Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Founder
Joined
·
16,869 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This evening a guy post a comment on one of my handgun videos on youtube.

hey google modified weaver stance and you won't look like a complete noob.
I have tried the weaver stance and dont like it. Back in the mid 1980s at least one gun magazine wrote about a stance used my the Israeli military - I know it was at least one magazine because I remember reading the article.

The magazine interviewed a combat handgun instructor (from the Israeli military) who said the square with the target, arms straight out, knees slightly bent stance (some people may call this the isosceles stance?) was a more natural stance and better for combat then the classic weaver stance. I do not remember the exact name of the stance mentioned in the magazine.

And now here we are 20 years later and Todd Jarrett is giving almost the same exact instructions as the gun magazine.

Personally, I dont care for the weaver stance (where one arm is straight out and the other one is bent). It feels unnatural and awkward, even in a normal situation, much less a stressful one. I get much better control of the pistol and come back on target faster with both arms straight out and square with the target.

Anyway here are a couple of videos.




This is more like what the Israeli combat handgun instructor was showing.



And my video on youtube - this was the first time for me to shoot this pistol.

 

·
Deo VIndice
Joined
·
6,108 Posts
kev:

the guy that was bent at the knees...looks alomost painful...I don't think I will be trying that stance as it appears too awkward for me.
 

·
not a nut
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
To each there own, everybody is going to have a different comfort level, what works best for them may not work as well for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
kev:

the guy that was bent at the knees...looks alomost painful...I don't think I will be trying that stance as it appears too awkward for me.
but consider the fact that he was presenting a smaller target than he would have otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
This evening a guy post a comment on one of my handgun videos on youtube.



I have tried the weaver stance and dont like it. Back in the mid 1980s at least one gun magazine wrote about a stance used my the Israeli military - I know it was at least one magazine because I remember reading the article.

The magazine interviewed a combat handgun instructor (from the Israeli military) who said the square with the target, arms straight out, knees slightly bent stance (some people may call this the isosceles stance?) was a more natural stance and better for combat then the classic weaver stance. I do not remember the exact name of the stance mentioned in the magazine.

And now here we are 20 years later and Todd Jarrett is giving almost the same exact instructions as the gun magazine.

Personally, I dont care for the weaver stance (where one arm is straight out and the other one is bent). It feels unnatural and awkward, even in a normal situation, much less a stressful one. I get much better control of the pistol and come back on target faster with both arms straight out and square with the target.
Kev, the weaver stance in my book is good for only one thing, target shooting. It is 100% repeatable 100% of the time supplying consistency. HOWEVER it also has you facing full bodied, your opponent should you use it in a shoot out. This means it makes you a bigger target. The dolt who sent you the message obviously knows nothing about real combat tactics, the fact is in a fist fight, knife fight, all forms of martial arts and in a gunfight you ALWAYS present the narrowest, smallest target humanly possible, be it with cover or by turning your body at an angle to your opponent. This also allows you to place one foot to the rear at an angle, anchoring you, making for a more stable platform to handle recoil and retarget faster. many people find this uncomfortable but it allows your strong hand to come from the back, and that arm to anchor against your pectoral muscle for a more steady hold. And depending on how she is built some women have an advantage over us men using this technique... extra pectoral padding...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I like the first video alot of good instruction. I am a firearms instructor for the KDOC and agree with everything but, that the weaver stance is not a good stance for anything other then target shooting. I have been shooting for years a exclusively use the weaver stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Kev, the weaver stance in my book is good for only one thing, target shooting. It is 100% repeatable 100% of the time supplying consistency. HOWEVER it also has you facing full bodied, your opponent should you use it in a shoot out. This means it makes you a bigger target. The dolt who sent you the message obviously knows nothing about real combat tactics, the fact is in a fist fight, knife fight, all forms of martial arts and in a gunfight you ALWAYS present the narrowest, smallest target humanly possible, be it with cover or by turning your body at an angle to your opponent. This also allows you to place one foot to the rear at an angle, anchoring you, making for a more stable platform to handle recoil and retarget faster. many people find this uncomfortable but it allows your strong hand to come from the back, and that arm to anchor against your pectoral muscle for a more steady hold. And depending on how she is built some women have an advantage over us men using this technique... extra pectoral padding...

Most armed forces train to square up with the target. When you are fully facing an enemy combatant you cover the most area with your Armor, SAPI plates, etc. If they turned to the side like you are suggesting they would end up taking a round in a place where they didn't have any protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
when i was doing my training for concealed carry the cop was going on about the weaver stance but what he was showing us had nothing to do with bending the knees
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I use both the weaver stance and the more square stance, but in two different types of shooting.

For Precision shooting competitions I use the weaver stance. The straight arm is more stable and repeatable - I get better groups that way.

For IPSC shooting competitions I use a more square stance. Both arms are slightly and EQUALLY bent - this allows me to shoot faster as the pistol is recoiling straight up, not to one side or the other. Bent arms also transmit less recoil to the shoulders, which is good.

With both techniques my legs would be slightly bent, feet at 45 degrees (where possible, in IPSC matches you never know what the shooting position will be like exactly) to the target to prevent the recoil from affecting my center of gravity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I say this alot, and I'll say it again.

Chocolate and vanilla.

Point being, no one thing works best for everyone, so thank goodness we have choices.

