Isosceles or Weaver stance

[M1911]

I agree with this, which is why Weaver came so naturally to me. I spent most of my life practicing various fighting disciplines and because of that, a "fighting stance", which Weaver resembles is what my body does instinctively. I have been trying very hard to adapt to Iso, but intrinsic movements are hard to break.

I'm guessing that you are assuming that Iso means having your feet side-by-side, and you are more comfortable having your support foot forward. The fact is, the position of your feet is completely unimportant when shooting Iso. Furthermore, you should practice with your feet in different positions, so that you are comfortable shooting no matter what your foot position is.

You can shoot Iso with your feet side-by-side. You can shoot Iso with your support foot forward. You can shoot Iso with your strong foot forward. You can shoot Iso while kneeling. You can shoot Iso while leaning around a barricade. I've watched a USPSA Grand Master shoot Iso while jumping up and down on one foot.

Put your feet however you like them. Now stretch out your arms in front of you. Now you are in the Iso shooting position. Done.

 

[just jim]

I am an old fart and have been heavily involved in shooting all my life. Took a long time for the game shooting to get out here so IPSC was the first game that came along. The guys who brought out the game had rules set by a consensus that you must have a power factor and people had to shoot over a chronograph to prove you met power factor. See back then it was 45 or 9mm and 9mm didn't meet power factor so 45's ruled.

Games bring on gamesmanship and it wasn't long until the 38 super was loaded to reach power factor. Add to that with compensators and 20 rnd mags the recoil was down to nothing so along came the isosceles stance in the game. Because most of IPSC is shot in a box configuration isosceles was a winner because you covered the course without foot movement once you set into stance.

So big bore and weaver stance didn't win the games anymore and all the new games were shot in the same ranges and all the games the guys get it down to little recoil and go fast. It's the way games are.

I shoot weaver because my guns recoil so I like a faster recovery for the second shot. I like my arms lower to give more protection to my body and less distance to travel on a reload. The last thing I like is as I get older that push pull of the weaver slows down that old man shake so that front site will be clear and on target. Just my opinion gents, shoot what ever way works best for you.

 

[M1911]

I shoot weaver because my guns recoil so I like a faster recovery for the second shot. I like my arms lower to give more protection to my body and less distance to travel on a reload. The last thing I like is as I get older that push pull of the weaver slows down that old man shake so that front site will be clear and on target. Just my opinion gents, shoot what ever way works best for you.

Sorry, dude, but you're totally wrong on this. Lots of people shoot USPSA major, without compensators, and use ISO. The claim that Weaver is better at controlling recoil is bunk.

I used to shoot Single Stack Major, using a .45 ACP 1911, with no compensator. And I shoot ISO.

Watch some of Supermoto's videos. He shoots .40 Major. He shoots ISO. And his recoil control is better than yours or mine.

God Bless Jeff Cooper, but he lead people down the wrong road on this subject. His assertion that only Weaver allows one to control recoil of a .45 ACP has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by so many people. But Jeff Cooper was wrong. That's why the top competitors in USPSA in all divisions (including those without compensators) shoot ISO.

 

[Supermoto]

I am an old fart and have been heavily involved in shooting all my life. Took a long time for the game shooting to get out here so IPSC was the first game that came along. The guys who brought out the game had rules set by a consensus that you must have a power factor and people had to shoot over a chronograph to prove you met power factor. See back then it was 45 or 9mm and 9mm didn't meet power factor so 45's ruled.

Games bring on gamesmanship and it wasn't long until the 38 super was loaded to reach power factor. Add to that with compensators and 20 rnd mags the recoil was down to nothing so along came the isosceles stance in the game. Because most of IPSC is shot in a box configuration isosceles was a winner because you covered the course without foot movement once you set into stance.

So big bore and weaver stance didn't win the games anymore and all the new games were shot in the same ranges and all the games the guys get it down to little recoil and go fast. It's the way games are.

I shoot weaver because my guns recoil so I like a faster recovery for the second shot. I like my arms lower to give more protection to my body and less distance to travel on a reload. The last thing I like is as I get older that push pull of the weaver slows down that old man shake so that front site will be clear and on target. Just my opinion gents, shoot what ever way works best for you.

Jeez, when was the last time you went to a IPSC/USPSA match?

 

[M1911]

Supermoto, post one of your videos so that he can see that Iso works just fine, even with big bore recoil and no compensators.

