I've been hearing a lot of trashing on the Weaver stance lately. While I understand the LE objection to it, I fail to see the reason for the vitriol around this stance. First, for those of you that don't know, there are two distinctive types of "Weaver" stance. 1. Feet placed at 30-degree angles, shoulder-length apart, knees slightly bent, weight on the balls of your feet, with toes pointing out towards your dominant hand. (that's toes pointing to the right at 30-degree angles for most of us). -This is a "dead" stance, meaning that no one I know of outside of Front Sight teaches it. An example, the best I could find, the one on the right is approximately correct "standard" weaver stance. I'd make some changes but it's hard to find a pic of a "dead" stance done correctly. 2. The "Modified Weaver stance," with your non-dominant foot forward at about a 30-degree angle towards your dominant side, with your dominant leg behind the non-dominant at about a 75-degree angle, both knees slightly bent with the weight on the balls of your feet. -Pretty popular stance. The pic following illustrates this quite well. When I speak of Isosceles, I'm speaking of the "Modern Isosceles" with both feet planted at roughly 10-15 degrees on either side, slightly more than shoulder-width apart, knees bent, weight on the balls of your feet. -In essence, like any bad 1970s cop show you've ever seen. From the LE perspective, the isosceles stance provides maximum coverage with body armor. That's a very good reason to like the stance A LOT. No one wants to get shot in the torso, but if you do, it's nice to know that the only (torso) target you're presenting to your opponent is covered by body armor. Weaver of any stripe however, leaves your non-dominant side heavily exposed to an opponent, which means as a "righty," you're giving your opponent an opportunity to shoot you in the heart while avoiding most or all of your body armor. Additionally, Weaver has been rightly criticized for making shots to your non-dominant side of more than 40 degrees or so, more difficult unless you move your feet. I agree this is a real problem whilst shooting at paper targets in line, at a RANGE, and trying not to move. But in an ACTUAL gun fight, you WANT to move. You want to move a LOT, specifically, horizontally to the guy/gal shooting back at you. To paraphrase Col. Jeff Cooper: "If you're not shooting, you should be moving, and if you're doing neither, you should be reloading." Well, I don't know ANY civilians not in the armed guard racket who wear body armor on a regular basis. So what's the upshot for them? Take a look at the Modified Weaver stance (usually identified, incorrectly, as weaver). What you'll notice is that this stance is very akin to many martial arts stances and even ballet moves (don't ask how I know about the latter, it's embarrassing What you'll notice is that the Modified weaver provides VERY significant resistance to being pushed. Try it for yourself. Assume a solid modified Weaver and have a friend give you a good hard shove on your chest. What you'll find, as I have found, is that the isosceles stance will see me on the ground in that instance. The Modified Weaver, on the other hand, resists the shove handily, leaving me on my feet and still ready to meet the threat. Seeing as most civilian shootings (I'm guestimating, but I'd place it at 90% plus) happen at a distance of a few FEET, not yards, the likelihood that you WILL be shoved is pretty good. In other words, an attacker is overwhelmingly likely to be VERY close and VERY likely to at the least attempt to shove you back, strike you in the face or go for a body shot, ALL of which are resisted mightily by the modified weaver, and with the isosceles, result in you on your back, because you have ZERO ability to resist based on body conformation, even if you're a fairly large guy. (I've put 230-pound guys on their butt doing this). So, love to hear some thoughts on this. anyone disagree? GREAT! Tell me why I'm wrong.