...there's a hell of a question.
The school I teach with instructs citizen shooters on the merits of the Modified Weaver stance, and it's the only thing I keep grinding my teeth over. Not because I hate the Weaver, but because we don't talk about the merits of the modern Isosceles presentation.
I keep thinking back to stories of Bruce Lee's philosophies toward "style" and - to grossly oversimplify - the value in using the most advantageous to the fighter at that particular point in time based on environment, opportunity, training, and what the bad guy is giving you to work with.
In my own world I fall back to a very mobile, dynamic, and instinctive symmetric presentation. Both arms pressed out, full-strength two-handed grip, and offensive attack to the target.
Recoil control - even with small, light .45-caliber handguns isn't a problem for me and it's more a testament to technique than my considerable bulk. I've seen my tiny-handed wife run an HK USP Tactical with control and command while the potbellied "gun guy" in the next lane struggles to keep a .38 on the same piece of paper.
The point? Simple - symmetrical two-handed upper-body grip and presentation works, and you don't have to assume a "target" stance to make it work.
I've shot from the Weaver, strong hand and support hand (I don't have a "weak" hand, dammit!! :-) positions, shot supported against a wall, braced against a port, and off a rest, and would like to think I'm pretty dang good from most of them.
I come "home" to my happy place more often than not and that happy place is pressed out, grip strong, and keeping shots 2, 3, 4, and 5 as close to each other as possible.
If you're a Weaver Guy, and it (really) works for you, great! But give some of the newer thinking a try. Yes, it feels weird. No, you may not like it. But master it and add it to your range of skills and you may just become a better shooter overall for it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone