The Isosceles Stance and Our Survival Response in a High Stress Environment
The Isosceles Stance and Our Survival Response in a High Stress Environment - Jay Izienicki - Chief Instructor
From time to time I do get asked where I come up with some of the content for the articles we put on the website. To be completely honest, the vast majority comes from going “down the rabbit hole” and finding myself in some obscure corner of the internet 12 hours later reading a research paper on Hicks Law when all I wanted was directions to the nearest Dunkin Donuts. Not surprising, that is how we get this month’s article on the Isosceles Stance and our survival response in a high stress environment.
It all started during a conversation with friends regarding active shooter situations. We quickly began to wonder how many people, in deadly force situations, that have adequate firearms training and have a firearm on them at the time, freeze or panic and don’t draw their weapon. It was a great question and the answer is one for another time. Why? Because on hour 12 of researching the answer, I stumbled upon an article from 1989 that validated one of our training concepts in a valuable way and I wanted to share.
Stance is an important part of defensive shooting because a solid stance provides the needed foundation for your shooting platform. Without a stable shooting platform, you undoubtedly experience inconsistencies in your shot placement. All the other fundamentals play a role in accuracy and consistency but the stance we instinctually use under stress warrants slightly more consideration than the others.
There are 4 foundational handgun shooting stances that we have all likely heard of or trained in. These stances include Isosceles, Weaver, Fighting (aka Natural), and Chapman (aka Modified Weaver). We could spend large amounts of time on each but for this article I will keep it brief and touch on each stance and encourage you to seek out qualified professional instruction for proper application of these techniques.
Isosceles – It can trace its combat origins to 1927 and the Shanghai Police training doctrine. It came into existence when it was found that men instinctively crouch when expecting to be fired upon. This crouching position along with arms extended forward holding the gun became known as the Isosceles Stance (Westmoreland, 1989). Eventually it became vogue back in the 1980’s when body armor became more prevalent in law enforcement. This body position puts the maximum amount of body armor facing the threat in the event an officer should take rounds to the torso. The isosceles also became popular in competitive shooting in the late 80’s and early 90’s for its mobility and speed on target.
The idea behind the isosceles is that you are squared up to the target. Feet shoulder width apart and toes straight ahead and evenly aligned. Arms form an isosceles triangle, when viewed from above, with the grip on the gun being directly in front of the shooters eyes. Knees are bent slightly to lower the center of gravity and the shooter leans slightly forward at the waist.
This is comfortable for most shooters and allows them to scan left and right almost 270 degrees at the waist and move easily both forward/reverse and laterally. Because the shooter is square to the target with the grip directly in front of the eyes it helps facilitate a “point and shoot” feel that is natural, fast and easily repeatable. The downside to the stance is, even though it is a wide and stable platform laterally, that it provides less front/back stability because of the position of the feet and creates a vertical string of fire due to felt recoil driving the shooter back into this area of instability.
Weaver – Typically it has been said that this stance is more popular with older shooters since its competition origins dating to 1958 when it was developed by LA County Sherriff’s Deputy Jack Weaver and made popular by the late Col. Jeff Cooper who founded Gunsite in the mid-1970’s. In fact, Cooper stated, “by about 1962 no serious competitor shot from any other stance if he had a choice.” (Williams, 1977) It was later adopted to law enforcement with the theory that during contact with a suspect the weapon was bladed off and helped weapon retention by preventing a gun grab by the suspect. However, with later development of body armor this stance fell out of favor as it put an area where there was no protection (under the arm) facing towards the threat. Eventually this is led to a movement to the Isosceles stance in law enforcement believing that, for officers, the exposure of a vital area under the arm with no body armor, allowing a bullet to travel all the way through the longest axis of the upper torso, was too serious a concern not to address.
However, the Weaver stance is experiencing somewhat of a renaissance, as the values of the stance are being realized and applied to the current generation of shooters. For defensive shooters, not wearing body armor, the bladed off stances does present a much smaller target to the threat. This facilitates our mantra to minimize yourself as a target and maximize your distance from the threat.
The Weaver stance is a little more complicated to setup and the position is certainly not natural. This means it takes practice and effort to make this comfortable and easily repeatable. With that said, for the stability it provides it is worth that time and effort. To get into the stance the shooter will blade the body with the strong side to the rear and the support side facing the target. This will put the feet diagonal to each other, shoulder width apart and the front foot toes pointing forward at the target and the rear foot pointing forward off the diagonal, almost parallel to the target. The key is to have the shooters weight balanced between the feet or slightly more on the front foot. With this foot placement the shooter has great stability not just laterally, but also front to back.
