Results 31 to 40 of 42
Thread: When did the weaver stance die?
-
February 16th, 2017, 09:31 PM #31
-
February 17th, 2017, 03:05 AM #32
Re: When did the weaver stance die?
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.
-
February 28th, 2017, 04:16 AM #33Junior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2016
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 6
- Rep Power
- 0
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.
-
March 11th, 2017, 10:30 AM #34Grand Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Location
-
age: 61 Dillsburg,
Pennsylvania
(York County) - Posts
- 1,099
- Rep Power
- 3329858
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.
-
March 11th, 2017, 10:51 AM #35
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.
-
March 11th, 2017, 11:25 AM #36
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.
-
March 11th, 2017, 11:36 AM #37
Re: When did the weaver stance die?
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.
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.
-
March 11th, 2017, 11:50 AM #38
Re: When did the weaver stance die?
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. Not great, not terrible.
-
March 11th, 2017, 11:57 AM #39
Re: When did the weaver stance die?
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....)
-
March 11th, 2017, 06:42 PM #40
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.
Similar Threads
-
Gov. Corbett stance on 2A
By Arch007er in forum GeneralReplies: 1Last Post: February 17th, 2013, 12:55 AM -
Shooting Stance
By Glocker in forum GeneralReplies: 8Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 03:13 PM -
The Weaver Stance by Gabe Suarez.
By JustinM in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: April 25th, 2007, 02:30 PM
Bookmarks