# Gripping and firing technique



## PhotonGuy (Apr 7, 2016)

How is this for a gripping and firing technique?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 9, 2016)

First horrifying moment: he did not clear the weapon and make it safe.

Other than that, I can't really say. I don't shoot like that, presenting my body to the target. I use a modified Weaver stance, and turn sideways.

I don't lean forward to the extent he does. I keep a slight bend in my knees.

My grip is modified based on the weapon itself.

Maybe his way works. It's not how I was trained.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 9, 2016)

Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target. 

Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 9, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.
> 
> Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.



Well, you asked for opinions, that's mine.  At the very least, I don't draw a weapon and point it without clearing it.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2016)

What about it? It's fairly common.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, you asked for opinions, that's mine.  At the very least, I don't draw a weapon and point it without clearing it.


I'm assuming it was cleared prior to filming. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I'm assuming it was cleared prior to filming.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



I make no such assumptions.  But that's just me.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2016)

Since you are watching a video and not in the room with him I wouldn't worry.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Since you are watching a video and not in the room with him I wouldn't worry.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Obviously I am not worried about being shot.  I am less willing to take it on faith that a person demonstrating weapons technique knows what the hell he is talking about if he is unable or unwilling to demonstrate that he knows how to safely handle the weapon before beginning the video.  It's not like air time is expensive on Youtube; it takes two seconds to clear and make safe a weapon before beginning a video demonstration.

Amateurs abound.  We have examples of idiots on Youtube shooting holes in their ceilings with 'unloaded' weapons, shooting their hats off their own heads peering down shotgun barrels, etc.  If you can't demonstrate your professionalism going in, I have less reason to believe you know dick about dick.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 10, 2016)

Eh. I watch professional training videos all of the time. Most of them don't show a clear and make safe. I think you are being pedantic.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 10, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Eh. I watch professional training videos all of the time. Most of them don't show a clear and make safe. I think you are being pedantic.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



You are entitled to your opinion.  This is mine.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 12, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Obviously I am not worried about being shot.  I am less willing to take it on faith that a person demonstrating weapons technique knows what the hell he is talking about if he is unable or unwilling to demonstrate that he knows how to safely handle the weapon before beginning the video.  It's not like air time is expensive on Youtube; it takes two seconds to clear and make safe a weapon before beginning a video demonstration.


I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?



Because it demonstrates he's not a complete moron. Because some morons who watch videos that neither make a safe weapon nor even speak of it might not realize how important it is. Act like a professional at all times if you wish to be seen as one.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 12, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Because it demonstrates he's not a complete moron. Because some morons who watch videos that neither make a safe weapon nor even speak of it might not realize how important it is. Act like a professional at all times if you wish to be seen as one.



While there's some truth to what you say, I personally do not need to see weapons safety checked on video. If they kill themselves, it let's me know that their advice is likely questionable. There's way too much fluff and BS in most YouTube reviews anyway.
I can decide if I think someone is knowledgeable and professional without wasting my time watching them safety check a gun on camera.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 12, 2016)

Again, my opinion. I was raised a particular way. Can't take ten seconds to make a safe weapon, I have zero interest in your so-called expertise with firearms. How bout them apples.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Apr 16, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.
> 
> Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.


 
There are other consideration as well.  For L.E. some have wrap-around vests and some have a gap along the side.  Using any stance that puts your side to the attacker does limit your horizontal profile, but it also exposes the weakness of not having total coverage if the vest isn't wrap-around or under the armpit even if it does. 

A frontal position such as what he's using would theoretically have a round hit you square in the front of the vest.  However, your outstretched limbs become a factor in that stance.

Israeli doctrine is full frontal, however the knees are deeply bent so that you're almost in an ATG squat.  The theory, which has statistical credence, is that the majority of rounds are high up on a standing target so that rounds are going over your head.  Lower rounds contend with a full frontal vest, again with limbs as a possible factor. 

The best possible stance is the prone stance using a .308, shooting at a target at 1000 yards that is armed with a stick.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 17, 2016)

Dirty Dog said:


> While there's some truth to what you say, I personally do not need to see weapons safety checked on video. If they kill themselves, it let's me know that their advice is likely questionable. There's way too much fluff and BS in most YouTube reviews anyway.
> I can decide if I think someone is knowledgeable and professional without wasting my time watching them safety check a gun on camera.


