I went through the academy in the early 1980s [pre-bodyarmor] with a 6-shot 357. The range instructors taught us three stances. 1- Isosceles 2 - Weaver 3 - Modified Weaver [which incorporates both]. I chose the Modified Weaver, as it was the most comfortable and familiar, as it closely mimicked the stance that I took when shooting a 12-gauge while hunting for ten years. No changing your stance regardless of your weapon [long gun or pistol]. It also helped when shooting around barriers.
Same here! I seem to have steadier hands using the better stability and "push pull" of a modified Weaver. Didn't mean much 10 years ago, but for some reason my hands tend to move around these days shooting Isosceles.
They taught us Isosceles. I switched post academy to modified weaver. A few years later, our range instruction became much more combat oriented with multiple firearms in multiple positions.
I had the same experience starting in my academy in '78. When I became an instructor in the early 80's the Weaver was all the rage. What's old is new amd what's new is old. Things change back and forth over time. I used to have students try both (within guodelines) and go with what worked best for them.
Started out Isosales . Shooting at life size targets , it was the bee's knees . Then one day at a club match with 8 and 10 inch steel plates at 10- 15 yds . I had to slow down a lot to hit the smaller targets . Yeah , yeah , gunfights only up close , yadda yadda . But aim small ,miss small is a real thing . Ran thru my bag of tricks with different stances to see what worked for fast And accurate . Turns out that with Modified Weaver . at full speed , gave 50% more precise placement * for me * . Yes , somewhat less flexible and mobility . * For me * , I was
Finger slipped and premature posting. * For Me* , I was already competent with Isos , so if I needed to move , just drop back into Isos as needed . And in mild hypocrisy , I default teach Isos .
By the time I had been shooting for years I started reading about the 'Weaver stance' mine was more a modified version and have never seen a reason to change.
I have two problems with the thumbs forward grip. First, I don't see that being as secure for retention, making the grip more suited to competition than defense. Second, depending on the firearm design sometimes there is no place for my trigger finger to fully pull the trigger because my support hand is blocking it.
the weaver stance came out much earlier than the isosceles stance. the weaver stance is still used today by me! the isosceles stance came around late 1970s to early 1980s. if you are cross eye dominants like me forget the isosceles. at least with the weaver i can move my head so that my strong eye lines up behind the sights.
Another great topic that's well presented. As someone who has been shooting for 40+ years, I came to many of the same conclusions. A "true" Isosceles with a thumbs forward grip does not work for me. Thank you and well done!
Masaad Ayoob has recently advocated for the more traditional thumbs overlapping grip. Because he demonstrates that it makes the grip on the firearms much stronger. I've tested it and I also find it to be just as good as the thumbs forward grip, but without the issues with slide lock engagement. It's funny how in the gun community it's often what's old is new again!
Someone else mentioned that Mas recently stated he favored the more traditional grip. I tend to think the "thumbs-forward" grip is great for competition. For gunfighting, however, it may have some drawbacks.
My opinion, is what are you doing during you stance activities ? Target shooting, run n gun, in an actual self defense situation. If you have all the time in the world, then you can pick. I also think that if you are in a stance where someone can push you over with a finger, then you are not really in a good shooting stance. A "Modified Weaver" is what a lot of people do, whether they realize it or not. Just so they don't fall over. .02
Excellent summation of a lot of material! You succinctly stated many points that us old guys learned over multiple decades, but never heard integrated into a coherent presentation. You should put this in a course.
Ha, ha! None of the youngsters would want to hear it from an old guy like me! I would have to find some young, hip, good looking kid to do the presentation.
@@finnl6887 Thanks Finn! I was just making an “old guy” joke. I wasn’t discounting or dismissing any of my younger viewers. Thanks so much for watching!
Over a number of years I taught a number of novice shooters to shoot. I use a Modified Weaver that I learned early in my LE career, just like those shooters below. I first demonstrated that stance, but also showed the new shooters the Isosceles stance, and told them all to try the Weaver, Modified Weaver and Isosceles. To a one, every male used a Weaver stance and every woman, regardless of their "physical shape," all, every one of them, much preferred the Isosceles stance. They were all built differently, one was learning on a revolver and the others using semiautomatics. All went "naturally" to the Isosceles. That being said, God Bless Deputy Weaver, LASD, ret. Rest in Peace.
Great video. I tried the thumbs forward grip. My trigger control suffers with it and I can't shoot as accurately. I went back to the the thumbs down grip. It works better for me and since I also use revolvers I just use the same grip for both.
Very good presentation. When trained as a LEO, the “Weaver” and “Modified Weaver” stances were taught. The reason for these is the transition from an “Interview” stance into a Weaver stance was much quicker than moving into Isosceles. The weak arm, if need be, was used to push off an attacker while stepping back, drawing, and firing from the Weaver. With that said, I train using several stances; Modified Weaver, Isosceles, and Duelist with both strong hand and weak hand gripping of the firearm. Safely transitioning the handgun from one hand to another while changing stances is also part of my regime.
From my training and experience, the Weaver and Modified Weaver used the defensive posture position that was called the F.I. Stance, or Field Interview Stance. This position was taught, at least to me, over 45 years ago, but, the Isosceles, I believe was first taught by the FBI going way back and I had heard the terms Isosceles Stance and FBI Stance used to describe the same thing. They are all good, and each serves it's own purpose. As I recently mentioned to you in a recent video that you posted regarding High Ready, Low Ready, and Center Ready (you called it something else), I find for my age and shooting comfort, I am best served from the Weaver. Great information Sir! Thanks and Blessings.
Another great topic! Personally, I almost exclusively use a Weaver-esque stance with a handgun. I carry strong side IWB/OWB so, for reasons I am sure you will explore, it works well for me. However, you have to have a tool box and be able to adapt for things like body armor, AIWB, rifles, etc. I hope you get into some of these new grips some "instructors/operators" are pushing. I am not a fan of the extreme support hand rotation and/or forward grip with a handgun. Looking forward to your video.
I'm glad you decided to add the portion about grip into the video. I've never even tried what I always referred to as a "revolver grip" with a semi-auto. I've always used thumbs forward, and don't shoot nearly as well with my 1911's as I do with revolvers. Of course, we all grew up learning on revolvers, and that was the grip you had to use. I may try it next range trip, myself. Always nice to get something interesting to think about! :)
I really enjoyed this video. When I began combat type shooting in the 80's, like most shooters I used the Weaver stance. In the early 2000's I started using the Isosceles. After watching your video, I went to the range. Like you did, beginning in a neutral stance and using a timer, on signal I drew and fired five shots from each style. As you found , going into the Weaver took more time. It was an interesting and informative test. Thanks HR, this was good food for thought.
Thank you so much for this content. I was looking for demonstration and comparison of those stances but couldn't find anything so complete. Keep up the good content!
In the 80's we used a modified weaver. We had no body armor. You put your upper arm tight to the body. The other arm is cocked. No matter what direction you moved the gun moved with you. It worked awesome for sweeps. Being taught that FBI style makes you a target makes it hard to do now.
I’ll disagree on the mobility from the Weaver stance, at least from a martial art perspective, I can quickly and easily move in all directions from a Weaver stand because it’s close to a fighting stance. Secondly, dropping down worries me in that most untrained bad guys punch the trigger and shoot low. Third, I will never have a vest on. Maybe it’s also got a lot to do with years of years using what we called years ago, a modified Weaver stance, but after 50 years I see no reason to change at this point. I do like your videos, they are very informative, easy to follow, and make a lot of sense 👍.
The 'thumbs forward grip was already used by someone in the 60s called Elden Carl (look for Elden Carl dot you know what) while not using isosceles stance. Even of the thumbs forward grip there are different variations out there. Some move the hand on top extremely forward which may or may not loosen the grip further back, while to some it improves recoil control as well as those that extremely rotate the wrist down (already excluding those that can make use of the trigger guard). Others try to just get further up instead of forward. The grip angle of the pistol and hand size may change the neutral angle of the thumb (that isn't used) and then trying to hold the thumb parallel to the slide as the rough doctrine says may affect the grip negatively. Some competition shooters use lots of pressure also side to side while others say their technique allows them to use relatively little pressure. It'd need a quite detailed break down to even nail down what those grip types were at some point (at least with the weaver and modified weaver there are documents). If you look into the crazy 80s & 90s stages of ipsc and the top dogs, some included upper back training for more stability/control and hired physicians. Overall I think that this grip A, grip B is antiquated and it should be broken down further to where fingers apply pressure with direction, what other muscle groups are involved and even grip pressure can be measured (not saying you should do that). From there grip sizes can be broken down by hand measurements and why shouldn't be a gun sized up in a store like shoes? Look at ergonomics of olympic style shooting and it's made to fit them perfectly. Why is nobody 3D printing grips from a scanned cast with all those cheap grip modules? That'd also be god sent for those that suffered injuries or have arthritis.
I think there comes a point where the specific technique employed becomes unique to each shooter. I’m not sure it would be possible to break down specifically every single type of grip stance etc. to elemental components. I suspect every slugger in professional baseball swings his bat in a manner which is essentially unique. Trying to apply the basis of that technique when teaching other people to hit may or may not work for them. I think we see the same sort of difficulty when it comes to shooting.
For myself, Modified Weaver works best, but I remain fluid to use what ever works best for the situation. As for Grip, the old Marine Corp style Grip has always worked best for me, over a wide variety of Hanguns, Cz's, 1911's, Beretta 92's, Sriker Fired Pistols, and Revolvers. I did try the Thumbs Forward style Grip, but it made my Trigger Pull go wonky. Could be the shape of my hand. Excellent Video discussion! Heading on to the Range Portion.
Interestingly, at least to me, learning how to drive power from the ground using your legs in a decent golf swing helped me with stance fundamentals while shooting pistols.
My martial arts instructors would argue that the weaver stance is more movement-flexible than the isosceles. My dad's mantra hits me when I see isosceles -- "can't move quickly when you're flat-footed."
As a martial arts instructor and a former competitive fighter, I can say with a measure of confidence that during combat, one rarely assumes a perfect stance of any kind. Stances are intended to instill the concepts of stability and balance so that it becomes second nature to assume the most balanced/stable position possible in an actual fight.
The stances and grip explanation is as clear and well explained as I’ve ever heard it, HR. Thanks. The thumbs forward grip has been promoted by most all shooting class instructors/trainers around the Tulsa area for the last twenty years. The effect on smooth sided striker fired pistols (no manual safety), and 1911 style semi autos, revolvers is a significant difference. You’ve pointed out the pro/cons of the new grip style better than anyone I’ve heard.
