PDA

View Full Version : Myths Of The Weaver



Gabriel Suarez
12-01-2003, 02:45 PM
Another can of worms. Lets look at the myth of stance. Again, our focus is the raising of the art, and not the dumbing down of the system to teach uninterested lowest-common-denominator academy conscripts.
Instead of trying to figure out which stance to use, let’s look at the dynamics of combat and what we can do as human fighters.

Gunfights, like any fight will usually be a close range affair. You will get little or no warning, and there will be no limit to what the adversary can do. He can, for example try to tackle you as you fire on his partner, or he may be one of our modern day “juramentados” and not go down with your non-standard response and clash into you. Remember my friends, IT’S A FIGHT. In a fight you must be able to move, to kick and punch, as well as to provide a suitable platform for shooting while you move. You must have balance and be able to absorb a clash.

One of the most controversial issues in our study is how to stand. I tell my classes that if I had a dime for every article or chapter that seeks to rationalize or explain why one stance is better than another, I would leave the training business altogether and lay in the sun on my yacht in the Bahamas. Nonetheless, one of the myths we see is that the Weaver Stance is the ticket for gunfighting.

Myth: “The Weaver Stance has a slight speed advantage over Isosceles when drawing from a holster”

Truth: No. The speed comes from not extending the arms into a fully locked out Isosceles, not from the Weaver Stance itself. If the Weaver shooter locked out, he would be no faster or slower than the Isosceles shooter. Similarly for the unlocked isosceles shooter.

Myth: “You must blade to 45 degrees so you make yourself a smaller target”.

Truth: Again, the idea is to make the other guy worry about becoming a target. Move. Get behind Cover. Shoot him to the ground. Focus on becoming a smaller stationary target?? Bad idea. As far as 35 degrees, 45v degrees, …you may not be able to get into the perfect degree. Learn to shoot from all positions with a firing platform that IS NOT DEPENDANT on your foot position.

Myth: “ The Weaver works better for shooting from around cover and shooting on the move.”

Truth: Actually the Isosceles gives better transitioning ability from either side of cover than the Weaver. For that matter, so does changing the hands. And when you move, you do not move at a 45-degree angle, you move straight on.

Myth: “One important element of the Weaver is the isometric push pull of the two hands; firing side pushing, support hand pulling to control muzzle flip.”

Truth: The grip on the weapon, and the posture of the upper body contribute much more to controlling muzzle flip than pushing and puling. From what I’ve seen pushing and pulling creates, not muzzle flip control, but tension, trigger mashing, and a shaky sight picture.

One of the problems with combat shooting is this issue of controlling the recoil. I say let the gun recoil…it will come back on target without you forcing it to do so. That said, I will also say that not everyone needs a .1911 chambered in. 45 ACP. For some, a 9mm…or even (good heavens!) a .380 is a better choice. A well placed hit with a minor caliber is far better than a peripheral hit..or a miss with the “Hammer of War”. Shoot the biggest gun you can guarantee a hit with, but you must guarantee the hit.

Myth: “The thumbs must be stacked one atop the other”.

Truth: Do whatever you like with your thumbs as long as you keep ‘em out of the way. Thumbs pointing forward toward the target will allow you to obtain a “biomechanical index” on target much faster than other methods.

Rather than label your stance, or to try to fit into anyone’s mold, try this. Imagine a big Creatine snorting, tattooed, shaven- headed thug ten feet away from you. You have no gun, but you will soon be in a fight with him. How are you going to be standing? Take that stance right now! Get your hands up! Ready? Now hold everything and bring your pistol into the picture. THAT, my friends, should be your shooting stance.

Once you get comfortable with it, add movement. You won’t pass any school tests like that because it’s a dynamic stance that screams for movement, not a rooted in-the-box shooting position, but it will keep you alive and your enemies not…and unless I’ve missed something, THAT is the point of the whole exercise.

gptrent
12-01-2003, 03:16 PM
Gabe

You sure know how to stir it up... (:>)

I have used (and taught) the Weaver for many many years and during my "formative" years would have argued with you a bit. Now having reached 50 and seriously studied this for about 25 of those years I find myself agreeing with most of what you say.

I think that the Weaver is a great stance/technique to start teaching with and I find it easier for me to get students started correctly with the Weaver. However if I run across someone that does not shoot the Weaver, gets hits and controls recoil etc... I do not mess with a good thing.