Not to mention the "how many times factor". If this guy safe and made clear in the first seconds of his video, does he have to clear his weapon again and again after every cut and edit?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 17, 2016)

I like DD and Tgace do not need to see a firearm safety check on a solo video with a person.  In person training with the individual is a whole different ballgame though.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 17, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?


Why not simply use a red gun or blue gun?  The focus was on grip, not the actual shot.  Then you can use a live gun when you actually shoot... without having to point a live gun at your buddy with the camera -- even if the gun is supposedly unloaded and safed?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 18, 2016)

jks9199 said:


> Why not simply use a red gun or blue gun?  The focus was on grip, not the actual shot.  Then you can use a live gun when you actually shoot... without having to point a live gun at your buddy with the camera -- even if the gun is supposedly unloaded and safed?



I do not own any fake guns. I would use a tripod, not a friend.


----------



## lklawson (Apr 25, 2016)

Tgace said:


> What about it? It's fairly common.


Yes, it's one of the most common.  It's probably the most common pistol stance (The Isosceles) taught in the U.S. today.  The Isosceles is considered a very natural position to take.  It closely mirrors most people's Startle Reflex position: slightly crouched, body symmetrically positioned and facing the threat.  Kind of a modified Wrestler's Stance with a gun.  As has been mentioned it also works well with modern ballistic vests which protect the front of the torso more completely than the sides.

The second most common stance taught is considered Old School: The Weaver.  Named after Jack Weaver who popularized it in a quick shooting competition.  While Weaver gets credit for it, I can trace its roots back to WWII.  This is extremely natural for martial artists and boxers to take because they are trained and ingrained to take a one-side-forward stance, often the "weak side," which mates very well with the Weaver stance.  As was already noted, it also fits well with a transition from long-arm shooting to pistol shooting.  It is my experience that the push-pull configuration of the Weaver is the best at mitigating "limp wristing" errors in shooting.

There's also the "Off Hand" or "Target," one handed shooting stance which is far less common but still in use.  This was the default "dueling" stance and minimized the opponent's target area.  It was taught up through WWII and Korea as a "basic" combat handgunning stance.  Advanced techniques, which weren't taught to everybody, usually used some variation of point shooting technique, which was usually one-handed but torso forward; a little bit like a one-handed Weaver stance.

The grip he teaches here, a variation of the modern two-handed thumbs-forward grip is one which I do not like.  The modern two-handed thumbs-forward grip, as most people teach (but not him) I can also trace back to WWII and is comparatively natural to take.  His positioning of the weak-hand in this grip, while not uncommon per se, I find to be very unnatural and anything except ergonomic.  It doesn't "fit" well with the human body's natural structure or automatic kinesthetic reactions.  It works *against* how your body wants to move and hold naturally.

The thumbs-forward grip is awkward enough for most people.  When I began shooting, I used a grip which felt most natural to me, a variation of an old revolver two-handed method with my strong/grip-hand thumb forward and my weak-hand thumb over-lapping the grip-hand.  Most people want to use a tea-cup grip or a weak-hand-cuffs-round-the-wrist grip.  I see no reason to make a two-handed thumbs-forward grip any more unnatural than it already is for most people.

I also don't agree with his claim that the downward canted weak-hand give additional stability or helps to prevent excessive recoil rocking (limp wristing).  That has vastly more to do with the gun itself, particularly the height of the bore axis, than the weak-hand grip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jondoe297 (May 20, 2016)

This is a great video from Ernest Langdon, explaining the grip and stance. Ernest is one of the firearms industry's most respected trainers, and his qualifications are readily out there for review by anyone hasn't heard of him, or wonders what makes his opinion more valid than someone else's.
The part pertaining to grip begins at about the 9:50 mark.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 1, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.
> 
> Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.



You note that the stance shown here it more stable and natural which is true.  It is actually shown by studies that regardless of training in a surprise shooting situation this is the stance instinctively taken.  It is indeed used by LE primarily because it puts my body armor to the target.  Weaver and modified Weaver run the chance of allowing a round to hit the area under the arm which is in armored.

