“This kind of lesson is perfect for the fantasy dwelling gun fanatics who love to imagine killing bad guys. The only problem is most gun nuts cannot pronounce isosceles. But the ones who learn to, can add that pseudo-intellectual aspect to their Neanderthal activities. What do you prefer when pretending to kill people, isosceles or weaver?” – MikeB302000
Question of the Day: Isosceles or Weaver?
My favorite is the mikeb stance, which involves navel-gazing while uttering incomprehensible idiocies with my thumb up my a$$.
Hm…I thought the “mikeb stance” was the one where you confront the armed bad guy then you tuck your head between you legs and kiss your ass goodbye because you dont have or believe in guns…
It’s where you run away crying to Sicily and rock yourself in a corner.
cmon, you guys know that mikeb and others like him arent brave enough for a stance. Like others like him, he prefers to be on all fours, ass in the air, licking the leather jackboot of a uniformed figure.
I use the Weaver stance
It’s easier to spell.
I could have sworn Mikey utilizes a modified Isosceles stance: Feet slightly wider than shoulder width apart, squared off facing away from his target, bent slightly forward at the waist, with his hands on anything that can support him while he apologizes to his target and states that he is sorry that circumstances led him to a life of crime.
Then things get very rapey.
“rapey”
adjective of the year 😀
The video I like. Mike’s comment, meh. Not so much.
How does Mike know what my activities or fantasies are? And I forgot why you entertain totalitarians like him.
+1
Rule 14: Don’t feed the trolls.
+1
Agreed. Robert, why are we expending electrons and brain cells on what this idiot thinks?
Because we’re not the only ones reading his remarks.
And because I’m not the only one who thinks like this. That’s what bothers you guys most. You realize I speak for MOST people. You guys are a lunatic fringe if there ever were one. But unlike most groups you’re not harmless, your ideas and advice cause great harm in the world.
The God like mikeyb speaks for all but the lunatic fringe.
What complete and utter bullshit. You truly are loosing your grip on reality mikey. Don’t they have socialised medicine in Italy? Free mental health care?
Our ideas and advice. Sounds like a book burner to me.
Yhe only advice I give is to take care of youself and your loved ones and to include a gun in your emergency preps for the rare moments when predators show up.
TTAG: Learn to safely use a gun and obey all laws surrounding their usage.
MikeB translation: KILL ALL THE CHILDREN!
Mikey#s, most people are not like you. Only the cowards think like you, and expect the government to protect them. You know whats sad Mikey? I bet most of the people you claim are just like you would be singing a different tune after the education founded in facts rather than emotion like the one you have been given here.
The only “lunatic fringe” is you and ilk like you, who continue to do the same things even though they fail time and again. That is the epitome of lunacy Mikey. As Paul Ryan said, “We have a VIOLENCE problem, not a gun problem”.
“You realize I speak for MOST people.”
——
Mmmm, no. As my father once said, “Saying it doesn’t make it so, son.”
Regarding Mikey’s comment: “And because I’m not the only one who thinks like this. That’s what bothers you guys most. You realize I speak for MOST people.”
If 50 billion people say a stupid thing, it may be popular but it’s still stupid.
“And because I’m not the only one who thinks like this. That’s what bothers you guys most.”
it doesn’t bother me at all. i think it bothers you that gun owners are not a tiny, fringe minority.
“You realize I speak for MOST people.”
Right because nothing is more american than “majority rules” LMAO!!! hahaha. Im sure that validates your cause even more than it already is. If I were to say that women shouldnt vote, i would have also spoken for most people…in the 19th century. That argument is a fallacy.
“You guys are a lunatic fringe if there ever were one.”
Actually not…in the united states. To the rest of the world? perhaps so. not that they’re a shining example to follow anyways.
“But unlike most groups you’re not harmless, your ideas and advice cause great harm in the world.”
What other “fringe” groups out there are harmless??? please give a example.
so me shooting paper harms the world? dont answer that. sorry honey baby…combat has been in human nature since we crawled out of the swamp. As a species we are fundamentally insane. Utopia doesnt exist nor will it ever.
Which ever stance is more instinctive to the end user. Sort of like how its more instinctive for mikeyb#’s to squat when he pees.
