I'd like to see a discussion of who was most influential and how we went from this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...911_700_06.jpg
to this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...f/IMG_2226.jpg
Printable View
I'd like to see a discussion of who was most influential and how we went from this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...911_700_06.jpg
to this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q...f/IMG_2226.jpg
This is an excellent thread idea and I look forward to the more knowledgeable answers out there.
From where I sit on the outside looking in, not being in the industry nor a real competitive shooter, I think we really have 3 groups to thank for the evolution of the "modern handgun technique"
- The first were the pioneers in the 50s and 60s like Cooper, Weaver, and others who had military or law enforcement experience and realized that the old "bullseye" technique was lacking for any serious purposes. Add to that the NRA who came up with the first of the "combat" oriented matches with the PPC that opened the door for IPSC and all the others to follow.
- Second were the mostly civilian "combat action" competitors who in their never ending search for an edge and to shave a few tenths of seconds, threw common practice out the window and embraced the isosceles stance, press out, and other techniques. Unencumbered by department and institutional SOPs and equipment, they weren't afraid to try new techniques as the only thing they had to loose were matches. This proved to be a perfect breeding ground for new ideas to spring up and techniques to come to fruition.
- Lastly were the elite HSLD military and LE units that looked to the civilian competition shooters and training centers like Gun Sight to train their soldiers and then cross pollinated the more poguish units with their new found knowledge. There was no way that the big Army would ever look to the civilian action shooters for advice and the AMU was largely too involved in traditional shooting matches to be developing new styles, but the guys from SFOD-D and other like units were open minded and embraced change. Once the average soldier saw how the "cool kids" were shooting they wanted to do the same. The past 10 years has brought an abundance of real world combat shooting that has given these guys real world feed back which they in turn fed back into the world of training with guys like Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, and others decimating their wisdom.
As a side note, I will say that while the Euros might have had some influence (at least with the formation of HSLD units), this evolution of combat shooting style could ONLY HAPPEN in a nation with a healthy civilian gun culture. Ironic when you think that the latest techniques an SAS trooper is using, came from a nation who's gun laws the average Brit would find horrific.
Little bit of PPC background
http://www.nrahq.org/law/competitions/ppc/index.asp
IMHO, Col. Cooper was the most influential. Not due to his adaptation of the Weaver stance, but due to Gunsite. He was the first guy (IMHO) to both create a specific site for training and used his influence at Peterson's Publishing to get recognition and publicity.
Side note - Lucky McDaniel was one of the first guys to travel the country teaching folks how to shoot better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_McDaniel
A happy confluence of timing, his intellect, his interest, and his ability to write not just generally, but specifically about shooting, hunting, fighting and competition.
Two quick points on this:
On the L/E side-The legendary instructors at LAPD in SWAT/SIS/Metro Div., cut their teeth at Gunsite. They took the Modern Technique and adapted it for use in a highly restrictive environment in which they had lawyers who targeted them on every single shooting. They are some of the most successful police gunfighters in the country, and those they have trained have had similar results. Those same instructors also provided the training to the USMC Force Recon community with great success. You could also add the work of Pat Rogers in this regard as well.
On the Army Special Operations side, I will quote a guy who was there in the early years-"Until Ken Hackathorn came along, nobody shot a 1911 like they do today". Ken totally changed how the pistol was shot and ran. Ken was also a Gunsite vet., and had a ton of influence on many of today's top trainers.
I know that with my time dealing with the West Coast Naval Special Warfare community in the late 80's, they were heavily influenced by John Shaw and his three gun based shooting style.
While most I have talked to have said that the Modern Technique needed some tweaks when adopted into use in the Military and L/E communities, it was a solid foundation to build on. While poo poo'd by many, I can attest first hand how successful the LAPD Metro adaptation of the Modern Technique has flat worked in putting down bad guys in actual street shootings with higher hit rates than anything else I have seen. Keep in mind, it is not treated as a "shooting" system, but a balance of the weapons handling requirements for street operations that are heavily search and evaluation based and marksmanship requirements that emphasize proper application of lethal force (with US Federal Court standards) based over pure shooting. For pure shooting performance, there are better evolved ways to do things.
