Tiger Woods with SEALS - what weapon?

[ChuckMK23]

What weapon is Tiger shooting? Sig 226?

Description: Professional Golfer Tiger Woods squeezes off a round from a handgun during training at a shooting range outside San Diego.
060531-N-9419C-617 San Diego (May 31, 2006) - Professional Golfer Tiger Woods squeezes off a round from a handgun during training at a shooting range outside San Diego. Navy SEAL instructors assigned to Naval Special Warfare Center at Coronado taught Woods basic marksmanship skills during a recent visit. U.S Navy photo by Chief Journalist Deborah Carson (RELEASED)

 

[metro]

Yep, that's a 226. Not surprising, considering he was being taught by SEALs.

I wonder if he put a hole in one? Terrible pun.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Nice form - perfect "operator" style isosolces stance - support hand in perfect position with index finger under the trigger guard, arms fully extended. Obviously well instructed

 

[ChuckMK23]

Of course I was hoping to see Tiger with a 1911...oh well!

 

[A4sForever]

Nice form ...Obviously well instructed

It started early ... his Daddy was a former LCOL and Green Beret.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Isoceles may be a better stance...but Weaver get's all the ladies.

 

[Chubby]

Isoceles may be a better stance...but Weaver get's all the ladies.

Is it? I find that I shoot better in the Weaver.

Not being a smart ass, I'm actually curious as to the reason the Isoceles is a better stance.

 

[metro]

I shoot a lot better in Weaver than Isoceles, but YMMV.

 

[TXHusker05]

I wish they would show us how he shot. I am very much impressed with his technique though, he knows what he is doing.

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know why the SEALs made the switch from the Mk 23 to the SIG P226? I mean it is a great decision but they went though all the effort to get that MK23 up to SEAL standards only to come away with the lower caliber SIG.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I wish they would show us how he shot. I am very much impressed with his technique though, he knows what he is doing.

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know why the SEALs made the switch from the Mk 23 to the SIG P226? I mean it is a great decision but they went though all the effort to get that MK23 up to SEAL standards only to come away with the lower caliber SIG.

That's the big falicy - NSW never switched from the 226 in the first place. The 226 has always been the issue defensive pistol since at least the late 80's.

The MK23 was part of a contrived joint service offensive handgun requirement that filled a very very special niche. It's carried today but not as a "sidearm" but rather as a specialized weapon in specialized situations.

www.defensereview.com and www.hkpro.com have documented that lack of popularity the MK@# has as a "sidearm" - it often is used in entry situation as a sole weapon - for example CQB where the suppressor and LAM both become useful along with the stopping power of .45ACP hardball.

A lot of the Special Warfare Craft crew members have had these weapons passed down to them as an alternative to something else - they are functional, in the inventory, and fairly available.

That's all I know.

 

[TXHusker05]

I never understood the big deal of the MK23, it is very awkward to hold and seems a bit over the top. But if they need something silent in a pinch, the MK23 would work. With all the new tac lights coming out that have a laser AND flashlight in one unit, the LAM seems a bit useless.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Is it? I find that I shoot better in the Weaver.

Not being a smart ass, I'm actually curious as to the reason the Isoceles is a better stance.

I prefer Weaver myself and ultimately that is important I would say. (That is: The one that allows you to shoot more accurately and more comfortably is "better.")

However, when I was taught, we were told to learn isoceles if possible because it is supposedly:

More Stable - Due to the feet and arm positioning

More Accurate (esp. at close range) - Because it is centered on the chest and pushed out, it allows you to shoot "from the hip" with both eyes open and on target using your natural body position to fire straight ahead of you (I do this with the weaver as well, but it isn't centered on your chest)

Provides Ambidextrious Cover - If you are a L/H shooter like me, then it is easy to take concealment and lean out to the left to fire while presenting a small target.
It is much more difficult to lean right and still present that small target. Usually if you are going to be leaning to your offhand from around an obstacle for a prolonged period of time it is easiest to transition to a weakside grip - which is potentially less accurate and requires you to take your weapon off target for a moment to make the switch.

Isoceles shooters can much more easily lean left or right no matter what hand they are holding the pistol with due to the fact that the weapon is centered and their feet are abreast.

I don't think I am explaining this very well, sort of something you need to show in person maybe...

Bottom line: Go to the range. Find what works best for you. Become proficient with whatever stance you choose.

 

[stevew]

I shoot isoceles, this stance is now making a comback in popularity for 2 reasons, one is that with this stance it is easier to close in on a target, instead of "inching" to keep your stance with the weaver and secondly because with the isoceles you leave the front of your body open as a target which should be armored, as compared to the weaver where the side of your body is left open where there is no armor and there is a greater chance of a bullet ripping through ones entire body and destroying many organs on its way. The weaver used to be preffered since it does leave a smaller target area, but now they are saying that the isiceles makes up for it with the armor the shooter should be wearing.

 

[A4sForever]

I learned how to shoot using a Weaver stance. I used to shoot and teach using a modified Weaver .... but since I hate to compromise I've gone back to :

Isoceles. Or at least a modified Isoceles. Or something between Weaver and Isoceles.

After years of preaching Weaver, the FBI has gone back to Isoceles for several reasons ... I think it's what the SEALs teach as well.

I find it's more "natural" for me in tactical drills. The FBI thinks it's better especially when facing multiple threats or when moving from cover to cover. It helps control recoil better and it's more "natural" to assume for the human animal's body. Actually, I suppose I'm in a "modified" Isoceles -- compromise be damned.

Body and feet facing the threat, right arm (strong) straight -- not locked -- and left (weak) arm slightly bent.

Then again ... kinda both. Maybe I'm a Chapman guy... as in Chapman Ranch.

And around and around it goes ... use what works best for you.

 

[A4sForever]

.....The weaver used to be preffered since it does leave a smaller target area, but now they are saying that the isiceles makes up for it with the armor the shooter should be wearing.

There's more and more "side armor" available to LEO's these days ... and they're still going back to Isoceles. But I think you have a good point with your front armor observation.

But for the average armor-less JOE, i.e., all of us herein -- the question might boil down to:

1. Do you want to get shot through BOTH lungs at once??? I.e., go Weaver.

Or ....

2. Would getting shot through just ONE lung be more preferable??? I.e., go Isoceles.

WEAVER stance ... LA County Deputy Sheriff, circa 1950's ... Jack Weaver --- the originator: