PDA

View Full Version : "The Modern Technique" and "Competition Driven Shooting"



Tony Muhlenkamp
02-07-2012, 03:19 PM
He appears to be a devotee of "The Modern Technique" which is interesting considering the majority of instructors have eschewed for more competition driven shooting techniques. "

I've been told this is a hot topic, but I remain curious. Why are instructors eschewing "The Modern Technique" for more competition driven shooting techniques? Does it relate to the whole "fighting with a gun" thread that was posted a little while ago? And if so, how?

Jay Cunningham
02-07-2012, 03:27 PM
We all know how this one can go, so proceed with caution here.

TGS
02-07-2012, 03:37 PM
I haven't a clue what this topic is (wtf is the "modern technique?"), so I would appreciate it if someone could explain.

JDM
02-07-2012, 03:45 PM
I haven't a clue what this topic is (wtf is the "modern technique?"), so I would appreciate it if someone could explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Technique_of_the_Pistol


...The Modern Technique uses a two-handed grip on the pistol and brings the weapon to eye level, so that the sights may be used to aim at one's target. This technique was developed by Jeff Cooper in the 1950s...Weaver stance...flash sight picture...

JeffJ
02-07-2012, 03:54 PM
I don't think it really relates to the whole "fighting with a gun thing" Older instructors have been using The Modern Technique of the Pistol for a long time and hesitate to change. Cooper developed (or at least articulated and studied the development of) The Modern Technique through competition. At the top level of competition you find people who put an extrodinary amount of rounds down range, are at the pinnacle of technical performance where small differences are both measurable and important, and who are focused and competitive enough to spend a large amount of time analyzing every little bit of their technique. That's why they are at the top. So when developments are made in pistol craft, its probably going to come from competition (note that eltie law enforcement and military units are known to bring in top competition shooters to instruct on shooting.) So while there are certainly a large number of people who dogmatically hold onto The Modern Technique, it has been played out through measurable performance that certain attributes of grip and stance are better than others. When Brian Enos developed the thumbs forward grip it wasn't just to be different - it was to shoot better. When all the top shooters started shooting iso or at least isoish stances it wasn't because somebody told the Weaver wasn't cool anymore - it's because they found that it worked better and led them to winning. Defensive pistolcraft is a very young martial art that has gone through revolutionary changes in technique and equipment in past 50 years. I think that anyone who takes a snapshot in time whether it be 1975 or 2012 and decides that all knowledge after that point in unneccesary is naive at best. The same could be said for those that outright dismiss the pioneer's that came before them and helped get things to where they are.

Keep in mind, Cooper and his ilk where dealing with the revolutionary idea of putting both hands on the gun and using the sights on close targets, to me that's the modern technique (note lack of capitalization) grip and stance are just further refinements down the road of improvement.

TCinVA
02-07-2012, 03:57 PM
I've been told this is a hot topic, but I remain curious. Why are instructors eschewing "The Modern Technique" for more competition driven shooting techniques? Does it relate to the whole "fighting with a gun" thread that was posted a little while ago? And if so, how?

In broadest terms, the modern iso technique has proven to be more efficient at controlling a handgun than the modern technique/Weaver technique/etc. It offers superior control of recoil and the ability to get shots on target faster.

That being said, there are plenty of people who have won gunfights with the modern technique/Weaver technique/etc because in a gunfight lots of things matter a lot more than whether or not you're using the most efficient possible technique for controlling a handgun.

Which side of the fence people come down on often relates to their training and experience. A lot of folks were brought into shooting under the shadow of Col. Cooper, either directly through his training or through contact with the scores of trainers in law enforcement and civilian world who were largely influenced by the Col. Lots of folks became quite good at hitting a target on demand using the modern/Weaver/etc technique, even to the point of prevailing over bad guys in armed conflict. For such folks the idea of switching away from something they've invested a lot of precious training hours in to gain an arguably theoretical advantage in shooting bad guys to the point of stopping their nonsense might not hold lots of appeal even if Rob Leatham can shoot faster than they can.

orionz06
02-07-2012, 03:58 PM
Hell of a post, Jeff.

JHC
02-07-2012, 03:59 PM
And it seems like a useful clue that the people who've done the most fighting with a gun seem to predominantly use the iso approach vs the weaver. Cooper used to rail against the public sector shooters but that was in a galaxy long long ago.

ToddG
02-07-2012, 04:35 PM
The "Modern Technique" (more appropriately "Weaver" these days, as it is anything but modern) was revolutionary and critical to the widespread acceptance of serious, objectively measured practical shooting. I don't care whether you think of practical shooting as IPSC or gunfights, being able to hit what you want, where you want, when you want, as many times as you want is an important practical skill.

But as Jeff pointed out above, over time new developments came to the fore. Most serious shooters don't hold the pistol in a thumb-over-thumb grip anymore. Most don't use a Weaver stance. Most don't believe in the "speed rock" as a close quarters technique. Etc. There have been any number of evolutionary changes since MT was the dominant force in handgunning.

If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.

jetfire
02-07-2012, 04:41 PM
If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.

/thread

SecondsCount
02-07-2012, 04:48 PM
If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.

Good stuff.

JAD
02-07-2012, 05:55 PM
The "Modern Technique" (more appropriately "Weaver" these days, as it is anything but modern)
Not to demure too much -- Jeff's post was right on and really said all that needed said -- but I think The Modern Technique of the Pistol is pretty well documented. There's a whole book on it (same title, worth a read for some probably, at least for historical interest). The Weaver technique of controlling recoil is an element of it; I don't think I can agree that it was the sum of it. Most serious shooters are still mostly using the Modern Technique. Lots of serious shooters use elements that have evolved since the last time it was well codified: more lateral tension in the Weaver, the press-out, stuff like that. The Modern Technique evolves, on a continual basis, and I'm not aware of anyone who's taken Colonel Cooper's place in codifying that evolution.

Not at all to disagree with the general thrust of Todd's post -- just to make sure the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater, as it were.

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 06:19 PM
The problem rests in what people percieve is the test of technique worthiness. If one judges pistol technique on whether or not said technique wins IPSC or IDPA matches, using the equipment of choice for these endeavors, then by all means, the modern competition driving shooting techniques are the clear winner.

But, if one tests shooting technique in the real world of solving life and death encounters, using more powerful handguns than light 9mm's, there is still a whole lot to be said for the "modern technique."

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.

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 06:22 PM
The Modern Technique evolves, on a continual basis, and I'm not aware of anyone who's taken Colonel Cooper's place in codifying that evolution..

I think Chuck Taylor and Clint Smith have worked in evolving the Modern Technique from their days at Gunsite, to now.

orionz06
02-07-2012, 06:24 PM
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.

What was the key to his victory? Pushing and pulling, a dipped elbow, a "fighting stance", or well placed shots that could have been made with any of the commonly argued about stances?

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 06:25 PM
And it seems like a useful clue that the people who've done the most fighting with a gun seem to predominantly use the iso approach vs the weaver.

Who would these people be?

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 06:26 PM
What was the key to his victory? Pushing and pulling, a dipped elbow, a "fighting stance", or well placed shots that could have been made with any of the commonly argued about stances?

You would have to ask him, but interestingly, at least a couple of his shootings occured while using the Harries Flashlight Technique.

JDM
02-07-2012, 06:29 PM
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.

This may be a red herring.

Are there any documented instances of 5 on 1 gunfights where the good guy was armed with a 9mm and shooting Iso?

Are there many 5 on 1 shooting incidents at all?

Knowing what we know about modern JHP performance, and how tiny the terminal differences are between the modern service calibers, is there any reason an officer of similar capability as officer Reitz, albeit using different methods (iso and 9mm high-cap), wouldn't be able to accomplish the same feat?

JAD
02-07-2012, 06:34 PM
I think Chuck Taylor and Clint Smith have worked in evolving the Modern Technique from their days at Gunsite, to now.

Clint is doing a good job of producing very usable videos, and is writing good articles, and is actively teaching; in that sense, he's codifying and documenting. I guess I was trying to think of someone who is documenting the changes in shooting technique that have been adopted in consensus; maybe there really isn't consensus yet. Enos has certainly written a very good book on shooting technique; I'm not sure it's so good that it replaces Morrisson's book.

I need to rewatch Clint's basic stuff to see what he's saying about the MT elements; the classes I've taken from him have skimmed right past shooting technique and focused on stuff he seemed to think was more important.

My point, I guess, is that the serious shooters I'm aware of -- the SMEs on this forum, for example -- are using, and evolving, the Modern Technique. I'm denying that it's changed enough to warrant calling it something different, just because the tension vector has changed slightly in the grip and we have four counts in our drawstroke now instead of five.

JDM
02-07-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm denying that it's changed enough to warrant calling it something different, just because the tension vector has changed slightly in the grip and we have four counts in our drawstroke now instead of five.

Good post.

What we are doing today is different from the Weaver heavy shooting of yore, but not nearly the departure from its predecessor that MT was from whatever they called what they did before MT.

David Armstrong
02-07-2012, 06:43 PM
But, if one tests shooting technique in the real world of solving life and death encounters, using more powerful handguns than light 9mm's, there is still a whole lot to be said for the "modern technique."
Marty hits on a good point, one worth remembering. At the time, all this fancy high performance designer ammo wasn't readily available, and the Modern Technique was designed around controlling heavy-recoiling rounds as those were seen (rightly or wrongly) as much better for defensive purposes. I will still revert to MT for a LW .45 with GI ammo, or a K-frame with 125 .357s in it.

Tony Muhlenkamp
02-07-2012, 06:51 PM
Enos has certainly written a very good book on shooting technique; I'm not sure it's so good that it replaces Morrisson's book.

My point, I guess, is that the serious shooters I'm aware of -- the SMEs on this forum, for example -- are using, and evolving, the Modern Technique. I'm denying that it's changed enough to warrant calling it something different, just because the tension vector has changed slightly in the grip and we have four counts in our drawstroke now instead of five.

Do you have titles for these books? I am still building a library.

Interesing point about evolution. At what point do refinements and evolutions become a completely different technique? If the elements of the modern technique are two handed grip, fighting stance (Iso or Weaver or some hybrid of both), compressed trigger break, and flash sight picture then isn't it all just variations on the theme?

It will be interesting to ask Scott Reitz whether he thinks he teaches the Modern Technique, and if so, why.

David Armstrong
02-07-2012, 06:52 PM
Are there any documented instances of 5 on 1 gunfights where the good guy was armed with a 9mm and shooting Iso?
I'm having trouble pulling the name up, but IIRC a South African tank commander on a border op climbed out of his hatch and took out 7 terrs armed with AK with 8 shots from his Star BK 9mm. Don't think it fits into the traditional gunfight scenario, but given their training I'm pretty sure he was shooting ISso.

ToddG
02-07-2012, 06:52 PM
My point, I guess, is that the serious shooters I'm aware of -- the SMEs on this forum, for example -- are using, and evolving, the Modern Technique.

That's classic equivocation (in the logical fallacy sense). You're choosing to call everything that works "Modern Technique." But the Modern Technique was fairly strict in its technique and application. It's that Modern Technique that most people mean when they use the term. Someone can call a modern iso without the bladed Weaver stance, without the push-pull arm tension, without the grip, etc. "Modern Technique" if they want, but that's just silly in my opinion. I don't teach -- or use -- a modification of the Modern Technique. I teach -- and use -- something that is dramatically different in many ways from it. Are we still lining up the sights and pressing the trigger? Sure. But people were doing that before Modern Technique existed, too.

There's a book that pretty well codifies what Modern Technique is. I can't think of its name right now... :D

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. If you're teaching modern iso or some variant thereof, you're not teaching Modern Technique.

ToddG
02-07-2012, 06:55 PM
Marty hits on a good point, one worth remembering. At the time, all this fancy high performance designer ammo wasn't readily available, and the Modern Technique was designed around controlling heavy-recoiling rounds as those were seen (rightly or wrongly) as much better for defensive purposes. I will still revert to MT for a LW .45 with GI ammo, or a K-frame with 125 .357s in it.

Cannot agree with this. The "it's good for games but not for real" or "works with 9mm but not .45" thing simply doesn't prove true. Ask Rob Leatham or Dave Sevigny what grip and stance they use when they need to get the fastest most accurate hits with a full power .45 or 10mm pistol. It's not going to be thumb-over-thumb Weaver.

Everyone here who's shot 50k rounds of full power .45 in one year raise their hand. I certainly didn't switch to Weaver/MT to do it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl4tbMHF3xk

JHC
02-07-2012, 06:58 PM
Who would these people be?

That would be: Who is SOCOM

Not a mention of the weaver in Ken Hackathorn's Adv Tactical Handgun in Dec '11. How much this has changed (and really become almost settled case law) that this didn't even occur to me until just now; seeing that I shot weaver in the '70's and '80's.

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 06:59 PM
This may be a red herring.

Are there any documented instances of 5 on 1 gunfights where the good guy was armed with a 9mm and shooting Iso?

Are there many 5 on 1 shooting incidents at all?

Knowing what we know about modern JHP performance, and how tiny the terminal differences are between the modern service calibers, is there any reason an officer of similar capability as officer Reitz, albeit using different methods (iso and 9mm high-cap), wouldn't be able to accomplish the same feat?

Sorry to mislead. Five different encounters.

JDM
02-07-2012, 07:03 PM
Sorry to mislead. Five different encounters.

Copy that.

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 07:09 PM
That would be: Who is SOCOM
.

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. Furthermore, you gave no specifics, although Reitz certainly does in his book.

Marty Hayes
02-07-2012, 07:16 PM
If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.

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.

joshs
02-07-2012, 07:35 PM
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.

Wouldn't using this logic have precluded the shift to Modern Technique from one handed instinctive shooting. Modern Technique was developed in a competitive environment and at that time the one handed unsighted fire techniques were "proven fight stopping techniques."

cutter
02-07-2012, 07:41 PM
Cannot agree with this. The "it's good for games but not for real" or "works with 9mm but not .45" thing simply doesn't prove true. Ask Rob Leatham or Dave Sevigny what grip and stance they use when they need to get the fastest most accurate hits with a full power .45 or 10mm pistol. It's not going to be thumb-over-thumb Weaver.