Nyeti, good to see you back. :)
nyeti--I always enjoy your cogent posts, as they are always fact based and full of wisdom...
DB, that period of Gunsite inspired SoCal Law enforcement has to go down as the heart of the golden age of law enforcement shooting development. Larry Mudgett was also a "student" in my first class at Gunsite, API 270, and the cross pollination of Gunsite and LAPD was on display at most every class I took at Gunsite in the 90's.
I should also point out that I noticed the camel sneaking his nose under the tent on the shooting versus fighting argument. :)
I don't think law enforcement training has advanced much since those days at an institutional level from the outside looking in, it seems that all LEO I encounter are 20-30 years behind the curve outside of SWAT/SRT types or unless the individual trains on his own. I think Rob Shaw and Hackathorn are responsible for the generation like Defoor, Lamb, and Mcnamara
There were some small pockets of innovation during WWII. I think it is hard not to acknowledge the contributions of the OSS in advancing more modern training techniques. While William Fairbairn, Eric Sykes and Rex Applegate certainly advocated point shooting (and are most associated with that technique), some OSS training included the isosceles stance in the 1940s.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5...ining45375.jpg
OSS Jedburgh training
But more important than pistol technique (as point shooting clearly fell out of favor) was their overall influence on combatives and combat marksmanship training. One of Fairbairn's innovations was systemically moving marksmanship training from a competition orientation (shooting bullseyes) to preparation for combat.
I always found this video of the OSS 'House of Horrors' interesting (if dated and more than a bit strange with the 'Lone Ranger' masks). Probably the earliest use of a 'shoot house'. Note the occasional editing where the pistol changes from a 1911 to a revolver. Fairbairn is the instructor behind the mask.
http://www.nps.gov/cato/historycultu...use_bigger.jpg
From the National Park Service website...
The House of Horrors
A pistol range was initially constructed at B-2 for firing .45 Colt automatic and other pistols. The range had pop-up targets of enemy soldiers. Students were instructed how to fire a pistol using a special quick firing method from the hip called “Point and Shoot.”
Another unique OSS training structure at B-2 was the “Pistol House.” It was also known as the “Mystery House,” “House of Horrors,” and the “Haunted House.” At a cost of $6,000 it was the most expensive structure built by the OSS. The house was located where the stable is today in Camp Greentop. It was designed by British Special Operations to teach close shooting practice under realistic conditions. Trainees were sent into the house with an instructor and were armed with a .45 automatic pistol. The house simulated a building that was occupied by Nazis and the interior was kept completely dark. The floors in the house were unstable and included frequent drops. There was a hidden phonograph that played realistic sounds including men speaking German. As they moved through the house they encountered Papier-Mâché Nazis with pistols.
Are you talking about L.E. training or shooting technique and style. Very different things. L.E. training made huge advances since I went to the academy in 1988. Shooting styles are cyclic. I started as a competitive shooter and a hard ISO shooter when I started in L/E. I will still use many of these techniques when faced with evil plate racks and fields of steel. I found the shooting techniques I was using were poor for handling people while armed with a pistol. They sucked ass for doing tons of cold searches in both structures and outdoors in low light. They were lacking in threat mangement. Many of those from the military and civilian shooting communities do not understand the threat assessment and evaluation expectations that are unique to the L/E community. The military is just starting to get a taste of this.
As I tell people in classes, for pure shooting there are better techniques than what I teach and use. For dealing with the dynamics of managing encounters in the L/E world, I am pretty set on what I know works. I just had dinner with Scott Reitz a couple of weeks ago, and much of this was the topic of conversation. Scott often uses the Federal Court standards and standards of expectations placed on LEO's in a world where common sense and reasonable standards are at a higher bar than most realize.
Cars and guns are a favored analogy. I am sure that I would get my butt kicked on any track by any Indy class driver running a full house modern Indy car. In a fully loaded Crown Vic in a wholly unpredictable and ever changing high speed urban pursuit through alley's and the wrong way on SoCal freeways, I can hold my own with anybody.
I find that most of the critics of L/E training and procedures have not spent a lot of time in that world. I've trainined with a lot of NSW people and Army Special Operations folks. I enjoy it, like it, learn stuff, and find much of it non-applicable without a lot of modification. Unfortunately, there is a trend that cops are stupid and don't know how to shoot and those with no experience in that world will come in and fix things. Sounds good on paper........