Or to simultaneously squat and pee if he or his loved ones are threatened.
Geepers Mike, you seriously think that we all get up everyday hoping that we get lucky and kill us some bad guys? WOW! I hope everyday is at least as peaceful as the previous day was. Anyhow, to answer your question, my stance is more Weaver than isosceles, well as close to Weaver as my old bones will allow. As to my other “Neanderthal” activities, I don’t scratch with my eating hand.
Not hoping exactly, but fantasizing.
You did hit a nerve MikeB, the nerve of listening to someone who takes no responibility for thier own protection; judging those who do. You’re like someone who eats meat from a store but looks down on those who hunt for thier own animals in the wild.
You let those who are willing to face evil men ; whether police, military or law abiding citizen and call us sick; but you lay safe in your bed because of people like us.
In the end, MikeB, people like you are cowards, it’s because of people like you that allow evil men to flourish.
Amen to that!
You right Mike I do fantasize every day about Destroying evil.
I cry all the time for those to Helpless or too stupid to protect themselves and wait for the Govt. to take care of them.
It just does not take up the Majority of my time.
I hope and pray GOD allows me the Time to protect the Innocent and such, Like a KNIGHT of OLD.
Especially since it is now the majority of crap in the world. It is just that some of us like to do it before it breeds Death and Destruction on a global thermonuclear scale ie Isnot, not after it is almost too late.
But Humans think in thought patterns and yours it quite Obvious.
OH
You are I am Sure EGO DRIVEN majority, Not LOGIC majority driven like most men.
3 species in the human race,
Men
Males MikeyB302000
Women.
Nothing personal Mikey.
P.S. It is not fantasizing, but preparing.
“Not hoping exactly, but fantasizing.”
Nope, wrong again. I don’t fantasize about shooting people. In actuallity, the thought seldom enters my mind at any level, beyond my habit of being situationally aware of my surroundings. And that isn’t just because I worry about bad guys, I also worry about fires, gas explosions, unruly drunks, wild animals, flash mobs, and aimless herds of people suddenly urged to stampede for a “blue light” special at K-Mart. And the Weaver stance as well as the isosceles are very usefull in various shooting sports like bowling pin matches. You might like bowling pin matches. They are non-combat oriented, just shoot the pins off the table and win fabulous prizes.
I can pronounce it.
Wow. That comment by mikeb says more about the dark thoughts and fantasies that mikeb has than any of the shooters I know. Mikeb needs to turn his guns in and seek some sort of help.
As for me, my fantasies revolve around the swedish bikini team and baby oil. I guess I’m one sick puppy.
I suggest you try switching over to a water-based lubricant – it doesn’t stain or sting the eyes. Just FYI. =)
Good to know. If I ever get my chance to fullfill my fantasie with the team I’ll remember the proper lube. Any of that water based stuff flavored?
Not Hoppes 9? And you call yourself a gun nut….
Hoppes #9 is the handle of one of our posters here. And while I’m sure he’s a nice guy I don’t want any guys other than myself in this fantasie. Myself and the swedish bikini team.
Good, mikeb is at the insult level now….
He used to be deluded to the point of actually believing what was coming out of his mouth. His “facts” have all been proven false at this point, so he is left with childish antics like name calling. Maybe next he will just give up the ghost entirely. Although he’s kinda like that one guy in your group, and every group has one; you know, the slow one everyone makes fun of because its so easy?
Oh, and to answer the question, somewhere in between. A modified isosceles kinda like they showed in the vid, with my dominant side leg back in a “boxing” stance.
“mikeb is at the insult level now….”
Unlike the readers of this web site.
Sigh…
Shooting someone is the second to last thing I want. It’s just ahead of me getting shot. Which is the last thing I want to happen.
Why is that a hard concept for the anti-gun trolls?
Reminds me of this funny comment I heard once, “The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.”
Sorry, just trying to toss a little levity into the conversation…
bob, that is hilarious!
If MikeB did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Hahaha. +1
Somewhere between my six levels of Calculus, one Thermodynamics, 2 Physics and 2 Organic Chemistries, I learned how to pronounce Isoceles. I even knew the dude’s first name. That was just the first 2 of 10 years. WTF?