Additionally this stance is used by LE and increasingly by the military for long gun training as well for the same reason, to get the bulk of your ballistic protection facing the enemy.


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

While everything that's been said about the Isosceles being a more natural and stable platform are certainly true, the most overlooked advantage to isosceles and its variants is that it's more conducive to moving while shooting. There is a tendency to apply "range mentality" from a trip to the local public shooting (where a person typically just stands at a counter, plinking at something that neither moves nor shoots back), to a person's idea of what being in a gun fight entails. Someone who has been shot at will understand that the ability to effectively move is of paramount importance. One would be extremely hard-pressed to find a reputable trainer, who teaches to armed professionals, advocating the Weaver or Chapman.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> While everything that's been said about the Isosceles being a more natural and stable platform are certainly true, the most overlooked advantage to isosceles and its variants is that it's more conducive to moving while shooting. There is a tendency to apply "range mentality" from a trip to the local public shooting (where a person typically just stands at a counter, plinking at something that neither moves nor shoots back), to a person's idea of what being in a gun fight entails. Someone who has been shot at will understand that the ability to effectively move is of paramount importance. One would be extremely hard-pressed to find a reputable trainer, who teaches to armed professionals, advocating the Weaver or Chapman.



Well, to me at least, natural and stable are, by definition, more conducive to movement.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> While everything that's been said about the Isosceles being a more natural and stable platform are certainly true, the most overlooked advantage to isosceles and its variants is that it's more conducive to moving while shooting. There is a tendency to apply "range mentality" from a trip to the local public shooting (where a person typically just stands at a counter, plinking at something that neither moves nor shoots back), to a person's idea of what being in a gun fight entails. Someone who has been shot at will understand that the ability to effectively move is of paramount importance. One would be extremely hard-pressed to find a reputable trainer, who teaches to armed professionals, advocating the Weaver or Chapman.


Both the Weaver and the Isosceles are easy to move from.  The Isosceles is essentially the same "stance" as a football line or that of a wrestler.  The Weaver is essentially the same "stance" as a Boxer and mimics most other default stances for "trained martial artists."  In either case movement and footwork are fundamental skills, essential to success in *any* of the base arts/sports.  It doesn't matter if one foot is slightly advanced of the other or if they're even; you should be able to side slip, forward step, passing step, shuffle back, slide step any direction, or back step from both stances with equal ease.

All it takes is practice to ingrain the movements.  The Weaver vs. Isosceles debate very much reminds me of the .45ACP vs. 9mm Luger debate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well, to me at least, natural and stable are, by definition, more conducive to movement.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. The point that I was making though is that there is a tendency to overlook the value of being able to move while shooting/being shot at.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Both the Weaver and the Isosceles are easy to move from.  The Isosceles is essentially the same "stance" as a football line or that of a wrestler.  The Weaver is essentially the same "stance" as a Boxer and mimics most other default stances for "trained martial artists."  In either case movement and footwork are fundamental skills, essential to success in *any* of the base arts/sports.  It doesn't matter if one foot is slightly advanced of the other or if they're even; you should be able to side slip, forward step, passing step, shuffle back, slide step any direction, or back step from both stances with equal ease.
> 
> All it takes is practice to ingrain the movements.  The Weaver vs. Isosceles debate very much reminds me of the .45ACP vs. 9mm Luger debate.
> 
> ...



I think the difference is its easier to move properly in less training time, due to the "naturalness" of the Isosceles stance.  Admittedly I started with Weaver, and only changed to Isosceles due to the body armor consideration.  But my wife, also a LEO, was a rookie when I was on for a bit.  Her PDs instructor was trying to force the Weaver on her.  I took her to my PDs range, taught her Isosceles and it worked much better basically immediately.


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Both the Weaver and the Isosceles are easy to move from.  The Isosceles is essentially the same "stance" as a football line or that of a wrestler.  The Weaver is essentially the same "stance" as a Boxer and mimics most other default stances for "trained martial artists."  In either case movement and footwork are fundamental skills, essential to success in *any* of the base arts/sports.  It doesn't matter if one foot is slightly advanced of the other or if they're even; you should be able to side slip, forward step, passing step, shuffle back, slide step any direction, or back step from both stances with equal ease.
> 
> All it takes is practice to ingrain the movements.  The Weaver vs. Isosceles debate very much reminds me of the .45ACP vs. 9mm Luger debate.
> 
> ...