I also concur that worrying about the position of your feet is a waste of time. Your feet will be wherever they are when the balloon goes up and you need to be able to deal with it.

The principle of the classic Weaver can be applied in many different ways and it does not always look like a "Weaver".

Now having said that. I think that you need to know "exactly" what "you" need to do as an individual to get the most precise shot placement as you possibly can as well as what you need to do to get the "good enough" placement as absolutely quick as you can. I do not think that for most people these two techniques will be the same.

As for caliber... Go with the one that you can use and use well. I prefer the .45ACP, I will use the .40 S&W, but I only "used" the 9mm when it mattered.

Get good hits and much of the caliber debate is negated. For years the Bakersfield PD was getting a stop ratio (with 9mm) that was higher than about anyplace else in the nation. When our range master looked and analyzed it he discovered that we were getting a much higher percentage of "good" hits.


Keep stirring it up!

Take Care

G.P. Trent




Another can of worms. Lets look at the myth of stance. Again, our focus is the raising of the art, and not the dumbing down of the system to teach uninterested lowest-common-denominator academy conscripts.
Instead of trying to figure out which stance to use, let’s look at the dynamics of combat and what we can do as human fighters.

Gunfights, like any fight will usually be a close range affair. You will get little or no warning, and there will be no limit to what the adversary can do. He can, for example try to tackle you as you fire on his partner, or he may be one of our modern day “juramentados” and not go down with your non-standard response and clash into you. Remember my friends, IT’S A FIGHT. In a fight you must be able to move, to kick and punch, as well as to provide a suitable platform for shooting while you move. You must have balance and be able to absorb a clash.

One of the most controversial issues in our study is how to stand. I tell my classes that if I had a dime for every article or chapter that seeks to rationalize or explain why one stance is better than another, I would leave the training business altogether and lay in the sun on my yacht in the Bahamas. Nonetheless, one of the myths we see is that the Weaver Stance is the ticket for gunfighting.

Myth: “The Weaver Stance has a slight speed advantage over Isosceles when drawing from a holster”

Truth: No. The speed comes from not extending the arms into a fully locked out Isosceles, not from the Weaver Stance itself. If the Weaver shooter locked out, he would be no faster or slower than the Isosceles shooter. Similarly for the unlocked isosceles shooter.

Myth: “You must blade to 45 degrees so you make yourself a smaller target”.

Truth: Again, the idea is to make the other guy worry about becoming a target. Move. Get behind Cover. Shoot him to the ground. Focus on becoming a smaller stationary target?? Bad idea. As far as 35 degrees, 45v degrees, …you may not be able to get into the perfect degree. Learn to shoot from all positions with a firing platform that IS NOT DEPENDANT on your foot position.

Myth: “ The Weaver works better for shooting from around cover and shooting on the move.”

Truth: Actually the Isosceles gives better transitioning ability from either side of cover than the Weaver. For that matter, so does changing the hands. And when you move, you do not move at a 45-degree angle, you move straight on.

Myth: “One important element of the Weaver is the isometric push pull of the two hands; firing side pushing, support hand pulling to control muzzle flip.”

Truth: The grip on the weapon, and the posture of the upper body contribute much more to controlling muzzle flip than pushing and puling. From what I’ve seen pushing and pulling creates, not muzzle flip control, but tension, trigger mashing, and a shaky sight picture.

One of the problems with combat shooting is this issue of controlling the recoil. I say let the gun recoil…it will come back on target without you forcing it to do so. That said, I will also say that not everyone needs a .1911 chambered in. 45 ACP. For some, a 9mm…or even (good heavens!) a .380 is a better choice. A well placed hit with a minor caliber is far better than a peripheral hit..or a miss with the “Hammer of War”. Shoot the biggest gun you can guarantee a hit with, but you must guarantee the hit.

Myth: “The thumbs must be stacked one atop the other”.

Truth: Do whatever you like with your thumbs as long as you keep ‘em out of the way. Thumbs pointing forward toward the target will allow you to obtain a “biomechanical index” on target much faster than other methods.

Rather than label your stance, or to try to fit into anyone’s mold, try this. Imagine a big Creatine snorting, tattooed, shaven- headed thug ten feet away from you. You have no gun, but you will soon be in a fight with him. How are you going to be standing? Take that stance right now! Get your hands up! Ready? Now hold everything and bring your pistol into the picture. THAT, my friends, should be your shooting stance.