Kev, anyone who emails you and says something as juvenile as he did is not worth wasting two seconds of your time wondering about in the first place.

Only children and uneducated persons speak to other adults like that, and neither are worth the hastle unless they are part of your family in my book.
 

·
Pursuing freedom.
Joined
·
296 Posts
Use whatever is comfortable for you. I don't have to explain my shooting ability to anyone. Too many people giving advice that do not know what works for you. For all he knows you have a back problem and your stance is the most comfortable, effective, position you can consistently maintain. And any stance is about consistency.

BTW, how do you like that XD? I have that same weapon. After getting it home and shooting it, I sold my two Glocks in .45 & .40, and the two Rugers in .45 ACP.
 

·
Sugar-free
Joined
·
4,184 Posts
Most armed forces train to square up with the target. When you are fully facing an enemy combatant you cover the most area with your Armor, SAPI plates, etc. If they turned to the side like you are suggesting they would end up taking a round in a place where they didn't have any protection.
Right on. We were trained to square up with the target, presenting them with our SAPI plate. It's way better to take multiple frontal hits in your plate then one in the side, or under your arm. But what you really want to do is be the first one to get steel on target. Square up real fast, and shoot immediately. Your chances of winning a gunfight are about 10 times greater if you are the first one to score a hit,even an extremity hit.
 

·
Pilot
Joined
·
171 Posts
Most armed forces train to square up with the target. When you are fully facing an enemy combatant you cover the most area with your Armor, SAPI plates, etc. If they turned to the side like you are suggesting they would end up taking a round in a place where they didn't have any protection.
I use to live next door to an FBI agent who said the exact same thing, for the same reason. If they do hit you it is most likely in the thick frontal armor not on the thinner or (sometimes) non existent side armor, vest depending.

On the original topic, Kev that guy posting about your vid on youtube is very obviously the 'noob', thinks since he had heard someone talk about the weaver that all of a sudden he is an expert. Go with whatever works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
OK, here we go. Weaver v's Isosceles stance. If I had a quarter for every time I've talked about this then I could buy a couple more AK's.

Fist of all, stance doesn't really matter. You can "literally" hold the weapon upside down in your hand, reach behind your back and lift one leg off the ground. If at that time, you pull the trigger and the sights are in line, the bullet will hit the target, every time. But stance is still important, for other reasons.

I can hit the target accurately from either stance, but I unquestionably prefer the Isosceles stance. Some good things about the Isosceles are:

1. When faced with a sudden threat, the bodies natural reaction is to turn and square with the threat(not to blade). Think, if the wall was suddenly falling down on you. You would square with the threat and then decide what to do next. Again, your first reaction would be to square up to it, bend your knees and hunch down. That is our startle response. That is the Isosceles stance.

2. Despite the fact that you are not wearing body armor, you are quite possibly better off squaring with the threat. This is because if you take a bullet in the side, it will pass through your entire chest area from left to right or right to left. In doing this the round stands a much better chance of going through vitals, than if you would have taken the round square on. Yes you are slightly smaller when you blade, but you are exposing much more of your vital organs.

3. When you square with the threat and shove both arms out straight, you are creating a natural point of aim, independent of your sights. This increases your chance of hitting the target. Of course try and use your sights as well, if possible.

4. When we walk, we are not bladed to our direction of travel. In a gunfight, you want to get off the X and this will require you to move. You can not move quickly from a bladed stance. The best you can hope for is a slow step and drag motion, which is not quick enough. In a gunfight the step and drag quickly turns to what I call the "Curly shuffle", or a trot, which certainly isn't a good shooting platform.

5. The Isosceles stance is not a new stance, it was definitely used as early as World War II. It may have not been called the Isosceles but that is what it was. See the book, "Kill or Get Killed" for instruction and photographs. Unlike the Weaver stance, the Isosceles stance was developed for a combat environment(before the Weaver Stance), not recreation shooting, where the targets don't shoot back.

P.S. Shoot however you want, it's your butt on the line. :thumb:
 

·
Semper non compos mentis
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Wanker Stance

Then there's the Wanker stance, aka hiphop-rappa-gansta stance.
You still dead, but man you look FIERCE dyin' :rolleyes:
Why do they (hiphop-rappa-ganstas) do this??

gangsta 1.JPG
 

·
11B3P
Joined
·
754 Posts
I like both stances and I have used them before on many occasions.

I like the weaver for longer range shots and sometimes use it for plinking.

The isosceles is my preferred and most natural technique.

Before the military and law enforcement I used the weaver exclusively. Once I got in the situation of people shooting at me and running at me with weapons I found out that my reaction was to face the threat and squat (bend at the knees slightly). I began to practice that way since I knew that is how my body reacted when confronted by a lethal threat.

To each his own but I am standing by isosceles.:thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
The video of the guy shooting from the crouch position is almost exactly the old "FBI crouch taught in the 50's and 60's, but pretty well phased out by the mid 70's.
(Dagnabit, I'm showing my age.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
Most armed forces train to square up with the target. When you are fully facing an enemy combatant you cover the most area with your Armor, SAPI plates, etc. If they turned to the side like you are suggesting they would end up taking a round in a place where they didn't have any protection.
Gee I didnt see any mention of military or military gear there now did I... We are discussing CIVILLIAN situations my friend
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top