You actually have a better chance standing square to a perp as the side is the weakest part of the armor.Īlso, as you yourself stated, eye dominance. Now with body armor being the norm in most departments, you want it to absorb anything you may be hit by. When the weaver was taught, LE did not have body armor readily available and one of the thoughts behind it was to help minimize yourself as a target. are all done with a greater amount of control and accuracy. So target transition, moving to cover, shooting while retreating, etc. An isosceles stance maintains its point of aim turning both ways as you are squared to the target and pivot at the hips, and you still maintain the original stability throughout. Due to the slight angle at which you turn to the target, and the opposing forces used in stabilizing, your mobility is limited. It is also quicker to deploy from a draw, retention position, or even after being knocked onto your back as it is bringing the firearm to your natural point of aim.Īlso with the above said, the weaver is less versatile.
Since it is a push/pull system, it is more difficult to duplicate it under stress accurately whereas the isosceles is a natural triangular push to your natural point of aim and is easier to duplicate with less training.
(Quoting sfeile) A little off topic, but as an instructor and competition shooter, there are a few reasons that the weaver stance is fading out.įor one, the weaver takes more training to deploy consistently.