Once you get comfortable with it, add movement. You won’t pass any school tests like that because it’s a dynamic stance that screams for movement, not a rooted in-the-box shooting position, but it will keep you alive and your enemies not…and unless I’ve missed something, THAT is the point of the whole exercise.

JodyH
12-01-2003, 04:03 PM
I've found that if your grip is good, sights are aligned, and the trigger is pressed, that the way the rest of you is situated doesn't really matter.
My own personal stance looks like a monkey hunching a football, but I get the hits and I can keep the split times low. I can also transition to right or left handed for cover or light manipulation. I can move easily and I won't fall on my can unless you give me a good shove.
What else do you need?

Deaf Smith
12-01-2003, 04:23 PM
Well, there are problems with ANY stance, including Weaver. Things like 'blading' will somewhat reduce your exposure, but it also exposes you to being hit in BOTH lungs, exposes you to having your vest penetrated (armpit), and there can be times one just cannot get into a Weaver becuase of situational factors.

But then, other stance have problems to. Isosceles allows more exposure, makes it harder, all other things being equal, to control recoil, and again, situations may come up where it is impractical to use it.

Now for those who practice allot, learning several ways is great. Those who do not shoot much, or train much, well I would suggest a limited number of 'stances'. Say one for two handed and one for firing one handed. But that's like limiting oneself to one handgun, it does get kind of boaring, right?

Oh, as for faster 'stances', it would depend on what is wanted AFTER you aquare the stance. Faster repeated shots from very heavy weapons would best be answered with Weaver. Lighter weapons and more precision, Isosceles.

Deaf

Catshooter
12-01-2003, 05:26 PM
Gabe,

Good post.

I could only add that I might disagree with your statement that ' you will get little or no warning'. My experience is that sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't.

Please keep up the excellent work.

Just my .02, and worth what ya paid for it.


Cat

John Silver
12-01-2003, 06:33 PM
Boy, are some of us being baited out or what? :)

I don't disagree with anything here. Well, maybe a bit with the isometric tension - but I admit to being the gratuitous civilian/non-LEO/non-professional around here - so I'm not going to claim that holds a lot of water.

The one thing I would say is that before you break the rules and go "free form," I've found it best to know the rules very well. They were created for a reason. In the limited teaching I did in the past, it seemed the better combat shooters learned the formal lessons first and then understood how and why corners could be cut. Same thing with art, and I would suppose many things in life. I hear that military special forces does things in a similar manner. You have to learn to salute and march and prove you are disciplined before they will let you get away with "modified grooming standards."

Human beings like a process. I don't think we should stop once we've mastered the process. It's just that it gives us a foundation and building blocks to move forward with. Unfortunately, many people confuse the class room with the real world.

Timber Wolf
12-01-2003, 07:35 PM
Gabe -
You said:


the idea is to make the other guy worry about becoming a target. Move. Get behind Cover. Shoot him to the ground. Focus on becoming a smaller stationary target?? Bad idea. As far as 35 degrees, 45v degrees, …you may not be able to get into the perfect degree. Learn to shoot from all positions with a firing platform that IS NOT DEPENDANT on your foot position.


I agree when you say not to label your stance, and that brings me to my question.

If you are moving to the side towardscover while looking square at the enemy (sidestepping) I would expect a form of the Isosoles. If you are moving forward towards cover while looking to the side, I would expect some other form Weaver / Chapman depending on whether you are looking to gun-hand side or non-gun-hand side. Is this a logical thought? The arms form the position they need to in order for you to do what you need to - move to cover while firing at an enemy intent on doing you harm.


Thanks,
TW

Charles Rives
12-02-2003, 02:31 AM
I've stumbled my way into the zen-like "stance of no stance" by accident. Because I believed every article I read in the gun rags, I think that I tried every named stance available at one time or another without seeing a lot of improvement from one to another. Thereafter, I decided that whatever my body did from the ribcage down just didn't really matter a whole lot. Now, Weaver amd isocoles purists scratch there heads at IDPA matches as they watch me switch from Weaver to Iscocoles to "turret" to . . . while I move from shooting position to shooting postion.

When I take a new shooter to the range, I instruct them to use the isocoles stance . . . not necessariy because it's better but because it's quicker for a brand new shooter to learn.

