marines, we're taught through the Combat Pistol Program to use the Isosceles stance. The pubs say square shoulders, maybe one boot forward, etc. When you get to the range, coaches tweak from individual to individual until you see the full spectrum from straight square up to pure Weaver. Bottom line, these guys are in the business of taking a very average person and making them a killer with a handgun. It is all based on the needs of the individual, experience, body type, and physical fitness all play into the equation.

    Full disclosure, I always thought I was a Weaver guy until i got some tape of me this last year. I draw into a modified Iso stance under pressure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes_Paulsen View Post
    Good points. And even then, the threats Marines are training to deal with are, broadly speaking, not the same as a civilian carrier in an urban scenario (and which also might be different than a civilian in a rural scenario.)



    Nice! You're probably not the only one. Took a class with Randy Cain some years back, who was a former Gunsite trainer, and later spent time working with Louis Awerbuck doing military, leo, and civilian training. Would've expected him to be a Weaver guy, too, but even he asked people to do the modified Iso/Weaver stance (square on, but with one foot forward) that you describe. His argument was that it was simple, gave some stability for CQB, worked well enough, and that it was what you were likely to go into under pressure anyway, so you might as well train that way.

    Even so, I don't think anyone uses the 'pure' Weaver that was originally taught at Gunsite in the '70s, which involved standing straight-up, neither leaning forward nor backward. Most of the instructors I've had have emphasized leaning forward whatever stance you were otherwise using.

    After spending time at Gunsite myself and years of going into Weaver when I train, I suspect I naturally fall into the Weaver stance when I react now...but I should probably film myself like you did just to see how I react suddenly.
    Based on my event, I agree with you guys about isosceles being more natural to fall into under stress, for me at least. I'm sure that a big part of why I automatically fell into that stance had a lot to do with the fact that that's how I train, but thinking back on the event, I didn't even think about it. It was automatic and natural. I used to train Weaver, but that never came into play.
    Life has a melody.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Detroit (but Pittsburgh is always home), Michigan
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    2795156

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoder View Post
    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.
    IMO, the isometric pressure helps with recoil control and stability because if you're pressing backward with the support hand, your 'main' hand will push forward to resist....thus making sure your strong side arm is already ready to absorb/resist the recoil. Helps with consistency.

    (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a expert marksman in any sense, just my feeling on using the isometric grip for a while now....)

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    5,669
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: When did the weaver stance die?

    All I know is push-pull (isometrics) stabilizes. Is it necessary? I think its more a case of there being more than one way to stabilize. Couple summers ago shooting with a friend, he wasn't doing too well (casual occasional shooter). I suggested the push-pull and it helped him immediately improve.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Want To Sell] Weaver J2.5 El Paso Scope w/ 3/4" Weaver Rings
    By muskieman223 in forum Classifieds Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2015, 03:57 PM
  2. Gov. Corbett stance on 2A
    By Arch007er in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 17th, 2013, 12:55 AM
  3. Shooting Stance
    By Glocker in forum General
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 03:13 PM
  4. The Weaver Stance by Gabe Suarez.
    By JustinM in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 25th, 2007, 02:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Local gun shops | Local shooting ranges | Philadelphia Shooting Ranges | Philadelphia Gun Shops | Pittsburgh Shooting Ranges | Pittsburgh Gun Shops