Isosceles vs Weaver Stances

**R L Suehr** · February 12th, 2018, 03:10 AM

I shoot modified Weaver. Learned Weaver and it just stuck.

**mbinpa** · February 12th, 2018, 08:06 AM

Back 40 years or so ago I was introduced to both stances and was told to use whichever I was most comfortable and stable with. IIRC the Weaver stance came about with the introduction of body armor - present a full chest to the opponent so you don't risk getting side shot. As I don't wear armor, and I wanted the most stable platform for SD loads, I went with the Isoscele (strong foot back) stance.

When I teach others to shoot, especially females or folks shooting heavy loads, I have discovered a method of demonstrating the difference in stances. I have the person stand in the Weaver stance (feet and shoulders facing together, parallel to the target, knees slightly bent) and I give them a slight push to the chest. In that stance most lose their stability very easily and stagger backwards. Not good for recoil control, especially for newbies. Then I get them in the Isosceles stance (strong foot and shoulder back and weak elbow bent) and give them the same push to the chest and they are able to withstand or recover much better.

For folks not wearing body armor the choice comes down to consistency, accuracy and comfort.

With all this being said, one has to realize that most 'social encounters' in real life do not give time for proper stance or even target sight alignment - check out all the Youtube videos. Shootings usually end up in very close quarters (it had better be for a civilian to have a good SD shoot outside the home), off balance and one handed or on the run. Classical training goes out the window and the techniques learned in just basic firearms handling come into play. If you practice enough and can grip the pistol the same every time you should know where the round is going regardless of aim or stance. At least within a couple of yards.

One of the reasons I switched for 1911 to Glock is simply magazine capacity. I realize the SD most encounters end very quickly (target goes down quickly, leaves the scene quickly, or you go down) but in reality most shootings under pressure are 'spray and pray' and I would really like a larger capacity. Don't get me wrong, the one who trains and shoots a lot will do much better, but in the few seconds thing happen there is little time to shoot like you do at the range.

**MARINE DIVISION TWO** · February 12th, 2018, 09:35 AM

Trained both ways a long time ago,instructor said if you can do weaver stance and be accurate on target acquistion you will present less of a target mass ! to this day I only do the weaver stance and works for me.

**lts1ow** · February 12th, 2018, 09:36 AM

Pistol shooting for me is weaver and standing rifle/shotgun is isosceles. You only make the mistake of shooting a heavy 12g load off balance once.

**Yoder** · February 12th, 2018, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by mbinpa

Back 40 years or so ago I was introduced to both stances and was told to use whichever I was most comfortable and stable with. IIRC the Weaver stance came about with the introduction of body armor - present a full chest to the opponent so you don't risk getting side shot. As I don't wear armor, and I wanted the most stable platform for SD loads, I went with the Isoscele (strong foot back) stance.

When I teach others to shoot, especially females or folks shooting heavy loads, I have discovered a method of demonstrating the difference in stances. I have the person stand in the Weaver stance (feet and shoulders facing together, parallel to the target, knees slightly bent) and I give them a slight push to the chest. In that stance most lose their stability very easily and stagger backwards. Not good for recoil control, especially for newbies. Then I get them in the Isosceles stance (strong foot and shoulder back and weak elbow bent) and give them the same push to the chest and they are able to withstand or recover much better.

For folks not wearing body armor the choice comes down to consistency, accuracy and comfort.

With all this being said, one has to realize that most 'social encounters' in real life do not give time for proper stance or even target sight alignment - check out all the Youtube videos. Shootings usually end up in very close quarters (it had better be for a civilian to have a good SD shoot outside the home), off balance and one handed or on the run. Classical training goes out the window and the techniques learned in just basic firearms handling come into play. If you practice enough and can grip the pistol the same every time you should know where the round is going regardless of aim or stance. At least within a couple of yards.

One of the reasons I switched for 1911 to Glock is simply magazine capacity. I realize the SD most encounters end very quickly (target goes down quickly, leaves the scene quickly, or you go down) but in reality most shootings under pressure are 'spray and pray' and I would really like a larger capacity. Don't get me wrong, the one who trains and shoots a lot will do much better, but in the few seconds thing happen there is little time to shoot like you do at the range.

You have them backwards. Isosceles is knees bent facing forward and better with body armor. Weaver is arm bent, push pull on foot in front of the other.

**Ranger P229** · February 12th, 2018, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by ArmyVet

Bullseye shooting and Action Pistol competition are still two distinct sports. If you dig up pics of early Action Pistol shooters, you'll probably find a few of them using a weaver or modified weaver stance. The stance taught during WWII is kind of like a one handed isosceles stance.

Attachment 105157

Think of the isosceles stance as a fighting stance you'll likely assume when threatened. The position of your body relative to the pistol along with a proper grip offers excellent recoil control and maneuverability.

ETA: I found this decent video on stances. Seems spot on...

Isosceles is a fighting stance? I thought a bladed (weaver or modified weaver) is regarded as a fighting stance.

**Ranger P229** · February 12th, 2018, 01:12 PM

A number of people here are confused about weaver and isosceles, they have them backwards. Strong foot back like you’re boxing is weaver, NOT isosceles.

**JenniferG** · February 12th, 2018, 04:45 PM

Paul Harrell explains stance quite clearly. One size doesn't fit all.

**Yoder** · February 12th, 2018, 05:42 PM

I think this is something that nobody will agree on. I look at it this way. What are the best shooters in the world currently doing? Isosceles. Ben Stoeger, Rob Leatham, Jerry Miculek, Max Michel an Bob Vogel to name a few all shoot Isosceles. There is probably a good reason for it. I'm not a tactical ninja so I don't know the personal defense aspect of it, but if were talking just shooting I think Isosceles is the way to go. Also I could never understand the push pull thing. Why would you want to pull something that is already recoiling back toward you? Also both arms are not used together in Weaver. It seems like recoil would be controlled much better in an Isosceles stance than weaver.

**mpan72** · February 12th, 2018, 06:44 PM

I made a joke earlier in the thread but I use a simple stance that would be closer to weaver than isosceles. It is what felt comfortable to me when I started shooting. All most everything I have done with a gun I taught myself.