Modified Weaver for me, but I practice a lot in unorthodox or just me regularly standing (best way I can describe it) this is because if I'm ever in need of a pistol I'm probably going to be out in town caught in a situation where I need to react quickly and probably won't have time to get a good stance. Although I agree with that uncompleted isosceles stance in a threatening situation so I might practice that to now.
I’ll be VERY interested in your opinions and reasoning, Howard. I have been know to use - Heaven forbid - single strong (and occasionally, weak) hand; it’s terrible “old school” but it works and - perhaps - one might be confronted with a situation where one or the other hand / arm was occupied or incapacitated.
Thank you Mr funk for another fantastic informative video. I started out shooting in the late '80s and '90s using the isosceles stance.. courtesy of Sonny Crockett from Miami vice 😂.. sometime around the mid-late 1990s I transitioned to using the Weaver stance... I have since approximately around 2003-2004 went back to the isosceles stance.. I also read about using small pocket pistols and small revolvers and taking advantage of what they called the crumpled isosceles stance with where close range someone is getting close to you you bring the gun back to your chest with your elbows bent. And look over the top of the barrel.. again this is at extremely close range and with a small revolver or small pistol.. it's to keep the perpetrator from deflecting or grabbing your gun.. as range increases you can go from the crumpled isosceles back out to the full isosceles stance.... I also have a very unusual way I hold my grip.. now this is going to sound weird but it works for me..I have very strong arms but weak wrist.. I have the left hand around the front in the left hand thumb crossed over my wrist ! This locks my wrist solid so there's no movement of my wrist from recoil... I know this sounds extremely weird but it works really well for me! Thanks again
What I meant to say was I put my left hand thumb over the back of my wrist. Basically gripping my wrist and locking my wrist so it will not move with the recoil I know it sounds really weird but it works great for me
Great channel I had to go get my pistol to just see how my grip works. So I mostly shoot isosceles stance depending on what and where iam shooting.so to me dynamics is important not stuck with one form. Grip is the same in both stance. I was taught shooting with revolvers and had to modify grip later to shoot pistol. Grip is still the same principle but forming of hands are diffent. When you say grip the gun what way do you mean. I use front to back grip with strong hand no side to side pressure. Support hand is lock wrist with side to side grip to give strength to strong hand wrist. Strong hand thumb rest on outside of support hand and support hand thumb is parallel to the barrel and not touching pistol at all. No noticable push or pull on pistol , mean no deliberate push pull.
I have been watching your channel since you did the LEO qualification comparison. Amping other things, I teach civilian pistol and CPL(Michigan), also work as a LEO RSO at my club. In the pistol classes we teach both stances and grips, to give students an introduction to both. One comment I give to my students is the the Weaver Stance is good to use when shooting from behind cover, to more fully protect your vital areas. Enjoyed this series.
Becuase of RUclips’s vagaries, I watched part #2 before I could access part #1. This comment addresses both parts. First, and most importantly, I learned a LOT from the combined parts - thank you, Howard - they were EXCELLENT and they provided good deal to reconsider. Second, I have long been an isosceles / thumbs forward shooter, but not rigidly so. The isosceles / thumb forward method has always felt quite natural to me and (for whatever reasons) it does not impede my frequent revolver shooting. Now for a few brief comments: 1. The fractions of a second differences in shooting times, and the two inches or much less in accuracies, really are pragmatically meaningless (imho). Of course, they also - and again - demonstrate that the few shooters with HR’s experience, skill, and training can unquestionably attain more than adequate speed and shot placement regardless of the weapons, grips and the stances utilized. That likely is considerably less true for most of us? 2. I have long wondered - and I’d welcome opinions - what percentage of lawful citizen defensive encounters begin with a “surprise” and rapid weapons presentation, as opposed to a “moment or two” to retrieve the weapon, move quietly, take a deliberate grip and stance, and be prepared to fire instantaneously? Perhaps this could be better illustrated by two example: the “surprise” might be a felon jumping from an alleyway with a knife drawn, whereas the “moment or two” might be hearing widow glass break or a door being pounded at 0200. Now, for me at least, this is an VERY important distinction, since the “moment or two” defense should allow the lawful citizen to get to retrieve his weapon, Gwen to a preselected location, to employ cover, and to adjust his stance / grip to best fit that situation. Finally, fwiw, in my circumstances I believe the “surprise” defensive encounter is far less likely than is the “moment or two” scenario.
Hi Roy. Neither Wifey or I are prior cop or military. We've had to brandish or actually point with finger on the trigger twice in 3 or so decades. One of them was a burglar that didn't know anyone was home. I confronted the thief while Wifey got her gun. She came back ready to shoot. That's when he left. Second time we were surprised but had ample time to think and just brandish a gun.
Thanks Roy. I can envision scenarios where the “surprise factor” might or might not enter the discussion. I think a lot has to do with the person’s circumstances at the time of the encounter. The suburban home owner who works in an office in a “good part of town” is probably less likely (but not exclusively so) to be surprised by an unexpected threat. Conversely, the late-night convenience store worker in a “rough area” could face a confrontation quickly with little or no prior warning. During my 30+ years in law enforcement, MOST of the time a had to deploy a firearm the situation did not require a “quick draw.” Then, there the minority of times when I did (although fortunately I never had to fire.) I don’t think the percentage of instances really gives one much guidance.
@@roykiefer7713 Like many we didn't report these incidences. The bugler wasn't in a high crime area. Crime was rare. The other was when camping. A law on the books back then allowed for people to consider a tent as their domicile. No CCW required at your campsite. It was also hunting season which allowed open carry. That is what chased the 3 gang bangers away. They had one .22 rifle and after looking at our stuff ran a bunch of rounds. Shell casings were all over the place. It didn't appear that they were up to no good. Wifey is looking around by the river and I was checking our stuff. The bangers come around the bend and were as startled as we were. Once they recovered they looked at me and then started to give the Wifey the once over. They couldn't see my semi in the 4:00 position and now had the creepy smile on their faces undress Wifey with their eyes...until they see her Smith 19-5 sitting in her open top holster near her belt buckle. I have my hand on the grip. The bangers went into friendly mode and double timed it to their van. Didn't have to wave a gun around as they saw one of them just fine. Both instances were in CA. No CCW. Only the better informed LEO would have let us go at the campground.
I have gotten used to using the thumbs forward grip, but it did not work out well with one of my pistols. I have a Browning Buckmark Target .22 that I got somewhere around 1989. I hadn't shot it in years until my daughter wanted to learn to shoot. I figured the Buckmark would be a great pistol to start with due to the low recoil. She shot it beautifully. I gave it a try with the thumbs forward grip and got bitten badly on my left thumb. I had not thought about my thumb being right at the juncture of the fixed barrel and the slide. I lost a pretty good chunk of flesh that took weeks to fully heal. Lesson learned.
Good discussion. Hand size and finger length can make a difference in grip. Being left handed I have to be very careful in using a thumbs forward grip on a 1911 or a Hi Power style gun. If not careful my thumb will press into the other side of the slide release and cause a jamb as the gun is ejecting the shell.
I can understand how that would happen. In short, I think the thumbs - forward grip works well for fast competition shooting. I'm not convinced it is the best "gunfighting" grip.
Personally, I use the weaver stance. It always made more sense to me because it reduces your profile making you slightly harder to hit, stabilizes your aim, and is very applicable to aiming around cover. I also used to do lots of sword fighting, and the weaver stance is very comfortable and familiar to someone who has wielded swords two handed (especially hand and a half swords). I just wouldn't feel comfortable squaring myself to an enemy and presenting the largest possible target unless I was in some sort of situation where I had body armor and had to advance on open ground, due to the exposed armpit. The isosceles stance in anything other than that circumstance never made even a tiny bit of sense to me until watching this video. I'll stick to the weaver, but at least now I get it. As for the grip, I use the old thumb over thumb grip. I first started shooting seriously with a SA revolver so it just made more sense, and now that my main gun is my 92FS the high and back thumb makes operating the decocker/safety all the way up on the slide a non issue in terms of reach, so the thumb forward technique would probably just be detrimental given my choice of firearm. Very informative to hear the advantages to the other way of doing things though.
Great info as usual. How about shooting from the hip, like Bill Jordan or Bob Munden? I think shooters rely too much on sights nowadays. Archery and shotguns can be shot instinctively, why not handguns? BTW, back in the cowboy era, the stance was with a severely bent elbow with the handgun close to the face. This is seen in Charles Russell paintings. Seems ridiculous today, but that's the way they did it.
👍👍I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience on this subject. I have always used the thumbs forward on my semi autos but all my semi autos are m& ps and I don’t own a 1911 so It has always worked for me. On my revolvers I use the grip you showed with one thumb on top of the other because as you showed thumbs forward doesn’t work. I’ve never tried it on a semi auto but I might give it a try depending on the results you get in part two of this video.
close quarters defense i am favor of having left leg forwad for more stability, less likey to be pushed down when one foot is anchored in the rear but say like run and gun or competition type shooting i may pause quickly with a isosceles stance, but one thing is for shure we may not be able to get into a proper stance fast enough in a defense situation, as in the martial arts i was told stances are fine but it doesnt mean you will always have time to use them so even with the martial arts situational awareness dependent to have time to assume the fighting stances, but stances are a big subject for shure, lots of modified stances and some work good for some and not so good for some people, the take away from it is its based on the individual what stance is best for us so we need to test that for ourselves on the range like you did and never take for granted any one stance we been taught to hold on to, but use all and find out our oun personal results on the range to see if maybe we can do better with another, just like with me when i started shooting Glocks decades ago the grip angle just as you mentioned i was not in favor of either so the chapman stance solved that problem and wrist bent more downward, chapman is right arm locked out and left arm slightly bent but some stances are a blend of 2 stances often people call "modified chapman, weaver, isosceles" my Glock 20 10 mm with buffalo bore and underwood loads i never use a isosceles stance, its cost me accuracy so its like there is a stance for everything and some apply and some dont depending on what your doing with the stance
Massad Ayoob hope I got that spelling right) made a video a while back saying that he had gone back to thumbs down grip His reasoning for doing so was that the thumbs down grip is more resistant to a gun snatch,, something he demonstrated in the presentation
YES! One or the other! Or, maybe both! (just not at the same time) I was taught to shoot by a Marine Gunny Dad. He shot Expert in the Corps more times than I can count. At the time they had a more: Bullseye shooting course and he did a lot of one handed stuff. The importance of practice cannot be over emphasized in the area of stance and gun presentation. The best shooter (Ernest Langdon being one of them) has a harder time shooting support hand only with a tricked out pistol ( Ernest does even with one of his tricked out LTT 92 Custom pistols with a red dot). My normal two handed presentation of a pistol is blended. Mostly Weaver but leaning towards the isosceles. It works for me. From cover I can get my first shot off in under 1.5 seconds, accurately.
