![behind-the-line-isosceles-stance[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/U4Nu9zW.jpg "behind-the-line-isosceles-stance[1].jpg")
Miculek says weaver stance is shit. What does /k/ think?
>>29929101
Almost anyone credible says the same thing. To be honest the only people still arguing for weaver are clueless fudds.
>>29929101
it's shit.
it's inconsistent to get into, inconsistent in applying pressure on the gun, and inconsistent in how it tracks under recoil. isosceles is superior in every regard.
whatever works for you chief
i use weaver for target shooting, always have. learned to shoot w/ long guns so it was natural to have a slightly canted stance
>>29929101
Personal preference, desu. I personally prefer the blade stance for whatever reason.
>>29929101
Weaver looks cooler.
Weaver feels more natural to me but I am trying to shoot isosceles and break that habit
are weaver and teacupping the same?
cause i fucking hate teacupping but normal weaver is pretty comfy for me
>>29929340
>are weaver and teacupping the same?
one is a stance and the other is a grip nigga
Just shoot whatever comes natural. As long as it's not the chick lean. I always have to break new shooters of that habit.
>>29929101
weaver gives a non dominant hand for mobility
>>29929340
y'all need to learn to shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNYJ3rDbz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2BuId3Kho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QhpvY9LZc
i learned more in a few months of action pistol than in 10 years of shooting before that.
>>29929340
Thas Cute
>tfw shoot to the left everytime
I was so happy when of all things I was hitting dead center with an m&p shield the first time I shot it
Weaver is fine for shooting. The reason it went away for cops was because it exposed the less armored/unarmored side to your target. There's a dashcam vid of some NC cop dying that way.
I shoot weaver because I learned to shoot on a clay thrower. After 5,000 trigger pulls in that position only, it feels awfully weird to do anything else. I do alright for myself shooting rifles and pistols in that stance, I'm not great, but it's comfortable for me.
is there a name for the old one handed stance people use in ww2?
>>29930294
The Walter Sobchak?
Hes a professional, of course he thinks his snowflake power stance is better. Look at all the Olympian shooters with their uber gay dogshit.
I wouldn't triangle if i was being shot at, it gives the enemy a perfect silhouette and doesn't work for shit if there is any amount of obstruction in front of you, cover be damned.
Hes a great guy 10/10 would drink with. But this argument is the equivalent of a Nascar driver telling the rally driver drifting and offroad tires are shit.
>>29930372
Turning side-on just increases the likelihood that bullet pierces both lungs or both kidneys and also reduces the effectiveness of armor.
>>29930372
>I don't know the first thing about shooting pistols besides what I saw in call of duty and the matrix: the post
>>29930427
With weaver you hide much more of your body behind a wall than with isosceles.
>>29930477
[Citation needed]
>>29930427
I don't wear body armor in my daily life/ever.
I think desu they both have strengths and weaknesses. I personally like weaver (it's more natural after years of muay thai).
>>29930519
it's objectively a worse shooting stance.
>>29930498
Find a wall and try it? If the gun's directly in the mid-line of your body, how are you going to cover more than half of your silhouette?
>>29930528
>objectively
I'd like to see proof.
>>29930294
GI stance, as far as I know
>>29930537
isosceles is superior in:
recoil management (gun tracks up and down)
repeatability (watch any of the vids in >>29929572)
accuracy
simplicity (squeeze the gun as hard as you can with both hands)
speed
weaver is superior in:
getting shot in both lungs.
>>29930551
>recoil management (gun tracks up and down)
>repeatability (watch any of the vids in >>29929572)
>accuracy
>speed
These are 100% training issues, And desu I kinda doubt the speed thing, I am not generally standing straight on at everything, generally walking or some such means my legs are already in a position close to a weaver stance.
and
>simplicity (squeeze the gun as hard as you can with both hands)
This is bad form, both index fingers shouldn't be on the trigger, per Miculek's video, as that leads to poor recoil management. But that isn't something inherent to each stance desu.
