I used the modified weaver for over two decades as a cop. You can swing your arms quickly and adjust your footing as needed quite easily because the position leaves you light on your feet. So when I hear "unbalanced and unnatural" I get the feeling Clay just doesn't grasp the strength of the weaver. It's just the opposite in fact, a very natural and comfortable position with excellent front to back and side to side stability in the platform. I was also a defensive tactics instructor and the weaver affords officers the ability to use their weak arm to check an individual and keep a reactionary gap if necessary. Everyone has their preferences when it comes to shooting, grip, stance, so why beat up on something that's worked effectively for 60 years?
The comment about having the presence of mind to assume the Weaver is moot. When I get into a fight, I naturally step forward with my left foot and get into a 'boxing' position. Put a gun in my hand and I'm in Weaver. I've been using it for years on the range and I go into it naturally. I shoot accurately and quickly from it. I don't know about all the biomechanics of one vs the other, but I do know that stance goes to shit when you get shot at, and movement is key. With a rifle I've returned fire lying down on my back/on my side/on my tip toes/balancing on boxes/hanging out windows/sitting down and any other number of ways. It's not that important. I've only used a pistol once for real, and had to use one hand as I was hanging onto a window frame with my left. I didn't hit shit, but it gave me time to move. Arguing about one position vs another in the real world is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Find a position that lets you practice the fundamentals and get good with it. You'll adapt when it goes down for real.
Thing is, the army taught us different stances but the only time I had to use my side arm in combat I just panicked, forgot everything and just unloaded.. I'm sure many who have used a pistol in combat will say the same.
I can’t wait to find out what the new new new modern stance will be so we can talk smack about the other perfectly fine stances that we have never used understand or practiced enough to be proficient.
I think if you can line up your gun right and hit what you're aiming at, nothing else matters. If you're 250 lbs, the gun will be controllable no matter what you do, if you're only 100 lbs, you should figure out a good stance.
Your Weaver is incorrect and bladed way too much. If you are going to poo poo something, at least portray it accurately. Weaver is very similar to the fighting stance in many fighting arts. As a training 30 year Martial Artist..I know. I am all about what puts rounds on target as quickly and accurately as humanly possible. I use the Weaver but you left out several critical elements. The Weaver is not perfect, but it does several things very well... Weaver translates very nicely to long guns, Isosceles does not. Weaver is very easy to use in lateral movement while shooting on the move. Isosceles does not. Standing still=bullet magnate. Weaver gives you more distance between your weapon and a bad guy at conversational distances (Weapons retention anyone?) and is easier to move in, if rushed. Isosceles does neither of these things. Only one stance for many things? One less thing to think or worry about during crisis management mode. Once again, I am all about stopping a lethal threat, that being accomplished with the least amount of muss and fuss. Training in one stance...I think the KISS Principle applies here.
I learned to shoot Weaver naturally at a time when Iscosoles was rarely seen. Now it seems every single new shooter uses it and probably never thought about deciding for themselves. There's lots of videos like this one telling not to use the Weaver but they always demonstrate it wrong to prove their point. Almost just seems like a fad to me because like you said, the tactical advantages are comparable and you want what you're most comfortable with anyway. I'm going remember the points you made in case it ever comes up.
@@r3dl0g1c Spot on my friend. I like using what works best for you but for my money...I love how Weaver transitions so easily to long guns. That alone is reason enough for me to stick with it. I am no world class shooter but I can accurately and quickly put rounds on target using a so called obsolete firing platform. With almost any weapons platform and I own a bunch.
Seems to me that you're likely to shoot, in a "street fight" however you practice on the range... that is, if you practice a LOT. Over time, ANY reasonable stance would become "natural." Pick a stance that works, and practice it... A LOT!
I agree in martial arts its often said you can tell Tue true measure of a martial artist by how long it takes them to revert to a brawler in a fight. In the military its said you will not rise to the occasion but fall to your level of training. You practice 100% perfect in hopes that when it counts you can preform at 50.