Wow, awesome posts by JSGlock and Nyeti. Great info guys, thanks!
One thing that I've noticed is how few know any of the history, even instructors. And often those looking to make a name for themselves repeat the (mistakes of?) the past thinking that they're innovating when in fact they are only discovering what others before them discovered, tried, and threw out as ineffective. This is why I think a compendium or comprehensive history of the last 50 years of pistol shooting, maybe even the last 100, might be interesting. The problem is, I don't know of many that have the knowledgebase, time, and literary skills to compile it. and with those such as Cooper who, regardless of what you thought or think of him, did have such a great background and understanding of the history from whence they came, I don't know if it's even possible.
Then there's the secondary challenge of attempting to separate dogma from reality.
Based on the history that I know, I give the most credit to Col. Cooper, and more specifically, his concepts.
He put together a well rounded concept of "gun fightery", which tied in the most cutting edge and effective practical shooting techniques and the best hardware of the time along with embracing the evolution of both.
He started a school, which brought in all kinds of people from around the world to learn and disseminate material that was orders of magnitude more effective in a practical sense than what was being done anywhere else.
He created the modern practical shooting competition which allowed the testing and comparison of technique in a more dynamic and stressful environment than the square range.
He was a prolific and easily read author, which further disseminated the concepts that we take for granted today.
I definately believe that there were other notable contributors, and I don't agree with all of his opinons, but I cannot think of anyone that has made a geater impact than he has.
If you go in with the idea that not much is new, it becomes easier to separate the marketing b.s. from what actually works (what works will differ from Military use, L/E use, civilian defensive use, and various competitive arenas). I have found one thing in common with the instructors I have learned the most from. They tend to give credit to others. Take a class with Scott Reitz, and will hear a lot of stuff about techniques dating back to the early days of firearms use and throughout the 20th Century, as well as context to why some things worked in certain time frames. Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn can keep me entranced with simply great historical information for hours. Pat Rogers fills in many holes about the transitional periods since the mid 60's. Many of these guys are encyclopedia's of great historical info. There are a lot of these guys out there, but the above are more publicly accessible.
I think when evaluating history of anything, it's critical to keep in mind their era. Compared to what else was going on at the time, at least he had thought about things and had answers. Most at the time appeared to have not even asked the questions.
I think you hit the nail on the head RE: Gunsite. I think of the original Gunsite as a laboratory as much as a school. They had the facility, time, and people to try things and see what worked. I don't think that exists today, and Gunsite today has become too insular and too much of a self-licking icecream cone. It does not appear to be welcoming of new people and new ideas, and appears too stuck in the dogma and history.
Gunsite means something different depending upon what year we are talking about.
There is early Gunsite, where it was a labratory for ideas, and the ground zero for instructors.
There is later Gunsite, still with Jeff, but an older Jeff, where there may have been less development, and more confirmation of ideas Jeff had formed previously.
There was Gunsite in turmoil during the Rich Jee era.
There is the latest Gunsite which is stable, more business oriented, and based on a review of courses offered, largely a school of intro handgun, carbine and shotgun classes.
While it was easier to differ with Jeff, very late in his life, as the Enos/Leatham modern ISO changed pistol competition, all the while Jeff fought stances other than the Weaver, rifles other than the Garand, and bolt guns other than a Scout, I can't imagine a person not respectful and admiring of Jeff during Gunsite's heyday. Interacting with Jeff, in person or by letter, throughout his life was always a thought provoking and exciting experience.
No matter what differences you might have had with a particular idea of Jeff, so many of us owe so much to a way of living life, inspired by Jeff's ideas.
Both Greg Hamilton and John Holschen spend a bit of time talking about the history of shooting in Insights Intensive Handgun Skills. Here's my summary of what Greg said when I took the class with him and which I posted in my AAR:
Quote:
The first formalized training for handguns was probably the NYPD. They used 6 shot revolvers. This is where things like hammers or double-taps became popular because of training tended to do three two-round repetitions. Later the OSS started developing other techniques during WWII. These included things such as using the muzzle flash to identify targets and had all of four hours of handguns training.
