Last edited by joshs; 02-07-2012 at 06:43 PM.
Looking at police shooting videos and what little military experience I have seen with pistols, I think that the point shooting guys and Bill Rogers have a more room to argue than the Modern Shooting vis Competitive shooting argument. Lotta rounds going down range missing the target in LE shootings using Modern/isoc techniques and military pistol work is a lot of one hand situations.
Proactive: the Iso has proven to be a faster way of getting accurate rounds on target.
Reactive: the natural response to an impending fight is to square up towards the threat, there are multiple examples of well trained Weaver shooters who end up in a suspiciously Iso-esque stance under stress.
For those who wear body armor Weaver exposes the weaker side seams of the armor where Iso puts the greatest protection front and center.
What advantage does Weaver have over Iso?
Point of clarification- I beleive Scotty Reitz was involves in 5 seperate incidents. I do not believe the assertion was he went 5 on 1
and prevailed using a 7-8 shoot 1911 in Weaver.
IMVHO, the martial art of pistol craft continues to significantly evolves given its relative youth and the following (my list is by no means inclusive):
Anything involving bodily movement when performed at its highest level (i.e. dance, basketball, baseball, boxing, golf etc.) level does not look the same in 2012 as it did in 1982, pistolcraft should be no different. In short, its evolving because mosts things simply do, particularly involving movement.
As we have developed more veterans who wore body armor and the use of body armor is now a daily part of nearlly all officers' lives, one's default shooting stance has "squared up" as a consequence of conciously (and subconciously I suspect) wanting to the most/best armor forward toward the threat(s). Coincidently, this combat/crime threat driver was also rather close in time to the explosion of shooting sports and that arena's adoption of the modern iso via Enos, Leatham, Barhart, Plaxco etc.
I would assert that the most well know link between the Modern Technique and the continued evolution of the martial art of pistolcraft would be Tom Givens. He was a first generation student of Jeff Cooper's who has spent a considerable amout of his time, talent and treasure for the betterment of the art. Tom has grown and evolved as the art has evolved be it weapon choice (1911 to Glock), stance (less bladed), drawstroke (higher and faster into the eye sight line tracking toward the target) etc.
True Masters of their day used the best tools available in their day. I would humbly assert that if If Bach were alive today, he would use multiple keyboard synthesisers, not just a piano, harpsicord or pipe organ. If Shakespeare were alive today he (or perhaps Francis Bacon) would write using an Apple MacBook or a PC Ultrabook, not a ink pen on parchment.
Cooper and his cadre cracked the gunfighting code in many ways to include using a two handed grip and a semiautomatic pistol. In their heyday, that really meant choosing between a 1911 or a Browning Hi-Power, each using FMJ, arguably the best tools of the day. Not surprisingly, Cooper had distinct prediliiction for the .45 as hollowpoints either did not exist or did not reliably expand.
Today, I dare say, if he was starting today, in 2012, Cooper would be much more enthusiastic about non 1911 platforms, tritium night sights, weapon mounted lights, 5th generation HST/Gold Dot/Ranger T hollowpont effectiveness in non .45 calibers (I am defining the generations as follows:1-Hy Vel, 2-Sivertips, 3-Hydra-Shok, 4-Black Talon 5-HST/Gold Dot/Ranger T ) and shooting from a more squared up, head forward, lower shouldered stance which puts your best body armor forward and more closy comports with how we tend to react to the stimulae of getting shoot at/shooting at someone with a pistol as evidenced by the hundreds of dash cams capturing police officers going from 0 to Max in a split second.
YMMV Greatly. Be safe and well.
"There's a lot of middle between them, but not much middle ground." - Haraise
Clint Smith isn't married to any technique. You'll know that within the first 5 minutes on the range with him.
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Who was it who said something along the lines of, "A shooting match isn't a gunfight, but a gunfight is definitely a shooting match."? Cirillo?
None of that is in print. I understand that you might question the entire validity of somebody posting something like this on the web, but I personally have no reason not to believe the guy. I think what you refer to as competition techniques has long become fight-winning techniques, documented or not.
Doesn't "fight stopping technique" = "shooting them accurately with a pistol as quickly as possible"?
So, let's see---draw, fast accurate shooting----how about Steel Challenge matches? (Can't really say "afoot" there, or use it as a strawman argument either.) On the other hand, if you want to argue Steel Challenge isn't realistic because "they are just standing there, and should be moving to cover/getting off the X" doesn't that actually argue FOR the "fastest afoot" techniques?
Don't see many Weaver shooters in Steel Challenge.
I think that calling the Weaver stance/platform a "proven fight stopping technique" separate from one of those "competition techniques" makes very little sense. (Indeed, didn't the Weaver first start from competitions? Why yes, it did.) And the dig about how Weaver works better for shooting full-power ammo versus those (apparently wimpy) 9mm loads makes no sense either, else all those people at the SingleStack Nationals would probably do things a bit differently.
As a comment there--Rob Leatham isn't exactly incredibly fast on his feet. (Even with his new knees.) And yet, oddly enough, his particularly shooting stance seems to hold him in good stead.
I was going to post more, because as I thought about it more, the above argument made less and less sense to me. However, I decided that it wasn't worth it---because it is obvious that controlling the gun, getting it on target accurately as quickly as possible, and managing recoil to allow follow up shots as fast as possible, are all the goals of any shooting platform, and the one thing that has been made obvious over the last 20 years is that the Weaver stance is good. And the current "competition technique" is better.
Can people be excellent shots with the Weaver? Sure. Can they adequately defend themselves? Sure. Could the same people with the same amount of training time and practice probably do even better with those dratted modern "competition shooting" techniques.
Opinions may vary on that one---but really, as people have said, there is a reason why many top-level competition shooters are hired to teach groups of people for whom guns are tools of the trade. (As an example, Shannon Smith knows that as truth with experience from both sides of the fence.)
(Didn't Enos and Leatham start out by winning at PPC competitions? Not sure how that works out for the "afoot" argument either.)