also claims =/= proof
>>29930601
no they are not training issues. the way your elbows are both canted toward your weak side means that in a weaver or chapman stance, the gun will naturally go toward your weak side under recoil. because of this, the repeatability and recoil management of weaver/chapman suffers. you must muscle the gun back into position, then use finer motor control to re-align your sights, then move the whole shebang into your target. it takes time, and speed is life.
in isosceles, because your HANDS (not your fingers, retard) are pressing into the sides of your pistol (and you're not doing the classic Weaver push-pull tension that doesn't do a thing for recoil recovery) the gun will naturally track straight up and down. it's much easier to track the sights during recoil, and the gun will naturally settle back in proper sight alignment. i find my speed on doubles in Isosceles limited only in waiting for the sights to settle, while i'm still managing recoil in weaver/chapman. and i was an ardent believer in Weaver/Chapman for many years.
here, have another video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wctcyewEZk
why does no USPSA shooter of any renown use Weaver or Chapman? why are they all using Isosceles? simply put, Isosceles is better at speed, accuracy, and recoil management/repeatability.
>>29930530
By shifting your shoulders? What you're implying is actually worse with weaver because you either have to switch hands or expose more when leaning out of cover on your weak side.
>>29930690
While you do need to switch hands, the gun is naturally offset from the middle of your body, so you can tuck the middle of your body behind something while you shoot.
>>29930707
have you tried it? since your pivot is your waist, you must expose a great deal of your body to shoot around a vertical obstacle like a doorway using weaver/chapman. isosceles allows you to hide perhaps 40% of your total upper body mass and gives you a much more stable platform for shooting around cover.
>>29930663
For competition. I'm saying that in real world shooting they are approximately equal. If you can't control recoil with Weaver you won't be able to do it with isosceles. Accuracy is the same. In a real world situation the best stance is the stance that gives YOU the ability to be quick, so for some that will be Weaver and others that will be isosceles. I can tell you now I can be just as accurate either way, I'm just 10x faster with Weaver. Others the reverse will be true.
>>29930294
blade stance
>>29929101
how terrible is this sort of grip anyway?
>>29930723
what exactly do you think they reward in competition? being able to shoot a target "good enough" quickly and efficiently. a USPSA cutout is not a bullseye target - targets are rarely over 20 yards away, and the A zone is fairly forgiving as long as you're not shooting the credit card.
so why would they not use weaver if, in the "real world", it offers no competitive advantage which stance you use?
again, you hit your target more easily with isosceles. you deliver followup hits (because a pistol, as a weapon, sucks compared to anything shoulder fired) more easily. recoil control is better because it's moving repeatably in one axis vs the combined axis problem compounded by hand tension that is weaver. it's biomechanically simple to apply equal pressure with both hands. it's easier to learn. there's much less to think about while you're doing it. all this leads to it being a more efficient and effective stance.
there's no reason not to use isosceles other than being resistant to change.
Anyone try Center Axis Relock?
>>29930752
i'm more interested in the view from the other side, but your grip is good so far. make sure you cant your support wrist all the way forward until it locks. i "roll in" and flare my elbows to generate more pressure on the gun than i can generate through pure grip strength alone. it's more tiring but more effective.
>>29930718
Look on the right. Imagine a vertical line from the side of his gun, such that the entire gun is "exposed"
What else is to the left of that line? Not his heart, not his gut, and if he leaned a little even his legs could be totally free and clear. Not only is his exposure minimized, but what is exposed can be rapidly retracted if things get a little too hot for his liking.
>>29930764
I get holding it close to the body, but what's the point of tilting it?
>>29930770
he's standing straight up and down. once you bend at the waist to get around an obstacle, you'll find out that you have to expose pretty much your entire torso to get a stable stance. your exposure is much less with isosceles. go give it a shot - stand in front of a mirror with a pistol and bend around an obstacle. my bathroom mirrors are opposite a door so it's easy for me to see.
>>29930785
It mentions keeping the thumbs pressed together. Maybe that's why.
>>29930790
Even straight up and down, at least 60-70% of his mass is covered, and I don't understand the difficulty you're having not exposing your torso. I have a full length mirror here and I can easily conceal everything but the arm, shoulder, and about 50% of my head.