Greg mentioned that most of what the great shooters did was to ‘figure out a way to get their ammo paid for’. This was what led Jeff Cooper to establish a shooting league. They had competitions of shooting balloons. Because of what had developed with the OSS and influence of Cowboy movies from the 20s and 30s, everyone had forgotten to aim. They all shot from the hip, because everyone knew that “That was what was fastest”. Jack Weaver was one of those who competed and noticed “It seems to be taking a lot of hits to get the balloons.” He spent an entire winter practicing with both hands on the gun. He came back the next year…and did horribly. Plus he got made fun of for having both hands on his gun and “shooting like a girl”. But he persevered and starting thinking “What if I aimed?” With both hands on the gun and using his sights, he “started to kick everyone’s ass”.
If you actually look at pictures from this time of how Weaver shot, it is remarkably similar to what we now call modern isosceles. The “Weaver Stance” was actually created by Jeff Cooper. “Like any good Marine , he added 90 degree angles to everything”. Weaver did sometimes have his arms slightly bent, but that was because he learned something it took others until the Steel Challenge of the 80s to learn, namely that you can shoot things you’re close to before you reach full extension. In fact, the first time Weaver heard about isometric tension was when he read about it in a magazine. He had to go out and try it to see if he actually did apply it and his answer was “I guess there could be”. Massad Ayoob made this error even worse by increasing the prescribed tension to 45lbs.
The next evolution in shooting occurred because of Second Chance Body Armor. The owner started to do demonstrations of himself being shot while wearing the armor then shooting bowling pins to prove someone wearing the armor would still be capable of fighting after being shot. He also took out an ad offering a free gun to anyone who was shot while wearing his armor and who managed to kill his assailant afterward. The Federal government did not think offering guns for killing people was okay so this offer was rescinded and he was left with a bunch of guns. He decided to start a competition and offer the guns as prizes. Until this point, most shooting competition had no awards. This was a game changer because people really started to be motivated to win. After all, a competitor could enter several classes of the competition and come away with multiple guns…which he could then trade for more ammo.
Suddenly, people were designing guns just to win this pin competition. They moved the gas port and created guns with a non-reciprocating sight. This led to the evolution of the isosceles stance because people could watch their front sight.
Jeff Cooper was watching what was going on and started to make up derogatory terms for the pin guns and say that a shooter could get away with an isosceles stance rather than Weaver, only because they were shooting ‘girly guns’. Cooper created the terminology around shooters, referring to the people who competed as ‘gamesman’ and the real shooters who used Weaver-stance and a .45 ACP as the “martial artists”. The only problem was that by the late 1980’s the “martial artists” started to get upset that they were getting the asses kicked at every competition. At this point, IPSC created the Limited class to try and allow the ‘martial artists’ a chance, whereas the Unlimited class was open to everyone. The only problem was the first winner of the Limited class, Jerry Burkhardt, also won the Unlimited class. This was “proof” to the martial artists that IPSC was “rotten to the core” and they founded IDPA. The first year Rob Laetham won. Coincidentally, he also won the IPSC competition that year. So, IDPA started asking the IPSC winners not to come to their competitions.
When that didn’t work, they scheduled them the same weekend to make it impossible for someone to attend both.
I wouldn't agree with all of that. This goes back to the difference between "shooting" and applying shooting to "problem solving" as a piece of a much bigger pie. One of the biggest reasons we had a lot of success with a "Weaver like fighting stance" is the due to the use of a flashlight in combination with a pistol to search and engage with. I spent a lot of years with Mike Harries. When you work a lot with a handheld light, you tend to use a technique that works well with it. Here is reality-the ISO based flashlight techniques totally suck-period. It wasn't till the advent of some of the X series Surefire WML's that you could actually work somewhat competently with a light and a ISO platform. This is still not a replacement in L/E circles for use of a light, BUT a WML will work well for Military units with lesser restrictive ROE's, and for most civilians who are working off reactive response for ID only and not really doing a lot of searching and other tasks with their lights.
I would agree with the assessment of the stance itself. We used a "Weaverish" hand and arm configuration out of an F.I. stance as the basis for what we were doing. Again, a little less effective "shooting", but more effective for everything else that was often leading up to and post shooting.