-Chuck

Leonidas
12-02-2003, 06:17 AM
The whole point is to learn a real-world based system (instead of a shooting range based), and the make the system conform to your body rather than forcing yourself to shoot like Cooper or Enos, or anyone else.

This is like JKD for firearms.

Vig Creed
12-02-2003, 07:10 AM
It was so long ago that I finalized my stance that I didn't know exactly what stance I was using when I read Gabe's essay. It was just my personal "best" stance, that felt "right", that I had been using since Custer rode out to the Little Big Horn.

So...........I just researched it, and lo and behold it is the "Chapman" modified Weaver that I use.

I don't remember ever intentionally learning the "Chapman" version of the Weaver, or even hearing about it, so it must have evolved naturally from the original Weaver I did learn.

It works well for me because it is my "natural", "feel good" stance. YMMV.

creed

Steve Camp
12-02-2003, 11:34 AM
After having shot IDPA for over a year now, I find myself not really taking any particular stance. When I start in the "shooters box"... I think I'm either in a straight on Isosceles stance (but when I draw, I think my arms are bent, but I'm not sure), or in a "boxers stance" with my left foot forward, knees bent.

I tend to agree with what some have already stated: the most important things are 1) grip, 2) sight alignment, 3) trigger squeeze / press.

Since I started lurking on this site a few weeks ago, Gabe's comments about how do we incorporate our pistolcraft into our unarmed fighting (style) have made an impression on me. It seems to me that the ability to flow smoothly from unarmed to armed combat and back again, or to totally integrate the two makes a lot of sense.

Here's a question for the more experienced, knowledgeable than I: what unarmed fighting "style" do you use, and how do you incorporate your pistol / armed combat style with it? For example, I trained in Jeet Kune Do for a year or so back in 1994. (I need to get with it and start again... Anyone practice JKD in the Denver area?) Bruce Lee taught a specific fighting stance that has your strong side forward -- the reverse of American boxing. While that made a lot of sense then... I do not think I want to rotate my sidearm in my strongside IWB towards my assailant... I'd rather keep it more concealed / protected and as far away from him/her as possible. Also, were I to draw from my JKD stance... I'd be in some sort of wierd reverse Chapman / Weaver stance... and I don't think it would be conducive to good Jeet Kune Pistol... Opinions / Suggestions?

Ought I scrap JKD and go for something like Krav Maga (sp?), Aikido, Jujitsu, or a more traditional Kung Fu?

dgg9
12-02-2003, 11:39 AM
Ought I scrap JKD and go for something like Krav Maga (sp?), Aikido, Jujitsu, or a more traditional Kung Fu?

(Don't mean to hijack the thread, but)

What's your time-line? KM gives you a lot right now. The latter 3 will take longer to be effective.

Steve Camp
12-02-2003, 11:55 AM
Short answer: immediate need, lifelong practice.

Long winded answer:

It seems to me that to do this right, I oughta get spun up as fast as possible, which suggests KM, according to you. But at the same time, an art that I can make a part of the rest of my life should be considered -- that is, something that I practice for the rest of my life.

That said, how do KM / Aikido / Jujitsu / Kung Fu (lots of "styles" here) / other arts compare?

I am not really interested in pretty, flowing styles... rather brutal effectiveness. What do I recall reading about US Navy Seals unarmed combat methods? They just want to f*ck you up as fast and as bad as possible. If a brutally effective art or style or method just happens to be pretty and flowing... so be it... plus one for style and grace.... but it's not the objective here.

What arts work well with armed combat? That is, in what arts can I incorporate pistolcraft / Jeet Kune Pistol easily, and make it part of "my"
art?

I seem to recall Bruce Lee's philosophy that a JKD practitioner be able to think for him/herself and incorporate other moves arts etc into one's "own" JKD style.

I'm just musing aloud that the "typical" JKD fighting stance with strongside towards ones attacker would not seem to be a good idea when carrying a concealed pistol strongside.

dgg9
12-02-2003, 12:07 PM
It seems to me that to do this right, I oughta get spun up as fast as possible, which suggests KM, according to you.

Yes, or some other "modern combatives" amalgam.