Just like choosing the gun that is the most comfortable/accurate for you.... Maybe a person should choose the stance that is the most comfortable/accurate for them. A person should try/train with different guns and in different stances to give yourself options, and to see what is best for you. You never know what type of situation you could find yourself in.
Weaver is not what you showed. Face the target in an "interrogation stance" (strong side foot is about 8-9 inches back) this gives you balance and your chest is only bladed about 15 degrees, not the extreme you showed.
Sorry dude...that don't fly. If you need 4 years to learn Weaver...you may very well be unteachable in the art of weapons manipulation.Thus, you should not be handling firearms. I learned Weaver in one day and train with it consistently...pistol, shotgun, rifle. To use athletes as an example is ludicrous. None of them are at a risk of being injured or killed by a violent criminal. Damn near every fighting art on the planet uses either a Weaver or something akin to it. That is the example you should have used but then that would have negated your argument. lol Use whatever you want with the understanding that you don't get a do over. And the men along with Jack Weaver who developed the stance...forgot more about gunfighting than any of us put together, will ever know. I had personally met Col. Jeff Cooper several times and I will follow his example...I refuse to believe that gunfighting has changed that much since Weaver was developed.
I have never seen a good "fighter" use a square stance. The kind of mobility needed for other sports is not the same as the kind of mobility needed for fighting.
I'm all for hearing someone's thoughts on a given subject, but they lose me when they try to make their opinion look better by denigrating opposing views, hence both stances are "dumb" and you can only cover bad guy's from a Weaver by doing silly little exaggerated baby steps. Not very professional...
I practice using both positions, and the weaver feels more comfortable to me. I think someone should use whatever stance they want, as long as they can be accurate with it. I also practice drawing from my concealed holster and instantly firing as soon as the weapon is chest level, it's very effective at close range, 25-30 feet, which is where most shooting incidents occur.
I am always impressed by you and your videos, Clay! Your shooting instruction and firearms reviews are not only the best, but they are entertaining. Please keep it all up!
That was a poor Weaver stance, You don't actually turn your whole body. You turn at the waist and the off=hand arm is bent more as if you are holding a rifle. I would challenge you with the Weaver stance any day. You are right that the stance is not the most important thing about accuracy but if you use the Weaver correctly it is a more steady shooting stance. Learned from the outdated, Col Jeff Cooper at Gunsite. Teach what you know.
I think the ACTUAL biggest difference between the "stances" in practice is the grip: Isosceles uses a thumbs-forward grip and Weaver uses a thumbs-crossed grip. Your body position will usually be dictated by the situation. Your grip is the thing that will (hopefully) be consistent. Bottom line - go to the range with a friend. RUN straight at a target. When your friend says "ATTACK," stop, draw, and shoot the target without repositioning your feet. That's a shooting stance (not the only shooting stance). Now shoot five shots as fast as you can. Is your grip still solid? Is your grouping acceptable? No - modify your grip. Yes - stop worrying about it. Now spend half your time shooting one-handed.
I was taught and still use my natural fighting stance. That’s what I will naturally get into,the last thing I want to do is shift this, blade that. I’m not a perfect shot but I’ll get it done.
But,but, but it’s old. The new way.....yeah, the new way. Pfft. Your stance should be what ever you fight from. You are in a fight, so prepare your body and mind to fight....and prevail.
I had an incident 20 some years ago. I had a little bit of warning so I drew and hid my pistol along my leg and turned to the side. I was unarmored and protecting a civilian. After a tense conversation the guy raised his weapon.( a Stevens single shot shotgun, sawed off) I got off the first round, we tied on the second, I got my third round off as I was falling backward. The last 5 rounds went into the ceiling... Since I trained with the weaver stance I ended up squaring to the target. Final score was 3 of my rounds hit, approx 11 pellets hit me. Results were I went to the hospital , he went to the morgue!!! It was my training and practice that got me thru it. Just practice, get the muscle memory!!! Oh yea this all happened within 15 ft.... Yes I peed myself at the end....
