Front Page  »  

What is the best shooting stance? An instructor explains

July 9, 2026

David Duringer

By DAVID DURINGER

What is your stance on stance?

A prominent local CCW instructor saw me using my favorite default shooting stance — modified weaver — and told me “no one” uses it anymore. He runs large classes and apparently teaches only isosceles, the stance which, unquestionably, is the one currently in vogue.

By the way, though I disagree with him on a few things, he’s a great instructor offering fantastic training events to our community, where i often learn new things, and he continues to be my choice for CCW qualifications.

I cannot be sure of his reasons for limiting training to isosceles, but my hunch is that demise of Front Sight (where I trained for over twenty years) together with the rapid spread of permitted concealed carry along with mandatory training requirements (instructors typically with law enforcement ties) has led to the spread of training with a law enforcement bias. That bias is mostly a good thing, but can be bad where it is not optimized for the private armed citizen.

Large classes filled with students who often take only the minimum required training may also have something to do with popularity of the relatively simple-to-learn isosceles stance. While isosceles is a favorite of some top competitors (who often transition to weaver or something else for successive targets), that does not mean it is best for everyone on the street.

I noticed something else peculiar in that class: if the class is representative of trends, there seems to be a movement against the concept of shooting a “controlled pair,” which has long been recommended due to the poor stopping power of handgun rounds. A “controlled pair” requires both speed (for fight-stopping impact) and a second sight picture (because unsighted double-tap is irresponsible).

A third sight picture is recommended for good follow through. Yet the class seemed to disapprove of controlled pairs in what appears to me to be a “cop-out” (excuse the pun) based on their surrender to the inferior recoil control of their favored Isosceles stance.

If you remove controlled pairs, you remove much of the need for recoil control and hence also remove the need for upper body strength or leaning forward, etc. Unfortunately, you also remove stopping power, which is essential for self-defense.

There was something mentioned about controlled pairs not being acceptable because the situation may change, and no doubt quite a bit could change if you are not controlling recoil enough to allow a rapid second shot. (While practicing extreme isometric tension, I was able to get my follow-up shot time down to .22 second — not a lot can change in one-fifth of a second.) In my analysis of the three major stances below, I will assume all three methods employ the recoil control necessary to allow use of controlled pairs for fight-stopping hits.

The free training I offer here focuses on modified weaver not only because it is my personal favorite and I am more familiar with it, but also because in my opinion it is the best stance for most people in most situations.

However I also teach isosceles and traditional weaver, as I would never recommend learning only one stance. Differing circumstances may require differing stances for differing shooters. Best to learn and practice all three major stances, and variations among them. I would encourage training with multiple local instructors to develop your own best default style, perfect for you.

Also, no trainer is perfect, and training with multiple instructors minimizes the chance you will engrain bad habits. These bad habits may be mental as well as physical. For example, another local instructor, while assisting the more prominent one mentioned earlier, was at one point lecturing students on the gravity of the “decision to take a life” and in fact repeated this exact phrase many times. Can you imagine how these exact words would sound to a police officer or jury? The phrase “decision to take a life” indicates a purposeful act, with the specific intent to take a life.

To justify self-defense you must intend only to stop the attack. Lethal force is fine if necessary under Aquinas’ theory of double effect, but you can never intend to take a life.

So getting all of your training in one place can lead to disaster for you and your family.

Diversity in firearm training, on the other hand, allows you to easily transition between all three stances depending on your condition, and the situation you find yourself in, as you stop an attack.

In briefly describing some of the pros and cons of each stance here, words will have to suffice for this article. A more thorough article would require many pictures or diagrams because of various interpretations of the three stances.

Isosceles stance

As the name implies, the key aspect of the isosceles stance is the isosceles triangle (two sides same length) formed by two arms extended, elbows locked, straight out from the shoulders, with chest square to target.

So-called variation “modern isosceles” may bend the elbows a bit (no longer a triangle), but to the same degree so that head is still erect. Recoil control (for faster controlled pair, i.e., second shot) is achieved with extreme, aggressive lean forward and upper body strength.

Though often taught with both feet square to firing line, requiring extreme lean forward with curving of the spine, this is impractical for fighting and more stability can be achieved with extreme, aggressive lean forward on feet bladed similar to the boxer’s stance used with the other shooting stances. Yes, this so-called “modified isosceles” unfortunately requires pivoting the hips.