I disagree. Movement in a hand-to-hand engagement and movement in a gun engagement are not the same. I reiterate the point that a person would be hard pressed to find a reputable trainer, the firearms industry equivalent of a master instructor, who advocates the Weaver.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> I disagree. Movement in a hand-to-hand engagement and movement in a gun engagement are not the same. I reiterate the point that a person would be hard pressed to find a reputable trainer, the firearms industry equivalent of a master instructor, who advocates the Weaver.



There are some who do in competitive shooting "combat shooting".  It seems to depend on how much time one is willing to devote.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> I disagree. Movement in a hand-to-hand engagement and movement in a gun engagement are not the same. I reiterate the point that a person would be hard pressed to find a reputable trainer, the firearms industry equivalent of a master instructor, who advocates the Weaver.


OK.  You go tell boxers that their footwork and body movement suck.  Report back the results.  Post video if you can.  <shrug>

Oh, and I do know at least one NRA Training Counselor and Second Amendment Foundation Trainer (trains instructors) who does teach and encourage both depending on certain conditions mostly related to the experience and training of his student.

But, anyway, again, post that video when you tell boxers they can't move.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> There are some who do in competitive shooting "combat shooting".  It seems to depend on how much time one is willing to devote.


I have little doubt that there are those who still try it, but the question is, how competitive are they? Are they winning matches? Are they even coming close? A guy who is decades behind the curve showing up to the local IDPA match is not the same as a legitimate competitive shooter. 
Here's a video from Jerry Miculek, who is arguably one of the greatest competitive shooters alive, discuss the stance. At about 4:55 he states that anyone shooting the Weaver is "behind the curve" and that's it's "Not even worth training for".
I also previously posted a video from Ernest Langdon, discussing the stance, where he also goes in-depth into why the Weaver is outdated, in terms of the limitations it places on a person's ability to effectively grip the weapon. 
Guys like Langdon, Miculek, Bob Voegel, Ron Avery, Pat Rogers (RIP), Todd Green (RIP), are people who's experience and ability can not be (seriously) argued with. 
Jack Weaver, Ray Chapman, and Jeff Cooper were ahead of their time when they created their shooting stances and techniques, as most people then weren't even using their sights when shooting, much devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting, but shooting as evolved past many of the techniques that they introduced.


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> OK.  You go tell boxers that their footwork and body movement suck.  Report back the results.  Post video if you can.  <shrug>
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I didn't say that, nor did I even insinuate it. What I said was that the two principles of movement are not the same. You can not "box with a gun in your hand" and hope to prevail in a gun fight. Nor would I employ shooting techniques empty-handed against a boxer.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> Jack Weaver, Ray Chapman, and Jeff Cooper were ahead of their time when they created their shooting stances and techniques, as most people then weren't even using their sights when shooting, much devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting, but shooting as evolved past many of the techniques that they introduced.


Sorry, but that's just not accurate.  Using the sights with pistols was still the norm and figures prominently in every instructional manual and basic training system of the time.  Point Shooting or Instinctive Shooting was considered "advanced" combat shooting techniques and were usually only taught to the FBI and certain service men who were "lucky" enough to get it.  There were Point Shooting evangelists who wrote books and published articles but appear to have gotten little penetration.

I think you are confusing and conflating a few different things here.  Weaver's stance and technique and success with it, reportedly, came about partially because his competitors in the quick-shooting contest were using a variation of Point Shooting from the hip at a comparatively small target (balloons).  Turns out that the distance was farther and size of the target smaller than what was advocated by Point Shooting instructors of the time.  So when Weaver thought, "hey, why not actually use those sights, but quickly," it was a recipe for success.  Then there was Cooper who's front sight sighting method actually has a lot in common with Fairbairn's idea of how Instinctive Shooting is supposed to work.

Nevertheless, shooting using the pistol sights was most certainly the standard, far eclipsing adoption of Point Shooting methods.

Here's one example I particularly like.  Even this early he talks about a steady and gentle straight back trigger press, arc of movement, and discusses the faults of point shooting and shooting from the hip.