There are a lot of nay-sayers and self titled professionals that comment on others videos. It truly boils down to one thing... What works for the shooter at that particular time. I happen to use many stances for different times. I have been in a situation where I needed to pull to defend myself and I can tell you now... I was not worried about what stance I was using. Lol. My thoughts were putting lead in my attacker. Either way. Great video, keep shooting and enjoy being American.
Who is this guy and why should I be taking advice from him? 1o years ago I took the DOS shooting course. The instructor (a well decorated SF guy who was younger than me) noticed my Weaver stance and wanted to correct me. I told him I was trained this way and have fired it my whole life. We tried ISO & Weaver. I fired MUCH better in Weaver. He said, "Stick with what works for you."
To much movement can cause issue to remember during situations. Leaning your head is an unnecessary body movement that also takes away time the only thing that should move are your arms coming up to sights and target
This makes sense. I imagine military and LEO's who are shooting on the move (groucho walk, combat slide, or whatever) are never going to be in a set stance when shooting anyway...
If you think he talks a bit fast and mumbles at times, I think at 2:19 he is saying "With isosceles does have a little bit better balance...but I'm out of balance with my rearward direction".
I like to do Weaver when I'm real sore from leg day and can't really squat much. Conversely, if I'm fresh, I'll give isosceles a shot. They both have pros and cons, but I don't think the Weaver is as bad as a lot of people claim. For me, it just comes naturally, whereas I have to fight my own instincts to make isosceles work. Which do you reckon I'm going to default to under pressure?
Like everything in life, it's made to be far more complicated than it needs to be. How do you shoot a basketball? How do you hit a tennis ball? How do you hit a golfball? The answer is slightly turned. Why? Simple. Because it's the most natural way to aim. The way you feel comfortable. By calling one position "dumb" you start down the silly non professional nit picky track. Stand the way you feel natural then train to be accurate and affective that way. Simple as that. It's not that hard.
I love all these people tell you their opinions when the fact of the matter is your stances is actually dictated by the event. On a range Isosceles can be great for a beginner or experienced TARGET shooter it has it's application. Weaver, Modified Weaver, Chapman Weaver, Natural stance all have their application as well. I have yet to see a Tactical Officer traverse a hallway or do a room entry using the Isosceles stance not practical in a scenario where there is movement. I have yet to see a person in a real situation move into an Isosceles position when confronted on the street. Isosceles is great for target and static situations. Try Isosceles using a barricade. I have seen at least 5 different variations of Weaver trying to be taught it's ridiculous. Seriously people get serious instruction instead of from someone trying to make a name for themself . A natural athletic stance is the best most comfortable as well tactical stance to use. The example of shuffling your feet in a weaver stance to address an off center target threat was ridiculous. Depending on angle just twist the feet towards the target and if necessary pick up the rear foot and move it and the front foot will naturally twist towards the target. Seriously
You should also be practicing one handed, right hand , left hand. Believe me if you are caught up in something you're going to worry about staying alive not where your feet are. Having said that I did enjoy and appreciate the video, there are a shitload of people with new handguns that need some instruction and start somewhere.
One to five yards is a real on the street gunfighting range. I can point shoot and hit center mass (not a tight group, but tight enough) even after having elevated my heart rate with artificially induced stress. Maybe that's because I trained this way, and trained a lot. Yeah, I know, a REAL gun fighter would be dead with THAT technique. I think Bill Jordan lived to a ripe old age so maybe not. The whole argument on stances and technique and which is best is kinda dumb. Train as much as you can, but always be aware of your environment. The most successful gunfight is the one you never got into in the first place.
Gee. It's almost as if everybody is physically and mentally different and has a lifetime of doing different stuff than everybody else, so maybe a person might be farther ahead basing their shooting stance, on what their body wants to do naturally. Learn to shoot from whatever stance feels right. It's a long shot...but I don't think your gun gives much of a crap where your feet are pointed.
