Shooting Stances: Isosceles, Weaver, Modified Weaver
BY Herschel Smith1 year, 5 months ago
Reddit/Firearms has an interesting discussion thread on shooting stances. I think the prevailing wisdom is that you use what’s best for you, and I concur with that. This string of comments was particularly interesting.
Quick breakdown that most don’t know… (isocoles ISN’T the only way to shoot… and currently it’s mostly done wrong)
This is going to be long and I apologize.There are 3 basic shooting stances -Weaver Chapman and isosceles. Most people think that the stance is based on foot placement,. It isn’t. It is actually based on upper body, and arm position.
Weaver was a big strong muscular guy, who bent his elbows pulled the gun in close and shot almost perpendicular to his target. Weaver IS categorized by bent elbows and pure muscle control. It requires a push/pull between the firing and support hand to create stability.
Chapman came along and modified the weaver stance by introducing a locked-out firing-hand elbow. Chapman is also called the “modified weaver” – typically standing about forty five degrees off of target. If the solid firing arm increases structural support and management, While the bent support arm adds stability. While there is still a push/ pull, the pull creates structure by locking the firing arm.
Traditional isosceles is just that – an isoscoles triangle. Both elbows locked out, your shoulder width acts as the base of the Triangle. As soon as you bend your elbows, you have taken the structure out of the isosceles stance, and you are essentially in a weaver stance (this is the current “isoscoles”- because traditional isoscoles is REALLY rough on the elbows). Isosceles came to prominence in the heyday of early shooting competitions, and more importantly with the advent of body armor. If you stand sideways in a traditional weaver or chapman stance the hole in your body armor is now facing toward your potential threat.
Sorry, long answer to a short question..There are benefits to all three stances, but no one is perfect. Each do certain things better than the others. Each have their positives and drawbacks. They all hold a place.
If i were to take a long pistol shot… it would be in a Chapman stance…
If i was clearing a house/ doorway/etc it would most likely be in weaver …
Wearing body armor… lean toward isoscoles.
[ … ]
I was recently informed that weaver is the way it is because he had an issue with his left shoulder and was doing his best with what he had. Otherwise he’d have shot isosceles.
[ … ]
factual. he had to change so he slapped his name on it to create branding and keep making money as an instructor.
Some call it Chapman, some call it Modified Weaver. I prefer Modified Weaver. It’s still the Weaver stance, just slightly altered. Pew Pew Tactical has pictures of the stances. I prefer the Isosceles stances, except for hard hitting cartridges like the .44 magnum, which are too much for the hands when the elbows aren’t helping to absorb recoil as a shock absorber.
I think the method taught throughout the military now is Isosceles due to the presentation of unprotected body (lacking armor) that any other stance causes. Aggressive plates-forward, it’s called.
On April 30, 2023 at 11:29 pm, Archer said:
My understanding was that Jack Weaver did not name the stance he developed and pioneered. Jeff Cooper dubbed it the “Weaver stance” after observing how effectively it worked compared to the one-handed point-shooting that was popular at the time, and adopting it into his teaching at Gunsite.
The “slapped his name on it to create branding” line sounds a bit questionable to me.
On May 1, 2023 at 3:36 am, Miles said:
“I think the method taught throughout the military now is Isosceles due to the presentation of unprotected body (lacking armor) that any other stance causes. Aggressive plates-forward, it’s called.”
You’re right, it’s been that for nearly a couple of decades, but usually the elbows don’t actually get locked because armor makes that very difficult for most people to accomplish