Try widening your feet a little for balance?
>>29930785
You hold your elbow close to your chest rather than extended when using the sights, so to use the sights you need to tilt the gun slightly.
>>29930811
that's the thing - with your feet in line like >>29930770 you have to take a dramatic bend to get your body around an obstacle. with isosceles, you shift your weight which has the added benefit of using your leg muscles to drive you back into cover vs relying on your back muscles.
>>29930765
nothing special on the other side, two thumbs not pressing the frame too hard
>>29930822
I guess when I talk about a weaver I am talking about a hybrid stance desu
>>29930764
I started paying attention to that after watching John Wick. It certainly has its merits. Personally, I try to learn and practice as much as possible. I have found that most of these stances come down to preference, overridden only by circumstances.
Example: Center axis is more effective for tight quarters, as the image shows. Weaver stance works better for me with shooting from cover. Even then I may alter my stance to fit my situation. It's not always going to look pretty in the real deal, you know? Just my two cents.
>>29930822
Imagine his front foot a little bit more to our right, and his torso leaned out a little bit more to our left. Now draw that imaginary line down from his gun. Easily 80% of his profile is now to the right of that line.
Isosceles, meanwhile, can't really go higher than 45% or so by virtue of being symmetrical.
Plus, to move yourself back into cover from that isosceles you need to move your center of gravity, as opposed to just pushing your hips forward and pulling your head back a little to duck back from the modified weaver.
>>29930828
sounds good to me man. i'd still like a picture from the other side.
>>29930833
do your "punch" your arm out with a slightly less bladed stance than >>29930770? then you shoot Chapman.
>>29930846
it's more efficient to move using leg drive than core drive.
>>29930850
>sounds good to me man. i'd still like a picture from the other side.
Your motivations are scaring me.
Take your hand out of your pants too.
>>29929101
I don't think anyone uses isosceles stance when clearing rooms or fighting in a jungle or an urban area.
>>29930850
I don't understand how it's more efficient to move your entire body a foot to the side than it is to move just your head a couple inches, and I'd still rather not have half my torso hanging out when I can easily shoot from a position that reveals nothing but my face and arm.
>>29930971
because you're not moving your body. you're shifting your weight to one foot and leaning and bending a knee. you expose your shoulder and part of your face and maybe one lung.
>>29930966
mainly because people who do that for a living use rifles
I feel like I shoot better in weaver. I still try to practice with both stances. If I had to choose a stance on the fly, I'd probably just use weaver as a reflex.
I was always taught weaver for revolvers and isosceles for pistols.
Am I doing it wrong?
>>29930979
Even with pistols, you just don't use isosceles with room clearing or jungle and urban warfare. The distances are so up close, you present a greater target if you go isosceles. Also, feels awkward to walk straight up like that in a room/hallway.
>>29931163
>you present a greater target if you go isosceles
in isoceles you present more body armor frontage to the enemy by standing front on, because the high velocity plates are in the front of your carrier. side on you're presenting the soft plates and an unprotected shoulder that a bullet will pass through into the chest cavity.
isoceles is basically a stance for people who wear high velocity plates.
When I first started shooting pistols I used weaver intuitively. 1000 hours of youtube videos later, I practice isosceles exclusively and have much better accuracy and recoil control.
>>29931189
>isoceles is basically a stance for people who wear high velocity plates.
Which even the military and police doesn't do because they use rifles when crashing into property.
If you ain't using armor, you're not going to go isosceles clearing hallways and rooms. Isosceles is really just for competition.
>not shooting one-handed on the move
>>29929101
I learned weaver. It works fine for putting holes in paper. you're less mobile than iso since you're asymmetric. Hard to pivot left if you had to in a combat situation. But if you're comfortable with weaver, who the fuck cares?
'people like things I don't like. they are wrong and should be punished until they admit that I am right'.
>>29929572
Thanks anon, third video hit the spot.
>>29929101
>>29929396
Because you would want mobility as opposed to stability?
Weaver sucks, its not only unstable. It also renders your body armor useless.