I'm on the slow path over the last 2 years changing from a Weaver grip and stance to the isoc after shooting a 1911 with Mil Ball since 1978 or so. Anecdotally, It seems that I am able to get faster splits and have a much better driving the gun sensation that with the Weaver.

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.

JodyH
02-07-2012, 07:42 PM
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?

vcdgrips
02-07-2012, 07:45 PM
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.

David Barnes

JodyH
02-07-2012, 07:51 PM
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.
Jelly Bryce is credited with winning 19 gun fights in the line of duty, he was a one handed hip shooter with a .44 revolver.

JHC
02-07-2012, 07:55 PM
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. Furthermore, you gave no specifics, although Reitz certainly does in his book.

OK, but I agree with my friend Matt Edwards. Once one has to start shooting a pistol to win a gunfight, our tasks are now so similiar, comparisons are quite valid. But I respect your point of view.

NETim
02-07-2012, 08:22 PM
Clint Smith isn't married to any technique. You'll know that within the first 5 minutes on the range with him.

DonovanM
02-07-2012, 08:36 PM
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?

YVK
02-07-2012, 08:40 PM
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. Furthermore, you gave no specifics, although Reitz certainly does in his book.

Given NDAs, OPSEC, PERSEC etc, I can quite easily see how documentation of many encounters is non-existent. Not everybody wants to write a book or have a monthly article in S.W.A.T. There is a popular instructor from a Tier One unit who has told us a story of using his 1911 and, obviously, winning. He shoots iso.
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.

jthhapkido
02-07-2012, 08:55 PM
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.

Hm.

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.

Yep.

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.)

BaiHu
02-07-2012, 09:31 PM
First, I'm learning a lot reading this thread, so thanks for everyone's input.

Second I'd like to weigh in from a professional/expert side of my own craft (it is irrelevant what I do, b/c we're all experts in our chosen craft and understand efficiency/proficiency).

If I teach someone, I teach them a) the best I know and b) the IDEAL PERFECT TECHNIQUE of what I know. I don't give them 99 versions of a single technique for all of life's possibilities. I simply teach them the 'in a vacuum' method first. Once they are proficient with that, I move on to other variables (out of the vacuum) so that they will become efficient with the technique no matter the scenario. I might even show ideal transitions so that they can become proficient in transitioning within said technique.

To remove any vagary, it seems that no matter what someone teaches as an 'ideal', there will come a time where you cannot possibly perform the ideal, but all the practice that you put behind that ideal technique will allow you to be spontaneously efficient at that very moment when it counts.

This, IMO, is the essence of a technique evolving and becoming organic for a practitioner. My teacher taught me his way, I teach my students my way and so on and so forth. None of us were 'wrong' and none of the techniques were 'wrong', but with every new variable and piece of information there will be an evolution to better fit each successive generation of practitioner.

Odin Bravo One
02-07-2012, 09:55 PM
T

......... 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.

Documented case where an assaulter ended up engaged with four men armed with rifles (AK's & M4/M16). After being shot multiple times (27 impacts IIRC), through armor, extremities, through his carbine (rendering it inoperable), assaulter draws 9mm pistol and kills all 4 rifle wielding men. He was then engaged by one additional threat armed with a rifle, and dispatched him as well. With his 9mm pistol.

DocGKR
02-07-2012, 10:08 PM
But...was the victorious assaulter using iso or weaver???

JodyH
02-07-2012, 10:15 PM
But...was the victorious assaulter using iso or weaver???
He was using the "Force".

SLG
02-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Documented case where an assaulter ended up engaged with four men armed with rifles (AK's & M4/M16). After being shot multiple times (27 impacts IIRC), through armor, extremities, through his carbine (rendering it inoperable), assaulter draws 9mm pistol and kills all 4 rifle wielding men. He was then engaged by one additional threat armed with a rifle, and dispatched him as well. With his 9mm pistol.

I was hoping you'd bring that up:-) Of course said assaulter was only able to accomplish that because it was a wimpy 9mm. If it had REAL recoil, I'm sure he would have used weaver;-)

Obviously, one example does not prove a techniques validity, but there are many more examples, over the last ten years, of guys using their pistols based on "competition techniques". Much of competition is not useful for fighting, but some of it is, and it is that "some" that has been winning fights for our warriors for some time now. As others have pointed out, MT came from competition. So does our current stuff. You just have to sort through the chaff to find the wheat.

On another point that some one brought up, little of the MT is still being used by current high level shooters, whether they are competition or combat oriented. I'm a serious fan of Cooper. A devotee, you might even say. However...the weaver stance? Nope. The flash sight picture? Nope. The compressed surprise break? Sort of. Th presentation? Not the way that Cooper understood it. The heavy duty self loading pistol? Of course, but not in the original sense either. I carry a gun that Cooper would certainly agree with, but given the ammo available today, our understanding of terminal ballistics, and our understanding of training, a better definition of the HDP would be a pistol in 9mm (or greater caliber) that will shoot and shoot and shoot, while needing very little maintenance. See pistol-training.com if you don't know what I'm talking about.

NETim
02-07-2012, 10:23 PM
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

:)

jstyer
02-07-2012, 11:31 PM
Siddle, along with PPCT Research Publications, published a study in 1995 that revealed that officers trained strictly in the weaver stance, during spontaneous shooting scenarios under ten feet, defaulted almost exclusively to an isocelese stance.

With the distribution being: 96.7% of shooters instinctively defaulted to an isoceles position while only 3.3% retained weaver.

In spontaneous shooting scenarios over ten feet that number only changed to 92.6% iso and 7.4% weaver.

So it would appear that like it or not, in a gunfight you're gonna shoot isoceles :cool:

SLG
02-07-2012, 11:38 PM
Siddle, along with PPCT Research Publications, published a study in 1995 that revealed that officers trained strictly in the weaver stance, during spontaneous shooting scenarios under ten feet, defaulted almost exclusively to an isocelese stance.

With the distribution being: 96.7% of shooters instinctively defaulted to an isoceles position while only 3.3% retained weaver.

In spontaneous shooting scenarios over ten feet that number only changed to 92.6% iso and 7.4% weaver.

So it would appear that like it or not, in a gunfight you're gonna shoot isoceles :cool:

Though I happen to agree with the above (mostly) I will say that Siddle has some, ahem, interesting, ideas on what constitutes research, as well as some bizarre conclusions that are not supported by the reality that I've seen. A few years ago, after a teammate and I talked to him for about 5 minutes, and explained that everyone we worked with was capable of doing things that he said were physically impossible under stress, he then said something like, "Well, my research is for the average person, not guys who train as much as you do." He also said that Rob Leatham was an exception as well, so I took that as a compliment:-) If there are all these exceptions, why say it isn't possible? What's the value in that?

jstyer
02-08-2012, 09:36 AM
Though I happen to agree with the above (mostly) I will say that Siddle has some, ahem, interesting, ideas on what constitutes research, as well as some bizarre conclusions that are not supported by the reality that I've seen. A few years ago, after a teammate and I talked to him for about 5 minutes, and explained that everyone we worked with was capable of doing things that he said were physically impossible under stress, he then said something like, "Well, my research is for the average person, not guys who train as much as you do." He also said that Rob Leatham was an exception as well, so I took that as a compliment:-) If there are all these exceptions, why say it isn't possible? What's the value in that?

Many thanks for the value added info SLG. I'm not really familiar with Siddle, I read an excerpt of this study in "Warrior Mindset" by Asken, Grossman, and Christensen. A pretty good book about the effects of stress in a combat situation.

beltjones
02-08-2012, 09:45 AM
Good discussion. Are there any Center Axis Relock instructors here who can speak to the efficacy of this technique at ranges of 6 feet and under? I've seen a lot of videos on youtube of British lads who are able to put together some really good groups on 2 yard targets using this method. :p:p:p

NickA
02-08-2012, 10:10 AM
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
02-08-2012, 10:21 AM
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
02-08-2012, 10:21 AM
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
02-08-2012, 10:30 AM
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
02-08-2012, 11:40 AM
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
02-08-2012, 12:10 PM
. 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
02-08-2012, 12:23 PM
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
02-08-2012, 12:35 PM
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
02-08-2012, 12:47 PM
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
02-08-2012, 01:00 PM
\, 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.

orionz06
02-08-2012, 01:01 PM
Has anyone ever switched from an Iso-type stance to Weaver?

Marty Hayes
02-08-2012, 01:06 PM
todd:

As with Byron, my time is limited today. But, I do question the wisdom of using examples of poor untrained shooters using isosceles as a reason not to teach Weaver. In those dashcam videos that everyone is so happy to use as examples, what is the level of training of those officers? I think that question needs to be answered before those examples can be put into proper context.

Marty Hayes
02-08-2012, 01:07 PM
Has anyone ever switched from an Iso-type stance to Weaver?

Jim Cirillo comes to mind...

ToddG
02-08-2012, 01:19 PM
Marty, I'm going to suggest that rather than asking more questions, you wait until you have time to respond to the questions that have already been asked regarding your position. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion otherwise.

jetfire
02-08-2012, 01:24 PM
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.

Uh, yeah they did. In this thread, even. It's right here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3055-quot-The-Modern-Technique-quot-and-quot-Competition-Driven-Shooting-quot&p=51093&viewfull=1#post51093).

peterb
02-08-2012, 01:31 PM
As with Byron, my time is limited today. But, I do question the wisdom of using examples of poor untrained shooters using isosceles as a reason not to teach Weaver. In those dashcam videos that everyone is so happy to use as examples, what is the level of training of those officers? I think that question needs to be answered before those examples can be put into proper context.

Under stress we become strong and clumsy. Unless highly trained, most people will default to simple behaviors when threatened: Face threat! Grip hard! Extend toward target! One of the early arguments for Isosceles was that it took advantage of these "natural" responses instead of requiring the less "natural" push/pull of Weaver.

Keeping one's ballistic vest square to the threat is also a major consideration in modern training. Pointing an unprotected armhole/side at a threat negates the effectiveness of most body armor.

Nobody is arguing that Weaver is ineffective when properly used. But given the level of training that the average patrol officer receives, it is unrealistic to expect them to be successful with it on the street.

David Armstrong
02-08-2012, 02:20 PM
From Todd:
Cannot agree with this. The "it's good for games but not for real" or "works with 9mm but not .45" thing simply doesn't prove true. Ask Rob Leatham or Dave Sevigny what grip and stance they use when they need to get the fastest most accurate hits with a full power .45 or 10mm pistol. It's not going to be thumb-over-thumb Weaver.

You might note that is why there is a parenthetical "rightly or wrongly" qualifier in there. I agree it doesn't prove true, at least among the higher echelons in particular. But at the time that was the doctrine, and given the state of training and education in the field at the time the MT was built up around that belief which does have a fair amount of support, as one notices when teaching new shooters.

David Armstrong
02-08-2012, 02:32 PM
Clint Smith isn't married to any technique. You'll know that within the first 5 minutes on the range with him.
And that is an example of how times, ideas, and thinking changes. I was in one of the first classes at TR Texas, and the MT was very much the preferred stance at that time. Years later, not so much emphasis on a particular stance as being needed to work, lots more emphasis on any stance is OK as long as it works.

David Armstrong
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
Has anyone ever switched from an Iso-type stance to Weaver?
I started training and using Iso, then was trained and used MT, and have gone back to Iso for most stuff.

JodyH
02-08-2012, 05:48 PM
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.
I posted an example of a man who won 19 gunfights between 1927-1940 with the old one-handed hip shot technique (with a .44 revolver no less).
But you won't find many people in 2012 claiming it's the best way to fight.
Fact is people like Jelly Bryce and Scott Reitz are anomalies, they are the perfect storm of an exceptionally skilled shooter engaging in multiple gunfights during their career.
The vast majority of LEO's never fire a shot during their career much less engage in multiple gunfights, naming any individual from the past 20 years who's prevailed in 5+ multiple documented gunfights is a daunting task.
Saying Scott Reitz winning 5 gunfights using Weaver is proof of something is like saying because I once made a hole in one playing golf, then everybody should mimic my swing.

Corey
02-08-2012, 07:12 PM
I am not by any means an SME in anything, but I did spend 5 years at Gunsite back in the day (sounds like I was serving a sentence instead of trying to make a living). The Modern Technique was called that because it was new and improved at the time. Guys were competing and testing to see what worked better than the way it had been done before. Jeff Cooper did an excellent job codifying it and developing a system to effectively teach it to a lot of people. Where Cooper (and others) fell short was they found a way that worked better than what was used before and then they stopped searching for a better way. In many ways the Modern Technique was an evolution and evolution continues whether we like it or not.

More people are putting more rounds downrange and are more carefully documenting, recording, and sharing results than ever before. Just as what is acceptable in terms of reliability and durability in pistols has changed over the last 40 years as a result of this, perceptions of what is a good shooter has changed as well. What was considered expert level ability with a gun 40 years ago would not be nearly as impressive today. This increase in overall skill level and sharing of hard won knowledge is something that benefits anyone willing to take advantage of it. If anything it means that evolution in techniques and training are happening even faster. To deliberately stay in the past when we know so much more than we did 40 years ago is foolish.

Todd’s reference to “Orange Gunsite” gave me Cooper flashbacks. Anybody remember reading the term “isosceleaters” in Cooper’s Corner back in the day? I remember hearing the sneering tone of voice he used when he said it out loud. I also remember years later hearing him say something to the effect that “if you get the hits you need in the time available, then whether you used Weaver or Isosceles doesn’t really matter”. While he could be dogmatic and stubborn most of the time, he did on some level recognize that time marches on and techniques change. If he thought the Weaver vs. Iso argument was getting old by the end of his time, he probably would have found it silly by now.

JHC
02-08-2012, 07:53 PM
I am not by any means an SME in anything, but I did spend 5 years at Gunsite back in the day (sounds like I was serving a sentence instead of trying to make a living). The Modern Technique was called that because it was new and improved at the time. Guys were competing and testing to see what worked better than the way it had been done before. Jeff Cooper did an excellent job codifying it and developing a system to effectively teach it to a lot of people. Where Cooper (and others) fell short was they found a way that worked better than what was used before and then they stopped searching for a better way. In many ways the Modern Technique was an evolution and evolution continues whether we like it or not.