In the academy we learned both the Weaver Stance and the thumbs down grip. One reason Weaver was popular was that it was essentially the same stance as the interview stance. In the interview stance you could charge a suspect and close distance or throw punches. I have read that thumbs provide about 15 to 20% of our grip strength a thumbs down grip would increase my ability to control.a gun during a disarming attempt. Finally recoil control is more critical with a .357 magnum revolvers compared to a polymer 9mm.
When it comes to shooting, I'm just not seeing any advantage to the Weaver stance these days. From the "interviews stance" I think it's just as quick to assume a modified isosceles stance.
@@hrfunk The Weaver isn't easy on arthritic shoulders. I understand why it was adopted but given modern vests as opposed to old style concealed body armor and modern pistols I tend to agree. My comments were for historical context
I still use the Weaver grip. I never liked the thumbs forward or "Glock Grip" for reasons you stated, hitting the slide release, slide drag from thumbs riding on the slide slowing it down and a looser grip to me. The Wilson Combat RUclips channel did a good video on this topic. They said the weaver grip is making a come back. They also showed better retention of the pistol if someone were to try to take it from you with weaver grip.
I use the Weaver stance also. I use the "low thumb" grip, as I feel it gives me best control of the weapon . Never bought into that "donkey ear thubs" grip. Why ignore 5 million years of evolution to develop the opposable thumb?
I always used what was termed an interrogation stance when approaching someone. I'm right handed so would use that left foot a bit forward and the foot pointed toward someone who may become a threat. This with practice would give me the natural point of aim. If I had to access my weapon it would allow me to draw and fire being on target Try this with a target at typical interrogation distances and you don't even need to aim out to 7 yards because of that natural point of aim weak side foot forward strong side slightly back for stability. After over 4 decades it's a difficult habit to change but for me it works
Excellent analysis of techniques. I'm so old I was originally taught the cup and saucer (teacup) technique in ROTC. Does anyone remember the "grip the wrist" technique and the single-handed hold?
for fun a vid on single hand and 2 gun shooting would be cool. I go to a weaver almost by default, I like to keep it tight. I'd use the isosceles for a long shot. when I shoot single, I blade my body but with right foot ahead right hand gun. a bit like a southpaw boxer leading with the right hand right foot forward. when shooting 2 I stand square and fire both at the same time. I can't hit when alternating between the two lol so I let both loose at once. I'm not a cop and don't have formal training I don't wear armor, but I love tactics and I like to shoot guns. I don't like thumbs forward; it can cause cycling issues especially with new shooters. I've noticed revolvers get jammed up by that forward thumb as well.
I think there should be a discussion regarding how training differs in regards to novice and expert shooters, in reference to stance and grip. I haven't done much pistol shooting but it seems I use a Weaver-ish stance, probably because it is very similar to the stance I use for shooting rifles. I used to do a lot of target shooting and that stance is kinda built in now. For me, the weaver feels much more natural and stable than Isosceles. That being said, I think most new shooters, should use whatever stance feels most natural and comfortable because, odds are, they are not going to practice nearly enough to overcome their natural stance...and grip, for that matter. In my opinion, I think novices are better served by aim and trigger discipline training, and making every shot count, rather than trying to rush follow up shots. If you hit with the first round, that will probably give you the extra second or so needed for a second shot that hits the target. It's an entirely different matter for expert shooters. Like any expert competition, time matters and those milliseconds add up. I think this is where the agility advantages of the isosceles stance and the muzzle flip recovery time advantage of the thumbs forward grip, really begin to show. Thanks for the interesting vid.
I shoot kind of a bastardized version of a cross between the two stances. Just because it irks both the Weaver traditionalists and the modern tacticool isosceles kids. And then to really send them over the edge into a nervous breakdown, I’ll break out the center axis relock technique. 😎
Been an LE instructor for 10 years, and I use both or no stance. I train both, but in a gunfight you are going to shoot however you can. If you make good hits I don't care what you look like doing it.
I like the isoceles myself because it's more natural. When you naturally look at stuff, you look at it and your body is pointed at it. Also as a self defense tool, it seems these days that criminals have a friend or two with them, addressing multiple targets is much easier with transitions.
Well explained. 🔷 My stance is similar to yours and I find it more natural. I actually thought it was more weaverish 😃. 🔷 I started with the thumbs 4ward grip 8 years ago with my 1st handgun a Taurus PT111 G2. That changed 2 years ago when I acquired revolvers and a Walther PPK which I carry 90% of the time. I now use the traditional grip. Shooting hand thumb stays locked in the same position when shooting one handed as well. Masaad Ayoob has a great video on this grip. 👇🏾 "Proper Thumb Positions with Massad Ayoob....... episode 17"
Thumbs foreward is gear to people with small to average hands , shooting guns with fat handles . BIG hands , the fingers completely wrap around the gun , with little to no gap between fingertips and the meat of the palm , for a thumb foreward support hand to contact the actual gun . In those instances , a faux thumb foreward support hand , might as well just be shooting one handed . Thumb over Thumb works Very Well for almost any size hand , with almost any size gun . with alternative having to be sought only for very extreme mismatches of hand and gun . ( Think basketball player with .25acp , or 4' 8" person with Desert Eagle .)
@@hrfunk Personal experience with large hands being unable to do thumbs forewards . Heck your explanation was the first I'd heard of it supposed to reduce muzzle flip , for decades all its supporters ever talked to me about was improved pointing , with not one , but two thumbs pointing at the target , as substitute index fingers. As to the merits of Thumb over. Thumb , everyone I've ever tought or coached. ,( nearly) all of my cumulative work colleagues for 40 yrs, and all the the cumulative employers instructor staffs , plus the cumulative experience of NRA LE Div staff at the time that I took Instructor school , plus Ayoob in person with his cumulative experience teaching Thumb over Thumb as default , and other grips only if T over T didn't work for particular student . But hey , I'm only partially crusty and set in my ways . With your well presented endorsement , the next time I'm coaching a medium level coach-ee , I'll have them try both and get some observations and feedback. I doubt I'd ever move away from T over T as default , but I'd be open to more second level alternatives , when more options are needed .
I got this one from Duluth Trading Company couple of years ago. I am not sure if they are still offering it or not. If not, it's a shame. I really like this one especially this time of year.
Good one, hrfunk. I think the advantage of the isosceles reveals itself when one thinks of athletic movement. When playing a sport, the "ready position" whether offense or defense, is squared off and parallel, like the isosceles. In this position you can move in any direction and there are no handicaps. Weaver-style stances make you biased to push off the rear foot, which means you are faster moving in one direction, but awkward in the opposite. In USPSA competition, being able to move and engage targets fluidly is essential. A Weaver stance used in USPSA will be a time handicap at least, and IMO an accuracy handicap as well. Weaver "feels" stable if one compares it to single-handed shooting. If shooting bullseye-style from a fixed position, it's perfectly fine. Having to move to engage alternative targets, that's where it becomes a handicap. When I first learned handguns I was already an old man with a lifetime of sports behind me. The Weaver felt like a handicap from the beginning, to me. I use a bit of a modified Weaver in competition stages where one-handed shooting is required. Otherwise, never. Strong side foot is slightly back, so it's not a perfect isosceles -- and I think most competitive USPSA shooters are likewise. As to grip -- I recommend examining Scott Jedlinski's video(s) on "the Wave grip". His channel is Modern Samurai Project. Caveat -- it's for more square framed pistols (1911, polymer semi-auto) and not revolvers.
" When playing a sport, the "ready position" whether offense or defense, is squared off and parallel, like the isosceles" What sports do you play? Ex-D1 defensive tackle here and my stance was always one foot back to be able to get off the ball and deliver a blow. In football, your feet are never parallel. Even when it looks like the feet are parallel from the snap, your first step creates that weaver-like stance. You never take or deliver a blow with parallel feet.
@@papimaximus95 Football line positions are different, Papi. Soccer, lacrosse were my games in serious settings, but I played plenty of football, basketball, baseball. The position I'm talking about is ready for dynamic movement in all directions. Football line position (interior line, not ends/receivers) stances are designed for forward energy, like sprinting blocks in track events. Try playing a safety or DB position from that sprinter's ready. See how it goes for you. How often you get two-stepped. Downhill skiiing I'm pretty fair at, have taught for a few years. Even though it is, for 99% of skiers, a face-forward downhill movement, one still has to be ready to be moving in any direction. Square yet supple hips, shoulders, eyebox with as much parallel movement of feet and hands as possible. Isosceles is just superior for every setting in which movement may be required of the shooter. I can't think of any situation where, if I faced live two way fire, and from many directions, I'd want to blade off and limit my options in movement and vision. I tried snowboarding 1x. Even though I'd skateboarded a lot as a teenager, I hated going downhill on snow with a huge blindspot on my heel side edge of the board. Balance is asymmetric as well. Skiing with its isosceles stance is far more maneuverable with all your blind spots left uphill behind you!
@@seanoneil277 "Football line position (interior line, not ends/receivers) stances are designed for forward energy, like sprinting blocks in track events.Try playing a safety or DB position from that sprinter's ready. See how it goes for you. How often you get two-stepped." You are trying too hard. I have played and coached on many levels. Football players move in all directions based on the play and technique. If it an interior lineman is pass blocking, they are not "springing forward" but they will still drop a foot back. Bottom line is that we call it an "athletic" stance for a reason. The Weaver-esque stance works for me and is what I teach. If isosceles works for you, then great.
"Isosceles is just superior for every setting in which movement may be required of the shooter. I can't think of any situation where, if I faced live two way fire, and from many directions, I'd want to blade off and limit my options in movement and vision." Which stance would you like to be in if a suspect rushes you? If you have to defend your firearm while in the holster? If you have to block a bat/knife/pole/object being swung at you? Firearm usage is not just trading shots. I said this in a previous post - these skills/techniques are a toolbox. Use them as needed.
@@papimaximus95 You are misreading me, and only you know why. Lacrosse is a contact sport, Papi, and hitting is different from American Football, which is structured each down with fixed positions at the snap. I'm not sure why you're offended by my athletic experience informing my view. Is it because you disdain the sports I mentioned? Bladed stance is an unnecessary comparison to linemen busting each other at the snap. What pistol has the recoil energy of a football lineman exploding at the snap? Why hamper my mobility? To stabilize against a force I won't encounter?