>>29931582
I don't normally use body armor when I go to the range anyways
This thread is so fucking autistict
>>29931257
>Which even the military and police doesn't do because they use rifles
What is a malfunction?
What are small rooms?
What is a stairwell?
What is transitioning?
>>29929101
Anyone interested in this discussion needs to actually watch Miculek's video on shooting stance.
he clearly explains how and why it works and why weaver stance does not.
the man can put a full magazine or two into any number of different targets with dead on accuracy in less than one second, including the time it take to draw his pistol from the holster.
without moving his feet he can adjust to aim and shoot at anything within 270 degree or more of an arc around him.
He could shoot and kill all of you dead before you can even get your greasy fingers anywhere even near your holster, let alone have a chance to even draw
>>29930294
point shooting i think?
>>29931611
>let me just spout off buzzwords because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about
>>29931640
Micukuck would get smoked in a combat situation because his wrinkly ass isn't going to be magdumping into a target 5 yds away
>>29931662
But magdumping from 5 yards or less away is exactly what pistols are for.
weaver stance is shit in every way, one hande olympic style beats it in accuracy.
icoceles beats it in versatility
Are you guys seriously using isosceles with revolvers?
>>29931662
>States the military and police only use rifles in a raid.
>Thinks someone proofing him wrong has no clue.
>>29931684
>states a malfunction is a viable reason for switching to sidearm
>using an AR
Found the problem nigger
>>29931700
> 0 experience fighting in close quarters.
>Trying to tell how its done.
Are you that slow on your draw?
>>29931764
>implying my primary will ever jam requiring me to use my secondary
>>29930259
Tfw small hands so always shoot to the left because hard to reach finger all the way around the trigger guard unless it's a small pistol
>>29931792
>Does not take into consideration how much concrete and debris flies around when fighting in buildings.
And you still wonder why I know you are a mall ninja?
Again:
> 0 experience fighting in close quarters.
>Trying to tell how its done.
>>29931828
Sorry newfriend, I use an AK.
>m-muh mud test
I won't be dumping mud into it inside buildings anytime soon
>POGs
>trying to tell others how it's done
>>29930372
Well then you should probably consider that isosceles is pretty much the only pistol stance taught to competent SOF units.
>>29930723
hahah this is how we know you can't shoot worth a shit.
>>29931582
police are forced to be ambidextrous, pointing commands, holding restraints and lights, etc. having a non dominant hand and a dominant hand allows all those activities, and is probably why its such a prevalent stance for them. in a shooting situation, youll notice they truly do adopt the triangle stance
The way I've always seen it, isosceles is for when you can stand still and shoot, and weaver is for when you gotta be ready to move.
>>29930966
Then you don't know jack shit because isosceles is pretty much the only stance anybody in US SOF uses anymore.
>>29931931
>>29931950
>>29931938
Isoscelesfags in full damage control
>>29930328
I farted
>>29931163
>>29931257
>I don't know shit, the post
Pic fucking related, it's Paul Howe, Delta legend. If you ask any of the former Delta guys who're doing open enrollment training like Howe, Kyle Lamb, Mike Pannone, Pat Mac, Vickers, etc. all of them will tell you they used isosceles in combat and they don't even teach weaver anymore. It's not some kind of bizarre competition shooter conspiracy.
>>29932011
rip, i'm fucking dumb
>>29929154
>learned with long guns
This.
I think it's just a carry over stance that many of us learned as children while shooting shotguns and rifles.
>>29932038
>tfw I learned on pistols first
>so now I keep trying to thumb-along-bore rifles
>>29930436
>Hold on let me go ahead and square up here while you shoot at me.
>>29932048
>thumb along bore rifles.
After I turned 16 or so I started to shoot handguns more with my dad and I started to develop a proper grip.
I went a couple of years when I was travelling around europe/middle east where I never touched a single gun.
Come back to the states when I'm 22 and straight away buy an M&P pro and a Remmington 700.