Advantages of isosceles include:

  • simple to teach (but more training is always better)
  • instinctive fighting position (but more training can improve on instinct)
  • squaring torso to target maximizes effectiveness of body armor (if you like to wear body armor — definitely the favorite stance of law enforcement)
  • easiest to adapt for cross-dominant eyesight (head and gun centered on target, so only slight movement of head required)
  • maximizes range of movement toward firing side (critical where unable to move feet due to mud, snow, stairs, wheelchair, car seat, glue factory, briar patch, etc.)
  • easily adapts to multiple foot positions (helpful when dealing with multiple or moving targets, doesn’t matter which foot forward)

As my comments indicate above, the first four of these advantages are not significant for most serious students and practitioners of concealed carry. However, the last two are very important reasons for everyone to know isosceles! Have it in your toolkit as an alternate stance, if not primary.

Disadvantages of isosceles include:

  • locking elbows may be painful for those with injured or arthritic elbows
  • not good for those (e.g., paraplegics) who cannot get shoulders and upper body weight forward, for recoil control
  • isosceles does not work well for revolvers [added per this suggestion by respected colleague at Safe Shooting School up in the Bay Area: “Something to add (because most consider it outdated) is that Iso stance/grip is incompatible with revolver shooting. I’ve found that not only are the thumbs far enough forward to be exposed to the cylinder gap, but it doesn’t interface as well with the grip frame/shape (as compared to a semiauto). I teach a modified weaver with thumbs high (keeps them out of the way and can manually cock the hammer without disturbing the firing grip) to revolver shooters. -Daniel R”]
  • lacks the isometric tension found in other stances, so to control recoil Isosceles requires more extreme lean forward than other stances, which reduces stability, and may also require great upper body strength
  • although bladed stance can improve stability of forward lean and recoil control, with Isosceles bladed stance requires hips to pivot toward target, and this pivot may be bad for knees or at least feel awkward (pivot of hips is not required for other stances)
  • assuming bladed stance, limited range of movement toward support side (where unable to move feet due to mud, snow, stairs, wheelchair, car seat, glue factory, briar patch, etc.)
  • while good for moving targets, not good for shooting “on the move” because increased radius of extended arms aggravates bounce, with no shock-absorbing isometric tension to absorb the bounce

The first three disadvantages listed above apply only to some people, but everyone should consider the last four when choosing a stance for the particular situation.

Weaver stance

Key aspect of weaver (named after a deputy sheriff in California) is isometric tension (about like wringing a wet washcloth, unless your hands shake when you wring a wet washcloth) between the firing arm (pushing forward) and the support arm (pulling backward). Support elbow is pointed straight down, resulting in a downward vector for recoil control when the support arm is pulled backward. Firing elbow is also pointed down to some degree, but the firing arm is a bit straighter than the support arm, depending on position of feet and angle of fire.

With both elbows bent, head is necessarily canted to the firing side, even more if the shooter’s eyesight is cross-dominant (dominant eye on different side than dominant hand). Forward lean is actually optional with weaver, but leaning a bit may add some beneficial recoil control.

Advantages of weaver include:

  • no locking of elbows is better for those with injured or arthritic elbows
  • forward lean helpful but not required; shock-absorbing isometric tension reduces need for aggressive lean forward (important for some in wheelchairs, or otherwise disabled)
  • works well with restrictive clothing that prevents full extension of arms
  • faster draw with elbows bent than extending arms fully
  • faster tracking of moving target or multiple targets due to shorter radius (gun closer to body due to bent elbows)
  • maximizes range of movement toward support side (critical where unable to move feet due to mud, snow, stairs, wheelchair, car seat, glue factory, briar patch, etc.)
  • works well for shooting while moving, because of smaller radius with bent elbows, and also because of the shock-absorbing isometric tension reducing “gun bounce”

While the first three advantages may not be important for most people, the other four are important considerations for most people in choosing a stance.

Disadvantages of weaver include:

  • bladed torso exposes an area of vulnerability around armpit and upper side, for those wearing body armor
  • may increase need for better hearing protection, depending how tight (degree of bend in firing arm)
  • most difficult stance for those with cross-dominant eyesight to adapt
  • even for those with normal eye dominance, vision is not optimal because head is not erect
  • those with weaker arms may get “limp wrist” malfunctions

For most people, the last two on the list are the most significant. Field of vision is very important in a gunfight, and malfunctions can be deadly.

