There is a lot of debate about which stance is the best for combat shooting. Practitioners of the competitive shooting world prefer the Isosceles stance, which was also adopted by the military and law enforcement communities. The other side of the debate favors the “modern technique’s” Weaver stance. Few, if any, ever mention the Chapman or Modified Weaver stance. So which stance is the best? To answer that question, let’s first look at the history and development of each to determine which might be the best choice for you.
Background
Originally, handguns were meant to be fired with one hand. The reason being, their intended purpose was to arm mounted troops so that they would be able to fire with one hand and control their mount with the other. The pistols, usually two, were carried in holsters attached to the saddle. However, the primary weapon was still the saber.
As pistol technology improved, and they became more efficient and convenient to carry on one’s person, one-handed shooting was still the “state of the art.” Even during the period dominated by Colonel Samuel Colt’s revolutionary revolvers, it was one-handed shooting that was the norm — albeit at times with one revolver in each hand. No doubt some practitioners of the art of handgun shooting used two hands from time to time. However, it was not the encouraged, accepted, or a taught style of handgun shooting. Two hands were reserved exclusively for long guns. That philosophy persisted until well into the late 1950s when Colonel Jeff Cooper’s Leather Slap competitions served up the leading gunslingers of the day.
The Leather Slap events started as a quick draw event, inspired by America’s love affair with the popular movie and TV westerns of the day. Of course, shooters were always looking for faster and more accurate ways to shoot. They constantly experimented with other techniques.
Initially, the regular competitors at The Leather Slap events used single-handed point shooting, firing the pistol from the hip — á la those cowboys they loved. The stages for those events consisted of timed strings at an array of targets that consisted of 18-inch balloons ay seven yards. Eventually, a forward thinking competitor and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy named Jack Weaver developed an eye-level, two-handed aiming technique that revolutionized the game.
Weaver Stance
Weaver was quoted as saying, “A pretty quick hit is better than a lightning-fast miss.” Basically, the Weaver stance, as developed by Jack, is a bladed stance with the strong-side foot back, very much like a boxer’s fighting stance. It required the shooter to have a nearly straight strong arm with a bent support arm. This creates a push/pull hold on the pistol because the support arm is bent and pulls in from the front on the grip while the strong arm pushes out and forward from the back of the grip.
This became the stance that was the basis for the “modern technique.” Consequently, this technique is still taught at Gunsite. It was revolutionary for its day. Many believe it is still the best option of all the other stances for a real fight — including yours truly.
Isosceles Stance
That said, the most popular stance seen today is the Isosceles that was popularized in the 1980s, when Brian Enos and Rob Leatham used it to win several International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) competitions. The basic Isosceles position starts with you facing your target, shoulders level with each other, with both arms extended and elbows locked. Holding the pistol in line with the center of your chest. Push forward with your strong hand, and pull back with your support hand. From above, this looks like an isosceles triangle when executed correctly, hence the name of the stance.
Since its introduction, it has been embraced by law enforcement and the military, because it maximizes the protection and effectiveness of body armor. The reason for that is the armor plates are flat to the direction of the threat. But how many CCW holders go to the store in full body armor?
Although competitors use it very well in competition, a gunfight is not competition and different dynamics are in play. Two of my biggest criticisms of the Isosceles stance is that it is not as dynamic as the Weaver stance, which is a true fighting stance. You can’t pivot quite as far in either direction as you can with the Weaver. You also must stick your gun farther out in front of you, making the Isosceles stance a poor choice for close combat techniques. The isosceles stance is also much harder for students to get right. It contains many subtleties that make it difficult to properly master and counter intuitive for a fight.
Other Options
There is another stance that I like, but not as a primary stance. It’s one that should definitely be in your bag of gun fighting tricks and that is Paul Castle’s Center Axis Relock stance. The stance excels at close-range fighting where retention is paramount and your targets are non-gender-specific homo sapiens in size.
It is also excellent for those that are cross eyed-dominate to use. It forces you to use the non-dominant eye without any form of compensation. It is fast and adapts to any situation. However, it is not recommended when ranges are longer than 10 yards.
Additional reasons why I favor and recommend the Weaver Stance as a starting point for all my students… It’s a dynamic fighting stance that’s based on other martial arts fighting stances. Therefore, fluidity of movement is easier. It also gives much more consideration as to how the human body works best when under stress.
Think about how you naturally address someone for a fight. That is how the Weaver stance addresses your adversary naturally doing what you are instinctually programed to do. The Weaver is a dynamic stance that is lightning fast and easy to assume. Additionally, you don’t have to move your feet to engage multiple targets. You merely rotate your torso with much more lateral movement than other stances while maintaining balance.
