I "grew up" pistol shooting with Weaver or modified Weaver, simply because it felt natural to me, and I shot fine that way. Then during a FLETC police carbine class, one of the instructors urged me to just try isosceles. I did, and it worked well for me...not that I was having problems with Weaver...just another tool in the tool box.These days, I find myself switching back and forth regularly, depending on the situation. This is because during my last couple of years shooting USPSA, I find some other advantages and disadvantages of each stance become a factor when you're not shooting statically on a square range.I find isosceles to sometimes be a more stable platform than Weaver, but not as mobile. I find the foot placement in Weaver or modified Weaver more natural and conducive to movement in a variety of directions. Just depends on the dynamics of the scenario.Of course, the origins of isosceles come from police training themselves away from Weaver...back when early body armor didn't have side panels. While it was recognized that the more sideways profile of classic Weaver presented a smaller target than squared-up isosceles, it was also clear that classic Weaver exposed the only part of the torso that was not armored.The thinking was that an isosceles stance would at least increase the odds that if hit, the officer would take the hits square in the body armor. Nowadays most body armor has side panels, so that argument is largely moot.Bottom line for me is that if I have the time and opportunity to square up and use isosceles, I do it. If things are more fluid, I tend to move into some sort of variation of Weaver for ease of mobility.
Post a Comment