The key to early Gunsite was not purely Jeff Cooper, but the folks Cooper attracted to the laboratory. Mudgett, Helms, Reitz and later others from LAPD. Guys like Bill Jeans, Clint Smith, Pat Rogers, Mike Harries, the Stock brothers, Ken Hackathorn, Bill Murphy, Louis Awerbuck, and many others. A lot of "thinkers" were there who took what was going on very seriously, and were able to apply these techniques and tweak them. While I never got to meet Cooper, I have read almost everything he has ever wrote and have a HUGE respect for the man. With that said, many found that Jeff's ideas would not work in many urban settings without some tweaking. Most tended to be more pliable than Mr. Cooper. What was apparent is that most of the folks from that world did not fall into untested ideas. They tend to stick with what they have found works in the field. They were open to what came from the competition world, BUT were very wary of application in the field. I am very much wired the same way.
Back on topic, a lot of the transition from weaver to iso happened in the 80's primarily because of Enos/Leatham screwing around and try to see what worked and what didn't. It spread from there to pretty much everywhere else. I do find it amusing that the "modern" iso is over 30 years old.
One of the things we're missing though is the current evolution. If you watch USPSA shooters, particularly the GMs that actually win, they all generally tend to stand fairly erect with their heads up. Contrast this with the stance I see in a lot of tactical classes, which is aggressively hunched forward with the head buried down in between the arms. Both of these are technically "iso", but they're radically different in terms of the kinesthetics involved.
There are tradeoffs to both.
The upright stance has a lot of benefits in terms of target to target transitions on static targets from a static position. That's the majority of IPSC and IDPA shooting. It's not a particularly common situation outside of those games; we don't normally see people standing out in the open, feet planted, engaging three or more close range immediate threats.
Once you start to move, being upright costs you. As an example, watch this video of Bob Vogel starting at around 4:45. In particular, notice the difference between his stance when engaging the first set of targets (static) and the second (on the move).
Standing upright also has a cost in terms of recoil control. That isn't as big a deal to world-class competitors whose guns are tuned to recoil the way they want, who have good upper body strength and great grip strength, etc. As I tell students all the time, if you want to see what ideal technique is, look at top female competitors. They are normally lighter, have smaller hands, and have less upper body strength then their male counterparts. Here are photos of two of the best known women in the action shooting sports. Notice how radically different their Open (red dot, compensated gun) stance is to their Production/IDPA "gun type" stance:
Julie Golob, standard gun
http://pistol-training.com/wp-conten..._c-350x233.jpg
Julie Golob, compensated gun
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4024/4...0de950c8_m.jpg
Jessie Harrison, Limited gun
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2027788.jpg
Jessie Harrison, compensated rimfire
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cTTHxjXS9P...e+Rim+Fire.jpg
If you look back, you'll see the upright stance thing really got rolling first in Open division, even among men.
If you're not concerned with large arrays of static targets, if you haven't perfected recoil management, or if you lack the physicality of the the guys who are winning the top spots in major action pistol sports, the upright stances makes less sense. Furthermore, if you're not going to practice your static position shooting and your shooting on the move to the point where you'll naturally, preconsciously switch from upright to crouched when you need to start shooting on the move (i.e., 99% of the shooters on Earth) then spending all of your time shooting upright tends to interfere with best practice for shooting on the move.
I've always felt that the major benefit from standing upright is in sight tracking. As you lean forward, your head also becomes less upright, which causes your eyes to move up to compensate for the forward lean. With a very aggressive lean it is possible to lose the front sight over the top edge of your lenses or the brim of your hat. I also feel that the speed of my vision is somewhat reduced when my eyes are not centered/relaxed.
First: I am finding the conversation above in regards to body position for competition and different applications with different guns interesting on the competitive side of the discussion.
For the field use side, I am going to use GJM's statement to lead into what has been missed on the Gunsite/Modern Technique side of the equation:
"For shooting, I find the Rogers flashlight technique to be the best of any, excepting a WML, and the Rogers technique works great with the Modern Iso. Nyeti, do you use the Rogers flashlight technique?"