Not a fan of this video. I don't think you really understand stance yet you are attempting to teach on the topic. No offense but you don't know more than Jeff Cooper or Louis Awerbuck. Weaver IS the fighting stance. Iso is a "shooting" stance. Not one single effective martial art technique uses the ISO stance. Granted some very fast shooting can be done with the ISO stance but only with mildly recoiling guns and a static target.
Actually, I know more that Cooper and Awerbuck put together. Shooting has evolved over the last 40 years, by a lot. and maybe you should look up the authors bio before you start talking shit and look like an idiot.
I'm not talking shit mr internet commando. Insecure? There is an ex spec forces, delta, seal, green beret, recon marine etc etc etc around every corner these days. While that means a lot it does not mean you know everything. Especially on the internet. So it don't really mean shit from a training standpoint. There is always another operator with a big bio that will disagree. "I know more than Cooper and Awerbuck put together".... who can I credit this quote to? Is that Clay Martin saying that? Who then? All you said is the author knows it all and shooting has evolved. Seriously? I not going to explain my original comment millennial style.
I guess my training of over 1000 SOF guys and multiple foreign armies across a multi decade career doesn't matter much on the training front then. but you spent 10 minutes at gunsite, so we will defer to your judgement. great plan. bye.
It always amazes me when people criticize something they no nothing about and have obviously no training in. Your Weaver stance is wrong and you make it look like you can't shoot as fast with it. Stick with what you know which id obviously games.
it amazes me too..just like how you're criticizing his technique,which obviously works well for him,there's really no right or wrong way to stand honestly...furthermore,i'd take Clay to have my back ANY day of the week
These guys crack me up obviously he's never been in a real gun fight or been shot like I have all this shit goes out the window when you're fighting for your life it's just like people that practice boxing the minute a fight breaks out it turns into a wrestling match and ends up on the ground same thing with a Hand gun combat situation you basically grab that gun and do your best to stop your threat before he stops you that's really the end of the story I hope nobody that watches his videos takes this type of stuff seriously it's just not true 😂😂😂
That wasn't the weaver stance at all... You are way over exaggerating. Your "modern" stance is the weaver stance...
I used the modified weaver for over two decades as a cop. You can swing your arms quickly and adjust your footing as needed quite easily because the position leaves you light on your feet. So when I hear "unbalanced and unnatural" I get the feeling Clay just doesn't grasp the strength of the weaver. It's just the opposite in fact, a very natural and comfortable position with excellent front to back and side to side stability in the platform. I was also a defensive tactics instructor and the weaver affords officers the ability to use their weak arm to check an individual and keep a reactionary gap if necessary. Everyone has their preferences when it comes to shooting, grip, stance, so why beat up on something that's worked effectively for 60 years?
The comment about having the presence of mind to assume the Weaver is moot. When I get into a fight, I naturally step forward with my left foot and get into a 'boxing' position. Put a gun in my hand and I'm in Weaver. I've been using it for years on the range and I go into it naturally. I shoot accurately and quickly from it. I don't know about all the biomechanics of one vs the other, but I do know that stance goes to shit when you get shot at, and movement is key. With a rifle I've returned fire lying down on my back/on my side/on my tip toes/balancing on boxes/hanging out windows/sitting down and any other number of ways. It's not that important. I've only used a pistol once for real, and had to use one hand as I was hanging onto a window frame with my left. I didn't hit shit, but it gave me time to move. Arguing about one position vs another in the real world is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Find a position that lets you practice the fundamentals and get good with it. You'll adapt when it goes down for real.
I'm a new shooter at 60 years of age. Your comments are sobering and pragmatic. Thank you. I am taking them to heart.
@@stephennicholas Same here man. New shooter at 60. I like everything Groucho said. To me, as a lefty, the Weaver just feels more natural.
Thanks for your service Bro.
Thing is, the army taught us different stances but the only time I had to use my side arm in combat I just panicked, forgot everything and just unloaded..
I'm sure many who have used a pistol in combat will say the same.
Isn't muscle memory supposed to kick in?