Long-term: I personally like the southern Chinese Kung Fu arts (White Crane, Wing Chun, Choy Li Fut, Mantis) if you can find a good teacher. On the other hand, none of them gets into grappling in any way. I would go about this the other way: find out what's available to you in your area, start with the best teacher, and work from there. I.e., given several reasonably street-effective arts without too much filler, the one with the best teacher trumps all other considerations.

michael
12-02-2003, 12:43 PM
Hi Steve,
You've really asked a question that has no quick answer. Krav Maga is good for learning basic self-defense quickly, but in the higher levels incorporates too much sport (i.e.--they use MMA and Brazilian JuJitsu groundfighting techniques). I trained in Krav for two years, and it is great for a while in it's basic form, but becomes too sport oriented, IMHO. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu (ninjutsu) is great if you can find a good teacher who leaves off all the Buddhist/Shintoist garbage, and if you have a long time to invest in training. It takes years to become proficient, but is the best art I have seen for defense. I am an ex-cop of 12 years and have trained in several different MA's for almost 30 years now, so I am only interested in what works on the street. I don't give a rip about competitions or tournaments. Another practical program to look into is W.Hock Hochheim's close quarter combat program. He incorporates Hand,knife, stick and gun into one program. It is based on self-defense and not sport, and even goes into using force on force scenarios using Airsoft guns. Good stuff, and you can attend seminars which are held around the country relatively inexpensively. And if you get the chance to go to any of Gabe's courses--go!! I haven't been yet, but will as soon as one comes close to my area. I believe his close range gunfighting class incorporates unarmed tactics, but he would be better to answer that than me. His books and tactics are first rate and should be a priority on anyone's list of training. The bottom line is to find an instructor in your area that teaches practical, modern self-defense. You might find this instructor in any school, in any art. It really comes down to the individual teacher and what he knows and how he teaches. Good luck!!

cdi
12-02-2003, 02:33 PM
Steve, ref. JKD; I seem to remember reading something about how Bruce adopted some of his stances and techniques to his own physique and physical limitations. According to Joe Hyam's "Zen in the Martial Arts" Bruce Lee was near-sighted so he studied Wing Chun originally. I think one leg was shorter than the other, which is why he favored his particular stance. I could be wrong, though. In any case, I like JKD and Bruce was not one for set forms, rather JKD was supposed to be an ever expanding art. So the answer is Yes! Study JKD, study Krav Maga, study the killer Navy SEAL crap. Study everything and take what you can use. I have friends who are and were in SOCOM. One in particular attended SCARS, and has trained with Vunak, Blauer, and Gracie. They all have something to offer. If anyone cares, his opinion was that he really liked Vunak's stuff and opined that SCARS and Gracie's stuff was "okay." He was also complimentary towards Blauer. No system is perfect and no one has all the answers. Me, I like Blauer and Vunak's stuff (just what I've seen on video), and am also a big fan of Combatives.

just my .02,
Chuck

CarlosDJackal
12-02-2003, 02:39 PM
I like the term "Dynamic Stance" myself. :D I use what feels right. My body will know exactly which is the most comfortable, balanced, or natural configuration to take in a given scenario.

Although I tend to go to the Weaver when shooting strong side barricade. I do switch to Iso when I go weak side. It's done naturally without any consciouse thought on my part.

JM2CW.

Marty Hayes
12-02-2003, 09:22 PM
Let's suppose you are going head to head with a potential combatant. Are you going to 1) stand facing him, flat on your feet, shoulders squared, groin open for attack, or are you going to 2) blade, protect your groin, extend your reach, and improve your balance?

If your answer is #2, you are a prime candidate to use the weaver shooting stance.

Blade Doc
12-02-2003, 11:05 PM
One argument for Weaver stance is that it can be universally translated into holding a rifle, shooting a pistol or hand to hand fighting.


The JKD strong forward side stance was adopted from fencing and the belief that a majority of strikes will be thrown from your lead hand and foot...therefore putting your strongest side forward will give you faster and more powerful strikes.

JKD "The way of the intercepting fist" adapted the Western fencing strategy of intercepting your opponent's attack while he is in preparation for attack, recovering from attack or counterattacking. The lead JKD punch is the primary tool of interception. The strong side forward allows your intercepting strike more power, dexterity and ability to change lines quickly. The JKD lead punch/finger jab is utilized like a sword, intercepting, beating, binding and enveloping the target.

Its good to be able to punch, knife hit (reverse or forward grip) and shoot from any angle...regardless of the stance that you find yourself in during conflict.

