"The Modern Technique" and "Competition Driven Shooting"

[NickA]

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?

I've heard it from Ayoob, but he may have gotten it from Cirillo.
My thoughts: as mentioned the winning "technique" is multiple fast hits to vital areas; you can argue all day about the best way to get them.
As a relative newb, I think a lot of the pushback against MT has more to do with some of it's blind adherents than the technique itself. When I first got "serious " a few years ago I read a forum post where someone was told they "weren't worthy to speak Colonel Coopers name" when questioning some aspect of his teaching. Now obviously that's a small minority of Cooper's devotees, but when a newb reads stuff like that thoughts of "hokey religions and outdated weapons" start to surface.
For me MT is certainly the foundation of martial pistolcraft as we know it and should be respected as such, but the world moves on, and some things change, and we shouldn't be afraid to change with it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[ford.304]

And to remember that we are talking about the difference between "good" and "better" not "best" and "awful." The Modern Technique has won plenty of gunfights... but then, so did single handed point shooting before that. Practice and experience counts for more than technique. That said, there's little reason to continue practicing "good" once you've discovered "better."

[JAD]

Clint Smith isn't married to any technique. You'll know that within the first 5 minutes on the range with him.

-- Way true. Like I said, I need to go back and look at his basic videos to see what he presents to a tabula rasa. He is very focused on teaching weapon manipulation, tactics, and mindset; he and I had several offline and online instruction interactions regarding those things. He never said anything to me or the people I was with about technique that I can remember, and our only dialogue that might have been about technique went:
{rolls up behind me and studies my pistol for about two minutes while I'm shooting a drill}
"That a lightweight commander?"
"Yeah."
{long pause}
"Nice gun."

I was momentarily troubled by the idea that I was doing such a poor job of controlling recoil that he came over and was about to say something to me. I shot, at that point (2000? 1999?) from a Chapman (put that in your smipe and poke it). I was splitting at about the same pace as the rest of the line and had a group that, as usual in those days, could be covered by a magazine. I shrugged and refocused on weapon manipulation, tactics, and mindset. I got an awful lot out of that class, and the others I've taken with Clint since.

[JAD]

Lumping all the developments and changes that have occurred in the last 40 years into "Modern Technique" -- especially when so many of those changes are diametrically different from the Modern Technique way of doing things -- is just a semantics game it seems to me.

Okeydoke. Equivocation is only fallacious if the two elements are truly disparate, and I guess that's a matter of perspective. There are awesome instructors to whom I plan to give money -- Bill Rogers is an example, just to avoid flattery -- who focus on shooting technique, and to them the differences between what they teach and the Morrison MT are probably really important. There are other awesome instructors to whom I will also give (more) money -- Clint, Bill Jeans -- who focus a little less on technique and might not consider that difference to be as significant as the other group. Both perspectives certainly have their place.

For me -- a shooter that could stand improvement in both technique and tactical preparation -- it's useful to divide instructors like that, because I would do myself a service by making sure my training budget gets divided evenly between the two groups. It's a useful line of discussion, and I'm glad this thread came up.

[ToddG]

While I will not go so far as calling people idiots, I do question the comparison of using techniques that have been proven to win shooting matches where the best score is the fastest afoot to those techniques which have been proven to be deadly fight stoppers, and casting the proven fight stopping techniques aside in favor of the competition technques.

We're in complete agreement that you cannot simply look at a competition and assume the winner is also the King of All Badasses. There are quite a few things that happen in USPSA/IDPA type competitions that have very little correlation with violent encounters -- worrying about footwork, preplanned transitions from static target to static target, setups around cover to engage static targets of known position/distance -- and obviously there are countless "things that happen" in violent encounters that get absolutely no play in competition.

However, once it comes time to put rapid accurate hits on a target -- regardless of whether that target is paper or person -- then results are results. The gun doesn't know whether it's being pointed during a game or a gunfight. It's going to recoil the same way regardless. If Weaver-esque technique allowed people to put multiple fast hits on target faster, it would be ruling the competition world as well.

People don't use iso-type stances and aggressive thumbs-forward grips because it gives them bonus points in games. They do it because it's been proven to manage recoil better for multiple rapid shots to a target.

If someone can explain to me how one grip can manage recoil better for a 9mm but will somehow increase recoil for a .45, I'd like to hear it.

Regarding "combat proven," we certainly don't have to look at SOCOM to find successful real world shootings with modern post-MT technique. Look at the FBI, DEA, ATF, FAMs, and I can't even begin to count how many state and local agencies. Look at just about any police shooting/dashcam video. Show me a textbook Weaver stance and I'll give you a dollar.

As others have commented, it's one thing to say "I shoot Weaver and I won a gunfight." It's something altogether different to say "I used Weaver in a gunfight." I've personally witnessed far too many people who think they use Weaver spontaneously and unconsciously revert to a more iso-type style under stress... whether that's been at a match, during FOF, or in OIS video. I'm not suggesting it's never happened, of course. Just that first person accounts of life or death incidents need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Okeydoke. Equivocation is only fallacious if the two elements are truly disparate, and I guess that's a matter of perspective.

In this case I think they are. Speaking at least for myself, when I talk about MT I mean the system as developed by Cooper & Co and taught back at Orange Gunsite. If MT is just "whatever the early Gunsite cadre is teaching these days," then given the hugely disparate foundational techniques between, say, Farnam and Hackathorn, MT means "making gun go bang" and little else. I don't think any of us look at it that way.

I understand the distinction between technique-building classes and classes that seek to cover a broader spectrum (shooting, tactics, mindset, etc.). But if the overwhelming majority of people who focus on technique all seem to gravitate toward a similar approach, that may be a clue.

