I am providing a forum for voicing your opinions. I claim no responsibility for any opinions expressed here.
WEAVER VS. ISOSCELES I've heard Isosceles described as the stance for people who "play with handguns, rather than fight with handguns." There are some people who believe Weaver is the only way to go and some who believe Isosceles is the only way to go. Whatever. I was trained from the start to use the Weaver stance, but I did not realize until later that I shoot using the Isosceles stance. A few years ago, I started training with an instructor who teaches Isosceles. One day, I was looking at some pictures from a match a few years ago, and I realized I was shooting in a stance that was definitely not Weaver. At the time of the picture, I knew nothing about Isosceles, had never seen it, and certainly had never trained using it, yet that's how I shot. I've tried on several occasions to go back to Weaver, as I was taught, but that position is not comfortable for me, nor does it feel as natural to me. For the record, I shoot 9mm and .40 caliber most of the time, and I do not shoot downloaded ammo. I personally can tell very little difference in my performance between the two calibers. Yes, .40 has a little more recoil than 9mm, but it has more recoil no matter which stance you use. I even shoot .45 sometimes, and I can shoot it well with Isosceles. There is one main difference in the philosophy of the two stances. Weaver is based on the idea that you must control the recoil by forcing the gun to move as little as possible. Isosceles is based on the idea that you simply "go with the flow" of the recoil and bring the sights back down and realign the sights up as quickly as possible. I have seen videos of several gun fights showing people using the Isosceles stance when under life-threatening circumstances, even when they were trained to shoot using the Weaver stance. Some studies even indicate people will use a one handed grip when the fight happens close range, which most do. You know subconsciously you can fire the first shot faster this way. Am I saying you must use one stance over the other? Certainly not. Arguing the difference between the two is like arguing whether you should buy a Chevrolet or a Ford. Whichever works better for you is the one you should use. There are arguments for and against both stances, and there are some really good shooters that shoot using the Weaver stance and some really good shooters that shoot using the Isosceles stance. Whichever of the two works best for you personally is the one you should use. Also, just as a matter of note, what most people call "Isosceles" today is actually not truly Isosceles or Weaver. It's actually basically somewhere in between. Marty Hayes refers to this as "Isoweaver" and I refer to it as "IsosceWeaver." ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: Some people say the stance you use is merely a base shooting platform anyway. In a real fight, because there are so many different possibilities as to what may happen, there is no way to know what stance you will use, or if you will even use a stance. You may have to shoot one handed, or from the ground, or whatever. It seems this may be a good reason to learn how to shoot as many different ways and in as many different positions as you can. Robert V. Robinson "Robbie" My Experience and Training