How to Shoot

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> I didn't say that, nor did I even insinuate it. What I said was that the two principles of movement are not the same. You can not "box with a gun in your hand" and hope to prevail in a gun fight. Nor would I employ shooting techniques empty-handed against a boxer.


Then you have some dramatic misconceptions about footwork and body movement as used by boxers and how it may or may not apply to firearms.


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Sorry, but that's just not accurate.  Using the sights with pistols was still the norm and figures* prominently in every instructional manual and basic training system of the time.*  Point Shooting or Instinctive Shooting was considered "advanced" combat shooting techniques and were usually only taught to the FBI and certain service men who were "lucky" enough to get it.  There were Point Shooting evangelists who wrote books and published articles but appear to have gotten little penetration.
> 
> Here's one example I particularly like.  Even this early he talks about a steady and gentle straight back trigger press, arc of movement, and discusses the faults of point shooting and shooting from the hip.
> 
> ...


With regards to the emphasized quote, I would argue that you are unqualified to make that assumption, absent providing _every instructional manual for every basic training system_ from that era. 
My statements are accurate. Use of the sights was not common place in the circles that Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman competed in. You are absolutely correct however, in why Jack Weaver adopted his method of shooting. Point shooting doesn't work for small targets. I would argue that point shooting doesn't work better than sighted shooting for most targets, and its merits have been repeatedly debunked by competitive, and tactical instructors. 



lklawson said:


> Then you have some dramatic misconceptions about footwork and body movement as used by boxers and how it may or may not apply to firearms.



May I ask, what are your qualifications as a firearms trainer/instructor, and what is the extent of your practical experience with firearms?


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> With regards to the emphasized quote, I would argue that you are unqualified to make that assumption, absent providing _every instructional manual for every basic training system_ from that era.


Fine.  The vast majority.  Better?




> My statements are accurate. Use of the sights was not common place in the circles that Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman competed in.


That's not what you wrote.  "...as most people then weren't even using their sights when shooting, much devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting..."  Sighted shooting was the norm and lots of people were interested in and training for, devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting.



> Point shooting doesn't work for small targets.


It's not intended to.



> I would argue that point shooting doesn't work better than sighted shooting for most targets, and its merits have been repeatedly debunked by competitive, and tactical instructors.


OK.  Not really relevant to the discussion.  The question was related to your claims regarding the prevalence of non-sighted shooting over sighted shooting.  I don't much care if you prefer one or the other.  But when you say things like most people weren't even using sights when shooting or that a Weaver foot base isn't conducive to movement while shooting, I gotta call that as not true.  The evidence clearly indicates otherwise.  If you want to say that you think Isosceles is better, then whatever; 45 vs 9.  But you can't move naturally and effectively from the same stance that swordsmen have been using for thousands of years?  C'mon.



> May I ask, what are your qualifications as a firearms trainer/instructor, and what is the extent of your practical experience with firearms?


1) It doesn't matter because I have the evidence to back up what I say.  2) NRA Certified Pistol and Rifle Instructor.  Want my ID#?

Again, my "qualifications" are irrelevant here because I've got the easy documentation for my claims.  The vast majority of instruction during the time periods in question emphasized sighted shooting, in contradiction to how you first wrote your sentence.  A simple reading of almost any of the documents from the time period in question clearly indicates that many people were "devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting."  Any study of footwork and movement with a one-foot-slightly-forward stance will clearly show that agile footwork, body movement, and the ability to move and void the body laterally are key elements of footwork from that stance.  You don't need "qualifications as a firearms trainer/instructor" to check the veracity of those statements.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jondoe297 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> That's not what you wrote.  "...as most people then weren't even using their sights when shooting, much devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting..."  Sighted shooting was the norm and lots of people were interested in and training for, devoting time to studying the nuances of shooting.



Well, if we're going to argue the minutiae of the wording of a statement, then you've got me. I figured, and wrongfully so, that citing Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman, who made their mark as _competitive shooters, _that it was reasonable to assume that my statement pertained to that application. I'm aware that the use of the sights on a firearm predates them. Wyatt Earp was a big proponent of their use, and cites the practice as a factor in his success as a gunslinger. 



lklawson said:


> Weaver foot base isn't conducive to movement while shooting, I gotta call that as not true.  The evidence clearly indicates otherwise.  If you want to say that you think Isosceles is better, then whatever; 45 vs 9.  But you can't move naturally and effectively from the same stance that swordsmen have been using for thousands of years?  C'mon.