DaveJames
12-03-2003, 12:42 AM
Just my 2 cents, but I have been training in Hapkido now for about 15 years and find it fits, in well

Charles Rives
12-03-2003, 02:25 AM
I've studied several martial arts at different times. I've always had to make the choice by: which local class has the best instructor, facilities, schedule, location, price, and whatnot. I've never had the luxury of being able to choose based on style. I've had good self defense instruction from some of the least self defense oriented styles (like purely sport Judo) or a particularly soft school of Aikido. Likewise, I've seen some schools that teach purely self defense styles pass on some real junk information. Whenever you shop locally for self-defense or martial arts instruction, instead of askin yourself which system you like best, I think that asking yourself "which instructor has the best teaching method and techniques" will carry you a lot further.

Chuck

dgg9
12-03-2003, 05:52 AM
Let's suppose you are going head to head with a potential combatant. Are you going to 1) stand facing him, flat on your feet, shoulders squared, groin open for attack, or are you going to 2) blade, protect your groin, extend your reach, and improve your balance?

If your answer is #2, you are a prime candidate to use the weaver shooting stance.

Ok, but most people who shoot (modern) isosceles are not exactly squared off...it would be hard to maintain balance that way. Most seem to keep the weak side foot forward a little bit, and that does align with a fighting stance. There's a wide variability of where your feet can go with iso.

Also, IMO the analogy between shooting and H2H is not robust.

Gabriel Suarez
12-03-2003, 07:43 AM
Ok, but most people who shoot (modern) isosceles are not exactly squared off...it would be hard to maintain balance that way. Most seem to keep the weak side foot forward a little bit, and that does align with a fighting stance. There's a wide variability of where your feet can go with iso.

Also, IMO the analogy between shooting and H2H is not robust.

Hmmm, two threads in one...interesting.

Point One: Modern isoceles, Weaver, Modified Weaver, Chapman, and on and on and on. Why do we want so much to classify everything? Stand in a way that you can fight well (not just shoot well), modified as needed for the weapon system in hand, and don't worry about what it should look like. I know this isn't a way to teach beginners, but then our art doesn't end with beginners does it??

Point Two: On martial arts - H2H,
First and foremost, get in decent shape. I'd rather have an in shape strong guy on my side in a fight than a weakling who knows every single kung fu technique in the world. Get some running shoes, and a few simple pieces of gear...(perhaps another thread) and get your a** in shape. THEN, start looking for a fighting system. Again, another thread perhaps. In short, most systems taught in the USA today are over complicated on purpose. Look for something simple...yet not too simple.

Vinnie Moscaritolo
12-03-2003, 07:50 AM
In Denver.. visit Shihan Joko Ninomiya.. Enshin Karate.
last I knew, it was on E. Colfax. go and watch the fighting.
yes its a bit sport oriented, but they come from KyoKushinKia
but with more circular movements. they fight without pads.

(I was an instructor of that sytle for a number of years on the
east coast and I lived in his dojo for my training)

it's good stuff, what is particularly good is how he uses kata.
It is done with two people to teach timing and counters.,
unlike traditional Karate that is just static, enshin is more
flows.

anyway you gotta visit the dojo and just watch them sometime..
It's no BS. Ninomiya is down to earth and although sometimes
there is a language barrier he is very approachable and a nice
guy too..

CarlosDJackal
12-03-2003, 09:30 AM
One argument for Weaver stance is that it can be universally translated into holding a rifle, shooting a pistol or hand to hand fighting...

FWIW, I shoot long guns (rifle or shotgun) with the same "base" as when I shoot a handgun. I also shoot my handgun one-handed (strong or weak-side only) in the same manner which means I do not have to shift my feet in any way.

YMMV.

Skpotamus
12-03-2003, 10:32 AM
For H2H, it's not what style you study. It's how you do it. If you "study" an art, you will never be good at fighting. If you train a style, you can get good.

Whatever you use, practice it hard, and live. Forms are for the art, sparring is as close to real as you can get safely. If you can't use your moves in a sparring atmosphere, jump schools to one where you can.