The key to the Weaver is the grip and it is created with proper arm position. Both arms are slightly bent with elbows pointing down, however the strong side arm is more straight than the support arm. This elbows down position creates tension in the torso and stabilizes the gun and when gripping the gun, it is done with a “Push Pull” concept. The strong hand is pushing forward into the support hand which is simultaneously pulling back into the strong hand. This isometric tension creates a fantastic grip that helps manage recoil and mitigate muzzle flip, allowing for faster follow-up shots.
All this sounds great, but there are some disadvantages. Because of the bladed off position of the body the arc of movement to the support side is diminished. This means that the shooter would have to break from their stance, move the feet, and then reset in order to scan the vulnerable area on their support side. Should there be a threat in this area the shooter could be caught off balance and out of position while making this adjustment. Also, the Weaver is extremely awkward for cross-dominant shooters (i.e. dominant eye is opposite of strong side). This requires the shooter to place their head on the strong side arm just to get the dominant eye in position for proper sight alignment, unlike the Isosceles where the gun is directly in front of the shooter and only a slight adjustment is needed.
Chapman – This technique is named for Ray Chapman, one of the founders of the IPSC and developers of modern practical shooting. Ray, along with Col. Jeff Cooper and Jack Weaver, dominated competitive shooting during the 1970’s. He was able to take what he learned through competition and apply it to the techniques we know today.
The Chapman stance is often considered the Modified Weaver since it makes only a few minor changes to that technique. In this stance the shooter full extends the strong side arm and only the support side arm is bent with the elbow pointing down. The idea behind the straight strong side arm is that felt recoil is not released through the weak bent joint, thus delivering the felt recoil into the upper torso. This allows the shooter to provide a large backstop, similar to the Isosceles, against the recoil in order to increase accuracy and speed of follow-up shots. It is also thought that this change to the strong side arm creates a cheek weld for cross dominant shooters when making adjustments to sight alignment for their dominant eye.
The disadvantages to the Chapman are similar to the Weaver from our stand point. If you are cross eye dominant, neither of these techniques are the best solution since they place the head in an uncomfortable and unnatural position. We would direct cross eye dominant shooters to explore Isosceles or Natural shooting stances.
Fighting/Natural/Tactical – The natural is our preferred stance. The main reason is because it fits with our belief that not everything in shooting fits everybody. Each shooter is an individual and they have differences that need to be overcome. Some shooters have limitations in joint movement, differences in physical size or shape, some are heavier on the top half and some on the bottom half. All of these differences creates the need for individualized variations and this particular stance allows us to do just that.
The origins of the Fighting/Natural/Tactical stance come from what was developed in the military and the special forces communities. It eventually gained favor in law enforcement and then made its way to citizen shooters. For law enforcement, this gives officers a single stance that provides an opportunity to actually defend themselves with hands, baton, less lethal or a firearm. For citizens, it enhances the Isosceles giving shooters a more stable yet mobile shooting platform and it eliminates many negatives of the other stance techniques.
Setup is pretty simple. Start in the Isosceles stance and then move your strong side foot back slightly. If you have taken any of our 100 level courses you have heard us talk about the importance of “landmarks” to create repeatability. This stance has a landmark, and it is in the foot position. If you draw a line perpendicular to the instep of the support side foot, the shooter will place the toes of the strong side foot on it. This creates that boxer or fighting stance we are looking for. Knees are still bent slightly, feet shoulder width apart, and the shooter leans forward at the waist. Most people will find this is a position that they would fall into naturally and be most comfortable and that is where “natural stance” gets its name.
In order to streamline the data, going forward we will consider Weaver and Chapman the same and Isosceles and Natural the same since the latter are minor variations of the former. Now that we have the primary shooting stances covered, let’s move to the main point and answer this question, “Does a person instinctually, under stress of a highly charged defensive encounter, settle into a primal stance?” According to research conducted by Harland Westmoreland (Westmoreland, 1989) and published in Law & Order Magazine, we most certainly do. His research was based on revelations he had from attending a 1987 lecture by firearms trainer and author Bruce Siddle, who explained that during high stress scenarios comprised of entirely firearms instructors, he found they all shot from Isosceles instead of Weaver stances, even though they had been trained exclusively in Weaver (Siddle, October 1, 1995).
Legendary trainer Masod Ayoob believed that under stress the Isosceles was the superior stance to use, stating that “we are finding that the straight arm isosceles position seems to work best under extreme stress.” (Ayoob, 1986) Interestingly, Ray Chapman (see Chapman Stance) was commonly known to refer to the Isosceles stance as the “stress position” and that it holds up better under extreme pressure.