The sights are closer than with some of the other two-handed stances, so target acquisition is easier. Being bladed makes you a much more difficult target to hit. It is also more compact, making weapon retention in close quarters much more secure. I find it such a good starting point that it is also the basic stance I use for rifle and shotgun.
Final Thoughts
Although it has been overtaken in popularity by the Isosceles stance with most instructors, I believe it is the much better choice for the civilian defensive shooter and CCW holders. That said, I will admit to some deficiencies inherent in the Weaver stance — such as recoil — is not controlled as well as some other stances, particularly if you do not have much upper body strength. Also, it is not as good for cross eyed- dominant shooters to accommodate as the Center Axis Relock stance.
Those issues aside, it is still my number one choice for all handgun shooting against adversaries — at touching distance to varmints at 200 yards. In conclusion, not every stance is good for every shooter, in every situation. So, practice each stance until you can naturally assume the best position for you to deliver fast, accurate fire, no matter where you are. Stay safe, train often, and practice, practice, practice!
Do you prefer the Weaver or Isosceles stance and why? Share your answer in the Comment section.
You can move and hit targets at distance from the Weaver. 
Just take away the carbine, extend the strong-side hand a bit, and place a pistol in it. The author explaining the Paul Castle CAR stance. The Isosceles stance on the left and Weaver on the right. The arrows on the right compare the width. Which target would you rather be? 
The author at the SHOT Show assuming the Weaver stance to test a handgun’s accuracy. Take off his gloves, give him a handgun, and he is in the Weaver stance. Jim Hoag competing at one of the early Leather Slap Competitions at Big Bear prior to the Weaver Stance’s introduction.
In a pre draw confrontation, the Weaver stance would also put more of your body between an opponent and your holstered firearm. Just an observation.
Weaver, for my purposes. The “‘Which target would you rather be?” illustration graphically reinforces my long-time gut instinct (pun intended). IOW, I’m an XL target: vertically and horizontally. The body-armor-favors-the-isosceles view is duly noted and makes perfect sense. As does the answer to: How many non-LEOs go about their daily lives in Kevlar(?). Ergo, Weaver. Period.
As an armed Fire Marshal I had to qualify every 6 months with the Police department. The first time I qualified (new department) the range instructor was all over me for using the Weaver stance but allowed it since I had been shooting it longer than he had been alive. After shooting a 489 out of 500 the Police now had a problem as they were going to have to give the Fire department their top “Top Gun” award for highest score. They took their best shot back to the range three times to finally out shoot me. That said a lot of officers came around to have this new Weaver stance taught to them.
I learned the Weaver Stance in 1985 and found it to be a natural, supportive shooting stance even in stressful situations. I feel that the isosceles stance exposes too much of the body and is not as supportive. Also, when drawing, the Weaver stance is a straight draw while the isosceles requires centering the firearm to the center of the body. Just my personal thoughts.
I actually use a Semi Weaver which seems to work best for me. It’s kinda half of Isoscoles & half Weaver.
unfortunately?/fortunately? i`ve come to prefer the weaver, when there is time, other wise,it`s dominate single handed. I hunt small and big game w/revolver . Taken wabbits,squirrel, and deer. for everyday, it`s a semi auto appendix carry. I`ve had no formal training except for the initial brief on Browning 50 cal.machine gun (which I loved) during my 66-70 service. An interesting article, thank you.
While I prefer Isosceles, especially now that I have learned to shoot with both eyes open, your diagram of a correct Weaver stance shows the alignment of dominant eye, dominant arm, and handgun. Probably due to lack of practice – but I find it difficult to get correctly lined up. Probably also why I have windage issues in that position. A well-written article with excellent diagram and photos.
Loved your article! In a non-dynamic (Indoor Range) situation I naturally fall into a weaver stance. Probably because of thirty years of working out in the martial arts. However, in a dynamic situation “proper stance” goes out the window! What matters, in my view, is whatever position (stance) you end up in that allows to you to hit your target first shot, You need to find a range that allows you to move and shoot, as well as present from a holster. I have to drive nearly fifty miles for the one I use.
He taught me this stance and since returning home I have also shown and had a few change especially those target shooting because of greater stability . I know my target points almost doubled because of the Maestro’s instruction and haranguing 😀 .
Is there ANYTHING that “The most interesting man in the world DOESN’T KNOW???
If so, I haven’t found it yet!
Another great article, Ed.Your mastery of both words and weaponry are well-appreciated by all of us- especially those of us that actually know a thing or two about both!
I think i taught you C.A.R. didnt I Ed?
😉
I disagree with the point on recoil and Weaver.
I think isosc is worse. The recoil track is BETWEEN yr hands. In weaver its straight back thru yr dominant hand to yr shoulder.
