There is a lot of debate about which stance is the best for combat shooting. Practitioners of the competitive shooting world prefer the Isosceles stance, which was also adopted by the military and law enforcement communities. The other side of the debate favors the “modern technique’s” Weaver stance. Few, if any, ever mention the Chapman or Modified Weaver stance. So which stance is the best? To answer that question, let’s first look at the history and development of each to determine which might be the best choice for you.
Background
Originally, handguns were meant to be fired with one hand. The reason being, their intended purpose was to arm mounted troops so that they would be able to fire with one hand and control their mount with the other. The pistols, usually two, were carried in holsters attached to the saddle. However, the primary weapon was still the saber.
As pistol technology improved, and they became more efficient and convenient to carry on one’s person, one-handed shooting was still the “state of the art.” Even during the period dominated by Colonel Samuel Colt’s revolutionary revolvers, it was one-handed shooting that was the norm — albeit at times with one revolver in each hand. No doubt some practitioners of the art of handgun shooting used two hands from time to time. However, it was not the encouraged, accepted, or a taught style of handgun shooting. Two hands were reserved exclusively for long guns. That philosophy persisted until well into the late 1950s when Colonel Jeff Cooper’s Leather Slap competitions served up the leading gunslingers of the day.
The Leather Slap events started as a quick draw event, inspired by America’s love affair with the popular movie and TV westerns of the day. Of course, shooters were always looking for faster and more accurate ways to shoot. They constantly experimented with other techniques.
Initially, the regular competitors at The Leather Slap events used single-handed point shooting, firing the pistol from the hip — á la those cowboys they loved. The stages for those events consisted of timed strings at an array of targets that consisted of 18-inch balloons ay seven yards. Eventually, a forward thinking competitor and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy named Jack Weaver developed an eye-level, two-handed aiming technique that revolutionized the game.
Weaver Stance
Weaver was quoted as saying, “A pretty quick hit is better than a lightning-fast miss.” Basically, the Weaver stance, as developed by Jack, is a bladed stance with the strong-side foot back, very much like a boxer’s fighting stance. It required the shooter to have a nearly straight strong arm with a bent support arm. This creates a push/pull hold on the pistol because the support arm is bent and pulls in from the front on the grip while the strong arm pushes out and forward from the back of the grip.
This became the stance that was the basis for the “modern technique.” Consequently, this technique is still taught at Gunsite. It was revolutionary for its day. Many believe it is still the best option of all the other stances for a real fight — including yours truly.
Isosceles Stance
That said, the most popular stance seen today is the Isosceles that was popularized in the 1980s, when Brian Enos and Rob Leatham used it to win several International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) competitions. The basic Isosceles position starts with you facing your target, shoulders level with each other, with both arms extended and elbows locked. Holding the pistol in line with the center of your chest. Push forward with your strong hand, and pull back with your support hand. From above, this looks like an isosceles triangle when executed correctly, hence the name of the stance.
Since its introduction, it has been embraced by law enforcement and the military, because it maximizes the protection and effectiveness of body armor. The reason for that is the armor plates are flat to the direction of the threat. But how many CCW holders go to the store in full body armor?
Although competitors use it very well in competition, a gunfight is not competition and different dynamics are in play. Two of my biggest criticisms of the Isosceles stance is that it is not as dynamic as the Weaver stance, which is a true fighting stance. You can’t pivot quite as far in either direction as you can with the Weaver. You also must stick your gun farther out in front of you, making the Isosceles stance a poor choice for close combat techniques. The isosceles stance is also much harder for students to get right. It contains many subtleties that make it difficult to properly master and counter intuitive for a fight.
Other Options
There is another stance that I like, but not as a primary stance. It’s one that should definitely be in your bag of gun fighting tricks and that is Paul Castle’s Center Axis Relock stance. The stance excels at close-range fighting where retention is paramount and your targets are non-gender-specific homo sapiens in size.
It is also excellent for those that are cross eyed-dominate to use. It forces you to use the non-dominant eye without any form of compensation. It is fast and adapts to any situation. However, it is not recommended when ranges are longer than 10 yards.
Additional reasons why I favor and recommend the Weaver Stance as a starting point for all my students… It’s a dynamic fighting stance that’s based on other martial arts fighting stances. Therefore, fluidity of movement is easier. It also gives much more consideration as to how the human body works best when under stress.
Think about how you naturally address someone for a fight. That is how the Weaver stance addresses your adversary naturally doing what you are instinctually programed to do. The Weaver is a dynamic stance that is lightning fast and easy to assume. Additionally, you don’t have to move your feet to engage multiple targets. You merely rotate your torso with much more lateral movement than other stances while maintaining balance.
The sights are closer than with some of the other two-handed stances, so target acquisition is easier. Being bladed makes you a much more difficult target to hit. It is also more compact, making weapon retention in close quarters much more secure. I find it such a good starting point that it is also the basic stance I use for rifle and shotgun.
Final Thoughts
Although it has been overtaken in popularity by the Isosceles stance with most instructors, I believe it is the much better choice for the civilian defensive shooter and CCW holders. That said, I will admit to some deficiencies inherent in the Weaver stance — such as recoil — is not controlled as well as some other stances, particularly if you do not have much upper body strength. Also, it is not as good for cross eyed- dominant shooters to accommodate as the Center Axis Relock stance.
Those issues aside, it is still my number one choice for all handgun shooting against adversaries — at touching distance to varmints at 200 yards. In conclusion, not every stance is good for every shooter, in every situation. So, practice each stance until you can naturally assume the best position for you to deliver fast, accurate fire, no matter where you are. Stay safe, train often, and practice, practice, practice!
Do you prefer the Weaver or Isosceles stance and why? Share your answer in the Comment section.