I favor the weaver, or modified weaver simply because I am a rifle shooter moreso than a handgun shooter, I used weaver when in law enforcement and training, the weaver is mutch closer to a rifle stance so switching from handgun to rifle is a bot more of a muscle memory thing. and I shoot better with the weaver.
Mid 70's in Detroit, the only vest available at that time was the 1st gen Second Chance Vest. Very basic with two mostly square pads front and back. No coverage on the sides whatsoever that left a very wide gap on each side. With a Weaver or Mod Weaver your sides were exposed to incoming fire. Not good. Switching to the Isosceles squared you up and gave frontal and back vest protection. That's when I switched to Isosceles. Isosceles also allows a turret stance that gives 180 degree gun coverage. Anything in front of the turret gets shot if necessary. With more advanced vests came more coverage and more front, back and side protection. This allowed the choice of the three stances. Having used all three mentioned stances for real, I have mostly settled on the Mod Weaver. Your feet are much more stable than when using the Isosceles and the strict Weaver is just tiring with the rigid shooting arm and the push-pull. All three have worked well for me. Again, great info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a martial arts trained civilian, I shoot out of a modified Weaver, or more like the special forces stance. The pure isocoles stance is a weak horse stance where the modified Weaver is a stronger stance, with for me gives greater mobility, and also presents less of a frontal target. The widespread use of the isosceles stance may work in competition, but targets don’t shoot back. I wonder if the more widespread use of that stance is responsible for more LEO casualties in gunfights despite wearing soft body armor
It just seems odd to me that criminals , who probably dont log much range time, are killing a lot of police. In my experience knowing and shooting with police officers, there are two types one, those who consider their job a multifaceted job and train on their own in the martial arts , and shoot frequently. Others who consider the gun a tool, qualify when necessary and that is it.
The revolver left-thumb over the back of the grip became a problem with the lower slide on Glock pistols, which would shave some flesh from the left thumb. You could also just say "he" , and eliminate the annoying "he-she" business. Good presentation of positions, remembering that the Weaver is the stance that must be used if the shooter is firing from a barricade. Otherwise he would be exposing much more of his body to incoming fire.
Ironically, it's not the thumb safety that the "thumb-forward" grip impedes. Rather, it's the function of the grip safety that can be problematic. Depending upon several variables, the thumbs-forward grip doesn't always allow the shooter to fully disengage the grip safety.
Chief, body armor aside, from a defensive shooting perspective wouldn't the goal of a good stance be to present as small of silhouette as possible while remaining as mobile as possible?
I like thumbs forward and cut my teeth on that. I have recently in the past five years started shooting revolvers and have to be mindful to keep my thumbs away from the cylinder gap and forcing cone area.
@@hrfunk Thanks. The big issue is retraining the brain to do it that way. I’ve committed myself to carrying a revolver daily and training with it to get that muscle memory. Thanks always for the cool content.
I went in the Army in 1985 retired in 2011, and have seen the difference because of the wearing of body armor. It might save you from getting hit with a bullet in the chest or back, but wearing the IBA takes a toll on the rest of your body 😂
Good content. I try to keep up with your latest postings and find them very informative. What brand of vest are you wearing? I think you had an NRA vest in another clip. Thank you.
This is just a question has there been any research done that you know of or statistics taken about in an actual gun fight the percentage of people that just shoot with one hand for various reasons which we want to go into here?
But which is Old , and which is New ? Things have gone full circle , in both LE training and Competition , albeit with about a 10 year lag time between them . Weaver was invented in 1950's , more or less in the era LE was moving away from one handed and point shooting . By '70s " combat competition " was all in with Weaver , and LE all in with Isos . In '80s , Weaver became mainstream with LE training , while Isos creeping back into competition . ( Probably with compensated .38 Super largely displacing non compensated .45acp having less recoil &muzzle flip .) Now , LE back to Isos , with varrying degrees of overlooking older Ofc shooting well with Weaver .
Weaver has better balance, Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet kune do, he found moving foreword and backwards was much faster, shuffling your feet. Of course he was using boxing as the example.
"Especially, how people ignore the problem of a double lung side shot." So you are ok with a single lung broad-side shot? My overall plan does not involve getting shot.😁
@@papimaximus95 unfortunately when people are firing guns at you plans go out the window and you’re only option is risk mitigation. One lung out you're still in the game. Two lungs out you're dead automatically. Go look up the medical term double pneumothorax.
I was taught that Weaver was a grip, not a stance. It was a grip to manage recoil & it didn't mater what position your feet were in. A big reason why Weaver is a grip. Is to shoot sitting down. Try shooting out the driver side car window, while sitting on the driver side, with the Isosceles stance. Hell just sit in a chair with out a gun, twist your wast to the left & extend both arm out, like your using the Isosceles stance. Awkward! Weaver is a grip you don't have to be bladed. Your feet can be where ever your feet are when you draw your firearm. I'm not a cop. But I have heard of an interview stance cops use, which is bladed to the person their speaking with. Doesn't Weaver work better from the interview stance? I can use that same stance when speaking with strangers. If a bladed boxer's stance is awkward. How come boxers can dance all over the ring? The Isosceles stance is good for target shooting & that's about it. I you really want to be helpful. Let's talk about 1 handed shooting & the rule of 3s. In my training classes I was told most non cops will be attacked from a distance so close. That a 2 handed firing grip will put the barrel past the attacker.
@@hrfunk 3 yards, 3 shots, 3 seconds. They way it was explained. You have to be able to put 2 shots COM at 3 yards under 3 seconds. The 1 left over shot is incoming. For someone like me, I'm trying to stop a criminal attack. That attack will be much closer than 21 ft. 3 yards is like 9 ft. It's going to be a surprise attack. So I have to recognize the attack at the beginning because if I recognize the attack in the middle, I might lose my opportunity to defend my self. Situational Awareness. So with that attack coming under 9 ft. I might not have time or the attacker might be to closer for a 2 handed stance. That's what probable. It's possible the attack will come between 9 ft & 21 ft & beyond. I'd rather train for what's probable. So in the lecture part of training they say the attack will be close. Then out on the range. It's 2 handed shooting at distances longer than 9 ft. So I don't get why the say one thing in class & do it different on the range. If a robber stands 9 ft away & says give me your money. Will the victim hear him? I know robbers are dumb. But are they stupid enough to let witness see the robber, robing the victim? This is my beef with non cops getting trained!
@@Soulcritic That kind of underscores my concern. I suspect someone just made it up because they thought it sounded good. It has now been repeated so many times that people accept it as fact. Training based upon a myth may be time ill-spent.
Why don't you get a haircut? How can you stand it?? Your hair is getting so long and outrageous. It's as if your barber moved away. Why don't you get somebody, like maybe your lovely wife to give you a haircut. I hope with the second segment of this video we will have some good news and might notice you will have had a haircut. 😉 Really, thanks for the great vids HR!! 👍👍
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Massad Ayoob also has a great video on the Wilson Combat channel about how thumbs down helps with weapon rentention
If you want to learn the weaver stance correctly, look at "Handgun Fundamentals" with col Jeff Cooper. He was the master of Handgun training.
I went through the academy in the early 1980s [pre-bodyarmor] with a 6-shot 357. The range instructors taught us three stances.
1- Isosceles
2 - Weaver
3 - Modified Weaver [which incorporates both].
I chose the Modified Weaver, as it was the most comfortable and familiar, as it closely mimicked the stance that I took when shooting a 12-gauge while hunting for ten years. No changing your stance regardless of your weapon [long gun or pistol]. It also helped when shooting around barriers.
Same here! I seem to have steadier hands using the better stability and "push pull" of a modified Weaver. Didn't mean much 10 years ago, but for some reason my hands tend to move around these days shooting Isosceles.
They taught us Isosceles. I switched post academy to modified weaver. A few years later, our range instruction became much more combat oriented with multiple firearms in multiple positions.
I had the same experience starting in my academy in '78. When I became an instructor in the early 80's the Weaver was all the rage. What's old is new amd what's new is old. Things change back and forth over time. I used to have students try both (within guodelines) and go with what worked best for them.
Started out Isosales . Shooting at life size targets , it was the bee's knees .
Then one day at a club match with 8 and 10 inch steel plates at 10- 15 yds . I had to slow down a lot to hit the smaller targets . Yeah , yeah , gunfights only up close , yadda yadda . But aim small ,miss small is a real thing .
Ran thru my bag of tricks with different stances to see what worked for fast And accurate .
Turns out that with Modified Weaver . at full speed , gave 50% more precise placement * for me * .
Yes , somewhat less flexible and mobility . * For me * , I was
Finger slipped and premature posting.
* For Me* , I was already competent with Isos , so if I needed to move , just drop back into Isos as needed .
And in mild hypocrisy , I default teach Isos .
You hit it on the nail. Thumbs forward does not work on all guns especially if you have big hands/long fingers. One grip to rule them all.
Sonny Crockett used the Weaver stance, so that's why i do also! Well done presentation, thank you, sir.
By the time I had been shooting for years I started reading about the 'Weaver stance' mine was more a modified version and have never seen a reason to change.
I have two problems with the thumbs forward grip. First, I don't see that being as secure for retention, making the grip more suited to competition than defense. Second, depending on the firearm design sometimes there is no place for my trigger finger to fully pull the trigger because my support hand is blocking it.
I agree .
the weaver stance came out much earlier than the isosceles stance. the weaver stance is still used today by me! the isosceles stance came around late 1970s to early 1980s. if you are cross eye dominants like me forget the isosceles. at least with the weaver i can move my head so that my strong eye lines up behind the sights.
Another great topic that's well presented. As someone who has been shooting for 40+ years, I came to many of the same conclusions. A "true" Isosceles with a thumbs forward grip does not work for me. Thank you and well done!
Thank you! I’m glad you liked it.
Masaad Ayoob has recently advocated for the more traditional thumbs overlapping grip. Because he demonstrates that it makes the grip on the firearms much stronger.
I've tested it and I also find it to be just as good as the thumbs forward grip, but without the issues with slide lock engagement.
It's funny how in the gun community it's often what's old is new again!
Someone else mentioned that Mas recently stated he favored the more traditional grip. I tend to think the "thumbs-forward" grip is great for competition. For gunfighting, however, it may have some drawbacks.