I can’t wait to find out what the new new new modern stance will be so we can talk smack about the other perfectly fine stances that we have never used understand or practiced enough to be proficient.
Show me how you isosceles a long gun. Weaver of done right carries over.
My natural stance is the "show em your butt." I shoot over my shoulder as I'm running away.
Modified coward stance!!! :-)
😆😂🤣
Not sure why fighting from a fighting stance is so weird to people.
Well said and I love that name.
(It's my last name)
Imagine how I would handle the situation where someone hits me in the face... how would I shoot from the fetal position?
utk2ski. BaHaHaHaha!
Nice one
LMFAO!!!! That's fucking hilarious....great job!
😂😂
I think if you can line up your gun right and hit what you're aiming at, nothing else matters. If you're 250 lbs, the gun will be controllable no matter what you do, if you're only 100 lbs, you should figure out a good stance.
Well, if I shoot from a stance that I’d assume if someone was going to punch me in the face, I’d be in the Weaver Stance.
Your Weaver is incorrect and bladed way too much. If you are going to poo poo something, at least portray it accurately. Weaver is very similar to the fighting stance in many fighting arts. As a training 30 year Martial Artist..I know.
I am all about what puts rounds on target as quickly and accurately as humanly possible.
I use the Weaver but you left out several critical elements.
The Weaver is not perfect, but it does several things very well...
Weaver translates very nicely to long guns, Isosceles does not.
Weaver is very easy to use in lateral movement while shooting on the move.
Isosceles does not. Standing still=bullet magnate.
Weaver gives you more distance between your weapon and a bad guy at conversational distances (Weapons retention anyone?) and is easier to move in, if rushed. Isosceles does neither of these things.
Only one stance for many things?
One less thing to think or worry about during crisis management mode.
Once again, I am all about stopping a lethal threat, that being accomplished with the least amount of muss and fuss.
Training in one stance...I think the KISS Principle applies here.
CountrySamurai you should know that PC police will be here soon to arrest you for saying KISS. Now is only KIS. 💪😆
I learned to shoot Weaver naturally at a time when Iscosoles was rarely seen. Now it seems every single new shooter uses it and probably never thought about deciding for themselves. There's lots of videos like this one telling not to use the Weaver but they always demonstrate it wrong to prove their point. Almost just seems like a fad to me because like you said, the tactical advantages are comparable and you want what you're most comfortable with anyway. I'm going remember the points you made in case it ever comes up.
@@r3dl0g1c Spot on my friend. I like using what works best for you but for my money...I love how Weaver transitions so easily to long guns.
That alone is reason enough for me to stick with it.
I am no world class shooter but I can accurately and quickly put rounds on target using a so called obsolete firing platform. With almost any weapons platform and I own a bunch.
Seems to me that you're likely to shoot, in a "street fight" however you practice on the range... that is, if you practice a LOT. Over time, ANY reasonable stance would become "natural." Pick a stance that works, and practice it... A LOT!
I agree in martial arts its often said you can tell Tue true measure of a martial artist by how long it takes them to revert to a brawler in a fight. In the military its said you will not rise to the occasion but fall to your level of training. You practice 100% perfect in hopes that when it counts you can preform at 50.
Stand how you would if you were in a street fight. Ok, so ... basically Weaver? Slightly-modified-weaver?
Right lol
Just like choosing the gun that is the most comfortable/accurate for you.... Maybe a person should choose the stance that is the most comfortable/accurate for them.
A person should try/train with different guns and in different stances to give yourself options, and to see what is best for you.
You never know what type of situation you could find yourself in.
Weaver is not what you showed. Face the target in an "interrogation stance" (strong side foot is about 8-9 inches back) this gives you balance and your chest is only bladed about 15 degrees, not the extreme you showed.
Well said...please read my comment above.
There are many logical reasons to use the Weaver...few for Isosceles.
Sorry dude...that don't fly.
If you need 4 years to learn Weaver...you may very well be unteachable in the art of weapons manipulation.Thus, you should not be handling firearms.