More people are putting more rounds downrange and are more carefully documenting, recording, and sharing results than ever before. Just as what is acceptable in terms of reliability and durability in pistols has changed over the last 40 years as a result of this, perceptions of what is a good shooter has changed as well. What was considered expert level ability with a gun 40 years ago would not be nearly as impressive today. This increase in overall skill level and sharing of hard won knowledge is something that benefits anyone willing to take advantage of it. If anything it means that evolution in techniques and training are happening even faster. To deliberately stay in the past when we know so much more than we did 40 years ago is foolish.

Todd’s reference to “Orange Gunsite” gave me Cooper flashbacks. Anybody remember reading the term “isosceleaters” in Cooper’s Corner back in the day? I remember hearing the sneering tone of voice he used when he said it out loud. I also remember years later hearing him say something to the effect that “if you get the hits you need in the time available, then whether you used Weaver or Isosceles doesn’t really matter”. While he could be dogmatic and stubborn most of the time, he did on some level recognize that time marches on and techniques change. If he thought the Weaver vs. Iso argument was getting old by the end of his time, he probably would have found it silly by now.

I wish I had met him. I also remember around the late '90's I think when he actually started acknowledging some folks were performing pretty well with Glocks.

agent-smith
02-08-2012, 08:24 PM
If he thought the Weaver vs. Iso argument was getting old by the end of his time, he probably would have found it silly by now.

Especially after reading this thread.

LittleLebowski
02-08-2012, 08:36 PM
Documented case where an assaulter ended up engaged with four men armed with rifles (AK's & M4/M16). After being shot multiple times (27 impacts IIRC), through armor, extremities, through his carbine (rendering it inoperable), assaulter draws 9mm pistol and kills all 4 rifle wielding men. He was then engaged by one additional threat armed with a rifle, and dispatched him as well. With his 9mm pistol.

Running ball too, I'll bet.

Tamara
02-08-2012, 09:20 PM
If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.

Y'know, just because Wilbur Wright couldn't fly (or even imagine) an F-22 Raptor in no way diminishes his importance to aviation history. I mean, who was the Wright Brothers' flight instructor? ;)

Tony Muhlenkamp
02-08-2012, 10:34 PM
As the instigator for the thread, my thanks to all and sundry. I learned some things I didn't know, and will have to think about things I thought I knew. I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss what is probably a very old topic for most of the members of the forum.

Marty Hayes
02-08-2012, 10:52 PM
Marty, I'm going to suggest that rather than asking more questions, you wait until you have time to respond to the questions that have already been asked regarding your position. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion otherwise.

That's fair. I didn't start this thread, and I do not have the time to engage in hours of debate, so I will respectfully bow out.

GJM
02-09-2012, 01:02 AM
After years of arguing against the Weaver on the Gunsite list, it is fun to watch this. Based on that experience here is a short list of how Weaver shooters see the world.

The fact that there hasn't been a top Weaver shooter for years is irrelevant because IPSC and IDPA have strayed from the realistic matches of Col. Cooper's time.

Modern Iso may be OK for 9mm but can't control recoil with full power loads.

If Modern Iso is any good, it is because it is essentially Weaver with slightly different vectors.

Split times don't mean anything in a gun fight.

If you could shoot faster with Modern Iso, it is unsafe because you are shooting faster than you can ID your targets.

A steel 1911 is the only proper gun fighting tool. A 1911 is more reliable than a Glock or any polymer pistol. A Weaver makes it less likely to limp wrist a pistol.

9 may expand but 45 will never shrink. 45 ammo performs better out of a 1911. If you need more than a magazine of 45, all those extra 9mm rounds are unlikely to help you, since you are doing something wrong. It takes 5-8 hits with a 9 to equal one hit with a 45.

Weaver is a fighting stance, Modern Iso is for gun games. All the former Weaver shooters now shooting Modern Iso are more interested in gun games than fighting. "I" can defend myself perfectly well shooting a Weaver.

Weaver is easier to teach to a new shooter.

Al T.
02-09-2012, 10:22 AM
GJM - :D

That was me, 30 years ago.

Interestingly, IMHO, when I asked Tiger McKee about which technique he preferred, he said "I don't care where your elbows are as long as you get good hits at speed".

I have enjoyed the thread. :)

Cecil Burch
02-09-2012, 11:49 AM
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.

I believe in Kyle Lamb's book there a couple of specific examples. I am at work and I don't have access to it right now, otherwise I would repeat them here.

Also, this incident here:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/08/20/20110820phoenix-officers-kill-carjacking-suspect.html

The officer in question is a regular student of Kyle's, and credits Kyle with the teaching that enabled him to take down the criminal. That teaching is Iso.

Jay Cunningham
02-09-2012, 11:54 AM
That's fair. I didn't start this thread, and I do not have the time to engage in hours of debate, so I will respectfully bow out.

Respectfully, that is a gigantic cop-out, Marty.

Marty Hayes
02-09-2012, 04:34 PM
Respectfully, that is a gigantic cop-out, Marty.

The fact of the matter is I don't have endless hours to post long posts, containing many off topic questions, nor to respond to such. If you search my posts, you will see they are typically very short, less than two minutes worth of effort. Like this one.

Tony Muhlenkamp
02-09-2012, 04:51 PM
The fact of the matter is I don't have endless hours to post long posts, containing many off topic questions, nor to respond to such. If you search my posts, you will see they are typically very short, less than two minutes worth of effort. Like this one.

FWIW, I posted the original thread and I thought your contributions were on point and useful to me in trying to understand the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to post.

SLG
02-09-2012, 07:49 PM
The fact of the matter is I don't have endless hours to post long posts, containing many off topic questions, nor to respond to such. If you search my posts, you will see they are typically very short, less than two minutes worth of effort. Like this one.


Wow.

I guess all those years of teaching iso/stressfire have been...stressful;-)

Marty Hayes
02-09-2012, 08:01 PM
Wow.

I guess all those years of teaching iso/stressfire have been...stressful;-)


I only teach Iso/Stressfire when on the Range with Mas, under his banner. We do not teach any particular shooting style at the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. We know enough about this business to match the student, their gun size, their hand size, body style dominenece with a shooting style that best fits the student. On the line, you might see an Isos shooter, a Weaver shooter, Mod. Weaver shooter right next to each other.

One size doesn't fit all. (And, I am over my self-imposed two minutes...) :-)

GJM
02-09-2012, 08:04 PM
I only teach Iso/Stressfire when on the Range with Mas, under his banner. We do not teach any particular shooting style at the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. We know enough about this business to match the student, their gun size, their hand size, body style dominenece with a shooting style that best fits the student. On the line, you might see an Isos shooter, a Weaver shooter, Mod. Weaver shooter right next to each other.

One size doesn't fit all. (And, I am over my self-imposed two minutes...) :-)

Can you describe the shooter characteristics that perform better with a Weaver than the Modern Iso?

JHC
02-09-2012, 08:12 PM
I only teach Iso/Stressfire when on the Range with Mas, under his banner. :-)

I've been itching to make the point since Ayoob was invoked earlier that he was probably one of the first - back in the day before the internet when gun mags was about it; one of the first to argue the iso. By the same token he didn't discount the Weaver. Just argued and demo'd with a model 29 and full house loads that iso worked.

Marty Hayes
02-09-2012, 08:23 PM
Can you describe the shooter characteristics that perform better with a Weaver than the Modern Iso?

Gun size matching shooter's hand and length of trigger pull so when shooter makes a fist around the grips of the gun, with finger properly placed on the trigger, the gun lines up with the bones of the forearm. (Think Jeff Cooper). For Isos, gun fit creates an offset angle, (think small hands, fat double stack gun). When thrust out towards target, body must be squared to target to make a natural point of aim. I believe the modern isos. has taken over competition more because of this factor than any percieved advantage of recoil control. Of course, one has to throw eye dominence into the mix,, plus any physical infirmities.

orionz06
02-09-2012, 08:42 PM
What does eye dominance do?

ETA:

Small hands...

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/troutgabby/ToriFrontCardNRA.jpg

SLG
02-09-2012, 08:44 PM
"We do not teach any particular shooting style at the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. We know enough about this business to match the student, their gun size, their hand size, body style dominance with a shooting style that best fits the student....One size doesn't fit all.

I try not to make these things personal, since almost no one has enough personal experience to be considered definitive. However...I've shot with a fair number of Gunsite trained shooters and instructors over the years. Not one of them has been able to shoot within 75% of me, in any testable skill except the draw to first shot (which still wasn't as fast), and in slow fire accuracy. It's hard for me to believe that anyone can actually do "better" shooting weaver compared to a modern iso. Maybe that person exists, in which case, I'd REALLY like to meet him so that I can stand corrected.

GJM
02-09-2012, 08:51 PM
Gun size matching shooter's hand and length of trigger pull so when shooter makes a fist around the grips of the gun, with finger properly placed on the trigger, the gun lines up with the bones of the forearm. (Think Jeff Cooper). For Isos, gun fit creates an offset angle, (think small hands, fat double stack gun). When thrust out towards target, body must be squared to target to make a natural point of aim. I believe the modern isos. has taken over competition more because of this factor than any percieved advantage of recoil control. Of course, one has to throw eye dominence into the mix,, plus any physical infirmities.

1) I would be interested in you elaborating or your thoughts on natural point of aim/versus recoil control?

2) As a long time Weaver shooter, friend of Jeff Cooper, and who first attended Gunsite in 1991, and subsequently transitioned to a Modern Iso when I became serious about shooting :), I don't follow your thinking.

I shoot a Modern Iso better, based on speed and accuracy, no matter whether I am shooting a Scandium 329 with full power 320 hard cast loads, a S&W 500, a single action Blackhawk, a 1911, or the plastic pistols I normally carry these days. My wife has attended high quality training at Gunsite and elsewhere for twenty years, has multiple E tickets from Gunsite, shot a Weaver, and could not achieve a basic rating at Rogers when we first attended last April. She switched to the Modern Iso in April, came back to RSS in late October, and finished fourth in the class. She now shoots a Modern Iso no matter whether she is shooting her Scandium 329, her Glock 29 or her G17/19/26/34.

3) It is hard to imagine anyone that has shot a Modern Iso with commitment for even a few months switching back to a Weaver?

beltjones
02-09-2012, 08:54 PM
Gun size matching shooter's hand and length of trigger pull so when shooter makes a fist around the grips of the gun, with finger properly placed on the trigger, the gun lines up with the bones of the forearm. (Think Jeff Cooper). For Isos, gun fit creates an offset angle, (think small hands, fat double stack gun). When thrust out towards target, body must be squared to target to make a natural point of aim. I believe the modern isos. has taken over competition more because of this factor than any percieved advantage of recoil control. Of course, one has to throw eye dominence into the mix,, plus any physical infirmities.

Considering that virtually any doublestack 1911 can have any length of pull by substituting trigger shoes of varying lengths, I'd say you're wrong.

Not to mention the fact that Enos, Leatham, et al abandoned Weaver long, long before anyone made a fat doublestack gun.

I honestly think that the people who keep coming back to the "recoil control" argument don't really get what the point of recoil control is.

jetfire
02-09-2012, 09:07 PM
I never got the whole recoil control argument; because it flies in the face of sport science. Iso allows me to use more of my core muscles to absorb recoil, weaver forces me to pretty much just use my arms. Plus, I don't seem to have any issues controlling recoil with 190PF loads out of a Glock using iso.

joshs
02-09-2012, 09:37 PM
For the people who think mod iso provides less recoil control, are you rolling your elbows out and engaging your pecs to place side pressure on the gun? For me, this provides significantly more recoil control than I ever got from weaver/front to back isometric tension.

Jay Cunningham
02-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Are we fighting the recoil? Or are we setting the gun up with our hold on it to allow it to recoil in a controlled and predictable fashion?

Marty Hayes
02-09-2012, 09:49 PM
Listen guys. It would take me two hours to fully address each of your points. Then, for those who just want to argue and try to make the old dinosaur look impotent, you would ask a million other question, necessitating 20 hours. Then, someone would start calling people names, and the thread would be closed.

Understand that I do not teach competition shooting, but self defense techniques. We start and finish with techniques that will allow hitting under extremely adverse conditions, in the dark, one handed, wounded, at moving targets. If one's techniques do not carry them through these types of conditions, then I believe one is training incorrectly. Life isn't a square range, bright daylight, facing cardboard targets. So, no, I am not going to answer everyone's posts. I answered one reasonable question, and it was a pig pile. Sorry guys.

If anyone wants to see me shoot and decide for yourself if I know what I am talking about, I plan on shooting the Paul Bunyon IPSC match this Sunday, (first IPSC match in over a decade). Come on down, let's squad up and I can explain what I am talking about.

beltjones
02-09-2012, 09:52 PM
The proponents of Weaver assert that the isometric "push/pull" tension helps lock the gun in place to control recoil.

Those of us who know, know that locking the gun in place is impossible.

We also know that the key to fast splits isn't necessarily a gun that doesn't move, it's a gun that returns to the same spot every time, which can only be achieved with a neutral grip. Isometric tension in an asymmetric stance is fundamentally not neutral. That neutrality is the key to "recoil control."

Now, the gun has a somewhat easier time of returning to the same point of aim if it manages to flip less (distance magnifying errors and all), but that isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is to provide a stable position, using leverage mechanics to achieve perfect neutrality, and to "drive" the gun with your muscular system in order to counteract rearward movement.

Anyone who says you need to "lock" pistols of heavier calibers in place with isometric tension is doing it wrong. To achieve fast splits with a heavy-recoiling gun, you simply need to provide a neutral platform and drive the gun a little harder. All of that is much more easily achieved with an iso position than with a Weaver.

Of course, the lifelong Weaver proponents use the same failed logic that the Karate point fighters used when they saw Royce Gracie in the early UFCs (and that many of them still use today): "Our stuff is designed to save your life on the street - it's too deadly for sport. That sport stuff will get you killed in real life."

joshs
02-09-2012, 09:56 PM
Are we fighting the recoil? Or are we setting the gun up with our hold on it to allow it to recoil in a controlled and predictable fashion?