Modified weaver or chapman

Key aspect of chapman (named after the competitor who came up with it, and did very well) is that the firing arm is extended straight out, with firing elbow locked. With elbow locked there can be no isometric “push” so technically it is dynamic tension of the support arm pulling firing arm into its shoulder socket.

Downward vector for added recoil control is still provided by that support elbow pointing downward, as with weaver. Chapman is often called modified weaver, despite lacking true isometric tension, which is key in weaver.

True modified weaver is technically distinct but very close to chapman, and involves a slight bend to the firing elbow so it is not locked, just enough bend to allow isometric tension. This is my preferred method. That slight bend allows some shock absorption from isometric tension to moderate the fulcrum effect of an extended arm and therefore lessen the need for aggressive lean forward, versus what it would be with elbow locked, while preserving most of the benefits of chapman.

Remember, better recoil control means faster follow-up shot (faster controlled pair). Focusing on extreme isometric tension, I’ve gotten my follow-up shot time down as low as .22 second — one fifth of a second! For me, modified weaver is a good balance between chapman and weaver and the best default stance for me to use generally, allowing easy transition to weaver and isosceles where needed.

Both chapman and modified weaver allow head to be erect, as with Isosceles.

Both methods require bladed stance, with firing foot back as in a boxer’s fighting stance. Degree of blade varies, usually about 30 to 45 degrees. With deeper blade, there is less mass (shoulder) behind gun for recoil control.

Both methods require some forward lean (about sixty percent of weight on forward leg, and shoulder an inch forward of the hip), for added recoil control, because whether elbow is locked or not, the firing arm is straight enough to act as a fulcrum if not counterbalanced.

Advantages of chapman or modified weaver include:

  • consistency with long gun training due to straight (or nearly straight) firing arm
  • more easily adaptable than weaver for those with cross-dominant eyesight
  • those with weaker arms less likely to get “limp wrist” malfunctions with chapman or even with modified weaver, versus weaver,
  • because firing arm is straighter and absorbing more recoil
  • regardless of eye dominance, head remains erect for maximal field of vision
  • easy transition to weaver or isosceles where increased range of movement is required to either side (critical where unable to move feet due to mud, snow, stairs, wheelchair, car seat, glue factory, briar patch, etc.)

The most important advantages above, for most people, will be the last two on the list.

Disadvantages of chapman or modified weaver include:

  • because firing elbow is locked, or firing arm is nearly straight, forward lean is required
  • while body armor coverage is slightly better than weaver, it is still inferior to Isosceles (for those who wear body armor)
  • locked firing elbow may be painful for those with injured or arthritic elbows

None of these disadvantages will be material, for most people.

Again, for myself I have chosen modified weaver to be my default stance. I like the idea of preserving isometric tension to absorb recoil, while keeping my head erect. But if movement of my feet is restricted or I am facing a moving target or multiple targets or a “run and gun” situation, I can easily transition to weaver or isosceles depending which direction I need to turn to fire.

What is the best stance? Whatever works!

David R. Duringer, JD, LL.M (tax), is an attorney helping families grow family power by transmitting life, fortune, and honor, to descendants. He has taught defensive handgun and estate planning for decades. Sign up at guntrust.org for his free classes in Atascadero or Morro Bay.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


17 Comments

What is the best shooting stance?


I say, shoot first, ask questions later.


That’s my stance. (wink)


1

Good point, “unconscious competence” is the goal. While you can never run completely auto to the point of shooting someone in the back (absent excuses like turning suddenly or threatening family, etc), deadly threats to private civilians often happen too quickly to allow for anything other than your practiced response to a previously visualized scenario your brain accessed on adrenalin.


1

I don’t use AI much because it seems it only provides good answers in areas where i have no expertise; however, chatGPT seems to have done a good job with this:


Re defensive handgun stances, does modified weaver stance make it easier to control recoil and muzzle flip, allowing for faster follow up shots, versus isosceles stance, especially for women and men with less upper body strength?


Yes—with an important qualification. A properly executed modified Weaver stance can provide some shooters with better recoil control and faster follow-up shots than an isosceles stance, but it is not universally superior. The differences often depend on body type, strength, training, and the handgun being used.

Here’s why.

Why the modified Weaver can reduce muzzle flipIn a modified Weaver:



  • The shooting arm is nearly straight.

  • The support arm is bent.