I learned Weaver in one day and train with it consistently...pistol, shotgun, rifle.
To use athletes as an example is ludicrous. None of them are at a risk of being injured or killed by a violent criminal.
Damn near every fighting art on the planet uses either a Weaver or something akin to it. That is the example you should have used but then that would have negated your argument. lol
Use whatever you want with the understanding that you don't get a do over. And the men along with Jack Weaver who developed the stance...forgot more about gunfighting than any of us put together, will ever know. I had personally met Col. Jeff Cooper several times and I will follow his example...I refuse to believe that gunfighting has changed that much since Weaver was developed.
He doesn’t understand the weaver enough to critique it, let alone try and shit all over it.
I have never seen a good "fighter" use a square stance. The kind of mobility needed for other sports is not the same as the kind of mobility needed for fighting.
@@lBaerdeLouisYAna You clearly have never boxed!
I'm all for hearing someone's thoughts on a given subject, but they lose me when they try to make their opinion look better by denigrating opposing views, hence both stances are "dumb" and you can only cover bad guy's from a Weaver by doing silly little exaggerated baby steps. Not very professional...
I practice using both positions, and the weaver feels more comfortable to me. I think someone should use whatever stance they want, as long as they can be accurate with it. I also practice drawing from my concealed holster and instantly firing as soon as the weapon is chest level, it's very effective at close range, 25-30 feet, which is where most shooting incidents occur.
I am always impressed by you and your videos, Clay! Your shooting instruction and firearms reviews are not only the best, but they are entertaining. Please keep it all up!
If you're going to criticize the Weaver technique, then at least learn it correctly.
Really love the ricochet sound effects, gives that old time Western movie vibe...
Sure those weren't actual ricochets?
What makes the Weaver work better for me is that it is easier for me to get my eye behind the sights than the Isosceles.
That was a poor Weaver stance, You don't actually turn your whole body. You turn at the waist and the off=hand arm is bent more as if you are holding a rifle. I would challenge you with the Weaver stance any day. You are right that the stance is not the most important thing about accuracy but if you use the Weaver correctly it is a more steady shooting stance. Learned from the outdated, Col Jeff Cooper at Gunsite. Teach what you know.
So why is it imperative to shoot with both hands on the gun, if it doesn't even matter when stand on just one foot?
I think the ACTUAL biggest difference between the "stances" in practice is the grip: Isosceles uses a thumbs-forward grip and Weaver uses a thumbs-crossed grip. Your body position will usually be dictated by the situation. Your grip is the thing that will (hopefully) be consistent.
Bottom line - go to the range with a friend. RUN straight at a target. When your friend says "ATTACK," stop, draw, and shoot the target without repositioning your feet. That's a shooting stance (not the only shooting stance). Now shoot five shots as fast as you can. Is your grip still solid? Is your grouping acceptable? No - modify your grip. Yes - stop worrying about it.
Now spend half your time shooting one-handed.
I was taught and still use my natural fighting stance. That’s what I will naturally get into,the last thing I want to do is shift this, blade that. I’m not a perfect shot but I’ll get it done.
But,but, but it’s old. The new way.....yeah, the new way. Pfft. Your stance should be what ever you fight from. You are in a fight, so prepare your body and mind to fight....and prevail.
this man's been in an actual street fight.
Great job man. I 100% agree
I think you might have gotten a few things wrong there, but hang in there.
I had an incident 20 some years ago. I had a little bit of warning so I drew and hid my pistol along my leg and turned to the side. I was unarmored and protecting a civilian. After a tense conversation the guy raised his weapon.( a Stevens single shot shotgun, sawed off) I got off the first round, we tied on the second, I got my third round off as I was falling backward. The last 5 rounds went into the ceiling... Since I trained with the weaver stance I ended up squaring to the target. Final score was 3 of my rounds hit, approx 11 pellets hit me. Results were I went to the hospital , he went to the morgue!!! It was my training and practice that got me thru it. Just practice, get the muscle memory!!! Oh yea this all happened within 15 ft.... Yes I peed myself at the end....