This is kinda to script, not able to fight with facts, he goes on to name calling. The fear is all in his mind and his arguments are simply emotional. If he dehumanizes gun owners, then he feels better because that way he feels he is talking to animals instead of people with a brain. MikeB in a loss for facts must use grade school tactics to make his pointless points.
I find it HILARIOUS that he lives in Italy but continues to play politics here. He really cared about his convictions, instead of running away, he should be here working for the Brady Bunch — while he would still be wrong, I would have at least a little respect for him. Otherwise I wish he would deal with his local issues and leave alone because he has no skin in the game here.
What is also funny is that “Neanderthal Man” was know to have cared for the sick and old in their communities. There has been fossil evidence that shows potentially life-threatening injuries which were completely healed, indicating that the Neanderthal who suffered the injuries was nursed by to health by another member of his group. They also used weapons for food and get this…..to protect themselves…shocking I know because they where the first to live in communities and share food and the defense of the community. The way the MikeB uses Neanderthal is a myth and he means to degrade, but Neanderthal Man was actually fairly advanced. Once again, MikeB fails because he uses emotion over facts and logic. Hurtfull words may make MikeB feel better, but it does not help his positions on gun control.
Best comment of the thread:
“Neanderthal Man was actually fairly advanced”
Hahahahahahaha
Not only that that but there was cross species breeding between cro-magnon. Unfortunately, Mikey is a probably a genetic throw back to australopithecus…oh, but I forgot, I shouldn’t be able to pronounce let alone spell that. I’m curious, what is Mikey’s background?
as if we are more advanced than the neanderthal…LOL.
we still kill for territory and resources and behave like animals…except we’ve learned how to split the atom and reproduce ourselves into unsustainability. Nothing has changed.
Weaver works better for really heavy recoil levels out past what police normally carry: 44mag in a light gun or the various handcannons (454C, 475L, 500L, 500S&W, etc.). If you shoot that sort of thing plus defensive and you don’t wear a vest the Weaver has a lot to offer as one to standardize on.
This video criticizes the Weaver for movement but…I’m not sure I agree. The patterns of movement encouraged by the Weaver are good – off-center in both directions. The weakness to the weak side threat can be managed by continuous movement which is 100% plausible with the Weaver.
IMO the video made little effort to explain the importance of upper body position. (a little on weaver, but none for isosceles) Upper body position is the most important part of stance, and the video says nothing about that. If you are shooting from inside a car for example, are you going squared up to your target or bladed? Where are your feet? If I am squared up to my target but using isometric tension, am I using a weaverceles position?
I thought the presenter used a bit a of cheap trick to make weaver look bad. I.E. “hard to aim at targets on dominant side.” One small foot movement would have cured that. Feet should be moving anyway.
I have come to believe that you need to be proficient with both positions. They each have their pros and cons. That elbows rolled over isosceles position that so many don’t like has an extremely quick shot recovery. On the other hand I feel that weaver exposes you less when clearing corners around hard cover.
I know that this video presents a conventional doctrine approach to teaching basic shooting skills. Where my hair turns gray is that too many see this as the end of the learning curve. Does the shooter realize that when shooting in such a static manner they look and behave much like the targets they are shooting at? Don’t be a target, don’t look like target, MOVE, seek hard cover, it can save your life. Not getting shot is far more important that hitting the bad guy!
Why does TTAG even bother with MikeB?
‘Cause farago’s a stickler when it comes to being better than the antis. I’d prefer rock throwing personally.
well, you can sit around waiting for the snail to come out of the shell, or you can stick a hook in him and drag him out. The later is the more rewarding, as we see here.
So what do you want… good grammar or great shooting?
I’ll go with great shooting and we can talk about it afterward.
I prefer both, which is why I’m an English-teaching gun owner.
Who is mikeB and why does this site devote so much time to him?
For the same reason The Party spent two minutes a day requiring its members to express their hate of Emmanuel Goldstein.
+1 for Orwell ref.
Mikey, you’ve hit a new low. Get a life. Go back to sewing buttons on ice-cream cones or something.
That’s what I was told when I said teaching your very young children to shoot is a form of child abuse. When I said that I was quite serious, that is my opinion. This post was more like mockery or humor.
But both were called a “new low.”