>First day on the range
>go to sight rifle in
>fire a few rounds cold at a barrel 100 yards away because forgot how fucking much i loved slinging lead
>get up to look at target through binocs
>Put hands back on rifle - thumb goes along the bore
OUCH.jpg
>>29932053
>hold on let me go ahead and blade slightly while you shoot at me
Literally means nothing. How much smaller are you bladed up? How much smaller is the profile of your actual vitals? If I can shoot someone faster and deliver faster followup shots with isosceles I'm not worrying about a 10% reduction in target area from blading.
>>29929101
I use 60's Tv Detective stance...crouched forward, snub nose at belt height, sneer at camera.
![lEGjbrK[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mkALqFZ.jpg "lEGjbrK[1].jpg")
>>29929101
>none of these faggots even dual-wield
>>29932156
Il duce plz go.
>>29932094
Not what I was implying.
What I'm saying is that in whatever given situation you're in the last thing you're going to worry about when you have to draw your sidearm is the stance you're going to be in.
You're probably going to start shooting before you even get into any stance at all.
>>29932171
i'd agree, you don't think abut it.
but that you don't do it anyway is wrong. it's muscle memory (or it should be... you practice your draw and go through some dryfire, right).
let me put it this way. i tried switching stances so i can figure out the whole "which is better around a doorway" question and the one thing i noticed right off the bat is that with weaver/chapman, i apply much less pressure to the gun and it's entirely dependent on my grip strength to control the gun through recoil. not to mention the two axis recoil control problem. at this point a proper isosceles just feels "right" to me and i'd naturally self-correct back there.
>>29930372
But you would, because if you get paid to get shot at, you're wearing plates, and that stancd let's the plates do the work
Or you know, Go prone/take cover
>>29931662
Micuck actually trains top tier clapper operators in recoil control and transitioning. Sure he's not able to do much against a squad that hits the dirt and whines for CAS, but in a short to medium range he's going to smoke your ass.
>>29930498
Get your hand
Take your dominant hand
Leave pointer finger straight
Curl middle, ring, and pinky into your palm
Raise thumb straight up
Using you newly created simulated pistol
Take an isosceles stance behind wall for cover
Take a weaver stance behind wall for cover
It's OK to think for yourself anon. You don't need someone to tell you what to think.
>>29930528
It's subjectively a worse shooting stance.
FTFY
Sounds like the thumb over barrel days all over again
Without unlimited time and ammo, it is best to use the stance that is most efficient for you and improve it with practice than to try to master a new stance that is not efficient for you.
No one on this board will ever send as many rounds down range as Miculek. I have no doubt that Isosceles is the best stance for him but that does not make it the best stance for everyone.
>>29929572
Is it not uncomfortable leaving your thumb on the slide?
this is basically the same argument as to why you'd do so much better in a street fight vs a trained MMA fighter because you can kick them in the nuts and eyegouge while they "are hampered by the rules". meanwhile IRL you'd get BTFO because you're never going to be able to get into a position to do any of that dirty fighting shit and they'd punch your head off before they need to do anything that's illegal in the ring... which is something they'd be in a better position to do anyway.
competition breeds excellence. go shoot isosceles. weaver came about from competition anyway, but it's less effective now that it's not the literal only two-handed handgun stance codified.
>>29932319
see >>29930551 >>29929572 >>29930663 for my analysis of why weaver is shit.
>>29932324
Not at all. You don't even feel it.
>>29932324
nope. the biggest issue guys have is trying to overgrip and overdrive the gun with their thumbs. with some competition 2011s, the slide stop is replaced with a gas pedal or one is mounted to the frame so the gun can be driven by the left thumb too.
>>29932329
That argument makes no sense. An untrained fighter against a trained competent MMA fighter will get his ass kicked.
A semi trained civilian wielding a pistol will likely get his ass shot to pieces by a highly trained person armed with body armor an a properly equipped automatic rifle
The discussion is, for a self trained or basically trained individual, should they go with the stance that feels best to them, gets better results for them, have been using it for years so better muscle memory or should they completely change over to a new stance
90 percent of gun owners are not going to spend the time to hone any stance or technique.
I shoot both. All of what you listed as superior for Isosceles, I have no issue with. When moving dynamically through cover, sometimes Weaver feels right and sometimes isosceles feels right.