  • The shooter applies an isometric push-pull: the firing hand pushes forward while the support hand pulls rearward.

  • The body is bladed slightly toward the target.


That push-pull tension can:



  • Reduce muzzle rise.

  • Help the sights settle back on target more quickly.

  • Make heavier-recoiling pistols feel more manageable.


This effect can be particularly noticeable with:



  • .40 S&W

  • .45 ACP

  • Lightweight compact pistols

  • Revolvers with stout loads


Women and shooters with less upper-body strengthInterestingly, the answer may often be yes, but not for the reason many assume.

The modified Weaver can allow a shooter to:



  • Use skeletal alignment instead of relying solely on shoulder and arm strength.

  • Recruit larger back and chest muscles through the push-pull tension.

  • Avoid having to absorb all recoil with both arms extended.


Many smaller-framed shooters report that this gives them greater confidence with heavier calibers.

However, there’s a tradeoff:



  • Maintaining proper push-pull tension requires practice.

  • If the tension relaxes during rapid fire, the advantage largely disappears.


Why many instructors now favor isoscelesModern defensive shooting schools often teach an aggressive isosceles because it:



  • Works well with body armor.

  • Is easier to learn consistently.

  • Transitions naturally while moving.

  • Provides equal mobility to either side.

  • Simplifies weapon manipulations.


Modern thumbs-forward grips also generate tremendous recoil control without needing the classic Weaver push-pull.

What competition shooters tell usIf you look at USPSA and IPSC competition, nearly all top shooters use some variation of an aggressive isosceles stance. This isn’t because it necessarily minimizes recoil the most in isolation, but because it tends to be:



  • More repeatable.

  • Better for movement.

  • Better for engaging multiple targets quickly.

  • Less fatiguing over long stages.


Practical conclusionFor pure recoil control while standing still, many shooters—including some women and men with modest upper-body strength—find a modified Weaver gives them a slight edge, especially with larger calibers.

For overall defensive performance, including movement, awkward positions, and shooting under stress, an aggressive isosceles with a high, thumbs-forward grip is generally the more versatile approach and has become the prevailing doctrine among major defensive firearms instructors.

The best approach is to test both objectively. Using a shot timer, fire controlled pairs or Bill Drills from each stance and compare:



  • Time to first shot

  • Split times between shots

  • Accuracy

  • Consistency over multiple runs


Many shooters are surprised to find that the stance that feels more stable isn’t always the one that produces the fastest, most accurate hits.


1

Short summary of AI: While instructors and top competitors favor some variant of isosceles, and it is best in some situations, it is not the best overall for a large segment of (i would argue most) private civilians (ie, not typically wearing body armor) in self-defense situations, in particular women and men with less upper body strength and those using respectable calibers larger than 9mm (like .40 or .45). While it’s certainly possible to face multiple attackers, you can easily transition to iso – anyway, single-attacker is far more likely. Again, you need to know all three, but your default stance should fit you and your threat profile. This is all consistent with my original article written three years ago and appearing here:

https://lawnews.tv/stance-on-stance-diversity-in-firearm-training/


1

I know exactly who you are referring to, and several points in this article are simply inaccurate.


I have trained alongside this instructor for years, and the statement that he “only teaches isosceles” is not accurate. He teaches a stance based on natural fighting posture and body mechanics, a position designed so the shooter’s body works with them rather than against them.


He also does NOT teach students to stand with their arms locked straight out as you described. Any competent instructor understands that improper arm extension and poor mechanics can negatively affect recoil management. Reducing his instruction to “arms straight out” is a misrepresentation of what he actually teaches.


I also take issue with your discussion of the “decision to take a life.” The instructor you referenced is absolutely correct that there is a decision involved.


Whether someone is law enforcement or a civilian, pressing the trigger is a conscious decision made in response to a specific threat. Law enforcement officers are trained extensively on that decision-making process. Civilian concealed carriers should be as well.


Acknowledging that a person may need to use deadly force does not mean they desire to take a life. It means they understand the gravity of the action and the responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm.


Additionally, statements like “there was something mentioned” leave a lot of room for speculation. What exactly was said? What was the context? What were the instructor’s exact words? Without those details, concluding an instructor’s philosophy or competency is speculation, not analysis.


Likewise, the claim that there is a “movement” away from controlled pairs appears to be based on observation rather than evidence. A difference in training philosophy does not automatically mean one side lacks understanding or is avoiding recoil control.


