# Modified Weaver or Modern Iso.



## arnisandyz (Dec 15, 2005)

Which do you prefer and why? I'll post my experiences later, I want to here what you folks think about it first.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 15, 2005)

Not through personal experience, but I have been told that the Modern ISO is easier on the arms then the Modified Weaver.  It has been a year or two since I have handled a handgun and I was taught by my hubby to use the modified Weaver.  I am curious as to what you think about the differences in the two and why the Modern ISO is better or worse?


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 16, 2005)

When I began shooting (about 16 years ago) I was taught the modified-weaver, however the last couple of years I've been using M.I.  It's been difficult trying to reset my muscle memory after years of using the Weaver but I'm getting there (static shooting is fine, the difficulty is when I'm trying to make a fast presentation from the holster).

I made the switch because MI, to me, seems more logical.  The gun is on your centerline with both arms symetrical.  As a result, you are doing most of the aiming with your body and merely "fine-tuning" with the sights.  I feel that this is very desirable for a combat/SD situation where you may not have time to obtain much of a sight-picture.

just my $0.02


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 16, 2005)

I started the same way...modified weaver.  I shot long guns long before handgun and it was a natural balance point for fighting arts, and sports like surfing., skateboarding, etc.

I tried to force myself to learn MI a while back, but kept reverting back to Weaver without thinking about it. I'm seriously giving it another go and I'm starting to see the benifits. The main benefit for me is that at draw it consitantly puts my gun at Point of aim (all those years of 500 punches in horse stance fnally paid off!) But seriously, I think the MI stance is more like the WingChun stance in thier first form with toes pointed slightly in knees bent, but with a more forward weight shift. Another BIG thing that I like about MI is the recoil control. There is very little side to side movement, just up and down front to back. In Weaver's push pull configuration if the pressures aren't equalized sometimes you'll get recoil at a slight diagonal angle which makes it harder for me to find the sights.

All of the top competitive shooters shoot Modern Iso, so they must know something.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 16, 2005)

I tried finding good pictures to show the difference between the Modified Weaver and the Modern ISO but couldn't find any.  Can anyone provide some?


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 16, 2005)

Here is a lesson (with pictures) from one of the pioneers of the Modern Iso...Rob Leatham. I like to use a more bent knee crouched position than shown in the pictures, but thats just personal preference.

http://www.americanshooter.com/Features/RL1/rl1.html

And another article on Weaver vs Iso...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_149_24/ai_65910635#continue


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2005)

Weaver is becoming an antique.
Modern Iso. is where its at these days.

Closest to what your body does under stress and simpler.
No push-pull elbow locked-flexed stuff. To complicated for real gunfights.


----------



## Cujo (Dec 21, 2005)

Used Weaver for years and am now trying to re-train myself in Modern Iso. (old dog new tricks, you know how it is).

Pax
Cujo


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 21, 2005)

Might as well start practicing Iso if your not already, because most likely that's what your going to do in a gunfight anyways regardless of what you train or are "used too" on the range.

Paul


----------



## rschoon (Dec 28, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Might as well start practicing Iso if your not already, because most likely that's what your going to do in a gunfight anyways regardless of what you train or are "used too" on the range.
> 
> Paul


 

I disagree with this statement.  We will do what we train.   I use weaver in IPSC although MI is probable faster.  I do this for 2 reasons.  1, I have been shooting for about 30 years and well...old dog new tricks     2, I have been doing Kenpo for about 15 years and it fits right into the nuetral bow stance.  At this point I haven't even tried to change it.  I have also been in a couple real life gun encounters and I am positive that I used weaver.  (Not 100% but pretty sure anyway.)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 28, 2005)

rschoon said:
			
		

> I disagree with this statement.  We will do what we train.   I use weaver in IPSC although MI is probable faster.  I do this for 2 reasons.  1, I have been shooting for about 30 years and well...old dog new tricks     2, I have been doing Kenpo for about 15 years and it fits right into the nuetral bow stance.  At this point I haven't even tried to change it.  I have also been in a couple real life gun encounters and I am positive that I used weaver.  (Not 100% but pretty sure anyway.)


  I totally agree with Mr Tulisan. IPSC is not real gunfighting. I bet that if, god forbid, you ever get in one you will go MI. I have read a lot about the way people who only shot weaver almost always went iso when the **** hit the fan. I hav also read that a lot depends on if you are suprised when attacked or if you already had the gun out and were ready.


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 28, 2005)

I like to think of Weaver and Modern Iso as "reference points", as there are many positions that can/do happen in between the two positions that don't neccisarily have a name.