Not only do I not use Rogers, it was flat out not allowed to be used by my people. We tested Rogers....It led to issues with negligent discharges under stress conditions in testing. When you use both hands to do essentially the exact same thing with one side giving light, and one a bang is a recipe for disaster. We also had some of the longer fingered guys get fingers in the trigger guard with their support hand. It is a un-natural way to hold a flashlight. You have to use a special light and specialized carrier. Once in it, you are stuck in it, and the light will not flow naturally into use for other tasks well at all. Ken Good told me that in the tens of thousands of simulated gunfights using lights while at the Surefire Institue and Strategos, he used Rogers exactly one time. It is a one trick pony-it is good to shoot with a light in ISO, and does nothing else well, especially searching.
How does this relate to the Modern Technique and Gunsite. What is often missed is that the cornerstone of the Gunsite teaching ideal is the Combat Triad that places EQUAL importance on Mindset (mental), Marksmanship (shooting), and Gun Handling (and tactics). The "shooting" part is only a third of the equation. The shooting part needs to work with the rest in application.
Back to flashlights and application (this is where "context" is really important). On a typical night as a uniformed policeman (different more high risk stuff working crime suppression) in Southern California I would conduct five traffic stops (didn't like writing tickets, so these were stops looking for an arrest), at least the same number or more contacts of pedestrians (dirt bag parolees or gang members), a couple of high risk felony vehicle stops, three commercial building searches and three to five searches of domestic residences (that are in no way shape or form like what members here houses look like) looking for hiding suspects, and at least one solid yard to yard outdoor K9 search for a hiding felon/felons. All of these activities required the use of a flashlight in order to do everything form searching to filling out a traffic citation, checking an ID card, or looking for contraband. Equally, many of these tasks involved the deployment of a pistol in conjunction with the flashlight. Mindset wise, any of these encounters could instantly turn into a shooting. In combination with that would go a ton of threat evaluation and assessments of suspects and their actions. At this point, it should be obvious that "mindset" and "gun handling" were of far greater importance than "marksmanship". Essentially, it was all in preparation to shoot, with a low percentage of having to. Now, when that light illuminates a gun.......and a decsion is made to shoot, you need to go to auto pilot on those marksmanship skills, and the MUST blend with all the other stuff listed above. There is not a single task listed where Rogers flashlight technique would be worth a crap or a superior means of deployment.
If we look back at the history of the application of the Modern Technique in combative situations, you will find that the whole Triad was in play and why many of the proponents of this "style" of shooting are pretty fixed on it. As an example, Larry Mudgett, Scott Reitz, and John Helms have all shot suspects form the Harries. Both of my shootings involved use of the Harries. In the case of Mudgett and Helms, it was during one of the most difficult hostage rescue problems ever encountered by L/E. In all of these cases, the "shooting" technique needed to work with the gun handling requirements for the situation. This is the context that these shooting techniques must be looked at in regards to anti-personnel use. The context will also change drastically for civilian defensive use, undercover/plainclothes use, and military deployment. It all needs to fit together.
The flashlight discussion has been split:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...ght-Techniques
I think there are some misconceptions here. First, this post supposes that most of body position has to do with controlling recoil, which in most cases it doesn't. It also doesn't address the fact that the female shooters using the technique described compete equally with their male counterparts of the same ability level (meaning, it assumes that the technique used allows a female shooter to place as well in A class as other A class shooters). In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu we say that a smaller male or female has superior technique to a bigger, stronger, opponent if that smaller competitor is able to compete equally - if not, then may his or her technique isn't as good...
In my opinion, it's very difficult to say that the images of Jessie and Julie capture their shooting technique. A static picture is rarely useful when describing the nuance of a dynamic activity. I'm sure martians would say that Michael Jordan was good at basketball because of his ability to fly - based solely on the millions of still photographs of him soaring across the court. However, in the images above we don't know if Julie and Jessie are shooting through ports, moving, and so on.
