Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by Sac Arrow, Sep 17, 2020.
If you know what I'm talking about, you probably have an opinion.
I've been taught/used both. I prefer Weaver.
I don't know what you are talking about but that is not going to stop me from having an opinion. Weaver, yes definitely, Weaver
Isosceles. Allows for better precision because your arms aren't working against each other.
Chapman, especially for competitive. Second, Weaver which I was 1st taught.
It's really about what is best for you. I used to shoot in, and win, IPSC competitions using the Weaver stance. I also used it in military pistol range qualification sessions. They taught the standard officer/infantry grunt authorized a pistol the isosceles stance, but special ops were taught the Weaver stance.
The Chapman stance is a modified Weaver stance, and it never worked well for me. In handgun defense, keeping the gun close to you and having good combat accuracy is key.
The sole time when I revert to an isosceles stance is when I'm shooting a big bore revolver like .44 magnum. I just don't want that thing in my face and I suck with it. Last choice in defense weapons. It's essentially a single shot zombie blaster.
What's more important is what you say
Isosceles. Its more precise and faster.
Default to Chapman, have used all three and a whole bunch of whatever works for the situation, especially for shoot while moving or using available cover.
it absorbs recoil a lot better and allows for faster/accurate follow up shots
90 degree CCW turn. One hand. Flat brim ball cap required.
Isosceles....isn't that the guy that flew too close to the sun and melted his wings.??
I prefer weaver and have always used it when I’m at the range, but I feel like if I was actually in self defense I’d probably favor isosceles, since I’m a right handed shooter.
No, you’re thinking of his brother Equilateral.
Weaver. Feels more natural
Kind of like, "which plane?" Depends upon the circumstances. For the reasons i would need to adopt a stance, isosceles would not be my first choice.. too many things I need to continue enjoying life exposed. For target or competition ... That's another story.
Time to shoot, shoot, no matter the stance.
Ball cap 90 degrees CW to offset the recoil.
Isoscoles at the range (other than Camp Perry). Weaver for serious...
Stop being obtuse!
I'd rather be Right.
This whole thread is going off on a tangent.
you keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
(all of them can be/are isosceles)
Weaver might be marginally better for punching holes in a paper target but the symmetry of isosceles allows easier pivoting in either direction plus it handles recoil better which allows quicker recovery for a second shot.
If I were hunting with a handgun, Weaver might be better if there were no rest available, but my hunting is mostly shotgun, some rifle. Handguns for me are for defense, so I prefer isosceles.
This is becoming a trigger-nometry discussion....
Are you wearing a vest? Weaver may present a lower profile but expose unprotected areas more.
started off with the Gentleman's stance shooting bullseye,
switched to Isosceles when starting training for CCW/Personal Defense,
Weaver for some personal training,
Modified Weaver/Chapman for advanced personal defense training
for hunting, I guess I have the same opinion as advanced personal defense ... "whatever it takes to fight your way to your rifle"
Maybe it's all my hth training, but I'm going to disagree on this. Not just completely, but emphatically as well.
Although, I don't think I adopt a textbook Weaver stance. All the images and videos I see it doesn't look as balanced and stable as it could be.
Well, aren't you acute one?
Certainly is a protracted discussion.
What a high pot o' news .....
(Ok, yeah....I'm reaching...)
That's precisely why I mentioned that I wouldn't use it during actual self defense. Being a right handed shooter would greatly expose the left arm-pit area - a wide open entry point to the heart and chest cavity. It's great at the range, but that's about it.
Then why are all the targets that you see of people in the iso position? Easier to hit.
Aren't police trained to do a Weaver/side stance to minimize target area?
I only did hand to hand combat instruction with the police, never firearms. But do they really need to worry when their targets are usually facing away from them?
"Oh no he di'int!!"
Are you routinely wearing a vest ?