I train to move through cover. I don't really train just to punch holes in paper.
Your posts aren't really an analysis, it your opinion.
But if it works best for you, then you know what stance to use.
>>29932417
/thread
>>29932329
MMA fighters fight other fighters not paper targets. Better analogy would be advice from some no sparring martial artists who only do katas and punch bag. Real competition advice should be coming from tactical airsofters...
>>29932417
the point is that people are shitting on a superior technique because somehow it's "not tactical" to do so and "isosceles is competition shit that will get you killed in the real world." basically the same argument as to why MMA fighter would die in a street fight because "it's not the ring!"
isosceles is better than weaver. getting out and training and rolling and getting hit is better than having a fight gameplan of "kick to the nuts and gouge the eyes. mobility, timing, and spacing? who gives a fuck, eyegouge!!!!"
>>29932417
>Talks about "moving through cover"
>But also what "semi trained civilians" do
Tell me anon, where exactly is the cover located if you're clearing your house?
Do you have strategically-placed bookshelves on both sides of your brick walls?
While I agree with the notion of doing what works, you sound a bit like an IDPAfag.
>>29932038
people who use isoceles are either shooting IPSC and have to turn back and forth a lot, or are police officers who want to keep their vests head on to the target. military are trained to use weaver/central axis relock to make themselves smaller targets
>>29932492
>military are trained to use CAR
Sam Fisher, is that you?
>>29932492
>he fell for the CAR meme
>>29932506
>>29932500
iz true doe
>>29932515
No, it isn't.
>>29932528
there's no way for you to prove that no military forces teach it.
even if one military force somewhere uses it, the original statement
>military are trained to use weaver/central axis relock
is still true.
>>29932557
no. if one military forces used it, it would be "is" instead of "are."
>>29929101
Not using a rifle.
>>29932469
Well anon, the house I live in has walls, couches, doors, counters, chairs. None of which are bullet proof but all of which will hide your body and provide some support.
When I conceal carry, I'm surrounded by cars, mailboxes, poles, trees, dirt hills, whatever.
If you do get into a gunfight, the first thing you should do is engage target and move to cover.
It's not an IDPAfag thing it is just the practical thing to do.
Standing like a statue because you are locked into the Isosceles stance wins fights would be a great way to get shot.
Shooting, moving, and hitting what you aim at is more important than any stance in a practical gun fight
Honing a stance to perfection is important in shooting sports and paper punching. It is something that most shooters will not accomplish so becomes academic.
The best stance is the one the shooter can best hit the target, is quick and intuitive, and takes advantage of cover.
>>29933083
>You should use inferior stances so that you can partially obscure your body from view
>As though the person shooting at you will think "Oh man, his body's partly hidden! Better just not shoot him!"
Also, trying to use things "as support" at close range is pretty fucking retarded.
>>29929101
Isosceles is great for target and unobstructed shooting. If you're navigating a USPSA course, weaver can come in handy sometimes.
>>29933083
>>29933155
>holding stances to perfection while addressing every target
>well-designed stage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo441dQzh6w
>>29932492
>military are trained to use weaver
The military barely uses pistols, and when they do, it's isosceles
>central axis relock to make themselves smaller targets
Shut the fuck up
>>29932557
The statement was general and implied to be the case for the majority, or at least be in larger use than isosceles. Shitposting is fine, bullshiting is not
>>29933114
Your shooting knowledge is impressive.
If your body is hidden behind a wall, couch, car, etc. then they can only shoot at where they think your body is.
If you are standing in the open, there is no doubt where to target.
A properly supported aim is the steadiest aim
Not taking advantage of support to use a specific stance does not make any sense
In a real gunfight, anything to stabilize your aim is a huge plus.
In a real gunfight, any cover available should be used.
If you are training for a gun fight, train for a gun fight.
If you are training for a shooting sport or to punch paper, then do what ever works best for you.
>>29933083
>Standing like a statue because you are locked into the Isosceles stance
What
>>29933219
>You should use inferior stances so that you can partially obscure your body from view
>As though the person shooting at you will think "Oh man, his body's partly hidden! Better just not shoot him!"