But let's assume that they do lean forward aggressively. It certainly works for them - they are two of the top female shooters in the world. But I would say this: Posture is a function of vision and balance. Reverse that - balance and vision. If someone crouches because he is moving, it is because he needs to do so in order to stay balanced with the kind of knee bend that is best for absorbing shock while shooting on the move. It isn't something that requires conscious thought. If men and women tend to lean forward more or less than each other, it's because of our different centers of gravity. I mentioned vision as well. At a certain point one realizes how incredibly important vision is to shooting at a high level. It's like driving a high performance automobile on a track - any good instructor will talk about the importance of a wide field of view, which is best accomplished by keeping one's head up and looking out the "front" of the eyes. Just like with shooting, beginning drivers tend to try to look out of the "tops" of their eyes, and that restricts their ability to see well. A slightly more upright posture helps with seeing more when shooting, and that is extremely fundamental in both gun games and in a tactical situation (where the need to avoid "tunnel vision" is always stressed in training).
I actually just had a 110 lbs chick in a competition shooting class. She had tiny hands and was running a big glock 34. I advised her the same as I advise a 300 lbs man. Stand comfortably squared up to the targets, have your shoulders in front of your hips (do not have an aggressive forward lean, just a forward weight bias). She was able to make center hits on a 7 yard target while shooting as fast as she could manipulate the trigger.
I have experimented many times with using my body position to try to minimize the effects of recoil. I have really played around with it SHO (where I feel recoil control is a big issue) by leaning way forward and such… I have never actually been able to produce observable and repeatable improvements (as measured by a shot timer) by leaning far forward.
I think that the aggressive forward lean really provides some benefit in tracking the sights during a pressout. The body mechanics in my arms and shoulders are much more favorable to getting the gun leveled out earlier and pressing straight out ("scraping the glass") versus bowling the gun up into position.
(emphasis mine)
This is absolutely incorrect and cannot be based on actually watching real people shooting in real dynamic situations. It's not even limited to shooting. Talk to tennis coaches and they'll tell you that people need to be taught -- and drill -- maintaining proper position when moving in a 360 world. Plenty of people lean forward a little bit when moving forward. But many give that up when moving in other directions, especially while moving backwards. At that point, they bias their center in a way that it becomes far easier to trip, slip, and/or fall.
A drill I use in class illustrates this every time. It involves constant dynamic movement and many people shift their weight backwards when moving backwards... even after being taught to keep a forward crouch and being reminded to do so right before the start of the drill. It takes practice and conscious thought until that body position becomes habituated. The drill in question is something I stole from Scott Warren who for many years was the principal firearms instructor for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. His experience with guys at that level led him to believe it needed training and practice, too.
The problem is dramatically compounded when you leave the competition grid -- which is specifically scrubbed to avoid trip and fall hazards -- and step into a real room, onto a real sidewalk, etc. It's further compounded when foot speed becomes part of the equation. When playing games, it's almost always better to move slowly and shoot quickly within a very small segment of the path. Outside of games, moving very slowly doesn't accomplish much that's useful.
Kind of along the same lines as Todd's most recent comments..........
Leaning forward or aggressive forward lean, or whatever you choose to call it, or how you choose to describe it may or may not affect your shooting. If you strictly play games with guns, then no problem.
But away from the game, having an aggressive stance, while slightly fatiguing, will pay dividends. Taking a punch to the face is never a fun way to begin your evening, but try it standing straight up. You will quickly find yourself attempting to shoot from the flat of your back, at least from anyone who knows how to punch.
Certainly there are many factors that will influence whether you finish that fight standing up, from the ground, or not at all...... but stance is one of them.
Big +1 here.
Several years of MMA and combatives has pretty much ensured that I stand in basically a Muay Thai stance naturally while shooting. I've tried to stand straight up, but under any kind of stress I revert back to my MT stance. The aggressive stance hasn't seemed to effect my speed and accuracy at, and I have the added bonus of having the same stance when shooting or fighting.
I found that though a lower, more forward aggressive stance was fatiguing at first for me... after dedicated practice it quickly became second nature and is now not uncomfortable at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW1zb...eature=related
The link is two top Muay Thai fighters going at it. They stand pretty straight up, tucked chin notwithstanding (which is tucked for defensive purposes, not because it lets them punch or kick or see better).
Do you know what happens when one of them falls down (which happened repeatedly in that video)? The fight stops until they get back up. I fail to see the correlation to a real fight.
Anyway, I'm not interested in yet another round 'n round with you. Believe and do what you want. God bless America.