Mississippi Gun Owners banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,137 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I'm reading a book called "Surgical Speed Shooting" by Andy Stanford. I'm sure some of you have read it. In the book he extols the virtues of using the isosceles method of shooting versus the Weaver stance.

I was trained at Rangemaster, owned and operated by Tom Givens. I was taught a Weaver stance, where the barrel of the weapon lines up with the primary shooting arm, and the support arm comes up to kinda form a "D" shape (if viewed from above). Stanford gives his arguments for the isosceles, where a line along the long axis of the barrel would run medial (toward the middle) of the strong arm, and line up (obviously) with the dominant eye. The stance isn't quite a perfect triangle, because the fact that the support hand angles slightly down and sits slightly forward of the shooting hand will necessarily move that side of the shooters body forward. This can look a lot like a modified Weaver if you're not an expert at such things. The author argues that virtually all competitors who routinely win use the isosceles, due to it's inherently superior ability to bring you back on target faster (lock the wrists, with the support wrist being angled slightly down and compensating for recoil).

So, all that to ask again-which do y'all use, and why? Really interested in Cliff's views on this! :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
I really liked my results with the Isoceles but transitioned back to a modified Weaver 4 years ago. Maybe that's why I'm regressing in my skills???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
While this may show my lack of knowledge, or whatever, here goes.

For me it’s the Weaver with the pistol tucked in tight to the web of my right hand, and in line with the long arm bones. The weak hand comes across for the support.

I have tried the isosceles but what happens to me is this.

I bring the pistol up and over to join with the support hand forming the “isosceles” triangle. What I find is that the pistol is either still in line with the right arm bones thus canted off to my left, needing a little extra time to get it realigned, or the pistol is on target but has fallen out of line with the right long arm bones and some stability is lost.

Of course, I may be doing it all wrong, but there you have my humble opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
The isosceles is the best. You can move, and take cover into any position needed. If you learn to shoot just from one side of your body, you cant deal with cover from the opposite side very well.

I can go into a weaver style if I need to, but a weaver shooter can't do the same.

The isosceles works in free-style, strong and off hands, kneeling with 1 knee, or 2. Cover, barricades, prone, on the move...just any position a shooter needs to deal with.

Hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Just for the fun of it, let’s take a walk back in time. Say, to the early 60’s. At that time I was shooting on the Visalia CA police pistol range, shooting 22, 38, & 45.

As I recall (that by the way is the operative qualifier – “as I recall”) the stance was a bladed-to-the-target, one-handed hold, thinking maybe “I’m no wimp; I don’t use two hands” (or something like that).

The main concern was what to do with that left hand – stick it in a pocket, put it on the hip akimbo-style, stick it behind the back, slip it under the belt, make a fist across your chest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
My "The main concern was what to do with that left hand..." in yesterday’s post sure got things stirred up. Might as well stir the pot some more.

Again, as I recall (assuming my memory’s any good) back in the early 60’s we didn’t know what ear protection was (what’d ya say?). In retrospect, that sure was macho-stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
I use the isosceles position. I believe the pistol recoils in a straighter line with this position. I also have an easier time finding the Natural Point of Aim with the isosceles position. Of course, most of my shooting with handguns is done with one hand, anyway and I do not shoot in many combat matches.

Also with the isosceles position, I believe the grip and pressure put on the handgun during recoil is more repeatable. If there are differences in grip and the tension put on the handgun, the result will be inconsistencies in elevation. This is because the barrel of the handgun is in motion before the bullet leaves the barrel. Tighter grip or pressure causes lower shots and looser grip causes higher shots.

If the Natural Point of Aim is not attained, inconsistencies will be from right to left. When the handgun is muscled to point of aim and you are not in the Natural Point of Aim, the handgun has a tendency to go to the natural point of aim as it recoils, causing the differences in windage.

Doug
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
662 Posts
Well Ed Hunter I can relate. My dad, the californian, taught me to shoot a pistol in 1960. The left hand goes in my pocket. Bought a Colt Python in 1970. Earplugs ? Wussy. Still have better hearing than most helicopter pilots. What'd he say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
Xd357, what kind of stance was I using at the meet & greet? Whatever it is thats what I use. I guess it would be more isosceles. I never could get into a weaver stance and keep it while shooting, I would always feel like I was shooting with one hand or something, hard to explain.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,028 Posts
nhstk02 said:
Xd357, what kind of stance was I using at the meet & greet? Whatever it is thats what I use. I guess it would be more isosceles. I never could get into a weaver stance and keep it while shooting, I would always feel like I was shooting with one hand or something, hard to explain.
Your right it was the isosceles. It's more natural for me also.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top