Truth hurts, don’t it, Mikey poo?
right because god forbid you teach your children how to become self-sufficient.
Meh. Once the shooter turns to engage the left target from the Isosceles he is automatically in the Weaver :).
J.
Likewise if the shooter is in a weaver and turns right.
I’m impressed he got through that statement without misusing “jingoism” again.
“Jingoism” was his newly learned word last week. He thought if he misused it enough, it would start to mean what he wanted it to mean. This week’s word is “isosceles”. No one reads his blog so he comes here hoping for a gold star.
I think you’re on to something there. He’s probably sitting there right now wondering what the f*** icicles have to do with shooting anyway.
“No one reads his blog so he comes here hoping for a gold star.”
Ha. This.
Now if he can only spell “isoceles”. But, one baby step at a time
“Neanderthal” is the new “jingoism”, which was the new “anachronistic”. He’s been using the word of the day toilet paper again.
When shooting at anything closer than about 7 yards, I don’t have time to assume any defined stance, and it isn’t necessary, because I’m just point shooting (not using the sights) anyway. At very close ranges, the accuracy is already there due to the close target, so speed becomes a higher priority.
Beyond 7 to 10 yards, it becomes more important to setup a stable shooting platform and sight more carefully. Then I choose a stance which is very similar to the Weaver, but with the feet and legs at about a 40 degree angle to the target. This provides the upper body advantages of the Weaver with more freedom of movement than the Isosceles. (No, I can’t spell it.) This stance actually provides better freedom of movement side-to-side (the directions you should move to make yourself a moving target). As a private citizen, body armor is not an option for me, so I also like the fact that the Weaver stance makes my body a smaller target.
Yep. The correct answer to this question is: DON’T BE STANDING STILL AT ALL WHEN YOU’RE SHOOTING A ‘BAD GUY’!
Move.
Get off the X.
“Stand and Deliver” = Tie = You hit the bad guy and he hits you = You lose = Die.
Yes! That is a big part of what I was trying to say. Glad I did say it clearly enough that you understood.
I learned on the Weaver stance decades ago, but I find myself using the Isosceles stance most of the time now. The Isosceles seems to do a better job during rapid engagement of short-medium range targets, and it lets me put lead on target more rapidly.
None of these advantages would be terribly useful with large caliber magnum handguns. I’ll have to dust off the .45 Long Colt Blackhawk and my depleted-uranium handloads to see which stance works better.
Classic Duelist anyone?
+1
Everyone that is a regular here knows MikeyBnumbers is like an incurable social disease…..he just keeps on showing up no matter how many times you treat him with the latest and greatest good stuff.
He rears his ugly head and we get another round of pains in our nether regions!!!
Body armor has kind of screwed up my pistol shooting. I learned the Weaver Stance in basic training back in 1985, present the smallest target etc. With the advent body armor, small arms shooting is now sort of like tank gunnery, keep your frontal slope (with the thickest armor) towards the enemy, so we’ve gone to the isosceles stance. Things are even more screwed up shooting the M4 from the standing position and trying to keep your armored chest, as opposed to your unarmored shoulder, towards the enemy.
Unfortunately I don’t normally walk around town in body armor. Therefore what is tactically correct at work isn’t so tactically correct in the rest of my life. I shoot one way in the Army, another way in civilian life.
That has got to be confusing as hell, but I suppose the change in strategy between the two would be weird enough by itself. How do you manage it?
You can practice it all you want, but when the SHTF you won’t use the Weaver stance. It’s fantastic for competition, but in the real world when someone shoots at you, you are going to crouch. You WILL NOT stand upright and shoot back. Try it sometime with paintball guns…which I would recommend prior to getting into a fire fight and counting on the Weaver.
I’ve never actually fired a pistol in anger. I have put quite a few 5.56 rounds down range in anger (and fear). I found that I never once used the prone supported, kneeling, sitting, or standing positions as taught in Basic Rifle Marksmanship. I mostly used the duck behind the corner of the MRAP and shoot from behind the HMMWV tire positions.
I must admit I much prefered the Desert Storm and OIF “Shock and Awe” Phase, in which I fired from the buttoned up TC Overide position, surounded by a cosy 70 tons of Chobam Armor and Depleted Uranium Mesh.
