Welcome to the pistol-forum.com.
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89
  1. #21
    harden the f#ck up
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    TEXAS
    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.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton"

    Co-Owner-Hardwired Tactical Shooting

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by nyeti View Post
    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.
    .
    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?
    Last edited by GJM; 06-03-2012 at 01:09 AM. Reason: Add "for shooting" to clarify post

  3. #23
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sioux Falls
    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.
    Gun Nuts Media
    My father used to say that not playing to win is like sleeping with your sister. Sure she's a great piece of tail, with a blouse full of goodies, but... it's just illegal. -Topper Harley

  4. #24
    #00
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Quote Originally Posted by caleb View Post
    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


    Julie Golob, compensated gun


    Jessie Harrison, Limited gun


    Jessie Harrison, compensated rimfire


    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.
    Donate to Rampage For The Cure!
    Todd Louis Green, pistol-training.com Train hard & stay safe!
    "Speed is the essence of war."
    Sun Tzu | Sometimes the fastest way to get fast is to go faster.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    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:
    What are the advantages or standing upright? I usually stand fairly upright but that was always just a comfort thing.

  6. #26
    STAFF
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Stoeger View Post
    What are the advantages or standing upright? I usually stand fairly upright but that was always just a comfort thing.
    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.

  7. #27
    harden the f#ck up
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    TEXAS
    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.
    "If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton"

    Co-Owner-Hardwired Tactical Shooting

  8. #28
    STAFF
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    The flashlight discussion has been split:
    http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...ght-Techniques

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    its on the line, NOVA
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    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


    Julie Golob, compensated gun


    Jessie Harrison, Limited gun


    Jessie Harrison, compensated rimfire


    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 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).

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Logout