I'm fighting it, if I don't, I see an increase in split times and I feel like I have to wait forever for the sights to settle. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-Wedt3N4U&context=C3bde7c9ADOEgsToPDskLAvc7qRGBDBa1Toip-3O7K) by Mike Hughes illustrates how rolled elbows/shoulders and pec pressure helps with recovery time.

orionz06
02-09-2012, 09:57 PM
Listen guys. It would take me two hours to fully address each of your points. Then, for those who just want to argue and try to make the old dinosaur look impotent, you would ask a million other question, necessitating 20 hours. Then, someone would start calling people names, and the thread would be closed.

Understand that I do not teach competition shooting, but self defense techniques. We start and finish with techniques that will allow hitting under extremely adverse conditions, in the dark, one handed, wounded, at moving targets. If one's techniques do not carry them through these types of conditions, then I believe one is training incorrectly. Life isn't a square range, bright daylight, facing cardboard targets. So, no, I am not going to answer everyone's posts. I answered one reasonable question, and it was a pig pile. Sorry guys.

If anyone wants to see me shoot and decide for yourself if I know what I am talking about, I plan on shooting the Paul Bunyon IPSC match this Sunday, (first IPSC match in over a decade). Come on down, let's squad up and I can explain what I am talking about.

Weak dude.

How does self defense that involves shooting a gun look different than shooting a gun? I would contest that being really good at shooting will only help matters should a self defense situation escalate to shooting. Iso happens to be what all the really good shooters use, including those that used to use a different technique.

ToddG
02-09-2012, 10:06 PM
Are we fighting the recoil? Or are we setting the gun up with our hold on it to allow it to recoil in a controlled and predictable fashion?

http://www.casinob.com/bingo/bingo-card.jpg

The Weaver grip can make a heavy recoiling gun feel better, but it does so by slowing the recoil process so that follow up shots take longer. Unless someone wants to argue that your hands feeling nice in a gunfight is important, I still fail to see how that's "combat not competition."

As many in this thread have expressed, there are quite a few of us who shot Weaver for years and switched to something more iso-esque. I've still yet to meet a single person who shot Iso seriously for years who then switched to Weaver because he thought it was somehow better.

I learned Weaver from a Gunsite instructor and by the time I was done, I could shoot better (in Weaver) than any of his training cadre. So it's not like I was just grasping at shadows with Weaver/MT. But then someone -- a Kelly McCann discipline, in fact -- took the time to show me a practical iso stance and thumbs forward grip and after less than a month's practice I was noticeably better. That's held true with big guns, small guns, thick guns, thin guns, 9mm, .40, 357, and .45 ACP.

I'm sorry, but until someone can point out to me how Weaver does something better in combat which wouldn't also translate into competitive results at an IDPA/IPSC match, that whole line of reasoning is summarily rejected.

YVK
02-09-2012, 10:20 PM
Even though there are some great and educational posts here, this is getting painful to read. It is rather obvious that each party remains unconvinced about opponent's position. For a neutral reader, the points of view have been made and supporting info presented. Anybody is confused - it ain't that difficult to sort out. Set up drills that resemble "the defensive use" as close as possible, get a timer, run both multiple times and see what happens. Or take classes from people who teach both techniques in "non-competition" sense and see who imposes higher standards of speed and accuracy, call it done.

May I suggest that this thread doesn't live to see page 11?

Typed under 2 minutes.

P.S. Damn, while I was typing, it has already made page 11. I fail....

GJM
02-09-2012, 10:42 PM
Nope, Y, can't do that because Marty dropped the "S" word, square range. The implication is, results doing mere square range training and drills can't be compared with real fighting with a gun.

YVK
02-09-2012, 11:03 PM
Nope, Y, can't do that because Marty dropped the "S" word, square range. The implication is, results doing mere square range training and drills can't be compared with real fighting with a gun.

G, so what, you don't believe it, I don't believe it, everybody else here doesn't, but Marty does and I am sure he has a number of supporters who do. There are still trainers out there, at least one that I know of, that teach Weaver because "it is a fighting position". Todd, SLG, SeanM have made great arguments here, what else needs to be said? On individual user level, finding the answer is easy enough. I think that, by page 11, not only the horse is dead, horse's offspring is dead too. Perhaps I had a long 30 hours, but further back and forth feels like a waste of time.

Jay Cunningham
02-09-2012, 11:07 PM
We all know how this one can go, so proceed with caution here.

Sometimes l like to quote myself.

Everyone did good so far. Give yourselves a golf clap.

SLG
02-09-2012, 11:33 PM
YVK,

That would be the smart thing to do, but this is the internet...:-)

Now back to our regular programming.


I have never told a weaver shooter that they need to change to something else...unless they want to be better than they are. Most are happy being pretty good, but not as good as they can be. That's fine. I just get really sick of hearing people tell me that they teach fighting, not shooting.

If it's taught on a live fire range, it's shooting, not fighting. That doesn't mean that some techniques are not better than others for fighting, just that you have to figure out what those are, and then do them as well as you can.

The thing that kills me though, is that Cooper codified the MT on a live fire range, IN COMPETITION. Not in combat, not on the internet, but in competition. At the time, the MT did the best IN COMPETITION. Today, other techniques do better in competition, but to a MT guy, they somehow don't count. Go figure.

As for successful iso shootings? My agency is full of them, as are other agencies I've worked for or with, both in military special operations and in law enforcement. I'm certainly not going to start naming names, since most of those people do not teach, haven't written a book about themselves, and are still operational. As a random example, a guy I worked with overseas was in several pistol engagements, just in the couple of months that I was working with him. He wasn't the best square range shooter out there, but he was perfectly respectable. He's still out there, and I'm sure he's still doing well. With iso.

BTW, that's an anecdote, not proof. Take it as you like.

agent-smith
02-10-2012, 12:25 AM
I was (and still am) a HUGE fan of Col. Cooper and literally grew-up reading about the superiority of the famed Weaver stance.

In 1999, I took a class from Steve Moses where they trained iso and I could barely contain myself from telling everyone how idiotic the thought was that someone would teach something other than what Col. Cooper advocated. But, having been extremely impressed with Steve's carbine class (Without a doubt, still the best carbine class I've ever taken), I thought I'd humor him for the class. It took all of about 3 shots for me to become a convert to iso and to stop caring about the Weaver stance.

I don't have any desire to argue; if I ever have the misfortune of being shot-at by a trained pistol shooter, I hope it is by someone that only trains/believes in Weaver.

The funny part is that if you read Kyle Lamb's book, you'll see pictures of OSS shooters shooting with a "modern" iso stance and I'd say those guys have a bit of experience shooting at things outside of a "square range." The Weaver stance was used because it was faster when shooting at BALLOONS. More significantly, if you look at the pictures of Kyle Lamb and Jack Weaver their stances really don't look all that much different - meaning that Weaver's stance very closely resembled a "Modern Isoceles" (wasn't very bladed and didn't have much of a elbow bend).

As others stated, I really think the only reason the Weaver stance was thought-of as being so vastly superior was because they were comparing the results of shooting Weaver and using their sights to shooting one-handed and not really using the sights at all. Meh; I'm just glad I didn't waste as much time shooting Weaver as I wasted shooting that stupid .40 S&W and advocating that the M1A/M-14 was superior to "poodle shooters" (Steve tried his best to educate me at the time but I only listened to him on the Weaver). Man, I was really an idiot so I understand how reluctant people can be to change their opinion regardless of how many facts you present them.

GJM
02-10-2012, 02:51 AM
YVK,

That would be the smart thing to do, but this is the internet...:-)

Now back to our regular programming.


I have never told a weaver shooter that they need to change to something else...unless they want to be better than they are. Most are happy being pretty good, but not as good as they can be. That's fine. I just get really sick of hearing people tell me that they teach fighting, not shooting.

If it's taught on a live fire range, it's shooting, not fighting. That doesn't mean that some techniques are not better than others for fighting, just that you have to figure out what those are, and then do them as well as you can.

The thing that kills me though, is that Cooper codified the MT on a live fire range, IN COMPETITION. Not in combat, not on the internet, but in competition. At the time, the MT did the best IN COMPETITION. Today, other techniques do better in competition, but to a MT guy, they somehow don't count. Go figure.

As for successful iso shootings? My agency is full of them, as are other agencies I've worked for or with, both in military special operations and in law enforcement. I'm certainly not going to start naming names, since most of those people do not teach, haven't written a book about themselves, and are still operational. As a random example, a guy I worked with overseas was in several pistol engagements, just in the couple of months that I was working with him. He wasn't the best square range shooter out there, but he was perfectly respectable. He's still out there, and I'm sure he's still doing well. With iso.

BTW, that's an anecdote, not proof. Take it as you like.

1) I respect Col.Cooper for influencing my life and thinking in so many ways beyond just shooting. Taking API 270 from him caused me to think about bolt rifles, African hunting, writing and was one of my training high points. Jeff loved competition -- especially if his techniques were successful. Gunsite was very much tactical IPSC, with courses essentially a series of competitions. Ross S winning the world shoot was the high water mark for the the Weaver and Jeff's love of competition. Jeff was very distressed about the Modern Iso, and when it proved superior to the Weaver in completion, decried competition as irrelevant. Gunsite still teaches the Weaver as the default stance in basic and intermediate classes.

2) By contrast, when you show up at Rogers Shooting School, Bill explains the evolution of stances, and why the Modern Iso has become the most effective stance for achieving the highest score on the school test, with quantitative results going back decades. No pressure to change, unless YOU want to. Of course, getting your score on the test read out loud each day, and the shooting order rearranged daily by cumulative scores, provides a strong incentive to use the techniques conducive to best performance. I believe if someone showed up shooting a whole new method, that Bill could test on his range and verify, RSS would be teaching it as the default within a month. To reinforce that, I ended up disagreeing with RSS doctrine on a reloading technique in the shotgun module, and Bill's reaction was to test against me, man on man. When my method showed some promise, I was amazed when I arrived the next morning for pistol, Bill told me to grab my shotgun and head down to his target area near his workshop, to test it further. This seems the ideal of using data to drive teaching method.

Packy
02-10-2012, 08:31 AM
Different applications of the basic but it is still the same fundamentals.
It is just our interpretations and faith on our platform.. Just like Religion.

Tamara
02-10-2012, 08:40 AM
I'm just glad I didn't waste as much time shooting Weaver as I wasted shooting that stupid .40 S&W and advocating that the M1A/M-14 was superior to "poodle shooters.". Man, I was really an idiot so I understand how reluctant people can be to change their opinion regardless of how many facts you present them.
It's like you're inside my head. :confused:

cutter
02-10-2012, 09:05 AM
As far as I know all of the Military SMUs are teaching the isoc as the basic stance. These guys are going on 10+ of regular real-world pistol shooting experience. That they use it seems to me a big endorsement of the isoc. Now the guys that develop the training do go to civilian schools where some may consider they get contaminated by "competition" techniques not suitable for combat. But they have to go back and sell it to their commanders and most importantly, their team mates, who will be the first to throw down the B.S. flag if a technique doesn't work. Most of the guys on a team don't know or care about the history behind the Weaver and Isoc, they just care about what does or doesn't work.

orionz06
02-10-2012, 10:29 AM
When I took Southnarc's Armed Movement in Structures a few weekends ago one thing I noted was my ability to have the same two handed grip and manage cover effectively with only a slight shift in my body and head depending on the doorways and exposures. I can't say that a Weaver shooter would share that same advantage. I am also right handed and left eye dominant, zero issues, it was never a question.

Chuck Haggard
02-10-2012, 02:08 PM
Earlier on I read a post in this thread ref the special .mil guys using handguns and the average dude, and this somehow being different.

I have to disagree.

A special guy using a handgun in special places is doing so, normally, because his primary and maybe even secondary weapons system has taken a dump on him. So he is in a reactive, spontaneous, close range emergency fight that he didn't plan on being in at that moment.

How is that dynamic really different than Joe Average getting into a spontaneous, close range, emergency fight because his world has also gone to shit?


Note the earlier shot to hell SEAL, Paul Howe's plan during the Blackhawk Down fight (use the M4 until it quits, then the shotgun, then the .45, then the knife), a friend of mine is overseas a lot, to be using his Glock 19 would mean his SAW and M4 have gone down and he can't get to the AK in the back of the truck.

Every use of a pistol by special guys that I am aware of has been in Oh Shit! mode, at close range, responding to an unplanned event.

joshs
02-10-2012, 08:27 PM
The discussion about where to go for good technique focused pistol instruction has been moved here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?3098-Good-quot-Technique-Focused-quot-Pistol-Instruction).

Jeff22
02-13-2012, 02:32 AM
If you want to read about the Modern Technique of the Pistol as developed by Col Jeff Cooper, there are a couple of good sources:

Cooper on Handguns is fascinating. The 1974 edition is more detailed than the 1979 edition. You might be able to find them used on amazon.com or barnes & noble.com or Alibris or one of the other used book vendors. (I bought several copies of the 1979 edition back in 1979 and purchased a few copies of the 1974 edition as I found them in later years)

The Modern Technique of the Pistol by Gregory Boyce Morrison is a 1991 book written by a guy who was an instructor at Gunsite at that time. Jeff Cooper was involved in editing the book. It's still pretty good, and available from the Gunsite pro shop for $26.

(I started studying shooting seriously right after I graduated high school, shot my first IPSC match in 1978, became a cop in 1981 and a firearms instructor in 1982 and I've been active as a cop and an instructor and a competitive shooter for over 30 years. And I'm not done yet)

In my opinion, what Col Cooper developed as far as technique for the pistol was outstanding, and is still very good. (I shoot handguns with a "Chapman" stance -- modified Weaver with a nearly locked elbow on the gun side).

But tactics evolve, techniques evolve, and equipment evolves, and we need to change to keep up with the times. Not change for the sake of change, but change when it makes sense based on our experience and training and circumstance and equipment.

So the question often comes up, is competition shooting relevant to developing "real world" defensive skills, and is it a useful way to develop and test new techniques and new equipment? I believe there is some relevance in some aspects.

I compete regularly in both IPSC/USPSA and IDPA and shoot PPC once in a while, almost always using a "real" holster and whatever my duty gun is at the time. (Currently a Sig 226R-DAK in .40 cal). If you are shooting for defensive purposes, then the techniques used by good shooters in "Production" class in USPSA or in "stock service pistol" class in IDPA might (?) have some relevance for you. Maybe.