 

[just jim]

Sorry, dude, but you're totally wrong on this. Lots of people shoot USPSA major, without compensators, and use ISO. The claim that Weaver is better at controlling recoil is bunk.

I used to shoot Single Stack Major, using a .45 ACP 1911, with no compensator. And I shoot ISO.

Watch some of Supermoto's videos. He shoots .40 Major. He shoots ISO. And his recoil control is better than yours or mine.

God Bless Jeff Cooper, but he lead people down the wrong road on this subject. His assertion that only Weaver allows one to control recoil of a .45 ACP has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by so many people. But Jeff Cooper was wrong. That's why the top competitors in USPSA in all divisions (including those without compensators) shoot ISO.

Yep if you want to play the GAME it won't win....dude

- - - Updated - - -

Jeez, when was the last time you went to a IPSC/USPSA match?

In honesty a long time ago, quit the pistol games to shoot sub machingun games.

 

[drgrant]

In honesty a long time ago, quit the pistol games to shoot sub machingun games.

Fail at rap battle attempt, I saw what you did there... "You guys play checkers and I play chess" line... it didn't work.

 

[Supermoto]

Supermoto, post one of your videos so that he can see that Iso works just fine, even with big bore recoil and no compensators.

If I must

here is ISO with different foot positions and transitions


Here is one on the move and a little one foot shooting

 

[just jim]

It's kinda like martial arts, someone always says one way is best but fact is we are not all the same. In my opinion the best way is what ever it takes to hit the target is the best way so practice everything you can.

 

[bill o]

It's kinda like martial arts, someone always says one way is best but fact is we are not all the same. In my opinion the best way is what ever it takes to hit the target is the best way so practice everything you can.

Who is the most successful contemporary practical shooter using the Weaver stance?

 

[M1911]

If I must here is ISO with different foot positions and transitions YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vjrLRQ5pJk Here is one on the move and a little one foot shooting YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYN8JpHC5-c

Just Jim, watch these. Then don't tell me you can't shoot Iso and control recoil with a heavy recoiling caliber -- it just isn't true.

 

[Cloverleaf Firearms Group]

If I must

here is ISO with different foot positions and transitions


Here is one on the move and a little one foot shooting

Dude. That footwork at :20 in 2nd video. So smooth

 

[just jim]

Just Jim, watch these. Then don't tell me you can't shoot Iso and control recoil with a heavy recoiling caliber -- it just isn't true.

Hey look, if you read my post I say pick what works for you as an individual because we are not all the same. A good shooter ,and I have been beaten by a lot of them in years of competing, does what works be it rifle, pistol or what ever. I don't believe in one size fits all.

Back when you had to have the right leather and wear your mags the same way as the winners do you realize the game is for those guys. They have the skill and ability to win the game because they are really good shots. A natural ability that no matter the gear you are not going to win because their skill is far above what you could do. The game is to see who is best at the game. In my day you would never wear the gear on the street.... it's just a game.

In the games it's buy what wins and do what winners do. In life it's what gets the job done.

 

[just jim]

Who is the most successful contemporary practical shooter using the Weaver stance?

Nobody competes with a full house 357 or 44 mag so of course the weaver wouldn't be used in competition. I have killed deer useing it but useing a full size full power handgun. Weaver isn't for games but is good for game

 

[Supermoto]

Dude. That footwork at :20 in 2nd video. So smooth

Thanks, that reload into the first position is probably one of the better I have done at a match...the 2nd reload I almost dropped the mag, jamming me up while trying to shoot while moving

 

[just jim]

Thanks, that reload into the first position is probably one of the better I have done at a match...the 2nd reload I almost dropped the mag, jamming me up while trying to shoot while moving

Our shoots were a cut above what your video shows even back in the 90s. That shooting at a standing still target from the ready and knowing where all the targets are makes the contest too easy. We used reactive targets that you had to knock down a pepper popper to get a one second reveal of a turning target. Running man targets that ran behind no shoots and hidden under rug pressure plates that activated targets. A real contest has reactive targets.

That stand and blam with some side shuffle was never enough to keep us happy

 

[bill o]

We used reactive targets that you had to knock down a pepper popper to get a one second reveal of a turning target. ... A real contest has reactive targets.

Yeah we still have those. They're called drop turners.