I was replying to this.
Implying that using an Isosceles stance is better than seeking and firing from cover is a bad idea.
Was that you who posted it?
>>29933283
you retard, if you watch any USPSA match that's above "local saturday club" you'll see guys off balance as they try to keep their feet in-bounds but shoot around an obstacle at the same time. they'll be on one foot a lot of the time.
they're still universally using isosceles except occasionally when they go one handed.
>>29933283
No that's not me, I just thought you were saying isosceles is less mobile than weaver
>>29933308
>>29933199
also isosceles is a much more mobile stance. it's basically the same leg/hip/chest orientation as a football linebacker or a second baseman or basically any default athletic stance. you run with your hips pointing where you're going.
>>29931873
>Went from: if you use a rifle you dont use pistols
>To: well okey but not in case of a malfunction because ar15
>to: well yeah you are right, but I dont have malfunctions
>to: b-b--but i use an AK and it never had malfunctions on the flat range!
Your ar15 went AK pretty fast.
You sure don't have a clue how it is done. Your only CQB training is form COD and watching youtube.
Pretending to be in the military isn't getting you credit either.
>>29930790
You're not bending around any obstacles you fat jerry curled fuck, you'd fall over.
>>29933328
This exactly. Anyone who thinks that weaver has any functional advantages on the move or shooting around cover clearly hasn't done much of either.
Isosceles is good precisely BECAUSE your upper body can provide consistent passive recoil control while your lower body does whatever you need it to, be it running to cover or shifting or leaning around cover.
Am I the only one
Who thinks stances
are 100% situation based
Like asking
what is best Wine?
Depends on the pairing
>>29933083
>cover vs concealment
>>29931941
Good point. Did not think of that.
I don't know how police work. When I am forced to use my pistol its already a shooting situation.
I do think isosceles stance is more natural for your body when you are in a stress full situation.
>>29933385
Nobody is arguing that you need to be in a perfect isosceles straight up and down stance all the time. That said pushing and pulling with your arms weaver style sucks dick for sight tracking and blading off when taking a corner is not really as necessary as people think it is.
Arguing that every stance is situational is technically true but is a gross oversimplification. I can argue that there are situations where it's best to grip your pistol with your toes, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea the majority of the time.
>>29929101
Tbqhwyfamuel thats actually a scalene stance not isosceles
>>29933308
Are you them?
I'm not them, I shoot as much as I can but will not shoot as much as them.
Is anyone shooting at them?
Are they really preparing for a gun fight or trying to win a specific shooting sport?
If I have cover to my left side I will use a Weaver. Using an Isosceles with left side cover feels forced and unnatural. In many cases the best stance is a compromise between Weaver and Isosceles. Some call it a "Fighting" stance, to me it is just a natural and comfortable way to engage targets while concentrating on getting on target more than actually trying to "fit" into a specific stance.
Which stance is better is purely Academic. I've seen shooters who were damn good with Weaver and not so good with Isosceles and vice a versa.
I've seen good shooters who focus on engaging targets and use various elements of different stances.
My opinion is the situation should dictate the stance and not the stance forced into the situation.
Trying to do what someone else is doing instead of what feels natural and effective to you is usually not a good idea unless it comes natural to you, gives you confidence, and/or you have a lot of time to get good at it.
>>29929101
Weaver only, I don't do any of that gay Greek triangle shit
>>29933843
That's not an irregular angle famuel
>>29930764
I use it ... with certain guns. Uncomfortable with other guns.
Good stance though.
>>29930764
I only use it after playing splinter cell blacklist on the weekend.
>>29933352
>lets post things anon never said
You sure are retarded aren't you? Other anon proposed that isosceles was used because of rare niche situations requiring a pistol that mil/leo encounter, which almost never happen, not to mention most everyday people. Ironically you're the one who watches too much CoD and operat0r YouTube vids as you try to mimic SOF like most try hard day/k/are fags.
>SWITCHAN' TO YA PISTOL IS FASTAH THAN RELOADAN'
>>29932156
>It was a fiyah fight