Since you seem to be content to pick apart wording, and attempt to misconstrue meaning, I'll point that out that my exact words were "the most overlooked advantage to isosceles and its variants is that it's _more_ conducive to moving while shooting." Since we're going to be play "I can prove you wrong with the internet" game. I reiterate my previous statement, that you will be hard pressed to find a reputable trainer that still advocates the Weaver stance. Shooting has evolved past the Weaver. I posted a video where one of the greatest competitive shooters there is flat out said that it's not even worth training in.



lklawson said:


> 1) It doesn't matter because I have the evidence to back up what I say.  2) NRA Certified Pistol and Rifle Instructor.  Want my ID#?



Qualifications and experience are most certainly relevant, and it's usually the unqualified opinion that attempts to argue that they don't. 
When you progress beyond NRA Basic methodology, you'll begin to understand why isosceles is more appropriate for modern firearms training.
For the record, my qualifications on the subject:
I started training in martial arts in 1987. I hold 4th Dan in Tang Soo Do, and was just promoted to 5th Dan in Taekwondo (Chung Do Kwan). I'm a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services General, Defensive Tactics, and Firearms Instructor. I'm an NRA LE Handgun/Shotgun Instructor, and I have instructor certifications for baton and chemical agents as well. I'm currently an entry-team leader on a SWAT team, and serve as lead firearms instructor for said team. I'm an adjunct instructor at a criminal justice training academy, where I teach D.T. and firearms, and as part of our defensive tactics curriculum, we incorporate boxing. I've trained on the handgun, shotgun, and carbine under well-known firearms instructors, to include (but not limited to) Ernest Langdon and Chris Costa. I have trained thousands of recruits, in-service LE officers, corrections officers, and private citizens in defensive tactics and firearms. I've also survived being shot at on duty twice.

Boxing/sword fighting/lightsaber training/TKD/etc has its place. Particularly when training for weapon retention, and moving into the realm of CQB. It does not teach one to move effectively with a firearm. If you believe they do, then to paraphrase you: You seem to have some dramatic misconceptions about what fighting with a gun involves.
Now if you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but don't try to "google me wrong". When it comes to effectively employing a firearm in an environment where life depends on it, I've been there, done that, and continue to do it. I have the scars to prove it.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

jondoe297 said:


> Well, if we're going to argue the minutiae of the wording of a statement, then you've got me. I figured, and wrongfully so, that citing Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman, who made their mark as _competitive shooters, _that it was reasonable to assume that my statement pertained to that application. I'm aware that the use of the sights on a firearm predates them. Wyatt Earp was a big proponent of their use, and cites the practice as a factor in his success as a gunslinger.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you seem to be content to pick apart wording, and attempt to misconstrue meaning, I'll point that out that my exact words were "the most overlooked advantage to isosceles and its variants is that it's _more_ conducive to moving while shooting." Since we're going to be play "I can prove you wrong with the internet" game. I reiterate my previous statement, that you will be hard pressed to find a reputable trainer that still advocates the Weaver stance. Shooting has evolved past the Weaver. I posted a video where one of the greatest competitive shooters there is flat out said that it's not even worth training in.


No.  I just expect people to say what they mean and if they say something that's clearly wrong, to not get pissy when called on it.





> Qualifications and experience are most certainly relevant, and it's usually the unqualified opinion that attempts to argue that they don't.


Not when the facts are clearly laid out.



> When you progress beyond NRA Basic methodology, you'll begin to understand why isosceles is more appropriate for modern firearms training.
> For the record, my qualifications on the subject:
> I started training in martial arts in 1987. I hold 4th Dan in Tang Soo Do, and was just promoted to 5th Dan in Taekwondo (Chung Do Kwan). I'm a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services General, Defensive Tactics, and Firearms Instructor. I'm an NRA LE Handgun/Shotgun Instructor, and I have instructor certifications for baton and chemical agents as well. I'm currently an entry-team leader on a SWAT team, and serve as lead firearms instructor for said team. I'm an adjunct instructor at a criminal justice training academy, where I teach D.T. and firearms, and as part of our defensive tactics curriculum, we incorporate boxing. I've trained on the handgun, shotgun, and carbine under well-known firearms instructors, to include (but not limited to) Ernest Langdon and Chris Costa. I have trained thousands of recruits, in-service LE officers, corrections officers, and private citizens in defensive tactics and firearms. I've also survived being shot at on duty twice.


