Weaver, or isosceles?

weilke said:
Are you routinely wearing a vest ?
Click to expand...
Im not in the line of duty, I’m just speaking hypothetically. Even so, you’re exposing an area of the torso that isn’t completely covered with body armor, but it really depends on how you’re facing the threat.
 
Ryanb said:
I prefer weaver and have always used it when I’m at the range, but I feel like if I was actually in self defense I’d probably favor isosceles, since I’m a right handed shooter.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that. If you use a Weaver stance at the range and prefer it, why would you not use it in a self defense situation?

One of the key benefits of the Weaver stance is that target acquisition is faster due to the close proximity of the sights, which is more important than absolute precision. But, again, I'm a fan of using what works best for you, either way.
 
Ryanb said:
Im not in the line of duty, I’m just speaking hypothetically. Even so, you’re exposing an area of the torso that isn’t completely covered with body armor, but it really depends on how you’re facing the threat.
Click to expand...
The point being that if you're not wearing a vest, all of your torso is unprotected, and the front is a much bigger target.
 
In my most realistic self-defense situation I'm not even wearing underwear, let alone a vest....middle-of-the-night break-in. :) Hopefully, most any other situation can be managed to the point that no decision needs to be made. Get to cover is always plan A.

Jim
 
Without a vest, taking one in the chest front to back is supposed to have a better chance of survival than one that transverses the entire chest cavity (from one side to the other). Just what I was told by someone who main job was treating such wounds.
 
Ryanb said:
Im not in the line of duty, I’m just speaking hypothetically. Even so, you’re exposing an area of the torso that isn’t completely covered with body armor, but it really depends on how you’re facing the threat.
Click to expand...

If you are not wearing a vest, what is 'exposed' doesn't matter. The reason to stay squared to the threat while wearing body armor is that the vests are designed to be hit from the front and you wouldn't want to catch a bullet through hole your arm sticks out from.
 
I can draw and shoot a 4" group at 25 yards with my handguns, and I have no idea what all this is about. I've never paid any attention to that sort of stuff, just grew up shooting.

I guess I need to get some magazine subscriptions or join the NRA or sumthin'. :D
 
None of the above. Quick draw from my hip holster, shoot from the hip, like the a Duke.

or weaver
 
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up.

SMG's. Submachine guns. Take a very short, buttstock equipped pistol caliber machine gun, and you will have something that is basically shot with a Weaver stance whether you like it or not. That's why the MP5 felt so natural to me when I trained with it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up.

SMG's. Submachine guns. Take a very short, buttstock equipped pistol caliber machine gun, and you will have something that is basically shot with a Weaver stance whether you like it or not. That's why the MP5 felt so natural to me when I trained with it.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that kinda like saying Weaver doesn’t work well with a long shotgun? LOL.

Usually the Weaver and Isoceles debate is centered around pistols.

But yeah... a “machine pistol” category in-between rapid pew-pew thing, is as likely to confuse the topic, as much as trying to lie flat in a ditch when firing. LOL.
 
denverpilot said:
Isn’t that kinda like saying Weaver doesn’t work well with a long shotgun? LOL.

Usually the Weaver and Isoceles debate is centered around pistols.

But yeah... a “machine pistol” category in-between rapid pew-pew thing, is as likely to confuse the topic, as much as trying to lie flat in a ditch when firing. LOL.
Click to expand...

Heh, machine pistols have their place! If you're storming a close quarter indoors urban combat scenario, you want want something in between a carbine assault rifle and a pistol. That is where an SMG shines.
 
Hide behind a thick brick wall and empty the magazine around the corner and yell "SUPPRESSING FIRE"
 
Roadracin said:
Teacup and saucer grip
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is in jest so I shall continue - The preferred grip of people who say things like "stopping power", "this here gun won two world wars", and the ever classic "Plastic guns are trash! If you need more than 7 rounds you shouldn't be carrying a gun anyways!"
 
GaryM said:
Yeah, haven't seen cup and saucer advocated in a few decades.

But don't diss the 1911!
Click to expand...


Many decades ago is when I first learned to shoot, and back then I learned cup & saucer. Haven't used it for years, though. Works okay with something like a .22 or .25, but not for anything with some oomph.
 
Half Fast said:
Many decades ago is when I first learned to shoot, and back then I learned cup & saucer. Haven't used it for years, though. Works okay with something like a .22 or .25, but not for anything with some oomph.
Click to expand...

the worst is firing a .44 mag when the grip is made for midgets. My buddy has one that the grip seems to be about 2-3" too short. The bottom of the grip lines up with the middle of my palm. I shot it once. Once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top