I really liked the video, but I could have done without the useless imput from the TROLL.
Indeed LTC, I have been in several shootings with the handgun and none with the rifle. But, it’s all the same…duck, hide, crouch, run, and shoot. Whatever you gotta do to save your virgin butt and stop the fight.
My department used to teach the Weaver until we saw some research where officers who’d been trained on the Weaver were video taped using semunitions in force on force senarios. None of them used the Weaver, mostly they instinctively crouched and fired, often one handed. We tried the same thing with the same results, so we went back to the old isosceles. Bottom line, you’d be going against instinct to stand straight up in a gunfight.
Joseph. As a non leo with some limited experience of shitstorms I’ve come to the conclusion that a hammerless j frame snubby is the best gun for my needs. It’s small enough to make a grab by an opponent dicey and at any range I can justify self defense it’s plenty accurate and it’s murphy proof.
Crouch, which happens anyway, punch towards the target with my gun hand and have the other hand free to ward off any grappling moves by the bad guy.
In a serious gun fight, most people would be dead or dying before they fired their first shot.
I think we should stop talking about ‘STANCES’, because we are teaching people to stand still in front of a guy who wants to shoot him. We are also teaching that it is more important to get into some position, than it is to quickly get your gun drawn and on target.
Teaching a stance to a first time gun-owner is just bad. We should start off teaching movement (to cover if available) while drawing and shooting. Even if there is no cover, movement is still critical, because it makes you a moving target that is much harder to hit. We should also teach one-handed shooting, and point shooting at close range targets. Combat movement, combat speed, and combat accuracy are the skills that will save lives, not getting 10 shots within a 2 inch circle at 15 yards within 2 minutes.
Unfortunately, most gun ranges are not setup to allow much shooter movement.
The hallway and stairwell at my house aren’t really set up for movement either. Thanks to my wife insisting on having furniture most of my house is not really set up for shoot and manuever either. And non of this crap is bullet proof either.
So it really comes down to who puts the hits on target first. Sucks, but after all it’s a gunfight, not a dance.
I dont agree with that. Stance is a fundemntal of good marksmanship. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk and run.
If you dont teach some one how to stand propperley, they’re just going to wing it, and thats not good for marksmanship.
You gotta practice shooting standing still, sometimes.
Here are my thoughts on stance:
I have been told and have heard, from many people, that stance doesn’t matter, and that in a gun fight, you’re not going to assume any sort of stance, anyway.
That just plain isn’t true. You fight how you train. You practice shooting from a stance, you’re going to assume it to shoot, with out even thinking about this. I know this because its happened to me.
Outside of the military/LE real, I like the weaver stance.
I believe there is no such thing as a gun fight. There is only a fight where guns may or may not be involved. You’re dumb if you think you’re going to get into a fight and its only going to be shooting. There is a real heavy chance you’re either going to get rushed, or need to resort to a backup. And if your fists are all you have, or a pipe, or a brick, or what ever…Look at any martial art, from fencing to boxing to what ever, and you’ll see that its got a bladed stance almost with out exception. You’re likely to shoot at some one in a fight, but you’re pretty damn likely to have to do other things, too. You should be practicing unarmed combat just as much, if not more, than you are shooting: And its dumb to have a different stance for each of them. I’m trying for a holistic all around approach, where what ever weapon I happen to be able to use, I’m still in the same basic stance. And like anyone who boxes can tell you, you don’t stand facing your opponent legs wide apart, torso facing torso. You’ve got no mobility doing that. You have to be able to move, and damn quick. And a bladed stance, like the weaver, is ideal for that.
Now, that being said, your upper body matters far more. Torso bent slightly forwards, arms locked out, gun in front of your eyes. Practice that, and be able to do that, constantly, all the time, and your feet will move more or less on their own.
Usually a modified isosceles; however, who really gives a damn? A firearm should be treated like a lead injecting device, and whatever gets the job done, does it.
Modified Weaver.
I use the Weaver. It’s what I learned at Gunsite and its what my last name means in German.
As for Mikey numbers, the people with the worst intentions have this tendency to transfer their deepest desires on to their perceived adversary. Maybe his anger filled rant about people who own guns fantasizing about shooting someone is simply his own dark desire projected on to us?
