Fighting Stance vs. Isosceles Stance (Updated 3/17/2015)

Caleb at Gun Nuts Media posted a very pointedly negative opinion of the Front Site training school last month. His first, and presumably primary, reason he gave as to why he would never attend their school was that they still taught the Weaver stance. He wrote:

Let us be honest for a moment: Weaver is obsolete. Modern Isosceles, as used by every top tier shooter on the planet, is better. Yes, you can absolutely prevail in a self-defense situation using Weaver, and a well trained Weaver shooter is very capable. However, Front Sight teaches Weaver as The Only Way, and still teaches it as close to the original Modern Technique as possible. Even Gunsite, the fountain of Weaver has adapted their stance over the years. That’s why I always tell people, if you want to learn how to shoot Weaver properly, go to Gunsite. They started it.

I'm not trying to defend Front Sight--I've never taken one of their classes. If you want to read some different points of view on Front Sight, look through the comments to the article. Rather, my issue is with the suggestion that the Weaver stance is obsolete.

The Isosceles stance, as you probably know, describes a stance where your feet are placed parallel to one another, at shoulder distance or slightly further apart. With a handgun, the firearm is held in a two-handed grip straight in front of you so that if, looking down at that shooter from overhead, you were to draw a line from the weapon to your shoulder, then to the other shoulder, and, finally, back out to the gun, it describe an isosceles triangle. The isosceles stance has been almost universally adopted for use by police because it is a natural stance for quickly drawing, aiming and shooting a firearm at a close target. One of its early proponents was Mas Ayoob. It has also been adapted to shooting tactical rifles (although I don't see how it could be used with rifles exhibiting any significant recoil).

The advantages touted for the stance is that it is more natural by way of using body mechanics when under stress because it is simple and doesn't depend on pulling with one arm, while pushing with the other such as in the Weaver stance. It also allows you to engage multiple targets rapidly because you can pivot your torso without having to shift your feet. Finally, if you are wearing body armor, it presents the armor straight on to the target, maximizing the effectiveness of the armor.

However, like many simple tactics or tips, it appears to have advanced into the realm of dogma. Mas Ayood, as I mentioned, was one of earliest proponents of the Isosceles stance. He recognized, though, that you would not be able to maintain the stance at all times and situations--for instance, that as you twisted further right or left from the front, you would naturally transition into a Weaver stance, or its mirror image.

I was never taught one particular "perfect" stance for a handgun. Probably because my father was adamant about the correct way to hold a rifle for off-hand shooting, I naturally reverted to a similar stance when shooting a handgun. This was merely reinforced by later training and practice in unarmed fighting which is based around a fundamental "fighting stance" where (if right handed) your torso is turned slightly so your right foot is placed further back than your left foot. My thought on the subject, influenced by some tips on shooting a shotgun, is to worry about what your torso and arms are doing, and your feet will find the right place to support your body.

Anyway, getting to the point of this post, the Firearms Blog has a link to a nice video from Kyle Defoor at TriggerTimeTV explaining why the Isosceles stance doesn't work so well with rifles, as well as an interesting pointer for holding the forestock of your AR.

Update (3/17/2015): Caleb has changed his mind and decided it doesn't really matter which you use.