Which did you grow up with, and when? What do you use now?
I started shooting pistols in the mid 80’s with the Weaver and have never tried to change. I’m about to start setting up a basic steel-target pistol range behind the house and it got me to thinking about fundamentals.
Back in the day, it was a Starsky and Hutch Isosceles. Now I prefer a modified isosceles. Arms not quite fully extended, elbows slightly bent. I’m in more of an upright position, instead of being all combat forward. It’s a more relaxed shooting position.
🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog “Molon Labe”
You should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everything goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." -Bob Hagel
“I’d like to be a good rifleman…..but, I prefer to be a good hunter”! memtb 2024
Which did you grow up with, and when? What do you use now?
I started shooting pistols in the mid 80’s with the Weaver and have never tried to change. I’m about to start setting up a basic steel-target pistol range behind the house and it got me to thinking about fundamentals.
I started in 1980 with the Weaver, but about twenty years ago I transitioned to the isosceles.
I stand straight upright, chin parallel to the ground. Just like a normal standing person. Then clap your hands together in front of you, like your trying to catch a bug. Both arms are slightly bent and not hyper extended. They're both evenly extended. Then put a gun in them. Then, without moving your head or scrunching anything up in your neck or shoulders, just lift the gun up until you're looking at the sights.
I hold the gun with my hands and wrists. Everything else (biceps, shoulders, back) are relaxed except for the tension needed to suspend the weight of the pistol in front of me.
Stance (foot position and any slight lean) are dictated by how you might need to fight or move. They have nothing to do with the very minor recoil of a handgun.
Strong weaver when maximizing the use of cover/corners, isosceles when a long shot is called for and/or a blended transition of isosceweaverles otherwise, depending on the angles, environment and movement through rooms/doorways.
I stand straight upright, chin parallel to the ground. Just like a normal standing person. Then clap your hands together in front of you, like your trying to catch a bug. Both arms are slightly bent and not hyper extended. They're both evenly extended. Then put a gun in them. Then, without moving your head or scrunching anything up in your neck or shoulders, just lift the gun up until you're looking at the sights.
I hold the gun with my hands and wrists. Everything else (biceps, shoulders, back) are relaxed except for the tension needed to suspend the weight of the pistol in front of me.
Stance (foot position and any slight lean) are dictated by how you might need to fight or move. They have nothing to do with the very minor recoil of a handgun.
Where I am too.
When I was in the Navy, this topic cane up with some Gunner's Mates and I. Their feeling was the Weaver exposed your sides to much where body armor tended not to be the best. (Under armpits to waist- no plates)
Grew up on both, had plenty of training in both. Most LEO training usually preaches Isosceles because of maximizing your vest protection. I’ve always struggled with that idea, believing more towards Weaver to minimize available target area. Basically, I use a “Modified Weaver” which I’m much more comfortable in. Just my opinion, but to me it utilizes the best attributes of both. Once you leave the comfort of the range, and find yourself in a bad spot, situation and available cover may dictate what works better more than anything else.
I stand straight upright, chin parallel to the ground. Just like a normal standing person. Then clap your hands together in front of you, like your trying to catch a bug. Both arms are slightly bent and not hyper extended. They're both evenly extended. Then put a gun in them. Then, without moving your head or scrunching anything up in your neck or shoulders, just lift the gun up until you're looking at the sights.
I hold the gun with my hands and wrists. Everything else (biceps, shoulders, back) are relaxed except for the tension needed to suspend the weight of the pistol in front of me.
Stance (foot position and any slight lean) are dictated by how you might need to fight or move. They have nothing to do with the very minor recoil of a handgun.
Where I am too.
When I was in the Navy, this topic cane up with some Gunner's Mates and I. Their feeling was the Weaver exposed your sides to much where body armor tended not to be the best. (Under armpits to waist- no plates)
Teal, this isn't to criticize you but the rumor of "blading" attached to Weaver. I only say this because I took the API 250 course way back in 19 hundred and 90 at the peak of Coopers' school (before he sold it to Rich Gee) and the years he and his instructors spent teaching the Weaver grip. There was no "blading" or turning of the torso sideways exposing your onside ribs that was taught as far as my experience goes.
We started out pretty much as Blue described,.. up right stance, feet squared up to the target with maybe opposite side foot one toe length ahead of shooting side foot...no awkward turning of the torso. Only difference was the push pull of hands(support arm bent more downward, engaging hand pulling against firing hand pushing with arm straight) on firearm to counter muzzle rise under recoil, the mainstay of the Weaver grip.
The whole blading thing as far as I can tell came about from people looking at the cover of Coopers' book "To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth", depicting him on a Javelina hunt standing sideways during a shot and assuming this was Weaver and ran with it, taking the visual out of context. Then the internet came about and the rest is history.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?" _Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience." - Alexander Hamilton