“anger filled rant?” Is that what you heard? You’re the one projecting. I was being humorous in a slightly nasty way. And speaking the truth, by the way. Have you read all the comments? Did you see the personal attacks I received, squatting when I pee, etc., etc.? Well, I believe that’s because I hit a nerve with many of you guys who question your own sick activities. Practicing and fantasizing about shooting bad guys is sick. It poisons the rest of your thinking. It makes you dangerous. Any of you who are honest and genuine are already questioning these things yourselves. I’m like your conscience.
Actually…I think of you more as TTAG’s own Alan Colmes. You know, the token leftist who presents his positions so ineffectively as to underscore the points of the main star of the show.
I’ve often wondered if you’re secretly on the payroll here. Having an easy and obvious punching bag probably drives up traffic and posts.
Wow, Mikey… can’t you come up with anything better than “I know you are, but what am I?”?
bootlicking is also pretty sick and bad for your overall health. it pinches nerves in the back, strains the knees, and who knows where your authoritarian figure has walked in the past 24 hours.
Mike whether you ever admit it to yourself or not, you are angry about guns and gun owners. You have every right to be. It doesn’t fit your world view. But that anger, frustration, whatever you decide you want to call it, that you tried to dress up in “humor” has morphed in to something more than simple anger. It’s manifesting itself in this need you have to come here and comment and make judgements about a group of people you know nothing about individually. You want to be insulted and talked down too because it makes you right about gun owners. It allows you to call mommy over and point out everyone else’s flaws. And for what? Mommy will love you most? Teacher will let you take the class gold fish home each weekend? You say that “day dreaming” about killing someone makes “us” dangerous? Who is more dangerous, the simpleton for whom violence is a way of life or the person who seeks to manipulate others for their own gain. (By gain I don’t necessarily mean monetary or tangible, gain can be emotional or intellectual as well.)
And finally, you are nothing like my conscience. It would never allow me to degrade a component of someone’s life I know nothing about, and it certainly wouldn’t allow me to be an unapologetic bigot.
To answer the question, I use the isosceles because I’m a better shot with it. However, if God forbid, I have to use a firearm in self defense I doubt I will care about my stance. Hopefully that day never comes.
That’s a pretty weird question. You dealing drugs again Mike?
I never thought he’d stoop to this childish level of making his point. Now that it’s been done, all his arguments henceforth should be considered invalid.
What, you ever considered any of his arguments valid? Not from the first did I ever see him as anything but a Flame Deleted. I deleted myself that time but you get the message.
Learn and be proficient with both stances. Why choose just one??
isosceles for the win.
leave your weaver stance at home with your 38 revolver and FBI gas lamp technique.
mike who???
how is he relevant anymore?
treat him like a troll: out of sight, out of mind.
I’ve switched to the ghetto stance
In response to Mikey#s original comment, I give you Mr. Colion Noir: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Liyu7e47TVA
What does mikeb do for a living?
-D
jwm, some points to remember about revolvers…they are Not Murphy proof. The first shooting incident I was involved with was in 1974. My partner and I both had revolvers, standard for the times.
My partner fired three rounds, and then I remembered seeing him standing in the street kinda shaking his gun and trying to pull the trigger, but got no bang. I continued on and stopped the dude with three shots, two of which missed ( from moving vehicles). Later we discovered that his ejection rod was loose and apparently the recoil caused the rod to loosen even more and lodge against it’s housing under the barrel, causing the cylinder to bind and not turn. Check your ejection rod periodically and make sure its tight. It doesn’t loosen up often, but you know Murpy.
Also, not fully returning the trigger during stress will keep the gun from firing because the cylinder won’t turn. Simply releasing the trigger will cure that problem, but under stress people have been known not to fully reset it.
Another problem under stress is “milking” the ejector rod while ejecting spent cases under fire, instead of one smooth stroke. Milking or pumping the ejector rod can cause a spent case to lodge under the star ejector, at which time you better have another gun. Just food for thought.
Appreciate the input, Joseph. Another valid reason, regardless if you carry revolver or auto, to be intimately familiar with your choice. And being able to do a New York reload couldn’t hurt.
+1 for two j frames!!
-D