And, as I predicted elsewhere, there it is.  "Here's why your credentials are no good and mine are better so you're wrong, I'm right, and I can ignore you."  It's irrelevant because what you wrote was wrong and evidence was presented to that effect.  It's always the same reason when someone goes, "Oh yeah?  Well what's *your* credentials?"  Called it.

By the by, I never wrote that either Isosceles nor Weaver is "more appropriate" for *anything*.  I wrote that your claim that movement from a foot-foward-stance, like the Weaver, boxing, or knife-fighting, could not make "effective" movement.  I don't care if you like Isosceles or Weaver better.  But claiming or even implying that effective evasive footwork and body movement is not possible from a foot-forward stance simply ignores centuries of fighting experience.  I know you think that Isosceles is "more conducive to movement" but, again, centuries of experience indicate that people can move *just fine* from a foot-forward-stance.



> Boxing/sword fighting/lightsaber training/TKD/etc has its place. Particularly when training for weapon retention, and moving into the realm of CQB. It does not teach one to move effectively with a firearm. If you believe they do, then to paraphrase you: You seem to have some dramatic misconceptions about what fighting with a gun involves.


Yes, yes...  People who are trying to avoid a linear attack to the body and centuries of learning how to do that clearly have nothing to add to your knowledge.  Got it.  Love how you threw in "lightsaber" just to highlight how ridiculous and fantasy based all that experience is.  Good job.



> Now if you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but don't try to "google me wrong". When it comes to effectively employing a firearm in an environment where life depends on it, I've been there, done that, and continue to do it. I have the scars to prove it.


"google you wrong" nuth'n.  You made inaccurate statements, got called on it, and are now desperately looking for reasons why you can ignore that, including backpedaling your statement, claiming authority, and chucking in a bit of ridicule while you're at it.

What's so damn hard about going, "OK, people were using sights and training, and, yeah, I guess evasive footwork from a foot-forward-stance isn't that hard"???


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 7, 2016)

If we are talking "moving the feet" as in movement then anyone can move their feet just fine in an isosceles or weaver stance.  If you are talking opening the hips to a target off your non dominant hand then the isosceles has a better range that way but worse to the dominant hand side. 

What is good about the isosceles is that if you are wearing body armor you want to get that front and center and the isosceles stance takes this into consideration.

Personally the Modified Isosceles is very nice!  However, it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks and I learned the weaver stance so long ago.  Still I am comfortable in both. 


Here is a very basic video on the isosceles vs. weaver featuring Richard Nance from guns and ammo:

Which Is Better: The Isosceles or Weaver Stance? - Guns & Ammo


----------



## Tgace (Jun 8, 2016)

What exactly is the crux of this debate?

In regards to Weaver vs Isosceles, use what you want...free country...but I agree, Weaver is dead. The preponderance of professional shooters and operators are using Iso for a reason.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## BLACK (Jul 22, 2016)

Most people I know that have been on two way ranges do not square up to a target, they move and shot and look for cover. 
Presenting your plates or vest towards the threat while remaining on the line of attack has long been the general teaching practice and with this you get what you pay for.
The shooter should always be moving and looking for cover and never presenting himself to a threat in any manner that will allow the threat to poke holes in him. 
Once again, not a duel or a dance.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 22, 2016)

BLACK said:


> Most people I know that have been on two way ranges do not square up to a target, they move and shot and look for cover.
> Presenting your plates or vest towards the threat while remaining on the line of attack has long been the general teaching practice and with this you get what you pay for.
> The shooter should always be moving and looking for cover and never presenting himself to a threat in any manner that will allow the threat to poke holes in him.
> Once again, not a duel or a dance.