You are, nevertheless, talking about an old Front Sight way of teaching, where you take your shot and do the hokey pokey in your after-action. That’s outdated information, and for those who continuously study body mechanics, self-defense scenarios, and know that things evolve as research proves otherwise, the modern defensive approach is:



  • Don’t pre-program a number of shots.

  • Shoot until the threat stops.

  • Prioritize decision-making, movement, awareness, and accurate hits.

  • Avoid thinking of “two shots” as a formula.


Constructive discussion about firearms training is valuable. Mischaracterizing instructors, their methods, or their words is not.


-3

I’ve had three ccw classes with him, and attended some great events he put on at SLSA, but outside of those never took training with him. However it is very clear from my interactions with him in the last two ccw classes that he dislikes modified weaver and strongly favors isosceles. (To be clear, he never barred my use of modified weaver.) At my most recent ccw class with him, he generously gave me a brief demonstration of his modifications to isosceles. I’m not sold on the idea that those modifications can control recoil as much as modified weaver, but I give him points for trying and I remain willing to learn from others that like this technique. 


Nowhere in my article does it say that he teaches “arms straight out”, only that he favors isosceles. And my article does mention that modern isosceles allows for arms to be slightly bent.


As a conservative Catholic, I support any lawful and reasonable decision you make to defend yourself or others against death or serious bodily injury, including stopping the attack with lethal force, but I cannot condone you making a “decision to take a life” and I feel sorry for your attorney if that decision is on the record, as it is evidence of homicidal intent.


I trained at Front Sight for over 20 years, including at advanced levels (Handgun Combat Master Prep) and i believe someone has misinformed you about Front Sight technique.


2

Good explanations of the two shooting stances. There is always something new and improved in firearms training, which may or may not work for you. I myself prefer the Detective Lieutenant Frank Drebin method of pistol shooting as demonstrated on old episodes of “Police Squad!”.


1

Weaver has always been most comfortable for me. I’m nervous they’re going to make me switch to isosceles for my CCW training.


1

Most likely they will let you use whatever stance you prefer. But it’s an opportunity to practice something different and there are many variants. Need to know all three major stances for different situations.


1

Uh ok…I will take “ question nobody asked” for 100.


-22

Let me suggest a reason or two why every peaceable citizen (or permanent resident) should ask this question, so that they can avoid personal and societal jeopardy from numerous categories like injury, rape, death, socialism, genocide, experimental injections for kids, etc.


Reason #1: 31% of Gun Owners Have Used Gun Defensively:https://lawnews.tv/31-of-gun-owners-have-used-gun-defensively-82-of-uses-require-no-firing/


Reason #2: The Supreme Court in McDonald v Chicago held that our right to bear arms is implicit in the American concept of ordered liberty.


You can follow the link for more on #1, but i’d like to focus here on the important implications of #2, which should be obvious to anyone capable of reason:


If our right to bear arms is implicit in the American concept of liberty, then as a society, it is not merely a right but also a duty, maybe not a legal duty but certainly a moral duty. Many of the Founders agreed.


Furthermore, if there is a duty as well as a right to bear, then some societal institution must have a right and duty to train. (Note that the 7th Circuit has held that families have a right to train.)


The Second Amendment was adopted when just about every American was armed to hunt for food. We now have grocery stores and the Supreme Court has held that our right to bear arms is based on our right of self-defense. Very few gun owners train for self-defense, despite rapid expansion of carry over the last several decades, and our right to bear arms will remain under attack until training expands beyond current levels. Only the family can be depended on to provide this training, going forward. All other institutions have failed to train, and in many cases actively oppose the right (sometimes when they claim to support it).


7

“gun owners” is different than “people with access to gun” (think extended family of 15 with access to safe). Also, does your study include only instances where shots were fired?


7

Also: One percent of us population is 3.49mm. (One percent of gun owners would be an even lower amount.) There are several studies indicating the ANNUAL number of defensive gun uses is approximately that number, over 3mm. There are other government studies with lower figures but the lowest is around a half million per year. So there are real problems with the article you posted.


6

PS you are kinda proving my point, that until training expands widely, 2A is under threat from disinformation.


10

Being proven constantly wrong on every subject has got to be life draining. Being an ill informed contrarian is an embarrassing trait.


Sadly entertaining to the rest of us.


-1

If being a contrarian is calling out your stupid shit so be it.


-3