Jack Weaver developed the Weaver stance in the 1950s, and it arguably remained relevant into the early 2000s. Admittedly, the gun community can be cautious about change, so you may argue that it only hung around for tradition’s sake.
Early in my gun-shooting career, I was taught the Weaver and Isosceles stances and tended to favor the Weaver for comfort. While I might be a died-in-the-wool fan of the modern Isosceles, I wanted to go back and explore the Weaver stance.
I’d argue that there is a lot of misinformation about the stance out there. I also want to discuss its effectiveness and why it’s not as popular as it once was.
What’s The Weaver Stance
First, it’s the most misunderstood and mistaught shooting position. My first professional instruction on shooting a handgun was arguably from the Marine Corps. Prior to that, the closest thing to instruction I had was from a police officer at local bowling pin shoots when I was a teenager.
Those two experiences largely taught me the Weaver stance incorrectly. It wasn’t until my platoon sergeant, a Marine Corps Shooting Team member, finally taught me the correct Weaver stance. These days, I’d even argue that stance is the wrong descriptor. It really should be called the Weaver technique.
Anyone who has spent time in the gun world can recognize the stance: the nondominant leg is forward, and the dominant leg is slightly to the rear. The dominant arm is held straight forward with a crook in the support arm. It’s a classic stance, and that’s the Weave stance, right?
Yes, ish, what’s most important about this technique is the isometric tension. Isometric tension is used to control the recoil. It’s created by the dominant hand pushing the gun forward and the support hand pulling it rearward. The bent arm’s position makes it easier to pull rearward.
Isometric tension is how an experienced shotgunner controls his weapon, so why wouldn’t it work for other platforms? This is why it’s better described as a technique than a stance. You can apply isometric tension in various positions, and there are photos of Jack Weaver shooting in an isosceles-type position.
Does the Weaver Stance Work?
Yes, it works very well. Assuming a solid Weaver stance and using the push-pull method of isometric tension will help you control the gun and return the sights to the target. Tension beats recoil and is very effective at keeping the gun on target.
I’d argue it’s just as effective at recoil control as a modern shooting stance. I can’t see a big difference between the two on the timer in just putting repeated shots accurately on target.
So Why Did It Fade Away
It’s great when it comes to shooting and controlling recoil, but there is more to shooting than that. I’m no expert, but from the draw, it seems slower to acquire than the modern stance. Applying the push/pull seems to slow my draw down slightly. You must focus on that push/pull mechanic to make the most of it, which takes up mental energy.
If it offered an advantage in recoil reduction from a modern bent elbow position, it would make sense. But I can get the same recoil control from a modern shooting stance without needing to push/pull. Breaking down and building up a modern stance is faster and easier with less to remember.
It’s also easier to field when dealing with kneeling positions, especially when cover is involved. We can start talking about armor and plates, which are more relevant to uniformed, professional firearms users. The modern stance pushes the most armor forward with its squared-up approach.
The classic Weaver Stance simply lacks the versatility a modern stance grants you. That’s why it’s faded and become less relevant in recent years.
Read the full article here