You should indeed always be moving, preferably to cover but when you fire, you, even on the move should be standing as squared off to the target as possible, not only due to your armor but for a stable shooting platform.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 25, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You should indeed always be moving, preferably to cover but when you fire, you, even on the move should be standing as squared off to the target as possible, not only due to your armor but for a stable shooting platform.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.


The problem is that the Weaver isn't the only "stable shooting platform" nor, even now, do most people who aren't blue or green wear armor.

The lack of effective body armor coupled with the desire to minimize the surface area for return fire is one of the major reasons why the bladed "off hand" stance has been taught for centuries.












Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 25, 2016)

lklawson said:


> The problem is that the Weaver isn't the only "stable shooting platform" nor, even now, do most people who aren't blue or green wear armor.
> 
> The lack of effective body armor coupled with the desire to minimize the surface area for return fire is one of the major reasons why the bladed "off hand" stance has been taught for centuries.
> 
> ...




Oh I totally understand the way I train is far more optimized for green and blue, believe me.  That said I have however found a trend that I am of two minds of.  I see more than a few civilian instructors teaching the Isosceles stance for the following three reasons (note I am not saying the first two reasons are correct, simply that it is what is said.)

1. A shooter can be taught to use the stance as a stable platform more quickly.
2. In most civilian "self defense" situations (especially inside a home) the ranges are so close that blading to a target is of more limited benefit.

Now #3 here, I have seen enough studies to believe it to be correct but I can of course be wrong.

3. Under fight or flight, unless you train A LOT, your body instinctively will go into the Isosceles stance so you might as well train the shooter to take advantage of that dynamic.  This way your training can primarily focus on simply having proper grip, trigger squeeze and sight picture.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 26, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Oh I totally understand the way I train is far more optimized for green and blue, believe me.  That said I have however found a trend that I am of two minds of.  I see more than a few civilian instructors teaching the Isosceles stance for the following three reasons (note I am not saying the first two reasons are correct, simply that it is what is said.)


Fair enough.  I've found that I prefer a nuanced position on it; sometimes one and sometimes the other, depending mostly on the student themselves.



> 1. A shooter can be taught to use the stance as a stable platform more quickly.


I've found that this depends very much on the person's prior experience and training.  For a great many people, I completely agree.



> 2. In most civilian "self defense" situations (especially inside a home) the ranges are so close that blading to a target is of more limited benefit.


A fair point.  Historically, it was not only argued, but considered an indisputable fact, that even the small difference was enough to justify the bladed stance.  Understand here that I'm not taking this position, nor actually arguing one way or the other on this point, just presenting a historic perspective.  I've found the Isosceles going back to pre-WWI.  The contemporary experts recognized that the two-handed Isosceles stance offered better accuracy but sincerely believed, based on their own LEO and Mil experience, that it was wholly "impractical" (to quote one) for combat use based upon the contention, from what I've been able to tell, that it exposed more of the body to return fire.  By WWII, the contemporary experts allowed that the Isosceles could be used for "deliberate" or "aimed" shots (i.e.: 'long range').

For my part, I see merit to both sides of that argument.



> Now #3 here, I have seen enough studies to believe it to be correct but I can of course be wrong.
> 
> 3. Under fight or flight, unless you train A LOT, your body instinctively will go into the Isosceles stance so you might as well train the shooter to take advantage of that dynamic.  This way your training can primarily focus on simply having proper grip, trigger squeeze and sight picture.


Would it surprise you to know that I've held the same position for some little while now?  When a person has no prior experience which could affect their responses (there are several), then the startle reflex does indeed mimic very closely the body position of Isosceles and it makes sense in those cases to train to the automatic response.  That's the key for me on this point.  What works toward a person's automatic response?  One example is that Boxers and trained Martial Artists tend to automatically drop into a left-foot forward, slightly "bladed" foot position very similar to the Weaver.  There are several other types of prior experience that could affect this but you get the idea.

Because most people have no prior experience and training which would nudge them to something other than the Isosceles, for them the Isosceles makes the most sense.  But there are a lot more people than many modern instructors seem realize for whom prior training and experience may push them to Weaver (or even Off Hand in some cases).  They have a script and they're sticking with it, using a one-size fits all approach instead of getting to know their student and individualizing the training to them.

I'm glad that you have a more nuanced view on this than seems to be the trend these days.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