----------



## Seig (Dec 29, 2005)

Modern ISO is nothing new, it was around before the MW. I have been shooting the MW for about 20 years. It's all I use, even when I am shooting point of aim, and I have no problems with it.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I totally agree with Mr Tulisan. IPSC is not real gunfighting. I bet that if, god forbid, you ever get in one you will go MI. I have read a lot about the way people who only shot weaver almost always went iso when the **** hit the fan. I hav also read that a lot depends on if you are suprised when attacked or if you already had the gun out and were ready.


 
Yes sir. I'd say what your reading sounds accurate. The tapes show this well too. The overwhelming majority of people, particularly LE trained who are mostly trained in Col. Cooper/weaver/"front site" methods, resort to MI in a spontanious incident. The reason is because under combat stress the body has a natural tendency to square off too the threat because this allows your senses to take in as much information about the threat as it can given the short amount of time. It is just not natural for your body to get into a bladed stance, or to push with one arm and pull with the other, etc. etc.,  when someone in front of you is trying to kill you. You may train something different thousands of times, but you can't beat your bodies physiology. Your bodies physiological make up will win this arguement every time.

In our modern age, we have the benefit of having access to countless amounts of taped footage of shootings. You will be hard pressed to find a bladed stance or a weaver method in any of these spontanious incidents.

This brings up the importance of training with the way our bodies will react under stress in mind. When your training conflicts with what your body will naturally do in a fight, you are setting yourself up for failure. This is why the national average for police officers actually hitting what they aim at in a gunfight is under 15%. The majority of these officers train with the weaver method. There are some departments who train to use a Modern Iso/Applegate-based method, like the California Highway Patrol for example, and are seeing 80-90% hit rates among officers in gunfights.

The data doesn't lie, folks. The footage doesn't lie either.

Now, all that said, most of this applies to spontanious incidents. Combat stress is greatly reduced if it is a planned incident; and especially one where you have distance, time, and cover. One could say that numbers and heavy body armor is also a confidence booster. Under these conditions, your weaver method that you've trained 1000's of times might actually work. But, ask yourselves....how many of you are SWAT officers or something equivelent? Because if your an armed civilian, I certianly hope you aren't going into a planned shooting with all the aforementioned elements in place. Even if you are an operator of some kind, if your a cop on the beat or a security officer, what is the likelyhood that if you have to pull your gun it will be under the conditions of predictability, distance, time, cover, and maybe numbers and heavy armor? Probably not likely. If you are a military operator in a specialized unit where you actually carry a pistol, what conditions do you think you'll be under if you actually have to use it? So you see, the conditions in which using a weaver based method will actually work is very limited. And even with that, the trade off isn't better performance with a weaver vs. Iso anyways... whether or not your "better" *in practice* with one over another will really depend on what you have learned and trained, and not much else.    

Now, a lot of these issues go well beyond the choice of a simple shooting stance, but one could argue that it certainly starts there. Now, I don't expect to change the minds of anyone who isn't willing to persue truth in combat for the sake of itself (which means abandoning ineffective methods regardless of personal desires and background). But I am pretty adement about this stuff because I really do believe that lives hang in the balance, and that the choice between training for reality or not could mean life or death for you or one of your students. So, one can disagree with me, but I won't indulge an arguement unless I see hard facts or data to prove what I say here is contrary. 

I also hope that no one takes offense to my stance on the subject, and I hope that everyone understands that I can be so unyeilding at times because I feel that life saving information is not open to arguement, and is more important then political correctness or politeness.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone...



Paul Janulis


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> I like to think of Weaver and Modern Iso as "reference points", as there are many positions that can/do happen in between the two positions that don't neccisarily have a name.


 
Sorry...a couple of final points from me, then I'll shut up. 

I agree with the quote from Andy... a gunfight is dynamic with a lot of movement; none of this changes the points I made above, however, but the dynamic nature of gunfighting is worth mentioning.

Also, it is important to note that post-incident amnesia after a fight means that you will not accurately remember the details of everything that occured. Most people in shootings say "I did a weaver, etc.," because they think they did because that is how they trained. Yet, the tapes show an entirely different story. Similarly, there have been experements where the sites had been removed from simunition guns without the trainees knowing. They had been trained to use "front site" under stress. In scenarios, the majority of them claimed that they saw the front site on the threat and fired, when there guns had no sites at all. This is important to know when you recount something after a fight or shooting, or if you hear of others who do the same and make claims. The details may not be accurate or reliable.

Paul


----------