I find it far less annoying.
Thanks Ed. Very well written and easy to understand each position. Makes me want to get to the range!
Good article!! I’m a ‘weaver’ guy, but that’s what I was taught. However (as it’s already been said) it was also a very natural stance for me because of my martial arts background.
Like Bob Dylan once said, “You can please some of the people some of the time but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” Same thing applies here. What works and/or pleases one shooter may not work well for someone else. This applies to so many things whether it be a batting stance in baseball, pulling vs pushing a caulking gun or a multitude of other things. That being said, I think the article was informative and well written whether or not you agree with the author.
Thanks Ed for another well written and thoughtful article.
I must say that I agree with H W Stone. The Stance that puts your First Round on Target is the Best for “You”.
Nobody else can make that decision without shooting along side you and Understanding what are your Strengths and Weaknesses.
Hey Ed.
Personally I Like H.W. Stone’s answer regarding this question.
For Myself I prefer a “Rest”. Either a sturdy Table or Bench type or a Door frame or Post to steady myself on.
I realize that this is not always possible but given the option that would be mine.
I use a modified Weaver style stance for all of my shooting for one main reason: I’ve been doing martial arts for over 20 years and my default startle response is to drop into a fighting stance. That stance works well for shooting as well so I see no value for me in trying to force myself into different stances under pressure when I automatically drop into a good one. I do agree with what Chris said, you should practice shooting from unconventional positions as well, I know my training has a gap when it comes to shooting from the ground and I’m going to work on that this year.
Lots of good valid comments here. I prefer to teach different forms and explain their pros and cons, then let the student decide which works best in any given situation. I find the isosceles is the easiest style to demonstrate and have students duplicate. The Weaver stance is less intuitive and requires more training, but can be mastered with some practice. The biggest hurdle students have with it is remembering which foot to place forward. With regard to body exposure, it may be true the Weaver stance creates a smaller silhouette, but any bullet entering this silhouette is more likely to be a raking shot that could penetrate both lungs and possibly the heart. In addition, I doubt many people, police officers included, make a habit of assuming a pugilistic stance when interacting with other people. If a confrontation does ensue, time would be wasted assuming this position, whereas one can quickly draw from a normal stance. It really is situational dependent.
I agree with the author on the use of the Weaver or a modified weaver. One commenter talked about shooting stance going out the window as he put it when shtf. In 35 years in Law enforcement in any confrontation I find myself in a bladed stance without thinking. Instinctively when someone is aggressive humans assume a defensive stance whether it’s to brace for a physical confrontation or to fight the Weaver naturally falls into these situations. It also lends its self to the use of long arms.
An interesting question – I guess – My thoughts, as a 30-year LEO and SWAT officer and trainer, along with another 15 years doing private protective services, my thought is that if you are a “paper” shooter then use the Isosceles stance, however – for me at least – I prefer the Weaver stance. Several reasons beyond the obvious being a more solid position. The Weaver stance lends itself well to quick drawing, combat reloading – both tactical and combat, along with – for me – point shooting.
Dave
My Dad was a Police Officer and he was the first person that taught me how to shoot, first a rifle, then a shotgun and in the end handguns. He used and taught the one hand shooting position for handguns, which is what I first learned, then was confirmed when I went into the Army where they taught the one handed position. I did a lot of pistol competition all of which at the time was one handed. In your diagram of how much of your body do you want exposed it really doesn’t matter much since all of your body is a target. I am an instructor. I teach all of the positions and agree with whatever you are comfortable with. For competition I still use the one handed as well as isosceles.If I have my druthers in combat it will be one handed with only my shoulder, arm and firearm showing because the rest will be behind cover. I shoot as well as teach one hand from both the strong and weak side giving you the option of having most of you behind cover. Facing facts, in a real situation you will only have whatever options are available at the time and in the few seconds you have to make the shoot/don’t shoot decision there is no time to wonder what position to get into. The name of the game is to align the sights on the target and get a well aimed shot off before your opponent does.
Back in The Great War To End All Wars the instruction for the 1911 pistol included the single hand forward with feet squared and the “Slugger’s Stance” where it had one hand and matching foot forward, the other foot behind the torso and the “free” hand about waist high and at the belt line or behind the shooter.
What it boils down to is that the best stance for you is the one that puts your first round on target, and while I tend to use the Weaver or Slugger stance, the best one is the one you feel most comfortable with using.
The stance that puts that first round on target is the best stance for you.
.
When SHTF you won’t have time for a correct stance, what will be mandatory is sight alignment and target acquisition. Practice moving and shooting, kneeling, lying, backing both strong hand and weak.
IMO.