 

[bill o]

Nobody competes with a full house 357 or 44 mag so of course the weaver wouldn't be used in competition. I have killed deer useing it but useing a full size full power handgun. Weaver isn't for games but is good for game

Two seconds ago you were talking about how you need Weaver to shoot .45 major, but now you're saying Weaver is only good for hunting? Why will there not be a single person at Single Stack Nationals this week shooting Weaver with their .45 and .40 major? Hundreds of people there will be shooting isosceles.

 

[kalash]

Our shoots were a cut above what your video shows even back in the 90s.

Must be because you were using Weaver

 

[just jim]

Two seconds ago you were talking about how you need Weaver to shoot .45 major, but now you're saying Weaver is only good for hunting? Why will there not be a single person at Single Stack Nationals this week shooting Weaver with their .45 and .40 major? Hundreds of people there will be shooting isosceles.

I was giving you an old man's historical view of the games, it used to be only 45s,the weaver stance would win. The games change and so do the gamesmen. I only shoot weaver stance because that is what I shoot best with. The games require a certain grip just like golf or other tool games, it's no suprise folkes all do the same . It's why I left the game, there is far more to be learned than weaver or isosceles and much better adrenaline when the games are not the same every time. Just my opinion, not here to change minds.

Edited to add, they build the games to be won with the guns and shooting styles of the players. They wouldn't put targets in that don't fit the game.

 

[just jim]

Must be because you were using Weaver

Well they were a lot more challenging that what I saw, people can be very creative. Sometimes at the end of a hard dirty stage we would hang a chalk egg as the stop time target. That adrenaline and out of breath you would be surprised how often it's missed at 5 yardsBut then you guys probably have all kinds of challenges in your matches?

 

[bill o]

Well they were a lot more challenging that what I saw, people can be very creative. Sometimes at the end of a hard dirty stage we would hang a chalk egg as the stop time target. That adrenaline and out of breath you would be surprised how often it's missed at 5 yardsBut then you guys probably have all kinds of challenges in your matches?

I've always thought USPSA was challenging.

 

[Supermoto]

I have heard that early IPSC had a lot more obstacles to navigate, but also a lot more box to box and standards drills. Some big name company sponsorships too.

 

[just jim]

I've always thought USPSA was challenging.

That was better but we call that a hose down We would have put mostly steel up and put red steel no shoots in front that made you work to hit the target. Those red no shoots falling really stresses the shooter and the game is fun..Good layout on that and nice run by the shooter..till he run out of ammo

 

[just jim]

I have heard that early IPSC had a lot more obstacles to navigate, but also a lot more box to box and standards drills. Some big name company sponsorships too.

The standard drills were to classifie what class you shot in. I used a standard 45 and milt sparks leather and classified as C class. Not great but I carried the same setup on the street except cut back on magazines. There were some fancy stages too and some action copies like the General Dozier drill and the Sargent York shootdown.

Edited to add, our best shooter in the 5 club circuit we ran was way better than the rest of us. He went to the nationals and came in about 175th...

 

[bill o]

I have heard that early IPSC had a lot more obstacles to navigate, but also a lot more box to box and standards drills. Some big name company sponsorships too.

It looks like it was definitely more baller in terms of dangerous-by-today's-standards obstacles/reholstering, but also props, clothes, mustaches, and sponsors.

 

[bill o]

That was better but we call that a hose down We would have put mostly steel up and put red steel no shoots in front that made you work to hit the target. Those red no shoots falling really stresses the shooter and the game is fun..Good layout on that and nice run by the shooter..till he run out of ammo

Dude, that was a 20 yard mini-activator and swinger! And I did not run out of ammo, I shot that beyotch twice, challenged the calibration and won.

 

[just jim]

Dude, that was a 20 yard mini-activator and swinger! And I did not run out of ammo, I shot that beyotch twice, challenged the calibration and won.

That's another way we won, get in the man's brain and screw with his game. A lot of mind games besides who is good with a gun...

 

[bill o]

That's another way we won, get in the man's brain and screw with his game. A lot of mind games besides who is good with a gun...

Though if your best dude was coming in 175th at Nationals, it would take a LOT of mind games to overcome that.

 

[just jim]

Though if your best dude was coming in 175th at Nationals, it would take a LOT of mind games to overcome that.

175th shows how far behind the rest of us were. Shooter was far better than us yet came in a dismal spot in the nationals. I did beat Rob on one stage and that was only because his gun broke. Love the game back then but there were many better shooters.