Why didn’t you move and shoot. They tell you to move off of the X
There are a lot of nay-sayers and self titled professionals that comment on others videos. It truly boils down to one thing... What works for the shooter at that particular time. I happen to use many stances for different times. I have been in a situation where I needed to pull to defend myself and I can tell you now... I was not worried about what stance I was using. Lol. My thoughts were putting lead in my attacker.
Either way. Great video, keep shooting and enjoy being American.
Who is this guy and why should I be taking advice from him?
1o years ago I took the DOS shooting course. The instructor (a well decorated SF guy who was younger than me) noticed my Weaver stance and wanted to correct me. I told him I was trained this way and have fired it my whole life. We tried ISO & Weaver. I fired MUCH better in Weaver. He said, "Stick with what works for you."
Well, it seems like I been doing it right all this time... my "shooting stance" is pretty similar to my fighting stance
To much movement can cause issue to remember during situations. Leaning your head is an unnecessary body movement that also takes away time the only thing that should move are your arms coming up to sights and target
I feel more balanced, more comfortable in a weaver stance, but I'm more accurate in an isosceles stance. I'm sticking with isosceles.
This makes sense. I imagine military and LEO's who are shooting on the move (groucho walk, combat slide, or whatever) are never going to be in a set stance when shooting anyway...
If you think he talks a bit fast and mumbles at times, I think at 2:19 he is saying "With isosceles does have a little bit better balance...but I'm out of balance with my rearward direction".
I like to do Weaver when I'm real sore from leg day and can't really squat much. Conversely, if I'm fresh, I'll give isosceles a shot. They both have pros and cons, but I don't think the Weaver is as bad as a lot of people claim. For me, it just comes naturally, whereas I have to fight my own instincts to make isosceles work. Which do you reckon I'm going to default to under pressure?
The moderate stance is exactly how I've always done it, including the fist-fight thought. Glad to know I've been doing something right lol
Weaver was never about blading yourself to the target clay.. that's just some shit that someone said and everyone ran with it
Like everything in life, it's made to be far more complicated than it needs to be. How do you shoot a basketball? How do you hit a tennis ball? How do you hit a golfball? The answer is slightly turned. Why? Simple. Because it's the most natural way to aim. The way you feel comfortable. By calling one position "dumb" you start down the silly non professional nit picky track. Stand the way you feel natural then train to be accurate and affective that way. Simple as that. It's not that hard.
Oh my god so many people talking shit 🤣🤣 I think I’ll listen to someone with his long tab over internet ninjas thank you. Damn good video!
Practical advice and straight to the point. Great video as ususal
Thanks for your time and effort... I found your video informative and worthwhile...
What is your position on the Oxford comma?
Finally a real world instruction. When the shtf stance is the last thing to be worrying about. Thank you. Love all your videos btw.
I love all these people tell you their opinions when the fact of the matter is your stances is actually dictated by the event. On a range Isosceles can be great for a beginner or experienced TARGET shooter it has it's application. Weaver, Modified Weaver, Chapman Weaver, Natural stance all have their application as well. I have yet to see a Tactical Officer traverse a hallway or do a room entry using the Isosceles stance not practical in a scenario where there is movement. I have yet to see a person in a real situation move into an Isosceles position when confronted on the street. Isosceles is great for target and static situations. Try Isosceles using a barricade. I have seen at least 5 different variations of Weaver trying to be taught it's ridiculous. Seriously people get serious instruction instead of from someone trying to make a name for themself . A natural athletic stance is the best most comfortable as well tactical stance to use. The example of shuffling your feet in a weaver stance to address an off center target threat was ridiculous. Depending on angle just twist the feet towards the target and if necessary pick up the rear foot and move it and the front foot will naturally twist towards the target. Seriously
You should also be practicing one handed, right hand , left hand. Believe me if you are caught up in something you're going to worry about staying alive not where your feet are. Having said that I did enjoy and appreciate the video, there are a shitload of people with new handguns that need some instruction and start somewhere.