My opinion, is what are you doing during you stance activities ? Target shooting, run n gun, in an actual self defense situation. If you have all the time in the world, then you can pick. I also think that if you are in a stance where someone can push you over with a finger, then you are not really in a good shooting stance. A "Modified Weaver" is what a lot of people do, whether they realize it or not. Just so they don't fall over. .02
Excellent summation of a lot of material! You succinctly stated many points that us old guys learned over multiple decades, but never heard integrated into a coherent presentation. You should put this in a course.
Ha, ha! None of the youngsters would want to hear it from an old guy like me! I would have to find some young, hip, good looking kid to do the presentation.
@@hrfunk idk about that. I've been watching your videos lately and I'm in my mid twenties, and I doubt I'm your only young viewer
@@finnl6887 Thanks Finn! I was just making an “old guy” joke. I wasn’t discounting or dismissing any of my younger viewers. Thanks so much for watching!
Over a number of years I taught a number of novice shooters to shoot. I use a Modified Weaver that I learned early in my LE career, just like those shooters below. I first demonstrated that stance, but also showed the new shooters the Isosceles stance, and told them all to try the Weaver, Modified Weaver and Isosceles. To a one, every male used a Weaver stance and every woman, regardless of their "physical shape," all, every one of them, much preferred the Isosceles stance. They were all built differently, one was learning on a revolver and the others using semiautomatics. All went "naturally" to the Isosceles. That being said, God Bless Deputy Weaver, LASD, ret. Rest in Peace.
Very well explained. For revolver i place the support thumb over the back behind the trigger.
I have seen that, but never tried it myself. How does it work for you?
I sometimes carry a snub nose 357. It gives me much better control on recoil and provides me a very sturdy grip.
Great video. I tried the thumbs forward grip. My trigger control suffers with it and I can't shoot as accurately. I went back to the the thumbs down grip. It works better for me and since I also use revolvers I just use the same grip for both.
The important thing is it works for you. Thanks for watching!
Very good presentation. When trained as a LEO, the “Weaver” and “Modified Weaver” stances were taught. The reason for these is the transition from an “Interview” stance into a Weaver stance was much quicker than moving into Isosceles. The weak arm, if need be, was used to push off an attacker while stepping back, drawing, and firing from the Weaver. With that said, I train using several stances; Modified Weaver, Isosceles, and Duelist with both strong hand and weak hand gripping of the firearm. Safely transitioning the handgun from one hand to another while changing stances is also part of my regime.
The most important thing is your training!
From my training and experience, the Weaver and Modified Weaver used the defensive posture position that was called the F.I. Stance, or Field Interview Stance. This position was taught, at least to me, over 45 years ago, but, the Isosceles, I believe was first taught by the FBI going way back and I had heard the terms Isosceles Stance and FBI Stance used to describe the same thing. They are all good, and each serves it's own purpose. As I recently mentioned to you in a recent video that you posted regarding High Ready, Low Ready, and Center Ready (you called it something else), I find for my age and shooting comfort, I am best served from the Weaver. Great information Sir! Thanks and Blessings.
You are. Most welcome. Thanks for watching!
Another great topic! Personally, I almost exclusively use a Weaver-esque stance with a handgun. I carry strong side IWB/OWB so, for reasons I am sure you will explore, it works well for me. However, you have to have a tool box and be able to adapt for things like body armor, AIWB, rifles, etc. I hope you get into some of these new grips some "instructors/operators" are pushing. I am not a fan of the extreme support hand rotation and/or forward grip with a handgun. Looking forward to your video.
I'm glad you decided to add the portion about grip into the video. I've never even tried what I always referred to as a "revolver grip" with a semi-auto. I've always used thumbs forward, and don't shoot nearly as well with my 1911's as I do with revolvers. Of course, we all grew up learning on revolvers, and that was the grip you had to use. I may try it next range trip, myself. Always nice to get something interesting to think about! :)
I really enjoyed this video. When I began combat type shooting in the 80's, like most shooters I used the Weaver stance. In the early 2000's I started using the Isosceles. After watching your video, I went to the range. Like you did, beginning in a neutral stance and using a timer, on signal I drew and fired five shots from each style. As you found , going into the Weaver took more time. It was an interesting and informative test. Thanks HR, this was good food for thought.
My pleasure. Thanks for watching!
Thank you so much for this content. I was looking for demonstration and comparison of those stances but couldn't find anything so complete. Keep up the good content!
Will do. Thanks for watching!
In the 80's we used a modified weaver. We had no body armor. You put your upper arm tight to the body. The other arm is cocked. No matter what direction you moved the gun moved with you. It worked awesome for sweeps. Being taught that FBI style makes you a target makes it hard to do now.
I’ll disagree on the mobility from the Weaver stance, at least from a martial art perspective, I can quickly and easily move in all directions from a Weaver stand because it’s close to a fighting stance. Secondly, dropping down worries me in that most untrained bad guys punch the trigger and shoot low. Third, I will never have a vest on. Maybe it’s also got a lot to do with years of years using what we called years ago, a modified Weaver stance, but after 50 years I see no reason to change at this point. I do like your videos, they are very informative, easy to follow, and make a lot of sense 👍.
The 'thumbs forward grip was already used by someone in the 60s called Elden Carl (look for Elden Carl dot you know what) while not using isosceles stance. Even of the thumbs forward grip there are different variations out there. Some move the hand on top extremely forward which may or may not loosen the grip further back, while to some it improves recoil control as well as those that extremely rotate the wrist down (already excluding those that can make use of the trigger guard). Others try to just get further up instead of forward. The grip angle of the pistol and hand size may change the neutral angle of the thumb (that isn't used) and then trying to hold the thumb parallel to the slide as the rough doctrine says may affect the grip negatively. Some competition shooters use lots of pressure also side to side while others say their technique allows them to use relatively little pressure. It'd need a quite detailed break down to even nail down what those grip types were at some point (at least with the weaver and modified weaver there are documents). If you look into the crazy 80s & 90s stages of ipsc and the top dogs, some included upper back training for more stability/control and hired physicians. Overall I think that this grip A, grip B is antiquated and it should be broken down further to where fingers apply pressure with direction, what other muscle groups are involved and even grip pressure can be measured (not saying you should do that). From there grip sizes can be broken down by hand measurements and why shouldn't be a gun sized up in a store like shoes? Look at ergonomics of olympic style shooting and it's made to fit them perfectly. Why is nobody 3D printing grips from a scanned cast with all those cheap grip modules? That'd also be god sent for those that suffered injuries or have arthritis.
I think there comes a point where the specific technique employed becomes unique to each shooter. I’m not sure it would be possible to break down specifically every single type of grip stance etc. to elemental components. I suspect every slugger in professional baseball swings his bat in a manner which is essentially unique. Trying to apply the basis of that technique when teaching other people to hit may or may not work for them. I think we see the same sort of difficulty when it comes to shooting.
For myself, Modified Weaver works best, but I remain fluid to use what ever works best for the situation.
As for Grip, the old Marine Corp style Grip has always worked best for me, over a wide variety of Hanguns, Cz's, 1911's, Beretta 92's, Sriker Fired Pistols, and Revolvers.
I did try the Thumbs Forward style Grip, but it made my Trigger Pull go wonky. Could be the shape of my hand.
Excellent Video discussion! Heading on to the Range Portion.
Appreciate the information. Thanks for the video and keep shooting.
Thanks Keith. Will do!
Interestingly, at least to me, learning how to drive power from the ground using your legs in a decent golf swing helped me with stance fundamentals while shooting pistols.
My martial arts instructors would argue that the weaver stance is more movement-flexible than the isosceles. My dad's mantra hits me when I see isosceles -- "can't move quickly when you're flat-footed."
As a martial arts instructor and a former competitive fighter, I can say with a measure of confidence that during combat, one rarely assumes a perfect stance of any kind. Stances are intended to instill the concepts of stability and balance so that it becomes second nature to assume the most balanced/stable position possible in an actual fight.
The stances and grip explanation is as clear and well explained as I’ve ever heard it, HR. Thanks. The thumbs forward grip has been promoted by most all shooting class instructors/trainers around the Tulsa area for the last twenty years. The effect on smooth sided striker fired pistols (no manual safety), and 1911 style semi autos, revolvers is a significant difference. You’ve pointed out the pro/cons of the new grip style better than anyone I’ve heard.
Thanks Thomas! I’m glad you liked it!
Modified Weaver for me, but I practice a lot in unorthodox or just me regularly standing (best way I can describe it) this is because if I'm ever in need of a pistol I'm probably going to be out in town caught in a situation where I need to react quickly and probably won't have time to get a good stance. Although I agree with that uncompleted isosceles stance in a threatening situation so I might practice that to now.
I’ll be VERY interested in your opinions and reasoning, Howard. I have been know to use - Heaven forbid - single strong (and occasionally, weak) hand; it’s terrible “old school” but it works and - perhaps - one might be confronted with a situation where one or the other hand / arm was occupied or incapacitated.
I've practiced with just one hand too, mainly with a revolver. It's not as good, but worth practicing imo in case I ever take a bullet in the arm.
Thank you Mr funk for another fantastic informative video. I started out shooting in the late '80s and '90s using the isosceles stance.. courtesy of Sonny Crockett from Miami vice 😂.. sometime around the mid-late 1990s I transitioned to using the Weaver stance... I have since approximately around 2003-2004 went back to the isosceles stance.. I also read about using small pocket pistols and small revolvers and taking advantage of what they called the crumpled isosceles stance with where close range someone is getting close to you you bring the gun back to your chest with your elbows bent. And look over the top of the barrel.. again this is at extremely close range and with a small revolver or small pistol.. it's to keep the perpetrator from deflecting or grabbing your gun.. as range increases you can go from the crumpled isosceles back out to the full isosceles stance.... I also have a very unusual way I hold my grip.. now this is going to sound weird but it works for me..I have very strong arms but weak wrist.. I have the left hand around the front in the left hand thumb crossed over my wrist ! This locks my wrist solid so there's no movement of my wrist from recoil... I know this sounds extremely weird but it works really well for me! Thanks again
What I meant to say was I put my left hand thumb over the back of my wrist. Basically gripping my wrist and locking my wrist so it will not move with the recoil I know it sounds really weird but it works great for me
Good move going back to the low thumb grip that the Marine Corps taught you. I never left it as the thumbs forward grip was never comfortable for me.
Balanced and informative. Nicely presented. Thank you.
My pleasure. I hope you didn’t mind my referencing your email.