The meat of Westmorland’s research (Westmoreland, 1989) covered 98 total deadly force events that were observed through video. The subjects were trained in and regularly used the Weaver stance. 66 of those events were considered routine or spontaneous (gun holstered) and 32 were considered high risk or non-spontaneous (gun was not holstered). In some circumstances the officers were in a specific stance but failed to draw their weapon at all.
39 Spontaneous events under 10 ft | 27 Spontaneous events over 10 ft | |
96.7% Isosceles Used | 92.6% Isosceles Used | |
| 3.3% Weaver Used | 7.4% Weaver Used | |
| 62.1% One Handed | 14.8% One Handed | |
| 23.1% failed to respond with weapon |
27 Non-Spontaneous events under 10ft | 5 Non-Spontaneous events over 10ft | |
74.1% Isosceles Used | 60.0% Isosceles Used | |
| 25.9% Weaver Used | 40.0% Weaver Used |
What Westmorland’s research uncovers is that despite our training we will revert back to a primitive or instinctual position that helps to ensure our survival. Based on the final results it indicates overwhelmingly that our basic instinct is to assume an Isosceles stance, squaring up to the target, arms extended out and knees bent lowering our center of gravity. This is done to prepare for the fight.
| 56.1% respond with two-handed Isosceles Stance |
| 12.2% responded with one-handed Isosceles Stance |
| 22.5% responded with two-handed Weaver stance |
| 9.2% failed to respond |
Most shooters are familiar with the terms fine motor skill and gross motor skill. Fine motor skill is a precision activity and gross motor skill is using the entire body or relying on major muscle groups. With that in mind we can also break the Isosceles and Weaver stance into those categories.
Imagine the steps it takes to get into the Weaver Stance. Body bladed, foot and arm positions, elbows down, hands and apposing grip all working together. Does that sound like a gross motor skill? No, Weaver is not a gross motor skill, but a fine motor skill. (Siddle, 1988) Now consider the Isosceles Stance. Both arms out, pressure applied to both sides of grip equally, knees bent – this sounds like a gross motor skill.
Just like all motor skills can be classified as fine or gross, they can also be classified as either closed skill, which is a skill that is carried out in a fixed or never changing environment, or an open skill, which is a skill that is performed in a constantly changing or moving environment. (Siddle, 1988) Since the Weaver stance was established for the stresses of competition (closed skill) and not a gunfight (open skill) it turns out that Bruce Siddle answered my question. “Does a person instinctually, under stress of a highly charged defensive encounter, settle into a primal stance?” Yes, the Isosceles is the stance we can expect to find ourselves in when the stress level is high and our life is in danger. For that reason, we strongly advocate for the Natural or Isosceles stance for both defensive shooters and Law Enforcement.
In my previous article Simple is Fast and Simple Works, I discussed how the more steps added to something that can be done in a simpler form creates variables that can negatively impact the outcome- especially under stress. This applies directly to the stance we choose. With that said, which one is more complex and, as a result, has more potential for negative outcomes? Do we want more or less negative outcomes when our lives are on the line?
So, what does this have to do with the average defensive shooter? Well, it reinforces that we should attempt to train to our bodies natural reaction to stress. In the case of our stance, it would make far more sense to train in the Isosceles or Natural stance since that is where you will end up anyways. This doesn’t mean the others are wrong and not worthy of knowing, quite the contrary. We strongly advocate for our students to become well-rounded shooters. You must know how to shoot from these other positions because each will have a situationally dependent advantage over the other. When you are in the heat of armed conflict you don’t want to try and figure out how to perform the Weaver or Isosceles to work in your current life or death situation.
Stay in the fight.
Jay Izienicki - Chief Instructor, Latent Force
References
Ayoob Masod F. Stressfire: Gunfighting for Police: Advanced Tactics and Techniques Series [Book]. - [s.l.] : Police Bookshelf, 1986. - Vol. 1 : p. 149.
Siddle Bruce K. Sharpening the Warrior's Edge: The Pschology & Science of Training [Book]. - Milstadt : PPCT Research Pblications, October 1, 1995. - 1 : p. 148.
Siddle Bruce Learning Theory [Journal] // PPCT Training and Information Journal. - Sept 1988.
Westmoreland Harland Isosceles vs Weaver: The Selection of a Shooting Stance Under Stress [Article] // Law and Order / ed. Cameron Bruce. - Wilmette, IL : Hendon, Inc, October 1989. - 10 : Vol. 37.
Williams Mason The Law Enforcement Book of Weapons, Ammuniion, and Training Procedures [Book]. - [s.l.] : C. C. Thomas, 1977. - illustrated : p. 496.