It's funny how the odd conversation brings out interesting viewpoints about a particular topic. For example, I recently went to a range session with some folks who live about two hours away, in a city that doesn't have an easily accessible range. So they come over to my neck of the woods periodically for the opportunity to get some trigger time. They are a young couple (well, young to me anyway) and they are not police officers. Even though they have only been shooting for a year or so, they are serious about their training, are excellent students and they both shoot very well. While we were getting things set up, they told me about a conversation they had with the proprietor of a gun shop in their city. I'm not sure exactly how the subject of shooting stances came up, but the gun shop guy informed our couple that, "The Isosceles stance is for cops. If you want to shoot for personal self defense, you need to use the Weaver stance."
His thinking apparently was that the Isosceles stance was for people who wear body armor on the job, but if you want to present a smaller target to your opponent (without armor), you need to use the Weaver stance. Our happy couple was taking all this in (I said they were good students), but were puzzled, as they have both been using the Isosceles stance since they began shooting. Since, as I said, they both shoot quite well, they were concerned about whether they were missing something. My first temptation was to tell them to ignore the "advice" and keep doing what they are doing. To be fair, though, the gun shop guy did have some valid points, just not the best conclusions. Let's examine some stances.
First of all, I do know that local police academies are teaching just one stance to their students. That one stance is the Isosceles - albeit a very weak and old fashioned version of it. One of the reasons the academy teaches it is that the Isosceles stance does square your upper body to the target, thereby maximizing the body armor coverage. A lot of cops have been killed and wounded over the years by incoming rounds that entered their chest in the area under their armpit that was not covered by some body armor designs - definitely a problem. So the Isosceles does help in that regard. However, to be a truly effective stance in managing the recoil of a self-defense grade pistol, you need to have both elbows locked straight out, as well as having your chest squared to the target. Your feet need to be shoulder width or slightly wider apart and one leg, usually your gun side leg, should be to the rear, serving both as a buffer to the recoil and as a counter-balance to the weight of the gun being as far forward as your arms can extend it. The version of the Isosceles being taught in this area is the old "chest square, feet square" version, which makes for a very weak stance.
People who are doing this usually do one of two things to maintain their balance when shooting. They either don't lock their elbows, which causes them to bend with recoil and take longer to get back on target, or they lean backwards at the waist, trying to counter-balance the weight of the gun extended in front of them. In either case, rapid firing, like you might need to do if someone is trying to kill you, will aggravate the effect of the recoil and start pushing you backwards and off balance. That's not really a good thing for cops, (or anyone else) I think. A properly executed, strong, well balanced Isosceles is a very effective shooting stance, and it certainly isn't reserved for law enforcement use only.
What about the Weaver stance? Well, it's also an excellent stance, when performed correctly. You see, a lot of folks think that what makes a stance a "Weaver" is that their elbows are bent and their upper body is "bladed" at about a 45 degree angle to the target. If that's all you do, you’re not getting the most out of the concept. It is correct that with the chest being angled you present a slightly reduced target profile, but I really don't think that the inch or so difference will be the margin of living or dying. Most modern body armor is designed to cover as much of the "underarm gap" as possible and still allow for comfortable arm movement. It is still possible to get hit there, to be sure, but I don't think that is the overriding consideration. With an effective Weaver stance, the elbows are bent, but the arms and upper body are applying an isometric "push-pull" tension that is important in effectively stabilizing your shooting "platform." Some people like to quantify the push-pull tension by establishing a certain percentage of pressure, such as 60 percent one way and 40 percent the other. That's a tough one to work out in the middle of a gunfight. How about equal tension with both arms? Too simple? And one other subtle, but important point: lock your support side elbow down toward the ground. Don't have it sticking out like a dislocated chicken wing. It will end up moving around, and there goes your stable platform.
Speaking of moving around, my advice is to learn different stances for different situations. The Isosceles is a good stance if you are standing still while shooting forward or traversing to your support hand side. Once you start moving around, the extended weight of the gun works against the fulcrum of your shoulders and the gun can start an exaggerated bobbing up and down motion. Weaver has more of a shock absorber effect, and works better when you have to move, especially over uneven ground. It's also better if you need to pivot to your gun side, without being able to move your feet.
I teach a third version, often called the "Modified Weaver," that was developed and used very effectively by world champion pistol shooter and trainer, Ray Chapman. In that stance, the gun arm is locked out straight and the support arm pulls to the rear against the "stiff arm," giving an effect similar to a rifle stock. Like the Weaver, the support elbow needs to be locked down toward the ground. The lower body and foot position is similar to the Weaver stance of having your feet about shoulder width apart and the hips angled with the upper body. The Chapman stance requires you to square the upper body slightly more than the Weaver, but not much. The Isosceles does best with a slightly wider stance and squaring the hips to the target along with the upper body. You will find that the Weaver and Chapman stances require more upper body strength to perform at their best. Both Jack Weaver and Ray Chapman are big men, more than capable of making a solid shooting platform with their chosen stances. The Isosceles is more forgiving in that regard, as the whole body is providing stability along the axis of the arms, shoulders, hips and rear leg.
As far as I'm concerned, the best stance is the one that gives you the best control over the gun and, presumably, the best accuracy. Anytime someone tries to say that one stance is best, to the exclusion of any other, my BS alarm goes off. We're all different and something that works well for some may be a disaster for others. That's why a police academy that only teaches one way gets my dander up. It may be easier for the instructors to teach one thing, but the officers they will be sending out onto the streets deserve better. They need to have options for when they are on slippery ground; are caught between two cars in a parking lot; have to shoot while on a flight of stairs; or must shoot while they're moving. Sometimes we look for the simplest, production line way to get the person out the academy door and onto the beat: the KISS principle. The trouble is, it's not simple and people who are dedicating their lives to police work aren't stupid.
By the way, the husband and wife whose conversation started all of this are both most effective with the Isosceles. Unlike the gun shop guy, I've seen the results of their most recent range efforts: several hundred rounds down range and nothing outside an area the size of the 8 ring on a standard B-27 target - both of them. Too bad their gun shop friend didn't get to see it.