I have studied Tae kwon Do, Isshin Ryu Karate, Small Circle Jiu-jitsu, Aikido, Muay Thai and Shootwrestling. By far the two I've taken the most from were Thai and Shoot. Why? It wasn';t the techniques, the same moves could be found in any of the other arts, but it was how they were trained. You didn't just do a move 5 or 10 times on a cooperative partner, you did that to learn the move. Then you step it up and have the partner resist. Then have them resist more, finally, have them attack you. Really attack you. If you can perform a move on a resisting, fighting opponent, you know it works. If you have trouble getting it to work, figure out why, and modify it so it does, or scrap it.

As far as shooting, I got caught up in the whole classical mess myself. I was a die hard weaver.... until somebody showed me how to really shoot Iso. I switched over as their method gave me better recoil control, and lateral movement, and fit closer to my preferred fighting stance than weaver did. I still do use weaver, but it's in a situation where I can't get my feet wide or far enough for Iso.

Learn the techniques, and let the situation dictate your stance and movements.

Anthony
12-04-2003, 12:56 PM
FWIW, I shoot long guns (rifle or shotgun) with the same "base" as when I shoot a handgun. I also shoot my handgun one-handed (strong or weak-side only) in the same manner which means I do not have to shift my feet in any way.

YMMV.

GREAT THREAD !
I'll start by agreeing with DriftingFate: "Boy are some of us being baited out or what ?"
gptrent correctly states ( IMHO ) that it's a great place to start out. - And we must start out somewhere !
To Leonidas; - 'real-world based system' vs 'shooting range system' ? ..........PLEASE !
Cooper & freinds were all veterans ( either military or police,) when they got together and 'evolved' the 'modern technique'.
They weren't a bunch of 'non-coms' on a range one day, and simply 'had an idea' !
If we study the 'old timers' who were particularly succesfull, we find that some 'pointed', some 'aimed', etc. ALL practised alot !
Since it's inception, the 'modern technique' has been proven time after time on the street. - And not just in the USA !

Soldiers learn to 'breath', natural alignment, positions etc, with their rifles. Often in battle, all this goes to 'ratshit' !
What should we do ? - Tell them to simply 'point' and shoot ? If they feel the need, then use the sights ?
We have to start somewhere. And right now, untill something better comes along, for me at least, the modern technique is the best 'base' to start with.
I tagged on to a post by CarlosDJackel, because I agree with him. The weaver is similar with the griping of a pistol, as to the griping of a shotgun/sub-gun/rifle. Makes things simpler. ( KISS.)

Push/Pull ( Gabe - you know this ! - More baiting ?)
We push/pull to a certain degree. It's a firm push/pull, to be able to control the weapon, we don't push/pull to the maximum that our strength allows. In the same way that a man likes to receive a firm handshake. We handshake firmly, but we don't try to 'crush' our guest's hand !

FWIW, in the last 2 years, I presented my pistol ( revolver actually ) twice, in what I really believed were hold-up attempts. No shots needed. The BGs ( in the early morning, aproaching my jeep, with a hand under the shirt etc,) left quickly, mumbling that I was mistaken etc etc.
Once to the left, using weaver ( albeit seated,) the other time to my right flank, holding my revolver out-stretched in my right hand !
Neither situation was a 'classic weaver', but both instances reflect for me the 'modern technique'. - Principally with regards to 'mind-set'.
My 0.02 cents, - or is this a dollar perhaps ?

Best Regards,
Anthony.

Obiwan
12-12-2003, 11:59 AM
"The "Oh S* I am in a gunfight!""

Thank you for that bit of wisdom

I have often said that the crowd that thinks the ISO is more natural (while they may be right) are confusing the "Flinch Stance" with the ISO.

Find what works for you and practice....a lot.....

And by all means be open to ways to improve!

Justin_P
12-21-2003, 10:43 AM
It sounds like you're saying that NO stance will protect you, including weaver. Movement and cover will.

mako25
12-21-2003, 01:11 PM
Rather than label your stance, or to try to fit into anyone’s mold, try this. Imagine a big Creatine snorting, tattooed, shaven- headed thug ten feet away from you. You have no gun, but you will soon be in a fight with him. How are you going to be standing? Take that stance right now! Get your hands up! Ready? Now hold everything and bring your pistol into the picture. THAT, my friends, should be your shooting stance.




When I first started shooting seriously, I used a slightly modified ninjutsu posture, they were the only stances that made sence at the time. As I learned more and started to attend training classes, I found that a mixed stance of boxing and wrestling allows me to shoot from a stable platform, while moving, while seeing a lot of area. Add to that SUL and 360 movement, and I feel damn good about things.