Shooting in competition can be fun and it can improve your high performance markshmanship skills to some extent. It depends upon how you approach the activity and how you shoot the match. It depends A LOT on the courses of fire of the individual stages in the match. I've shot many USPSA 32 round field courses that I felt were a waste of time, from the standpoint of shooter development. I go out of my way to shoot USPSA special classifier matches or IDPA classifier matches because I really enjoy them as test of basic skills.

Guys get all wrapped around the axle arguing about some of this stuff. It's like those medieval discussions about how many angels can dance of the head of a pin. Some people get excited arguing about nothing . . .

When shooting a handgun, some people shoot better with some form of the "Modern Isoceles" stance and some shoot better using some modification of the Weaver stance. Some shoot better with a thumbs forward grip. Some shoot better with a traditional thumb over thumb grip. It doesn't matter!!! As an instructor, you need to know the range of acceptable variations of technique so that you can help your students pick that combination of technique that works best for them, their hand size, their grip strength, their weapon choice, etc.

Jeff22
02-13-2012, 02:42 AM
If you want to read about the Modern Technique of the Pistol as developed by Col Jeff Cooper, there are a couple of good sources:

Cooper on Handguns is fascinating. The 1974 edition is more detailed than the 1979 edition. You might be able to find them used on amazon.com or barnes & noble.com or Alibris or one of the other used book vendors. (I bought several copies of the 1979 edition back in 1979 and purchased a few copies of the 1974 edition as I found them in later years)

The Modern Technique of the Pistolby Gregory Boyce Morrison is a 1991 book written by a guy who was an instructor at Gunsite at that time. Jeff Cooper was involved in editing the book. It's still pretty good, and available from the Gunsite pro shop for $26.

(I started studying shooting seriously right after I graduated high school, shot my first IPSC match in 1978, became a cop in 1981 and a firearms instructor in 1982 and I've been active as a cop and an instructor and a competitive shooter for over 30 years. And I'm not done yet)

In my opinion, what Col Cooper developed as far as technique for the pistol was outstanding, and is still very good. (I shoot handguns with a "Chapman" stance -- modified Weaver with a nearly locked elbow on the gun side).

But tactics evolve, techniques evolve, and equipment evolves, and we need to change to keep up with the times. Not change for the sake of change, but change when it makes sense based on our experience and training and circumstance and equipment.

So the question often comes up, is competition shooting relevant to developing "real world" defensive skills, and is it a useful way to develop and test new techniques and new equipment? I believe there is some relevance in some aspects.

I compete regularly in both IPSC/USPSA and IDPA and shoot PPC once in a while, almost always using a "real" holster and whatever my duty gun is at the time. (Currently a Sig 226R-DAK in .40 cal). If you are shooting for defensive purposes, then the techniques used by good shooters in "Production" class in USPSA or in "stock service pistol" class in IDPA might (?) have some relevance for you. Maybe.

Shooting in competition can be fun and it can improve your high performance markshmanship skills to some extent. It depends upon how you approach the activity and how you shoot the match. It depends A LOT on the courses of fire of the individual stages in the match. I've shot many USPSA 32 round field courses that I felt were a waste of time, from the standpoint of shooter development. I go out of my way to shoot USPSA special classifier matches or IDPA classifier matches because I really enjoy them as test of basic skills.

Guys get all wrapped around the axle arguing about some of this stuff. It's like those medieval discussions about how many angels can dance of the head of a pin. Some people get excited arguing about nothing . . .

When shooting a handgun, some people shoot better with some form of the "Modern Isoceles" stance and some shoot better using some modification of the Weaver stance. Some shoot better with a thumbs forward grip. Some shoot better with a traditional thumb over thumb grip. It doesn't matter!!! As an instructor, you need to know the range of acceptable variations of technique so that you can help your students pick that combination of technique that works best for them, their hand size, their grip strength, their weapon choice, etc.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 10:35 AM
When shooting a handgun, some people shoot better with some form of the "Modern Isoceles" stance and some shoot better using some modification of the Weaver stance. Some shoot better with a thumbs forward grip. Some shoot better with a traditional thumb over thumb grip. It doesn't matter!!! As an instructor, you need to know the range of acceptable variations of technique so that you can help your students pick that combination of technique that works best for them, their hand size, their grip strength, their weapon choice, etc.

You are absolutely correct Jeff. Both the modern isosceles works well under certain circumstances and Weaver variants work well under other circumstances. The professional instructor knows the difference and what techniques to teach the student. The one size fits all mentality has never worked for the ends of the bell curve.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 10:41 AM
You are absolutely correct Jeff. Both the modern isosceles works well under certain circumstances and Weaver variants work well under other circumstances. The professional instructor knows the difference and what techniques to teach the student. The one size fits all mentality has never worked for the ends of the bell curve.

Who might be better served with a variation of Weaver?

TGS
02-13-2012, 11:02 AM
As an instructor, you need to know the range of acceptable variations of technique so that you can help your students pick that combination of technique that works best for them, their hand size, their grip strength, their weapon choice, etc.

I would wholeheartedly disagree with this.

I don't want any courses beyond the beginner level to work on multiple techniques of grip and stance. I already know what I'm looking for.

If I go to one of Todd's courses, it's because I want to study his school of ninjitsu.

If I go to Kyle Defoor's school or Vicker's (or one of his VSM instructors), it's because I want to study his ninjitsu.

And so on. As I gain experience, if something works better or shows promise of working better with a tenable training regimen, I pick up that school of ninjitsu and practice it until I find another school of ninjitsu that's better. Along the way, I might pick up little techniques here and there from other instructors. But the fact you show up to "Get SOM" and are sucking with iso doesn't mean Todd should change gears and start teaching you SOM with weaver techniques because it works better for you......that's totally against the point of taking the course.

Continuing to take courses which go over weaver vs iso would serve no purpose beyond the beginners level.

GJM
02-13-2012, 12:09 PM
You are absolutely correct Jeff. Both the modern isosceles works well under certain circumstances and Weaver variants work well under other circumstances. The professional instructor knows the difference and what techniques to teach the student. The one size fits all mentality has never worked for the ends of the bell curve.

Can you describe what technique works best for the the middle of the bell curve? Then, can you describe what technique works best for the ends of the bell curve, and your reasoning for why a different techniqueis warranted there?

beltjones
02-13-2012, 12:11 PM
You are absolutely correct Jeff. Both the modern isosceles works well under certain circumstances and Weaver variants work well under other circumstances. The professional instructor knows the difference and what techniques to teach the student. The one size fits all mentality has never worked for the ends of the bell curve.

For CM-09-04 "Pucker Factor" this weekend, did you shoot it Weaver or Isosceles?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 12:53 PM
For CM-09-04 "Pucker Factor" this weekend, did you shoot it Weaver or Isosceles?

Neither. I shot it "Marty" stance.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 12:54 PM
Can you describe what technique works best for the the middle of the bell curve? Then, can you describe what technique works best for the ends of the bell curve, and your reasoning for why a different techniqueis warranted there?

No. Not in the self-imposed time I spend on these forums.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 12:55 PM
Who might be better served with a variation of Weaver?

Someone shooting a Keltec .380 or a 2" j-frame.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 12:57 PM
Someone shooting a Keltec .380 or a 2" j-frame.

Why?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 12:58 PM
I would wholeheartedly disagree with this.

I don't want any courses beyond the beginner level to work on multiple techniques of grip and stance. I already know what I'm looking for.

If I go to one of Todd's courses, it's because I want to study his school of ninjitsu.

If I go to Kyle Defoor's school or Vicker's (or one of his VSM instructors), it's because I want to study his ninjitsu.

And so on. As I gain experience, if something works better or shows promise of working better with a tenable training regimen, I pick up that school of ninjitsu and practice it until I find another school of ninjitsu that's better. Along the way, I might pick up little techniques here and there from other instructors. But the fact you show up to "Get SOM" and are sucking with iso doesn't mean Todd should change gears and start teaching you SOM with weaver techniques because it works better for you......that's totally against the point of taking the course.

Continuing to take courses which go over weaver vs iso would serve no purpose beyond the beginners level.

I frankly agree with what you said. Same reason I don't take the plethora of "modern isosceles" technique driven courses. I know the stance, don't like it, and am not going to waste my money on it. In fact, I don't take any technique driven training courses, because I have worked out in my mind what works for me under what circumstances. I continue to take courses concentrating on teaching teaching and/or tactics.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 12:59 PM
Neither. I shot it "Marty" stance.

Do you teach this stance? What are the characteristics of this technique?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 01:00 PM
Why?

Assuming average or larger hands, the "modern isos" grip will roast the person's left hand thumb, and/or get the weak hand fingers too close to the muzzle.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 01:01 PM
Do you teach this stance? What are the characteristics of this technique?

I don't each any stance, I teach the shooter to use what shooting techniques work best for them. If I were to describe my stance that I use with a 1911, it would be a blend of isos and weaver.

Gotta go boys, see you tonight.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 01:09 PM
I frankly agree with what you said. Same reason I don't take the plethora of "modern isosceles" technique driven courses. I know the stance, don't like it, and am not going to waste my money on it. In fact, I don't take any technique driven training courses, because I have worked out in my mind what works for me under what circumstances. I continue to take courses concentrating on teaching teaching and/or tactics.

I know we're all beating up on Marty, and frankly I appreciate with him still sticking around this thread.

However, good golly. I'll never go to an instructor who considers themselves to be at the end point of his learning curve when it comes to shooting technique. Whether it's shooting, cooking, fighting, driving, etc, there is never an end to the improvement of technique. Believing oneself to be finished with learning technique is the surest way to get left behind by the rest of the world.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 01:17 PM
Assuming average or larger hands, the "modern isos" grip will roast the person's left hand thumb, and/or get the weak hand fingers too close to the muzzle.

Why not just tweak the grip with the gun? Seems to be quite effective based on the discussions in another section of this forum.

Sorry for asking too many questions. I am a technical guy and I tend to approach things a little differently than most. Not seeing much support for Weaver makes it hard to believe there is any advantage at all.

JeffJ
02-13-2012, 01:20 PM
"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there."
Will Rogers

David Armstrong
02-13-2012, 01:58 PM
I don't want any courses beyond the beginner level to work on multiple techniques of grip and stance. I already know what I'm looking for.
I don't think that in any way negates what Jeff and Marty said. If everyone was at that "I already know" level it might be, but the majority of shooters are not at the high end of the ladder, they are still operating lower down. And thus an instructor needs to be able to figure out what might work best for different individuals.

jetfire
02-13-2012, 02:46 PM
I'll never go to an instructor who considers themselves to be at the end point of his learning curve when it comes to shooting technique.

This. So many times this. Every single year that I've shot seriously, I've learned new ways to improve my shooting, whether it's my grip, stance, etc there's always something I could do better. There's no such thing as too fast or too accurate.

TGS
02-13-2012, 02:51 PM
I don't think that in any way negates what Jeff and Marty said. If everyone was at that "I already know" level it might be, but the majority of shooters are not at the high end of the ladder, they are still operating lower down. And thus an instructor needs to be able to figure out what might work best for different individuals.


True. That's pretty obvious.

Given the composition of this forum, I thought it was assumed that we're talking about teaching beyond "Handgun 101".

beltjones
02-13-2012, 03:32 PM
True. That's pretty obvious.

Given the composition of this forum, I thought it was assumed that we're talking about teaching beyond "Handgun 101".

Yeah, I don't believe in teaching beginners one technique and advanced shooters another. It's so difficult to erase early programming that it is better to teach people the right technique the right way from the get go.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 03:34 PM
How does one approach teaching multiple techniques in the same class?

TGS
02-13-2012, 04:49 PM
How does one approach teaching multiple techniques in the same class?

My experience with such has been in the military, and then in John Murphy's "Concealed Carry for Self-Defense," both of which experiences were geared at people who've never done more than learn how to safely handle a gun. CCSD being 16 hours, the training in the USMC being a few hours per day for just over a week.

In both instances, we were instructed on the weaver and given time to shoot it, and then instructed on iso and given time to shoot it. You evaluate which is best for you, or the instructor would note that you've been doing better/worse with one. You shoot what you want, it's up to you to realize what works better and make a decision. In both experiences I've had, the instructors gave reasons for their personal preference but let your shoot what you want so you can learn yourself instead of just being told what's black and what's white.

This way, you've got a baseline understanding and experience of what is what, and what it feels like/shoots like. The aim of those courses aren't to get you into the sub-7 second FAST range or hitting a 50/50 Dot Torture at 5 yards. They're to expose you to different methods, let you pick, and practice with it while under the tutelage of an instructor who can offer feedback on what is/isn't working for you. After you've done that, then you should go on and seek further training on techniques and proficiency like taking Todd's courses, VSM courses from our very own Jay Cunningham, or MT courses with all those who've been mentioned here. The point of these courses is to teach you a specific technique (ex: press-out), not find a different technique to work.

To take courses over and over that explore iso vs weaver or whatever would serve no purpose. You'd just be rehashing the same info, and not advancing your technique with studying a specific way to do things.

I would echo what others have said about how learning should be continuous. Learning (in any aspect of life) should only stop when you die.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:07 PM
This. So many times this. Every single year that I've shot seriously, I've learned new ways to improve my shooting, whether it's my grip, stance, etc there's always something I could do better. There's no such thing as too fast or too accurate.

How many years is that Caleb? I have been shooting seriously for about 35+ years, competing for 30+ years, not to mention the THOUSAND + HOURS of firearms training courses I have personally attended, and the several thousand hours of firearms training courses I have taught. I think I have my own shooting figured out now. If I don't, a few hours with the next latest and greatest Guru probably won't make much difference.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:10 PM
Why not just tweak the grip with the gun? Seems to be quite effective based on the discussions in another section of this forum.

Sorry for asking too many questions. I am a technical guy and I tend to approach things a little differently than most. Not seeing much support for Weaver makes it hard to believe there is any advantage at all.