[Marty Hayes]

. Look at just about any police shooting/dashcam video. Show me a textbook Weaver stance and I'll give you a dollar.
.

What I find interesting about this line of thought, is that in many, many of these dashcam instances, the level of marksmanship is dismal. Is this dismal performance a result of the Isosceles stance, or some other reason? And, if it is some other reason, then does Isos v. Weaver really matter?

[JeffJ]

What I find interesting about this line of thought, is that in many, many of these dashcam instances, the level of marksmanship is dismal. Is this dismal performance a result of the Isosceles stance, or some other reason? And, if it is some other reason, then does Isos v. Weaver really matter?

I would say "some other reason" (lack of training and practice, as well as poor mental condition come to mind) and that it would be dismal no matter which stance the shooter was initially trained on. The reason that Isos v. Weaver matters is that one should strive for the best possible technique. Perhaps not everyone feels this way but I like to do my best - Weaver probably is "good enough" but I'd like to maximize my performance and it's been proven that the techniques that are being used by top competitors and being taught to the top levels of military and law enforcement are more effective at managing recoil allowing faster follow up hits on target.

If performance is going to degrade during a stressfull situation, shouldn't one attempt to achieve the highest level of performance in order to still perform at a high level after degredation.

[Byron]

What I find interesting about this line of thought, is that in many, many of these dashcam instances, the level of marksmanship is dismal. Is this dismal performance a result of the Isosceles stance, or some other reason? And, if it is some other reason, then does Isos v. Weaver really matter?

You seem to be moving the goal posts around a whole lot.

Scott Reitz put down 5 BG's using his .45 1911, and a Weaver stance. Only had to shoot each of them once or twice. That is pretty good work. I would like to see a similar example of the same efficiency using the modern isos. technique and a 9mm.

You list the experiences of one man and challenge that Iso doesn't have the same track record in 'real life' / combat...

So then people pointed out that modern, highly-trained units use Iso and get in gunfights for a living. Your response?

Given the mission of SOCOM is really different than your armed citizen, or even LE, and the equipment/gear that the average special forces soldier would be carring at any given time on a raid, I think the comparison is invalid.

Can you explain why their gear and mission would support an Iso platform, while the gear and mission of a private citizen do not?

Don't get me wrong: I believe there are many mission and gear differences between a citizen and a soldier that will inform technique. That said, I do not see how it would impact Iso/Weaver. Both the soldier as well as the citizen have the option to shoot either Weaver or Iso. If there is really such a huge difference in application between the two, can you please articulate it?

While I will not go so far as calling people idiots, I do question the comparison of using techniques that have been proven to win shooting matches where the best score is the fastest afoot to those techniques which have been proven to be deadly fight stoppers, and casting the proven fight stopping techniques aside in favor of the competition technques.

If that's what was really happening -- a superior combat technique being replaced by an inferior competition technique -- you'd have a point. But the Iso has been proven plenty.

You still haven't articulated what it is about the Iso that is sub-optimal for defensive shooting, or what makes the Weaver superior for this purpose. Can you please specify, rather than just claiming one is for combat and one is for competition?

You keep framing the subject as if people are arguing that Weaver doesn't kill people. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's the most efficient, repeatable, and robust way to do so. Rather than just pointing out that Weaver has won gunfights (which can be said of almost every pistol technique that was ever tried), just explain what is so much better about it.

[ToddG]

What I find interesting about this line of thought, is that in many, many of these dashcam instances, the level of marksmanship is dismal. Is this dismal performance a result of the Isosceles stance, or some other reason? And, if it is some other reason, then does Isos v. Weaver really matter?

I could just as simply suggest that by teaching someone Weaver when we know he'll default to Iso, we've essentially provided him with no training and so when the time came, he was basically untrained. You could just as easily teach someone to yell "lightning bolt! lightning bolt!" ... either way, it's not actually going to happen.

Of course, that's overly harsh as was the initial suggestion. But if we take it as written that the average cop and average CCWer is going to get minimal training and devote minimal (or no) effort to practice, then why not at least make the most of that minimal effort to train in a way that mimics natural stress reaction rather than tries to overcome it?

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Weaver somehow has proved itself "better," if evidence proves that people won't actually use it under terminal stress then who cares? I'm reminded of one of the best lessons I ever received about technique choices from Dale McClellan, former SEAL and one of the original Blackwater instructors when they opened shop:

1. Does it work?
2. Is it necessary?
3. Can I do it under stress?

If the answer to any of those three questions is "no," then the technique isn't worthy.

Perhaps not everyone feels this way but I like to do my best - Weaver probably is "good enough" but I'd like to maximize my performance and it's been proven that the techniques that are being used by top competitors and being taught to the top levels of military and law enforcement are more effective at managing recoil allowing faster follow up hits on target.

I had a student in class in 2010 who is a well known instructor in his region. He's a long time Weaver advocate at a large LE agency that still teaches Weaver . I paired him up with another LEO who had trained with me before and came from an agency that teaches an iso-type shooting technique. When the class was over, the Weaver guy -- who didn't shoot nearly as well as he expected and not nearly as well as the guy I partnered him with -- said to me that while he still thinks Weaver was "good enough" for the average guy, he finally understood that it could have a lower ceiling or lower plateau than the more modern approach.

[Marty Hayes]

\, just explain what is so much better about it.

I don't have the time today to answer the multiple questions in your post, but please understand that I have never said Weaver is better. I did ask to see a similar example as Reitz's, but no one has supplied that for the Isos. crowd. I frankly didn't think they could.