If I was doing slow-fire precision pistol with a heavy gun/light trigger, it would be all about minimizing the wobble and finding my natural point of aim. Now, if I were to pick a stance for static, straight ahead shooting, it would depend on the context and the gun I was shooting.

I do use Weaver for shooting big bore revolvers, because it causes the gun to recoil away from my face rather than towards it. Ironically, even though several instructors who I respect and admire use one of those techniques, I don’t use or teach either for self-defense, and I don’t often suggest that people change their stance because of the fact that there are almost always higher payback changes that can be made…like switching the majority of a shooter’s training time to shooting from a “non-stance.” In the Weaver stance, the support side is forward, from shoulder to hip to foot which causes the support side arm to be bent much more than the shooting side arm.

In the isosceles stance, the shooter’s face, shoulders, hips, and feet are squared up to the target and the arms are outstretched, making an equilateral triangle with the arms and chest…like an arrowhead…that’s pointed to the intended target. I got a great email from a shooter yesterday asking me why I liked the isosceles stance instead of the Weaver stance.

Isosceles stance