Why not just tweak everything then? The point is, one type of stance/grip doesn't work for everyone, with all different sized guns, and different sized hands. A little tweak here, and lttle tweak there, and pretty soon you are might have a stance that works for you, instead of following the herd.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 05:10 PM
How many years is that Caleb? I have been shooting seriously for about 35+ years, competing for 30+ years, not to mention the THOUSAND + HOURS of firearms training courses I have personally attended, and the several thousand hours of firearms training courses I have taught. I think I have my own shooting figured out now. If I don't, a few hours with the next latest and greatest Guru probably won't make much difference.

What kind of performance tracking do you do? Any results you are willing to disclose publicly?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:15 PM
I know we're all beating up on Marty, and frankly I appreciate with him still sticking around this thread.

However, good golly. I'll never go to an instructor who considers themselves to be at the end point of his learning curve when it comes to shooting technique. Whether it's shooting, cooking, fighting, driving, etc, there is never an end to the improvement of technique. Believing oneself to be finished with learning technique is the surest way to get left behind by the rest of the world.

Show me a new school of thought, that I haven't been exposed to or already tried and discarded, which seems to have some merit and I will be all over it. But, as I said to Caleb, I have been training, competing and teaching for over 35 years now. Hell, I started with the FBI Crouch technique, Applegate point shooting, went through point shoulder isosceles, weaver, modern isos. I know them all, and have taken the best from each to teach to my students. At 56 years old and eyes that seem to be getting worse everyday, I suspect my best days of shooting are behind me, but I can still keep up with most.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:19 PM
How does one approach teaching multiple techniques in the same class?

You don't. You teach the student, not the class. Takes less than an hour of class time to explain shooting technique to a group of students, then they work out, (with coaching of course) what works best for them, given, gun size, hand size, eye dominence, physical infirmaties etc. After this is accomplished, it is on to working on training them to be skilled.

orionz06
02-13-2012, 05:21 PM
Why not just tweak everything then? The point is, one type of stance/grip doesn't work for everyone, with all different sized guns, and different sized hands. A little tweak here, and lttle tweak there, and pretty soon you are might have a stance that works for you, instead of following the herd.

Following the herd made me a significantly better shooter once I stopped trying to figure out the push/pull, XX%/XX%, etc. This "herd" also happens to include some of the best shooters in the world in terms of winning matches and killing people. That is kind of where I am lost. If the technique you beat the drum to is in fact so good why is it not used by any of those guys? Now I will admit I am not up to snuff on all the academics involved, for the same reasons you are unable to give a complete reply, time. The thing that does stand out though is that technique has evolved and continues to, some people just got stuck on something and never moved on.



You don't. You teach the student, not the class. Takes less than an hour of class time to explain shooting technique to a group of students, then they work out, (with coaching of course) what works best for them, given, gun size, hand size, eye dominence, physical infirmaties etc. After this is accomplished, it is on to working on training them to be skilled.

What would someone who is 5'6", medium/large size gloves, right handed, and left eye dominant shooting a G17 be pointed towards?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:23 PM
What kind of performance tracking do you do? Any results you are willing to disclose publicly?

Performance for what? Teaching, shooting paper targets, shooting bad guys, not shooting bad guys but pointing guns at them? Students shooting bad buys, shooting paper targets, etc? What exactly do you want to know?

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:27 PM
Following the herd made me a significantly better shooter once I stopped trying to figure out the push/pull, XX%/XX%, etc. This "herd" also happens to include some of the best shooters in the world in terms of winning matches and killing people. That is kind of where I am lost. If the technique you beat the drum to is in fact so good why is it not used by any of those guys? Now I will admit I am not up to snuff on all the academics involved, for the same reasons you are unable to give a complete reply, time. The thing that does stand out though is that technique has evolved and continues to, some people just got stuck on something and never moved on.

What would someone who is 5'6", medium/large size gloves, right handed, and left eye dominant shooting a G17 be pointed towards?

What herd are you following?

Regarding the second question, now sure what you mean "be pointed towards." But, given what you just told me, probably isosceles would work best for you, with possibly a little cant of the gun towards your left eye.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 05:28 PM
Okay boys, catch you later. Gotta go work again.

GJM
02-13-2012, 05:33 PM
I get why a Weaver shooter would be unwilling to change to a Modern Iso stance, if they feel like the Weaver meets their needs. However, given that the Modern Iso has been so clearly demonstrated as the best shooting stance for everyone from competitors to war fighters, how does an instructor these days justify teaching the Weaver to new shooters?

orionz06
02-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Performance for what? Teaching, shooting paper targets, shooting bad guys, not shooting bad guys but pointing guns at them? Students shooting bad buys, shooting paper targets, etc? What exactly do you want to know?

In particular your performance. Examples would be common drills, tests, standards, etc. El presidente (http://pistol-training.com/drills/el-presidente), The F.A.S.T. (http://pistol-training.com/drills/the-fast), Hackathorn Standards (http://pistol-training.com/drills/hackathorn-standards), IDPA Classifier (http://www.idpa.com/classify.asp), Triple Nickel (http://pistol-training.com/drills/triple-nickel), or any that you might use on your own. (All links to P-T.com for simplicity)


What herd are you following?

Regarding the second question, now sure what you mean "be pointed towards." But, given what you just told me, probably isosceles would work best for you, with possibly a little cant of the gun towards your left eye.

I was assuming "the herd" was everyone who shoots something that is considered "competition based" or whatever. On that it seems odd that some people try to use "competition based" as a means to put down one technique while sticking to their technique that was also started party in competition. Maybe I am wrong though.

I meant what would you suggest, weaver, iso, or a modification of either. I currently use some form of Iso or whatever the hell it is with a slight turn of my head.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 06:52 PM
In particular your performance. Examples would be common drills, tests, standards, etc. El presidente (http://pistol-training.com/drills/el-presidente), The F.A.S.T. (http://pistol-training.com/drills/the-fast), Hackathorn Standards (http://pistol-training.com/drills/hackathorn-standards), IDPA Classifier (http://www.idpa.com/classify.asp), Triple Nickel (http://pistol-training.com/drills/triple-nickel), or any that you might use on your own. (All links to P-T.com for simplicity)


In all fairness, I'm not sure Marty's own personal performance is the issue here.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 06:59 PM
How many years is that Caleb? I have been shooting seriously for about 35+ years, competing for 30+ years, not to mention the THOUSAND + HOURS of firearms training courses I have personally attended, and the several thousand hours of firearms training courses I have taught. I think I have my own shooting figured out now. If I don't, a few hours with the next latest and greatest Guru probably won't make much difference.

Also, in fairness I don't think you have been competing consistently with a pistol in all of that time.

Still, the attitude you have toward improving is pretty disturbing. I know of plenty of shooters who are older than anyone posting here, who are better shooters than most, and who also have countless hours teaching and taking classes, and they still are itching to learn new stuff. I would personally rather train with someone who is worse at shooting than I am, but who has an open mind and who is comfortable pushing the envelope, than someone who is better than I am and who thinks they have it all figured out.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 07:40 PM
In particular your performance. Examples would be common drills, tests, standards, etc. El presidente (http://pistol-training.com/drills/el-presidente), The F.A.S.T. (http://pistol-training.com/drills/the-fast), Hackathorn Standards (http://pistol-training.com/drills/hackathorn-standards), IDPA Classifier (http://www.idpa.com/classify.asp), Triple Nickel (http://pistol-training.com/drills/triple-nickel), or any that you might use on your own. (All links to P-T.com for simplicity)

.

Am an IDPA Master (ESR) a PPC Master, (many moons ago) a Second Chance MasterBlaster, (a few less moons ago), and have passed Chuck Taylor's Handgun Combat Master test. Those are my top shooting performance accomplishments.

Marty Hayes
02-13-2012, 07:51 PM
Also, in fairness I don't think you have been competing consistently with a pistol in all of that time. .

What exactly do you base this conclusion of yours on?

JAD
02-13-2012, 07:51 PM
Still, the attitude you have toward improving is pretty disturbing. .
QFV (quoted for Vader)

I think that what Marty said is that his class dollars and hours go to improvement in instruction and tactics rather than technique. I think he has that in common with a lot of fairly serious high mileage instructors. If you're on a budget (i.e. not GJM or TLG), I think it's reasonable to decide what area of focus is going to produce the best results for you. That's why I expressed an interest in getting some postmodern instruction -- I can at this point probably gain a little more survivability with a technique improvement and return to tactics later.

beltjones
02-13-2012, 09:17 PM
What exactly do you base this conclusion of yours on?

Well, for starters this post by one of your former students on another thread:

"Not to burst your bubble there Marty, but I was just starting to learn to shoot when I went to your school and took lot's and lot's of classes there. I also heard you say lot's and lot's of times how shooting compitition was bad for you and how you shouldn't do it and as a result didn't for a long time. I also remember you saying that you hadn't competed in a long time while taking those classes and it was only at the end of last year when you started up again. 30 years competing would not be including the last 9 years since I took my first class from you back in May of '02 and have been competing for the last 6 or 7 years. 30 years not including the last decade would be quite a long time."

Also, the fact that your USPSA record shows practically no activity since 1996. Also the fact that you royally bombed your only recent classifier - which was an 8 round stand and shoot classifier - with a pretty slow time and a miss tells me you're not as seasoned as you let on.

I really don't think your competition record is what is important here, or your performance on classifiers. But, you hold yourself out to be this ultra-seasoned competitor, so there you have it. I'm sure you're a better shooter than that classifier would indicate, and I'm sure you're a fine instructor, but let's not pretend to be something we're not.

joshs
02-13-2012, 10:31 PM
Let's get this thread back on track. Please limit further posts to discussion of MT and "Competition Driven Shooting."

beltjones
02-13-2012, 11:15 PM
I have to say, all of that competition training is going to get Bob Vogel killed when he puts on his duty gear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nQNC8ygVJ3E#!

EmanP
02-13-2012, 11:17 PM
I wonder how many years of shooting and teaching and studying and matches I need to be able to say that hey, I know that this way is the right way for me and future developments be damned. Fact is, the whole idea of MT was an evolution in thinking, technique and application. That was born out of doing and trying different things. When you close your mind to any new posibility then don't be suprised to find that the rest of the world passes you by. The last several years has seen many things learned from the world of compitition shooting be it USPSA or 3 gun (not so much IDPA though :rolleyes: ) that are slowly finding their way onto the streets and holsters of real deal guys. Why? Because it works. Otherwise we'd still be fighting wars by lining guys up to be shot one after the other. I mean, how dumb an idea was that.

DonovanM
02-13-2012, 11:45 PM
I have to say, all of that competition training is going to get Bob Vogel killed when he puts on his duty gear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nQNC8ygVJ3E#!

That guy is so hardcore. Awesome link.

Marty Hayes
02-14-2012, 01:03 AM
Well, for starters this post by one of your former students on another thread:

"Not to burst your bubble there Marty, but I was just starting to learn to shoot when I went to your school and took lot's and lot's of classes there. I also heard you say lot's and lot's of times how shooting compitition was bad for you and how you shouldn't do it and as a result didn't for a long time. I also remember you saying that you hadn't competed in a long time while taking those classes and it was only at the end of last year when you started up again. 30 years competing would not be including the last 9 years since I took my first class from you back in May of '02 and have been competing for the last 6 or 7 years. 30 years not including the last decade would be quite a long time."

Also, the fact that your USPSA record shows practically no activity since 1996. Also the fact that you royally bombed your only recent classifier - which was an 8 round stand and shoot classifier - with a pretty slow time and a miss tells me you're not as seasoned as you let on.

I really don't think your competition record is what is important here, or your performance on classifiers. But, you hold yourself out to be this ultra-seasoned competitor, so there you have it. I'm sure you're a better shooter than that classifier would indicate, and I'm sure you're a fine instructor, but let's not pretend to be something we're not.

Instead of getting into a pissing contest regarding what a former student said on an internet thread, I respectfully suggest that (1) there are other venues in which one can compete other than USPSA, (2) the defination of competing has not been proffered, i.e. how many matches must one compete in a year to meet your statisfaction (3) I shot 71% of the winner of the Single Stack division of the match last weekend, which I thought was pretty good considering I have not played the game of IPSC for 15 years, and the winner of that stage has been competing at a high level for many years. Hell, I even blew past one target on a stage and didn't even shoot it, and that score is reflected in my 71%.

The fact is, that I have been shooting and competing for over 30 years, and thee has not been year gone by where I did not compete against others in some type of shooting contest. Some years I was heavy into competition, some years I ran competitions, and some years I didn't compete all that much, but compete I did.

Jeff22
02-14-2012, 01:10 AM
TGS had a couple to thoughts that I agree with:

"I don't want any courses beyond the beginner level to work on multiple techniques of grip and stance. I already know what I'm looking for."

I understand that thought. I personally like to see variations because most of the people I train are students in the Police Academy (beginning level skill set, usually) or in-service ordinary cops (who are usually at what I would consider to be the low level of intermediate skills).

So my instructional environment is different from many instructors who train tac teams or more experienced/motivated students who may be participating in training on their own time and own expense.

His other comment I agreed with was:

"we were instructed on the weaver and given time to shoot it, and then instructed on iso and given time to shoot it. You evaluate which is best for you, or the instructor would note that you've been doing better/worse with one. You shoot what you want, it's up to you to realize what works better and make a decision. In both experiences I've had, the instructors gave reasons for their personal preference but let your shoot what you want so you can learn yourself instead of just being told what's black and what's white.

This way, you've got a baseline understanding and experience of what is what, and what it feels like/shoots like. The aim of those courses aren't to get you into the sub-7 second FAST range or hitting a 50/50 Dot Torture at 5 yards. They're to expose you to different methods, let you pick, and practice with it while under the tutelage of an instructor who can offer feedback on what is/isn't working for you. After you've done that, then you should go on and seek further training on techniques and proficiency "

Exactly!!!

Many of the classes I've taken over the years used that exact same approach, and I try to do the same thing when instructing.

A multiplicity of options with grip & stance is (I think) appropriate for beginning level shooters who are trying to figure out what set of techniques will work for them.

When you attend more advanced training, it depends on the focus of the course. If they are teaching a method different than what I'm familiar with, I try to do it their way. I may not change MY way as a result, but I will then know THEIR way and that understanding always comes in useful at some later time when training somebody.

Sometimes the course just offers you a bunch of challenges and you address them using whatever technique you have and see what happens. A concept similar to shooting an IPSC or IDPA match.