@@hrfunk Not at all. You have an inclusive and welcoming channel so it’s good to be part of that. 😊
Great channel
I had to go get my pistol to just see how my grip works. So I mostly shoot isosceles stance depending on what and where iam shooting.so to me dynamics is important not stuck with one form. Grip is the same in both stance. I was taught shooting with revolvers and had to modify grip later to shoot pistol. Grip is still the same principle but forming of hands are diffent. When you say grip the gun what way do you mean. I use front to back grip with strong hand no side to side pressure. Support hand is lock wrist with side to side grip to give strength to strong hand wrist. Strong hand thumb rest on outside of support hand and support hand thumb is parallel to the barrel and not touching pistol at all. No noticable push or pull on pistol , mean no deliberate push pull.
I have been watching your channel since you did the LEO qualification comparison. Amping other things, I teach civilian pistol and CPL(Michigan), also work as a LEO RSO at my club. In the pistol classes we teach both stances and grips, to give students an introduction to both. One comment I give to my students is the the Weaver Stance is good to use when shooting from behind cover, to more fully protect your vital areas. Enjoyed this series.
And now I understand the difference from Weaver to Isosceles and when you may want to use which one. Thank you hrfunk.
My pleasure Tony. Thanks for watching!
Becuase of RUclips’s vagaries, I watched part #2 before I could access part #1. This comment addresses both parts.
First, and most importantly, I learned a LOT from the combined parts - thank you, Howard - they were EXCELLENT and they provided good deal to reconsider. Second, I have long been an isosceles / thumbs forward shooter, but not rigidly so. The isosceles / thumb forward method has always felt quite natural to me and (for whatever reasons) it does not impede my frequent revolver shooting.
Now for a few brief comments:
1. The fractions of a second differences in shooting times, and the two inches or much less in accuracies, really are pragmatically meaningless (imho). Of course, they also - and again - demonstrate that the few shooters with HR’s experience, skill, and training can unquestionably attain more than adequate speed and shot placement regardless of the weapons, grips and the stances utilized. That likely is considerably less true for most of us?
2. I have long wondered - and I’d welcome opinions - what percentage of lawful citizen defensive encounters begin with a “surprise” and rapid weapons presentation, as opposed to a “moment or two” to retrieve the weapon, move quietly, take a deliberate grip and stance, and be prepared to fire instantaneously? Perhaps this could be better illustrated by two example: the “surprise” might be a felon jumping from an alleyway with a knife drawn, whereas the “moment or two” might be hearing widow glass break or a door being pounded at 0200. Now, for me at least, this is an VERY important distinction, since the “moment or two” defense should allow the lawful citizen to get to retrieve his weapon, Gwen to a preselected location, to employ cover, and to adjust his stance / grip to best fit that situation.
Finally, fwiw, in my circumstances I believe the “surprise” defensive encounter is far less likely than is the “moment or two” scenario.
Hi Roy. Neither Wifey or I are prior cop or military. We've had to brandish or actually point with finger on the trigger twice in 3 or so decades. One of them was a burglar that didn't know anyone was home. I confronted the thief while Wifey got her gun. She came back ready to shoot. That's when he left. Second time we were surprised but had ample time to think and just brandish a gun.
@@ElainesDomain
Thanks! This is essentially the sorts of situations what I thought were likely for many lawfully armed citizens.
Thanks Roy. I can envision scenarios where the “surprise factor” might or might not enter the discussion. I think a lot has to do with the person’s circumstances at the time of the encounter. The suburban home owner who works in an office in a “good part of town” is probably less likely (but not exclusively so) to be surprised by an unexpected threat. Conversely, the late-night convenience store worker in a “rough area” could face a confrontation quickly with little or no prior warning. During my 30+ years in law enforcement, MOST of the time a had to deploy a firearm the situation did not require a “quick draw.” Then, there the minority of times when I did (although fortunately I never had to fire.) I don’t think the percentage of instances really gives one much guidance.
@@roykiefer7713 Like many we didn't report these incidences. The bugler wasn't in a high crime area. Crime was rare. The other was when camping. A law on the books back then allowed for people to consider a tent as their domicile. No CCW required at your campsite. It was also hunting season which allowed open carry. That is what chased the 3 gang bangers away. They had one .22 rifle and after looking at our stuff ran a bunch of rounds. Shell casings were all over the place. It didn't appear that they were up to no good. Wifey is looking around by the river and I was checking our stuff. The bangers come around the bend and were as startled as we were. Once they recovered they looked at me and then started to give the Wifey the once over. They couldn't see my semi in the 4:00 position and now had the creepy smile on their faces undress Wifey with their eyes...until they see her Smith 19-5 sitting in her open top holster near her belt buckle. I have my hand on the grip. The bangers went into friendly mode and double timed it to their van. Didn't have to wave a gun around as they saw one of them just fine. Both instances were in CA. No CCW. Only the better informed LEO would have let us go at the campground.
I have gotten used to using the thumbs forward grip, but it did not work out well with one of my pistols. I have a Browning Buckmark Target .22 that I got somewhere around 1989. I hadn't shot it in years until my daughter wanted to learn to shoot. I figured the Buckmark would be a great pistol to start with due to the low recoil. She shot it beautifully. I gave it a try with the thumbs forward grip and got bitten badly on my left thumb. I had not thought about my thumb being right at the juncture of the fixed barrel and the slide. I lost a pretty good chunk of flesh that took weeks to fully heal. Lesson learned.
Too bad that happened. Ironically, one of the pistols I have the greatest trouble with when using a "thumbs-forward" grip is a Browning Hi Power.
Good discussion. Hand size and finger length can make a difference in grip. Being left handed I have to be very careful in using a thumbs forward grip on a 1911 or a Hi Power style gun. If not careful my thumb will press into the other side of the slide release and cause a jamb as the gun is ejecting the shell.
I can understand how that would happen. In short, I think the thumbs - forward grip works well for fast competition shooting. I'm not convinced it is the best "gunfighting" grip.
Personally, I use the weaver stance. It always made more sense to me because it reduces your profile making you slightly harder to hit, stabilizes your aim, and is very applicable to aiming around cover. I also used to do lots of sword fighting, and the weaver stance is very comfortable and familiar to someone who has wielded swords two handed (especially hand and a half swords). I just wouldn't feel comfortable squaring myself to an enemy and presenting the largest possible target unless I was in some sort of situation where I had body armor and had to advance on open ground, due to the exposed armpit. The isosceles stance in anything other than that circumstance never made even a tiny bit of sense to me until watching this video. I'll stick to the weaver, but at least now I get it.
As for the grip, I use the old thumb over thumb grip. I first started shooting seriously with a SA revolver so it just made more sense, and now that my main gun is my 92FS the high and back thumb makes operating the decocker/safety all the way up on the slide a non issue in terms of reach, so the thumb forward technique would probably just be detrimental given my choice of firearm. Very informative to hear the advantages to the other way of doing things though.
I’m glad it was helpful!
Great info as usual. How about shooting from the hip, like Bill Jordan or Bob Munden? I think shooters rely too much on sights nowadays. Archery and shotguns can be shot instinctively, why not handguns? BTW, back in the cowboy era, the stance was with a severely bent elbow with the handgun close to the face. This is seen in Charles Russell paintings. Seems ridiculous today, but that's the way they did it.
Thank you sir for yet another useful and less talked about subject. Eagerly awaiting the range demonstration,
👍👍I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience on this subject. I have always used the thumbs forward on my semi autos but all my semi autos are m& ps and I don’t own a 1911 so It has always worked for me. On my revolvers I use the grip you showed with one thumb on top of the other because as you showed thumbs forward doesn’t work. I’ve never tried it on a semi auto but I might give it a try depending on the results you get in part two of this video.
close quarters defense i am favor of having left leg forwad for more stability, less likey to be pushed down when one foot is anchored in the rear but say like run and gun or competition type shooting i may pause quickly with a isosceles stance, but one thing is for shure we may not be able to get into a proper stance fast enough in a defense situation, as in the martial arts i was told stances are fine but it doesnt mean you will always have time to use them so even with the martial arts situational awareness dependent to have time to assume the fighting stances, but stances are a big subject for shure, lots of modified stances and some work good for some and not so good for some people, the take away from it is its based on the individual what stance is best for us so we need to test that for ourselves on the range like you did and never take for granted any one stance we been taught to hold on to, but use all and find out our oun personal results on the range to see if maybe we can do better with another, just like with me when i started shooting Glocks decades ago the grip angle just as you mentioned i was not in favor of either so the chapman stance solved that problem and wrist bent more downward, chapman is right arm locked out and left arm slightly bent but some stances are a blend of 2 stances often people call "modified chapman, weaver, isosceles" my Glock 20 10 mm with buffalo bore and underwood loads i never use a isosceles stance, its cost me accuracy so its like there is a stance for everything and some apply and some dont depending on what your doing with the stance
Massad Ayoob hope I got that spelling right) made a video a while back saying that he had gone back to thumbs down grip
His reasoning for doing so was that the thumbs down grip is more resistant to a gun snatch,, something he demonstrated in the presentation
I did not see that video. But I can understand his reasoning.
YES! One or the other! Or, maybe both! (just not at the same time)
I was taught to shoot by a Marine Gunny Dad. He shot Expert in the Corps more times than I can count. At the time they had a more: Bullseye shooting course and he did a lot of one handed stuff. The importance of practice cannot be over emphasized in the area of stance and gun presentation. The best shooter (Ernest Langdon being one of them) has a harder time shooting support hand only with a tricked out pistol ( Ernest does even with one of his tricked out LTT 92 Custom pistols with a red dot). My normal two handed presentation of a pistol is blended. Mostly Weaver but leaning towards the isosceles. It works for me. From cover I can get my first shot off in under 1.5 seconds, accurately.
Explained perfectly.
Thank you!
In the academy we learned both the Weaver Stance and the thumbs down grip. One reason Weaver was popular was that it was essentially the same stance as the interview stance. In the interview stance you could charge a suspect and close distance or throw punches. I have read that thumbs provide about 15 to 20% of our grip strength a thumbs down grip would increase my ability to control.a gun during a disarming attempt. Finally recoil control is more critical with a .357 magnum revolvers compared to a polymer 9mm.
When it comes to shooting, I'm just not seeing any advantage to the Weaver stance these days. From the "interviews stance" I think it's just as quick to assume a modified isosceles stance.
@@hrfunk The Weaver isn't easy on arthritic shoulders. I understand why it was adopted but given modern vests as opposed to old style concealed body armor and modern pistols I tend to agree.
My comments were for historical context
Thanks Again for a very informative, educational & valuable video, plus your generosity to share it.
My pleasure Eric. Thanks for watching!