One to five yards is a real on the street gunfighting range. I can point shoot and hit center mass (not a tight group, but tight enough) even after having elevated my heart rate with artificially induced stress. Maybe that's because I trained this way, and trained a lot. Yeah, I know, a REAL gun fighter would be dead with THAT technique. I think Bill Jordan lived to a ripe old age so maybe not. The whole argument on stances and technique and which is best is kinda dumb. Train as much as you can, but always be aware of your environment. The most successful gunfight is the one you never got into in the first place.
When I use the Weaver stance it keeps me from shooting to the left too much.
Your "modern stance" is basically the Weaver stance. I don't know what your Weaver stance is.
It goes a long way to practice, practice, practice....what ever way you shoot.
I'm a medical intuitive; stop smoking and no fast food - blood pressure elevation is diet and beer
Gee. It's almost as if everybody is physically and mentally different and has a lifetime of doing different stuff than everybody else, so maybe a person might be farther ahead basing their shooting stance, on what their body wants to do naturally. Learn to shoot from whatever stance feels right. It's a long shot...but I don't think your gun gives much of a crap where your feet are pointed.
Real knowledgeable and well-spoken thank you sir
Using fine motor skills to rack seems unskilled.
A slight over simplification of the rise and fall of the Weaver Stance, but a good video none the less.
Your kidding, right?
The james bond stance is the best
very helpful.
good job for technique
Brother where's the flip flops?
The way this guy handles a pistol i don't think anyone needs advice from him
What gun is that?
SIG P320X5
Not a fan of this video. I don't think you really understand stance yet you are attempting to teach on the topic. No offense but you don't know more than Jeff Cooper or Louis Awerbuck. Weaver IS the fighting stance. Iso is a "shooting" stance. Not one single effective martial art technique uses the ISO stance. Granted some very fast shooting can be done with the ISO stance but only with mildly recoiling guns and a static target.
Actually, I know more that Cooper and Awerbuck put together. Shooting has evolved over the last 40 years, by a lot. and maybe you should look up the authors bio before you start talking shit and look like an idiot.
I'm not talking shit mr internet commando. Insecure? There is an ex spec forces, delta, seal, green beret, recon marine etc etc etc around every corner these days. While that means a lot it does not mean you know everything. Especially on the internet. So it don't really mean shit from a training standpoint. There is always another operator with a big bio that will disagree. "I know more than Cooper and Awerbuck put together".... who can I credit this quote to? Is that Clay Martin saying that? Who then?
All you said is the author knows it all and shooting has evolved. Seriously? I not going to explain my original comment millennial style.
I guess my training of over 1000 SOF guys and multiple foreign armies across a multi decade career doesn't matter much on the training front then. but you spent 10 minutes at gunsite, so we will defer to your judgement. great plan. bye.
I'm converted
Looks like an X5 p320
correct you are. love this gun
But, muh center axis relock!
The Dirty Sanchez is not very popular.
It always amazes me when people criticize something they no nothing about and have obviously no training in. Your Weaver stance is wrong and you make it look like you can't shoot as fast with it. Stick with what you know which id obviously games.
Arlen Norby he is a former Recon Marine and Army Green Beret
off-the-reservation.com/?page_id=15 Clay knows a thing or two...
it amazes me too..just like how you're criticizing his technique,which obviously works well for him,there's really no right or wrong way to stand honestly...furthermore,i'd take Clay to have my back ANY day of the week
Don't drop that sig :) jk jk love it.
These guys crack me up obviously he's never been in a real gun fight or been shot like I have all this shit goes out the window when you're fighting for your life it's just like people that practice boxing the minute a fight breaks out it turns into a wrestling match and ends up on the ground same thing with a Hand gun combat situation you basically grab that gun and do your best to stop your threat before he stops you that's really the end of the story I hope nobody that watches his videos takes this type of stuff seriously it's just not true 😂😂😂