This really isn't complicated -- some people shoot better (or feel more comfortable) with one stance, and others shoot better (or feel more comfortable) with another stance. Who cares? As long as what they do is safe and works . . . Should you be involved in a gunfight in a domestic self defense scenario, it'll probably be close dark and fast. You'll be moving, they'll be moving, there will be a brief exchange of fire, and the survivors will retreat to a position of cover. The trained will reload and prepare to resume the fight. The untrained will probably withdraw entirely.

EmanP
02-14-2012, 02:04 AM
By the way, at this last weekends USPSA match at Paul Bunyan neither my buddy TJ or I did anything different shooting 1911's than what we do with other platforms. We've been shooting 9mm's for I don't know how long (me Sig 226, him HK P30) and G17's for the last few months. At 9:30 the night before we decided to shot 1911's having only shot them once in the last year at a Single Stack match. I needed to get used to a 1911 again before a 1911 class Hilton Yam is coming into town to do next week. If anyone's going we can continue this discussion and test theory's there. Different caliber, different platform, different everything really but we did not shot them any differently than we would have shot any other pistol. It was rough trying to get used to something on the clock but not a big deal, just slow especially the reloads but the same techniques worked. Seems competition driven shooting served us pretty darn well and TJ hadn't picked up a gun in the last 2 months. Results are there and video's up. For me MT is an outdated term describing outdated ideas and was only modern when introduced. Has nothing to do with todays concepts.

And it's not what a former student said but what you had said.

Ptrlcop
02-14-2012, 04:21 AM
I have a hard time accepting that when instructing new shooters the instructor's job is to show them every possible way of doing something and then letting the student figure out what "works for them". The fact is that the human body did not evolve for the purpose of shooting guns, so what "feels good" may not work best (ex. jamming as much finger as you can reach into the trigger guard).

The premise of instruction is that the instructor has spent a great deal of time, energy, thought and resources to figure out what works and what works better at achieving the goal. The student then listens to the instructor because they dont have the time or resources to spend figuring all that out for themselves.

Marty, we all clearly understand that you believe Weaver is good. However, every time hard questions get asked for you to explain why you cop out with "my time is up". The purpose of a forum is to deeply explore the topic not yell, "x,y,z works for me!" with no articulated reason. I dont want to pile on you but your posts in this thread screams of someone who is clinging to dogma without understanding of why or willingness to explore other options (contrary to the purpose of a forum, which is to learn). I am not saying that this is true about you, but until you address the questions posed understand that it is how you will be perceived.

As I reread some of your posts it almost seems(but not clearly articulated) that you are arguing that as long as you have a certain level of firearms profficiancy that other skills are more important to sucess in the tactical environment and that training time is more efficiantly used honing other skills (ie. working on room clearing vs shaving .1 of a sec off your draw). Ok, maybe, I can accept that a 30 year weaver shooter changing to Iso may not be the most efficiant use of their time if their goal is overall survivability not pure shooting skill.

beltjones
02-14-2012, 10:11 AM
By the way, at this last weekends USPSA match at Paul Bunyan neither my buddy TJ or I did anything different shooting 1911's than what we do with other platforms. We've been shooting 9mm's for I don't know how long (me Sig 226, him HK P30) and G17's for the last few months. At 9:30 the night before we decided to shot 1911's having only shot them once in the last year at a Single Stack match. I needed to get used to a 1911 again before a 1911 class Hilton Yam is coming into town to do next week. If anyone's going we can continue this discussion and test theory's there. Different caliber, different platform, different everything really but we did not shot them any differently than we would have shot any other pistol. It was rough trying to get used to something on the clock but not a big deal, just slow especially the reloads but the same techniques worked. Seems competition driven shooting served us pretty darn well and TJ hadn't picked up a gun in the last 2 months. Results are there and video's up. For me MT is an outdated term describing outdated ideas and was only modern when introduced. Has nothing to do with todays concepts.

And it's not what a former student said but what you had said.

I think this closes the loop on this issue.

Student takes classes from instructor, instructor rails against competition techniques.

Student begins to compete anyway, instructor ignores advances in pistol technique.

Years later, student and instructor meet at a match, each shooting the same gun. This is the instructor's regular platform, and the student only decided to use it the night before on a whim.

Student outshoots instructor by a wide margin. Even if you take the "gamesmanship" out (ie, the time), the student still shot much better points than the instructor. In other words, his accuracy was much better.

This is just one data point, but I think it's relevant considering the instructor who doesn't believe that newer, faster, more accurate is better is the one who was outshot by someone who is improving his technique with the latest methods (and not necessarily those he learned from the instructor).

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 10:11 AM
True. That's pretty obvious.

Given the composition of this forum, I thought it was assumed that we're talking about teaching beyond "Handgun 101".
I thought we were talking about teaching people to shoot, which includes "Handgun 101" and beyond. Perhaps that is the disconnect?? Certainly if one is discussing training as it relates to a small fraction of the upper echelon of shooters that is a different issue, but if one only uses the best of the best as the test platform then how applicable is the training in a general sense?

joshs
02-14-2012, 10:19 AM
Assuming average or larger hands, the "modern isos" grip will roast the person's left hand thumb, and/or get the weak hand fingers too close to the muzzle.

Weak hand thumb position is irrelevant to the "mod iso" grip. "Thumbs forward" is often the way the grip is taught, but the important aspect of the grip is that the weak hand wrist is locked out or at least as extended as possible.

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 10:23 AM
Instead of getting into a pissing contest regarding what a former student said on an internet thread, ....
I don't know how many of y'all know Marty or have shot with him, but I can claim a bit of both over the years. Not a lot, but having him in my classes at ASLET and attending his classes gives me a fairly good baseline, IMO. I'll go hunting BGs down a dark alley with him as my partner anytime. I would hope that puts to bed any personal integrity/quality questions.

Marty Hayes
02-14-2012, 10:51 AM
Okay, guys, you win. I thought this forum might be different, with different viewpoints tolerated amongst profesionals. Afterall, I have a lot of respect for TLG and what he has done in the industry, not withstanding my disagreements with him on some techinques. But, this thread has proven me wrong. To those who have written me privately, thanks for the encouragement.

ToddG
02-14-2012, 11:08 AM
I thought this forum might be different, with different viewpoints tolerated amongst profesionals.

I think that is extremely unfair under the circumstances, Marty. I don't see intolerance in this thread. I do see a lot of folks asking questions which you've said you don't have time to answer. No one is throwing hatchets, people are trying to have an honest and open discussion. I'd humbly suggest that you consider taking half an hour when you have the time and writing a magnum opus response that actually addresses many of those questions in the level of detail you feel is deserving to get your point of view across more clearly.

Frank D.
02-14-2012, 11:15 AM
Marty,

This forum is pretty different, both in tone and, so far, in the level of expertise of a lot of regular posters. I know you've been railed on a bit in this thread, but anyone who posts a viewpoint contrary to what is accepted by a community, on the internet or in real-life, has got to expect some negative feedback.

Despite disagreements on this topic, I'm sure there is a lot you can learn here, and plenty you can teach and contribute.

beltjones
02-14-2012, 11:18 AM
Okay, guys, you win. I thought this forum might be different, with different viewpoints tolerated amongst profesionals. Afterall, I have a lot of respect for TLG and what he has done in the industry, not withstanding my disagreements with him on some techinques. But, this thread has proven me wrong. To those who have written me privately, thanks for the encouragement.

I have a lot of respect for those who have undertaken to making a career out of teaching people to shoot. And frankly, I hate the circular firing squad that people in the shooting community are so eager to jump into when it comes to instructors and instruction.

However, the whole point is that we aren't discussing religion, although many treat it as a religious issue. We're discussing something provable and demonstrable with evidence. I really welcome your viewpoint, but the evidence suggests it may be unfounded. That's all.

ToddG
02-14-2012, 11:19 AM
The issue of teaching all techniques to all shooters has come up repeatedly in the thread, and I'd like to address it.

I think it is very important for an instructor to be at least passingly familiar with various alternative techniques. First, this allows an intelligent assessment and comparison against the status quo. Second, it allows the instructor to understand and integrate or fix, as appropriate, when seeing a student who has been brought up using one of these alternative systems. Third, it gives the instructor a tool in the box in the event that the status quo system won't work for a given student; e.g., a bad shoulder may necessitate a Weaver-type upper body position, people with back or knee problems may not be able to crouch, etc.

However, I cannot agree with the idea that new shooters should be shown all the possible ways to do something and then left to their own devices (and uninformed opinions) about which is "best." The whole reason someone gets instruction is to be taught, not to be left adrift to figure it all out on his own. I had some students from a huge agency a while back that teaches multiple grips to new recruits, included cup & saucer and even the old revolver grip (thumbs crossed behind the backstrap) for semiauto shooting. Then the officers-to-be just pick the one they like best. Think about that. If cup & saucer worked best for you doing your slow basic marksmanship train-up, that's the technique you'll adopt. Does anyone seriously think that makes sense?

I teach people the way I think is best. If individuals need tweaking, then tweaks are made on an individual level. But my goal isn't to show people the eighty seven different ways to reload a pistol, because eighty six of them have been proven inferior on some level. One of those eighty six might be the best option for one guy under one circumstance, and hopefully the instructor and student can realize that and address it appropriately. But it's a huge waste of the other students' time to force them to see, learn, and practice eighty six techniques that will be rejected.

GJM
02-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Marty, I think that PF is a lot different. There are a lot of dedicated pistol shooters here trying to advance their pistol craft, with a minimum of ego, a tolerance of differing view points, but almost zero acceptance of statements made without a reasoned argument. I expect that anything I say on PF will be read critically, and often questioned, and as a result, I don't say things that I am not willing to defend.

Consistently thru this thread, you have made various statements, but then been unwilling to logically defend those statements -- often saying that you are too short on time, or offering a general statement as to your ability or experience as being reason enough to accept your positions.

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 11:51 AM
However, I cannot agree with the idea that new shooters should be shown all the possible ways to do something and then left to their own devices (and uninformed opinions) about which is "best."
When I do intro level classes I try to offer about three alternatives, usually the modified ISO, Weaver, and the Israeli horse stance crouch. Everybody gets the basics, gets to try each (the SIRT gun has really come in handy for that) and then I let them pick what they want to use for the class. I'll tell them what I use and why, but point out that as my physical condition has changed over the years my choices have also changed. And I will certainly offer suggestions based on how they respond and react to various drills. Leave them to their own? Not too likely, too much chance for trouble IMO.

beltjones
02-14-2012, 12:09 PM
When I do intro level classes I try to offer about three alternatives, usually the modified ISO, Weaver, and the Israeli horse stance crouch. Everybody gets the basics, gets to try each (the SIRT gun has really come in handy for that) and then I let them pick what they want to use for the class. I'll tell them what I use and why, but point out that as my physical condition has changed over the years my choices have also changed. And I will certainly offer suggestions based on how they respond and react to various drills. Leave them to their own? Not too likely, too much chance for trouble IMO.

When you see MMA fighters throw crappy Thai leg kicks in their first fights, it's often because someone showed them the "easy" way first, and that is what they fall back on when their adrenalin goes crazy. If someone had programmed them with the correct technique from the beginning it's a lot less likely they would use incorrect technique when it counts.

EmanP
02-14-2012, 12:26 PM
I don't know how many of y'all know Marty or have shot with him, but I can claim a bit of both over the years. Not a lot, but having him in my classes at ASLET and attending his classes gives me a fairly good baseline, IMO. I'll go hunting BGs down a dark alley with him as my partner anytime. I would hope that puts to bed any personal integrity/quality questions.

I know Marty as well and I totally agree. I would go into some bad places with him at my back and at my side. Just cause I don't agree with some things doesn't mean anything more. I don't even agree with my friends fairly often about a lot of stuff.

Jay Cunningham
02-14-2012, 12:31 PM
Unless this thread gets back on track and off of one personality, it's going to get locked. Yes, I'm addressing "both sides" on this.

OP, maybe you might want to reappear and chime in, letting us all know what you've learned so far from this thread that you started.

jthhapkido
02-14-2012, 12:35 PM
Technically off topic, but not really---one of the things brought forth is the type of argument presented in this discussion thus far, and it seems that we have two types going on. One type is a logical argument (fact-based, backed by data) and the other is personal argument (based on preferences and likes/dislikes).

This community in general has mostly fairly carefully adhered to actual discussion rules, as opposed to argumentative or persuasive rules, which I think is a strength.

On the relatively few occasions when we haven't adhered to that, it has normally been fairly obvious, in that it "feels" very different than our normal discussion.

Just as a refresher regarding discussions (vs arguments, or other situations in which people think it is important that they "win") one of the major points of solid, informative discussion is that finding a correctly supported answer is the important thing. In other words, the important result is what is right, as opposed to who is right.

So here you go. If someone has had a problem with this discussion, they might look at what part of this they haven't done, and it might help.

http://www.jamespegram.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/discussion-flow-chart.jpg

:)

BaiHu
02-14-2012, 01:52 PM
But it's a huge waste of the other students' time to force them to see, learn, and practice eighty six techniques that will be rejected.

This!! I have been to classes in college and elsewhere in my life where I left saying, "wow, I just got shown all the stuff that can and cannot work, yet never learned a damned thing useful, b/c we spent equal time on effective and ineffective techniques/thoughts/ideas."

I just attended a low light/no light class where 2/5ths of the techniques didn't even work for most modern flashlights, so you had people, in a level 1 class of this sort, not being able to effectively practice some of these techniques. I'd rather have 2 techniques that I could rely on and practice fully for the 4 hours and 250 rounds rather than 5-7 techniques that I spread 250 rounds on where 3 of them aren't even really executable.

To jthhapkido:
Sweet flow graph, I love that stuff!

jthhapkido
02-14-2012, 02:19 PM
To jthhapkido:
Sweet flow graph, I love that stuff!

I note for the record that I didn't make that flowchart, I'm just using it. For the life of me, I can't find who originally created it, otherwise I would give credit.

I do use it in a lot of the classes I teach. (I teach at a local high school, among other things.)