Well said. Are you familiar with Center Axis Relock/CAR? Foot wise, it's the Field Interview Stance.
I'm definitely not familiar with it by that name. I do at least know what an interview stance is, ha ha!
@@hrfunk Right? Paul Castle created it. It's seen somewhat of a resurgence due to a certain movie franchise.
I still use the Weaver grip. I never liked the thumbs forward or "Glock Grip" for reasons you stated, hitting the slide release, slide drag from thumbs riding on the slide slowing it down and a looser grip to me. The Wilson Combat RUclips channel did a good video on this topic. They said the weaver grip is making a come back. They also showed better retention of the pistol if someone were to try to take it from you with weaver grip.
I use the Weaver stance also. I use the "low thumb" grip, as I feel it gives me best control of the weapon . Never bought into that "donkey ear thubs" grip. Why ignore 5 million years of evolution to develop the opposable thumb?
In defensive shooting your stance might be on your back , side , running and shooting. The grip might be one handed , two handed or just pick one .
I agree. It’s important to train for multiple contingencies.
I always used what was termed an interrogation stance when approaching someone. I'm right handed so would use that left foot a bit forward and the foot pointed toward someone who may become a threat. This with practice would give me the natural point of aim. If I had to access my weapon it would allow me to draw and fire being on target
Try this with a target at typical interrogation distances and you don't even need to aim out to 7 yards because of that natural point of aim weak side foot forward strong side slightly back for stability. After over 4 decades it's a difficult habit to change but for me it works
At close distance, I think that sounds like a very good tactic. Thanks for watching Sergeant Major!
Excellent analysis of techniques. I'm so old I was originally taught the cup and saucer (teacup) technique in ROTC. Does anyone remember the "grip the wrist" technique and the single-handed hold?
Ha, ha! I remember that one from TV. Maybe I should produce a video featuring all those old TV shooting stances and grips!
for fun a vid on single hand and 2 gun shooting would be cool. I go to a weaver almost by default, I like to keep it tight. I'd use the isosceles for a long shot. when I shoot single, I blade my body but with right foot ahead right hand gun. a bit like a southpaw boxer leading with the right hand right foot forward. when shooting 2 I stand square and fire both at the same time. I can't hit when alternating between the two lol so I let both loose at once. I'm not a cop and don't have formal training I don't wear armor, but I love tactics and I like to shoot guns. I don't like thumbs forward; it can cause cycling issues especially with new shooters. I've noticed revolvers get jammed up by that forward thumb as well.
I mainly just tired of having to modify my grip for different handguns. I want to go back to one grip that fits all! Thanks for watching!
I think there should be a discussion regarding how training differs in regards to novice and expert shooters, in reference to stance and grip. I haven't done much pistol shooting but it seems I use a Weaver-ish stance, probably because it is very similar to the stance I use for shooting rifles. I used to do a lot of target shooting and that stance is kinda built in now. For me, the weaver feels much more natural and stable than Isosceles. That being said, I think most new shooters, should use whatever stance feels most natural and comfortable because, odds are, they are not going to practice nearly enough to overcome their natural stance...and grip, for that matter.
In my opinion, I think novices are better served by aim and trigger discipline training, and making every shot count, rather than trying to rush follow up shots. If you hit with the first round, that will probably give you the extra second or so needed for a second shot that hits the target.
It's an entirely different matter for expert shooters. Like any expert competition, time matters and those milliseconds add up. I think this is where the agility advantages of the isosceles stance and the muzzle flip recovery time advantage of the thumbs forward grip, really begin to show. Thanks for the interesting vid.
My pleasure. Thanks for a great comment!
I shoot kind of a bastardized version of a cross between the two stances. Just because it irks both the Weaver traditionalists and the modern tacticool isosceles kids. And then to really send them over the edge into a nervous breakdown, I’ll break out the center axis relock technique. 😎
Great information and presentation, Mr. Funk! Thanks!
❤❤
My pleasure. Thanks for watching!
Been an LE instructor for 10 years, and I use both or no stance. I train both, but in a gunfight you are going to shoot however you can. If you make good hits I don't care what you look like doing it.
I agree.
I like the isoceles myself because it's more natural. When you naturally look at stuff, you look at it and your body is pointed at it.
Also as a self defense tool, it seems these days that criminals have a friend or two with them, addressing multiple targets is much easier with transitions.
Well explained.
🔷 My stance is similar to yours and I find it more natural. I actually thought it was more weaverish 😃.
🔷 I started with the thumbs 4ward grip 8 years ago with my 1st handgun a Taurus PT111 G2. That changed 2 years ago when I acquired revolvers and a Walther PPK which I carry 90% of the time. I now use the traditional grip. Shooting hand thumb stays locked in the same position when shooting one handed as well.
Masaad Ayoob has a great video on this grip.
👇🏾
"Proper Thumb Positions with Massad Ayoob....... episode 17"
Thumbs foreward is gear to people with small to average hands , shooting guns with fat handles .
BIG hands , the fingers completely wrap around the gun , with little to no gap between fingertips and the meat of the palm , for a thumb foreward support hand to contact the actual gun . In those instances , a faux thumb foreward support hand , might as well just be shooting one handed .
Thumb over Thumb works Very Well for almost any size hand , with almost any size gun . with alternative having to be sought only for very extreme mismatches of hand and gun . ( Think basketball player with .25acp , or 4' 8" person with Desert Eagle .)
May I ask where you came by those applications for different grips as they relate to hand size? I’ve never heard that before.
@@hrfunk Personal experience with large hands being unable to do thumbs forewards . Heck your explanation was the first I'd heard of it supposed to reduce muzzle flip , for decades all its supporters ever talked to me about was improved pointing , with not one , but two thumbs pointing at the target , as substitute index fingers.
As to the merits of Thumb over. Thumb , everyone I've ever tought or coached. ,( nearly) all of my cumulative work colleagues for 40 yrs, and all the the cumulative employers instructor staffs , plus the cumulative experience of NRA LE Div staff at the time that I took Instructor school , plus Ayoob in person with his cumulative experience teaching Thumb over Thumb as default , and other grips only if T over T didn't work for particular student .
But hey , I'm only partially crusty and set in my ways . With your well presented endorsement , the next time I'm coaching a medium level coach-ee , I'll have them try both and get some observations and feedback. I doubt I'd ever move away from T over T as default , but I'd be open to more second level alternatives , when more options are needed .
Very informative as are all of your videos. Thank you. By the way, please info on that great vest you are wearing.
I got this one from Duluth Trading Company couple of years ago. I am not sure if they are still offering it or not. If not, it's a shame. I really like this one especially this time of year.
@@hrfunk Thanks for the quick response. I certainly will check that out. Retired LEO from Pittsburgh now living in Beaufort County, SC,
As usual excellent presentation
Thanks
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
Good one, hrfunk.
I think the advantage of the isosceles reveals itself when one thinks of athletic movement. When playing a sport, the "ready position" whether offense or defense, is squared off and parallel, like the isosceles. In this position you can move in any direction and there are no handicaps.
Weaver-style stances make you biased to push off the rear foot, which means you are faster moving in one direction, but awkward in the opposite.
In USPSA competition, being able to move and engage targets fluidly is essential. A Weaver stance used in USPSA will be a time handicap at least, and IMO an accuracy handicap as well.
Weaver "feels" stable if one compares it to single-handed shooting. If shooting bullseye-style from a fixed position, it's perfectly fine. Having to move to engage alternative targets, that's where it becomes a handicap.
When I first learned handguns I was already an old man with a lifetime of sports behind me. The Weaver felt like a handicap from the beginning, to me. I use a bit of a modified Weaver in competition stages where one-handed shooting is required. Otherwise, never.
Strong side foot is slightly back, so it's not a perfect isosceles -- and I think most competitive USPSA shooters are likewise.
As to grip -- I recommend examining Scott Jedlinski's video(s) on "the Wave grip". His channel is Modern Samurai Project. Caveat -- it's for more square framed pistols (1911, polymer semi-auto) and not revolvers.
" When playing a sport, the "ready position" whether offense or defense, is squared off and parallel, like the isosceles"
What sports do you play? Ex-D1 defensive tackle here and my stance was always one foot back to be able to get off the ball and deliver a blow. In football, your feet are never parallel. Even when it looks like the feet are parallel from the snap, your first step creates that weaver-like stance. You never take or deliver a blow with parallel feet.
@@papimaximus95 Football line positions are different, Papi.
Soccer, lacrosse were my games in serious settings, but I played plenty of football, basketball, baseball. The position I'm talking about is ready for dynamic movement in all directions.
Football line position (interior line, not ends/receivers) stances are designed for forward energy, like sprinting blocks in track events.
Try playing a safety or DB position from that sprinter's ready. See how it goes for you. How often you get two-stepped.
Downhill skiiing I'm pretty fair at, have taught for a few years. Even though it is, for 99% of skiers, a face-forward downhill movement, one still has to be ready to be moving in any direction. Square yet supple hips, shoulders, eyebox with as much parallel movement of feet and hands as possible.
Isosceles is just superior for every setting in which movement may be required of the shooter. I can't think of any situation where, if I faced live two way fire, and from many directions, I'd want to blade off and limit my options in movement and vision.
I tried snowboarding 1x. Even though I'd skateboarded a lot as a teenager, I hated going downhill on snow with a huge blindspot on my heel side edge of the board. Balance is asymmetric as well. Skiing with its isosceles stance is far more maneuverable with all your blind spots left uphill behind you!
@@seanoneil277 "Football line position (interior line, not ends/receivers) stances are designed for forward energy, like sprinting blocks in track events.Try playing a safety or DB position from that sprinter's ready. See how it goes for you. How often you get two-stepped."
You are trying too hard. I have played and coached on many levels. Football players move in all directions based on the play and technique. If it an interior lineman is pass blocking, they are not "springing forward" but they will still drop a foot back. Bottom line is that we call it an "athletic" stance for a reason.
The Weaver-esque stance works for me and is what I teach. If isosceles works for you, then great.
"Isosceles is just superior for every setting in which movement may be required of the shooter. I can't think of any situation where, if I faced live two way fire, and from many directions, I'd want to blade off and limit my options in movement and vision."
Which stance would you like to be in if a suspect rushes you? If you have to defend your firearm while in the holster? If you have to block a bat/knife/pole/object being swung at you? Firearm usage is not just trading shots. I said this in a previous post - these skills/techniques are a toolbox. Use them as needed.
@@papimaximus95 You are misreading me, and only you know why.