Great post Gabe. Thanks for such an informative board.

Sleuth
01-07-2004, 10:46 AM
I prefer and teach the "Weaver", particularly to Law Enforcement students, for the following reasons:
1. It is compatable with the use of our other tools - OC, Baton (particularly "#1 from the ring"), empty hands.
2. It can be employed instantly from the F.I. Stance, without any movement of the lower body.
3. It allows for use of cover with less exposure. You can learn to "mirror", shooting left hand/left eye. This is of greater use during the search phase of an operation.

But, I do not insist on a "pure" Weaver, as the use of any stance is dependent on body shape (yes, round IS a shape), flexability, tactics used, equipment worn (try a Weaver with the old, hard armor!), etc., etc..

Given the realities of limited training time and the desire to insure training is 'cross cultural' with the DT folks, the Weaver and it's variants seem to me to be the most useful general stance or base, from which Less Lethal, DT, Handguns, Long Arms, or a simple conversation can be employed. I feel it is a mistake to train a handgun stance that cannot be readily used in these other venues. Of course, your results may vary. And a big tool box is a better tool box.

Al Lipscomb
01-13-2004, 09:51 AM
I think one reason we need to teach a basic, common stance is to have a meaningful reference point to start with. Teaching a shooter a baseline stance allows them to fall back to a position they can use while at the range or in an emergency.

I teach a Weaver like position with the right (strong) leg back and the weight one the front leg. This is a walking stance that is easy to fall into as you just stop mid-step. The shooting hand is in a reverse punch position.

New shooters need to start from a position that is both safe and stable. While some people want to get up and running in combat mode they forget that an inexperianced shooter can be a danger to themselves and others.

If we were teaching a combat driving course we would never think about starting someone who did not know how to drive in a high speed course. We would want them to spend enough time working on the basics to be safe and stable behind the wheel. Why would we want to skip this step for someone new to firearms?

Capt. Nemo
01-13-2004, 01:49 PM
Hey 'Drifting"! You're not the only "non-LEO" here firend - I'm one (or not one) too!

Hey - this "Supreme Allied Commander" guy sure does like to stir the pot, don't he? Know what? I LIKE THAT! A LOT! :-) In my limited experience it's the posers and almost experts that stick to the dogmatic statements and won't change their tune no matter what. Only fools and true experts are not afraid to go out onto that thin limb all alone and speak their minds and buck the "universally accepted protocols" . Somehow, I don't think this Suarez guy's a fool! LOL!

As for me, I'm just learning all of this stuff, so I think I'll just stick to learning the Weaver, Isosceles, and any other stance I can get a good trainer to teach me, then when I'm more experienced, I'll make my own decisions. But I gotta tell ya, I was thrown for a loop there when I read the title of Gabe's post. I'm thinkin - "OK now - just when I think I got it down pretty good, along comes this damn 'expert" who tells me it's all wrong!" Sheesh! But being an English major as well as a water-rescue instructor, I have to agree with the idea that you first have to learn the rules before you're allowed to break em. See, no matter what the topic, English literature, Rescue techniques or (I suppose) gunfighting - as long as you know the established rules about what to do and how to do it, you can "improvise" a bit, long as you know it's gonna work cuz you've already tried it in training. (Verily He saith unto us - "The more you sweat in training, the less you'll bleed in combat!")

Amen, brothers! and thanks for the really great education I've been geting here!
Nemo



Boy, are some of us being baited out or what? :)

I don't disagree with anything here. Well, maybe a bit with the isometric tension - but I admit to being the gratuitous civilian/non-LEO/non-professional around here - so I'm not going to claim that holds a lot of water.

The one thing I would say is that before you break the rules and go "free form," I've found it best to know the rules very well. They were created for a reason. In the limited teaching I did in the past, it seemed the better combat shooters learned the formal lessons first and then understood how and why corners could be cut. Same thing with art, and I would suppose many things in life. I hear that military special forces does things in a similar manner. You have to learn to salute and march and prove you are disciplined before they will let you get away with "modified grooming standards."

Human beings like a process. I don't think we should stop once we've mastered the process. It's just that it gives us a foundation and building blocks to move forward with. Unfortunately, many people confuse the class room with the real world.