Lacrosse is a contact sport, Papi, and hitting is different from American Football, which is structured each down with fixed positions at the snap.
I'm not sure why you're offended by my athletic experience informing my view. Is it because you disdain the sports I mentioned?
Bladed stance is an unnecessary comparison to linemen busting each other at the snap. What pistol has the recoil energy of a football lineman exploding at the snap? Why hamper my mobility? To stabilize against a force I won't encounter?
I favor the weaver, or modified weaver simply because I am a rifle shooter moreso than a handgun shooter, I used weaver when in law enforcement and training, the weaver is mutch closer to a rifle stance so switching from handgun to rifle is a bot more of a muscle memory thing. and I shoot better with the weaver.
As i recall, NJ state Trooper Philip Lamonaco was killed when he bladed himself and caught a bullet under his arm
That’s one of the reasons law enforcement officers are taught to use the isosceles stance.
Mid 70's in Detroit, the only vest available at that time was the 1st gen Second Chance Vest. Very basic with two mostly square pads front and back. No coverage on the sides whatsoever that left a very wide gap on each side. With a Weaver or Mod Weaver your sides were exposed to incoming fire. Not good. Switching to the Isosceles squared you up and gave frontal and back vest protection. That's when I switched to Isosceles. Isosceles also allows a turret stance that gives 180 degree gun coverage. Anything in front of the turret gets shot if necessary.
With more advanced vests came more coverage and more front, back and side protection. This allowed the choice of the three stances.
Having used all three mentioned stances for real, I have mostly settled on the Mod Weaver. Your feet are much more stable than when using the Isosceles and the strict Weaver is just tiring with the rigid shooting arm and the push-pull.
All three have worked well for me. Again, great info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, and thanks for watching! (P.S. anything reasonable in the housing market there yet?).
I'm in Adams about 35min North of Nashville. Lots of stuff up this way in Montgomery, Cheatham and Robertson Counties. We should talk?
@@d7dun1010 That sounds great. Feel free to shoot me an email and I’ll give you my phone number.
Excellent can’t wait for part two please include holster draw and revolver
As a martial arts trained civilian, I shoot out of a modified Weaver, or more like the special forces stance. The pure isocoles stance is a weak horse stance where the modified Weaver is a stronger stance, with for me gives greater mobility, and also presents less of a frontal target. The widespread use of the isosceles stance may work in competition, but targets don’t shoot back. I wonder if the more widespread use of that stance is responsible for more LEO casualties in gunfights despite wearing soft body armor
I don’t think so. I believe that has more to do with more people shooting at police officers.
It just seems odd to me that criminals , who probably dont log much range time, are killing a lot of police. In my experience knowing and shooting with police officers, there are two types one, those who consider their job a multifaceted job and train on their own in the martial arts , and shoot frequently. Others who consider the gun a tool, qualify when necessary and that is it.
Great video! Weaver might have been developed for one handed shooters too.
I don’t think so mainly because it became popular well into the two-handed shooting era.
As a person that practices boxing and kickboxing a bit, I've found a weaver stance much more natural to start and easier to move in.
The only thing that matters is that it works for you. Thanks for watching!
The revolver left-thumb over the back of the grip became a problem with the lower slide on Glock pistols, which would shave some flesh from the left thumb. You could also just say "he" , and eliminate the annoying "he-she" business. Good presentation of positions, remembering that the Weaver is the stance that must be used if the shooter is firing from a barricade. Otherwise he would be exposing much more of his body to incoming fire.
Very useful information
I thought with a 1911 you put your thumb on top of the safety to keep it from accidentally being engaged. Great video as usual.
Ironically, it's not the thumb safety that the "thumb-forward" grip impedes. Rather, it's the function of the grip safety that can be problematic. Depending upon several variables, the thumbs-forward grip doesn't always allow the shooter to fully disengage the grip safety.
Chief, body armor aside, from a defensive shooting perspective wouldn't the goal of a good stance be to present as small of silhouette as possible while remaining as mobile as possible?
Yes. I would say so.
I like thumbs forward and cut my teeth on that. I have recently in the past five years started shooting revolvers and have to be mindful to keep my thumbs away from the cylinder gap and forcing cone area.
Try the traditional grip with your wheelguns sometime and see what you think of it.
@@hrfunk Thanks. The big issue is retraining the brain to do it that way. I’ve committed myself to carrying a revolver daily and training with it to get that muscle memory. Thanks always for the cool content.
4:12 who's gunna feed the hogs??!
Isosceles for Torso position, Weaver for leg position, is my choice on the matter. They call that modified whatever I think?
H.R. please straighten out the AMERICA 1776 poster on the wall behind you nested between the tool pegboard . Thanks.
I did, I did! Unfortunately, I didn't notice it until I was editing this video. It is now straightened!
@@hrfunk Thanks, have a good day Slim.
I went in the Army in 1985 retired in 2011, and have seen the difference because of the wearing of body armor. It might save you from getting hit with a bullet in the chest or back, but wearing the IBA takes a toll on the rest of your body 😂
Agreed. I spent the last year and a half wearing level three body armor at work.
Good content. I try to keep up with your latest postings and find them very informative. What brand of vest are you wearing? I think you had an NRA vest in another clip. Thank you.
Yep. That was an NRA vest in another recent video. This one is from Duluth Trading Company.
Do you still use the thumbs crossed grip or have you gone back to the thumbs forward grip since this video was made?
I tend to switch back-and-forth, depending upon what type of pistol/revolver I'm shooting.
I was told at Fletc that the weaver stance is for shooters who struggle with recoil and that the isosceles is more mobile.
I think the isosceles is more mobile, but that’s probably going to vary from shooter to shooter.
When i do either stance i have to bring my arms in just alittle cause of torn rotator cuff in my left arm
I think everyone has to modify a shooting stance slightly to accommodate their own stature, physique, etc.
This is just a question has there been any research done that you know of or statistics taken about in an actual gun fight the percentage of people that just shoot with one hand for various reasons which we want to go into here?
Not that I know of.
Greetings from New Jersey
Hi Kip!
But which is Old , and which is New ? Things have gone full circle , in both LE training and Competition , albeit with about a 10 year lag time between them .
Weaver was invented in 1950's , more or less in the era LE was moving away from one handed and point shooting .
By '70s " combat competition " was all in with Weaver , and LE all in with Isos .
In '80s , Weaver became mainstream with LE training , while Isos creeping back into competition . ( Probably with compensated .38 Super largely displacing non compensated .45acp having less recoil &muzzle flip .)
Now , LE back to Isos , with varrying degrees of overlooking older Ofc shooting well with Weaver .
I think the important thing for instructors is to find what works for each shooter and then help teak it.
Weaver has better balance, Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet kune do, he found moving foreword and backwards was much faster, shuffling your feet. Of course he was using boxing as the example.
I think the dynamics change a bit when you add shooting to the mix.
i still use one hand ,point shoot ..
Cqb from horseback teufel
Looking forward to it. Especially, how people ignore the problem of a double lung side shot.
"Especially, how people ignore the problem of a double lung side shot."
So you are ok with a single lung broad-side shot? My overall plan does not involve getting shot.😁
@@papimaximus95 unfortunately when people are firing guns at you plans go out the window and you’re only option is risk mitigation. One lung out you're still in the game. Two lungs out you're dead automatically.
Go look up the medical term double pneumothorax.
Weaver
Neither...Chapman. 👍🏾
I like the weaver stance ,It's much easier to teach, more natural,the boxer stance..my children shoot better with it...thank you.🤠👉
My pleasure Mark!
Na, I will stay with Weaver...
I was taught that Weaver was a grip, not a stance. It was a grip to manage recoil & it didn't mater what position your feet were in. A big reason why Weaver is a grip. Is to shoot sitting down. Try shooting out the driver side car window, while sitting on the driver side, with the Isosceles stance. Hell just sit in a chair with out a gun, twist your wast to the left & extend both arm out, like your using the Isosceles stance. Awkward! Weaver is a grip you don't have to be bladed. Your feet can be where ever your feet are when you draw your firearm. I'm not a cop. But I have heard of an interview stance cops use, which is bladed to the person their speaking with. Doesn't Weaver work better from the interview stance? I can use that same stance when speaking with strangers. If a bladed boxer's stance is awkward. How come boxers can dance all over the ring? The Isosceles stance is good for target shooting & that's about it. I you really want to be helpful. Let's talk about 1 handed shooting & the rule of 3s. In my training classes I was told most non cops will be attacked from a distance so close. That a 2 handed firing grip will put the barrel past the attacker.
That rule of 3’s is something I see referred to with some regularity. I would love to know where it came from and how it was quantified.
@@hrfunk 3 yards, 3 shots, 3 seconds. They way it was explained. You have to be able to put 2 shots COM at 3 yards under 3 seconds. The 1 left over shot is incoming. For someone like me, I'm trying to stop a criminal attack. That attack will be much closer than 21 ft. 3 yards is like 9 ft. It's going to be a surprise attack. So I have to recognize the attack at the beginning because if I recognize the attack in the middle, I might lose my opportunity to defend my self. Situational Awareness. So with that attack coming under 9 ft. I might not have time or the attacker might be to closer for a 2 handed stance. That's what probable. It's possible the attack will come between 9 ft & 21 ft & beyond. I'd rather train for what's probable. So in the lecture part of training they say the attack will be close. Then out on the range. It's 2 handed shooting at distances longer than 9 ft. So I don't get why the say one thing in class & do it different on the range. If a robber stands 9 ft away & says give me your money. Will the victim hear him? I know robbers are dumb. But are they stupid enough to let witness see the robber, robing the victim? This is my beef with non cops getting trained!
@@Soulcritic I know what it is. As I said, I'd like to know where it came fromand how it was quantified.
@@hrfunk I don't care where it came from. I'm interested in my training beef. I first heard of the 3 rule back in the 80's. They still teach it today.
@@Soulcritic That kind of underscores my concern. I suspect someone just made it up because they thought it sounded good. It has now been repeated so many times that people accept it as fact. Training based upon a myth may be time ill-spent.
I hate peg board.
Really? I kind of CC like it.
@@hrfunk I am a tool box and cluttered bench kinda guy. And my stance and grip is all over the place. But I 'm working on it.
Why don't you get a haircut? How can you stand it?? Your hair is getting so long and outrageous. It's as if your barber moved away. Why don't you get somebody, like maybe your lovely wife to give you a haircut. I hope with the second segment of this video we will have some good news and might notice you will have had a haircut. 😉
Really, thanks for the great vids HR!! 👍👍
My pleasure. I hope part 2 was more watchable!