David Armstrong
02-14-2012, 04:18 PM
When you see MMA fighters throw crappy Thai leg kicks in their first fights, it's often because someone showed them the "easy" way first, and that is what they fall back on when their adrenalin goes crazy. If someone had programmed them with the correct technique from the beginning it's a lot less likely they would use incorrect technique when it counts.
That assumes that we are talking about an incorrect technique. Different does not mean inferior or incorrect, and personally I found MT far more difficult than ISO.

orionz06
02-14-2012, 05:02 PM
That assumes that we are talking about an incorrect technique. Different does not mean inferior or incorrect, and personally I found MT far more difficult than ISO.

How does one determine "inferior" in this instance?

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 02:53 PM
How does one determine "inferior" in this instance?
I don't think you can. It is sort of like saying which is the inferior motor vehicle, a Taurus sedan or an F-150 pick-up? They are different, and what is best is not so much a function of what it is as how it is used.

orionz06
02-15-2012, 02:54 PM
Don't we have the end use sort of nailed down a little more than that though?

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 03:07 PM
Don't we have the end use sort of nailed down a little more than that though?
Not that I'm aware of. Unless I missed something we have AN end use nailed down for some, not THE end use for all.

orionz06
02-15-2012, 03:11 PM
Not that I'm aware of. Unless I missed something we have AN end use nailed down for some, not THE end use for all.

I'm not saying this is the case, but let's look at something...


What if you were shown a way to do things that was faster, more accurate, and overall better for more people in more ways and was proven in both competition and the elimination of bad people in all forms of bad guy elimination? This is proven with stats and data that are not arguable, they are 100% true as determined by everyone. What would you do?

jthhapkido
02-15-2012, 03:52 PM
Not that I'm aware of. Unless I missed something we have AN end use nailed down for some, not THE end use for all.

I must confess, I thought we were talking about shooting skills---not tactics, which is a separate discussion.

Isn't the point of a shooting method (at least the ones we are currently discussing) to enable the shooter to maximize accuracy and minimize time? We could add "...on the move" or "...on multiple targets" or one of any series of other criteria if we wanted to test under several conditions. Similarly, we could add "...under stress" or "...learned in a short time" if we really wanted.

Is there some other criterion we should consider regarding shooting skills? (As opposed to defensive skills, assault skills, competition skills, etc.)

The point is getting shots on target quickly, isn't it? (This isn't competition bullseye, right?) Or is there some other point to the particular shooting stances under discussion?

rsa-otc
02-15-2012, 04:11 PM
I've been watching and been part of this debate for going on 30 years. I have reams of articles saying how one is better than the other. So it doesn't surprise me that we are at page 19 of this thread. I have come to the conclusion after all this time - "to each his own". I have yet to be convinced that one method is clearly superior to another. MY PERSONAL BIAS (and yes it is a bias) is toward ISO. I have tweaked to many people over the years using the MT. I not sure that ISO is superior over MT in delivering speedy accurate shots, but I've seen many people have problems becoming competent with MT from many different instructors. So I'm more confident in teaching my students ISO.

That said should someone clearly show me that One or the other or maybe a third is superior; I'm all over it.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm not saying this is the case, but let's look at something...


What if you were shown a way to do things that was faster, more accurate, and overall better for more people in more ways and was proven in both competition and the elimination of bad people in all forms of bad guy elimination? This is proven with stats and data that are not arguable, they are 100% true as determined by everyone. What would you do?

Declare that the argument about the Israeli Technique was over with!:D
Joking aside, I'd love to look at it. The problem is I've heard that several times in my career, and it has never panned out.

David Armstrong
02-15-2012, 05:01 PM
I must confess, I thought we were talking about shooting skills---not tactics, which is a separate discussion.
If that is the case then perhaps the Olympic shooting folks win?? I think that is part of it. I can only consider shooting skills within the overall issue of what those skills are used for and how they perform within that use. Skills don't exist in a vacuum, if they did then one skill would be better than all others. I just don't see it. I echo the comment from rsa-otc:
"I have yet to be convinced that one method is clearly superior to another."

GA_Jeff
02-15-2012, 09:20 PM
I'm not saying this is the case, but let's look at something...


What if you were shown a way to do things that was faster, more accurate, and overall better for more people in more ways and was proven in both competition and the elimination of bad people in all forms of bad guy elimination? This is proven with stats and data that are not arguable, they are 100% true as determined by everyone. What would you do?


This seems pretty far from reality...too far for consideration, IMHO. Just way too many variables that need to be considered.

GA_Jeff
02-15-2012, 09:33 PM
I echo the comment from rsa-otc:
"I have yet to be convinced that one method is clearly superior to another."

That's because there is no 'one-size fits all' solution. Putting aside the ever contentious debate on 'condition 1' or not, just look at the people and how they vary in skills, capabilities, etc. If you are hell bent on teaching one method regardless (speaking in generalities, not meaning YOU), then you are failing to properly teach ASSUMING the person is not in a group training class.

With all that said though, there are people that enroll in a group training classes who apparently do NOT evaluate the class curriculum and assess whether that's something that is right for them. As I student, I have seen some people get frustrated in their attempts to customize the class instruction for their specifics. If they want one-on-one instruction, they should seek and pay for it....but that's a whole other topic/rant (from a student's perspective).

jthhapkido
02-16-2012, 06:45 AM
If that is the case then perhaps the Olympic shooting folks win?? I think that is part of it. I can only consider shooting skills within the overall issue of what those skills are used for and how they perform within that use. Skills don't exist in a vacuum, if they did then one skill would be better than all others. I just don't see it. I echo the comment from rsa-otc:
"I have yet to be convinced that one method is clearly superior to another."

I do recall that I said:

I must confess, I thought we were talking about shooting skills---not tactics, which is a separate discussion.

Isn't the point of a shooting method (at least the ones we are currently discussing) to enable the shooter to maximize accuracy and minimize time? We could add "...on the move" or "...on multiple targets" or one of any series of other criteria if we wanted to test under several conditions. Similarly, we could add "...under stress" or "...learned in a short time" if we really wanted.

Is there some other criterion we should consider regarding shooting skills? (As opposed to defensive skills, assault skills, competition skills, etc.)

The point is getting shots on target quickly, isn't it? (This isn't competition bullseye, right?) Or is there some other point to the particular shooting stances under discussion?

So no, for this case I don't think the Olympic shooting folks win. (Though they can certainly outshoot me in their arena!)

Again---given a discussion of a method used to enable the shooter to maximize accuracy and minimize time, what other criterion are you looking for?

David Armstrong
02-16-2012, 09:53 AM
So no, for this case I don't think the Olympic shooting folks win. (Though they can certainly outshoot me in their arena!)
And that is the key. I'm sure they will tell you that for their arena their technique provides maximum accuracy and minimizes the time to provide what they are needing.

Again---given a discussion of a method used to enable the shooter to maximize accuracy and minimize time, what other criterion are you looking for?
I look at criterion such as how easy or difficult is it to learn and retain, how well does it hold up in a variety of arenas, how effective is it under varying conditions to include environmental and physical, and so on. Maximizing accuracy and minimizing time is certainly important, although I would suggest once one reaches a certain level improvements become increasingly less important. But they do not exist in a vaccum, and I've yet to see anything that suggests the same technique provides that across the board for all parties in all situations.

5shot
02-18-2012, 10:02 PM
Currently watching a history.com program on sharpshooters. Lots of good shooting, even point shooting.

In a portion on shooting single action revolvers in competition, the shooters shown were using the Iso.

Herb Parsons was shown throwing up 7 clay targets at one time and shooting and hitting all of them with a pump shotgun before any hit the ground. And a current shotgun, shooter was shown shooting at and hitting 8 with a pump shotgun.

Nice shooting.

Robinson
05-05-2012, 02:56 PM
I know this is sort of an older thread, but i wanted to get opinions on something.

I shoot mostly double-action revolvers and 1911s. When shooting either of these, I tend to use something close to a Weaver stance, though not severely "bladed" -- and my shooting arm is almost locked but not quite. It seems very natural to me, especially with the slim single stack 1911 grip.

When I shoot a more modern double stack pistol such as a G17 or a M&P9 it feels better to me to use an isosceles stance -- I think partly because the thicker grip already spreads my palms apart a bit and it is more natural to use the tension of both arms to control the pistol and allow recoil to happen.

This could be all in my mind, but it seems real enough when shooting. And I realize performance is not all about what feels better -- I do perform better with a 1911 using my version of the Weaver (Chapman-esque?) stance.

Has anyone else experienced anything similar? I don't necessarily plan to walk away from the 1911 platform, but I am trying to be open to learning newer/more effective methods.

gringop
05-05-2012, 03:49 PM
I know this is sort of an older thread, but i wanted to get opinions on something.

I shoot mostly double-action revolvers and 1911s. When shooting either of these, I tend to use something close to a Weaver stance, though not severely "bladed" -- and my shooting arm is almost locked but not quite. It seems very natural to me,

When I shoot a more modern double stack pistol such as a G17 or a M&P9 it feels better to me to use an isosceles stance -- .

How well do you perform, one stance against the other? A good feeling doesn't necessarily mean much, you have to objectively measure results.

Gringop

Robinson
05-06-2012, 10:45 AM
From my original post:


And I realize performance is not all about what feels better -- I do perform better with a 1911 using my version of the Weaver (Chapman-esque?) stance.

TCinVA
05-06-2012, 05:46 PM
Whenever you attempt a new technique you will see a drop in performance over the older technique. Just as it took time and repetition to get efficient with the less efficient technique it will take time and repetition to get the benefit from the new technique.

beltjones
05-07-2012, 08:50 PM
Whenever you attempt a new technique you will see a drop in performance over the older technique. Just as it took time and repetition to get efficient with the less efficient technique it will take time and repetition to get the benefit from the new technique.

Great point, and I'll add that THIS is why it's so important to get with a good instructor early and often. When refining techniques, it's really nice to have an instructor there to coach you through the inevitable performance dip. They can keep you on the right track and give you the confidence to stick with the program as it were.

jthhapkido
05-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Great point, and I'll add that THIS is why it's so important to get with a good instructor early and often. When refining techniques, it's really nice to have an instructor there to coach you through the inevitable performance dip. They can keep you on the right track and give you the confidence to stick with the program as it were.

...and keep you from stopping in disgust and going back to your old method. (Which feels better, more comfortable, and does work better at the moment.) Having someone help you keep working on the new method even though you are disgusted with being worse is really helpful.

Sometimes it is hard to keep in mind that the old (comfortable) method had an upper limit of how good you could get, and the new method (once in place) will give you a higher "upper limit".

Robinson
05-09-2012, 08:45 AM
Thanks everyone for your input. I do plan to attend a training class this fall -- with an open mind.

jeffreywt
05-12-2012, 04:07 PM
I really enjoyed reading this thread. Though the topic has been discussed to death all over the Internet, the quality of this forum and it's membership keeps it civil and makes it a refreshing read. I don't have anything to add but I can comment that when I started shooting, weaver was quite comfortable. Now that I have some experience in competition and defensive training classes, isosceles is the most effective and consistent.

The main purpose of my reply here is this: I want to give special recognition to ToddG for his epic "ogre battle" reference. I think I'm going to yell lightning bolt at least once at my next match or class and see what might become of it. :p

Robinson
05-13-2012, 10:17 AM
Yeah so I spent all of my shooting time this weekend (just 300 rds, 1911) working the Isosceles stance. A few magazines into it I was feeling better, and getting good hits. I still tend to have my left foot slightly ahead of my right, but I'm not sure it's a big problem. Knees bent, weight on balls of feet, etc... not bad at all.

Oh, and I was viewing some recent video of Clint Smith shooting pistols and he was most definitely NOT using a traditional Weaver stance. I'm not saying that's hugely significant, just an observation. I do like his instructional videos.

joshs
05-13-2012, 10:40 AM
I wouldn't worry about your foot position. First, you only get to choose your foot position when shooting from a static position. Second, many ModIso shooters offset their rear foot quite a lot. I do it because I have better recoil control with my rear foot significantly behind my front foot.

Tony Muhlenkamp
05-25-2012, 10:55 AM
Unless this thread gets back on track and off of one personality, it's going to get locked. Yes, I'm addressing "both sides" on this.

OP, maybe you might want to reappear and chime in, letting us all know what you've learned so far from this thread that you started.

Original Poster here:
I've learned that people can take critiques of their adopted techniques very personally. :) I've learned that the people on this forum are generous with their time and knowledge. Beyond that, I've summarized what I've learned in the last several years; much of it from this forum and thread, as follows:

Your brain is the primary tool. Exercise restraint, keep your wits, and control your tone. Learn and train to think under pressure.
Tools have to be with you when you need them to be useful.
There is no advanced gunfight, there is no typical attack.
Attackers are not interested in a fight.
Firearms are not always the best solution.
Having a firearm predisposes people to use it even if they shouldn’t.
Surprise trumps a fast presentation; I need 2 seconds to get hits from the holster.
The first person to know an attack is happening is most likely to prevail. (But it’s not guaranteed.)
Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan ‘til they get punched in the mouth.”
Technique, weapon, caliber, ammo, stance, grip; etc. don’t matter.
There are only so many ways to align the sights and press the trigger.
Gear HAS to be 100% reliable in my combination of weapon and ammo.
Better to avoid than de-escalate, better to de-escalate than run, better to run than fight, better to fight than die, better to die than see my family hurt.
Walter Mitty fantasies predominate; most people would rather pretend.
The threat you see is not the only threat.

Thanks to everyone that contributed to the thread; I found it both useful and interesting. I hope to see you in a AFHF class one day.

Tony Muhlenkamp

Tony Muhlenkamp
05-25-2012, 11:01 AM
Original Poster here:
Technique, weapon, caliber, ammo, stance, grip; etc. don’t matter.



I should add that this applies FOR ME. I've read the posts about how certain techniques are MEASURABLY faster and more accurate, but those improvements are measured in tenths of a second and fractions of an inch; and only achieved with rigorous and consistent training. I have learned that either technique will produce what I consider to be safe, effective, and competent gun handling and marksmanship so the technique doesn't really matter to me. What matters is how well I can execute my chosen technique for my purposes of self defense. Thanks for helping me figure that out.

Tony Muhlenkamp

Tony Muhlenkamp
05-25-2012, 11:04 AM
The whole reason someone gets instruction is to be taught, not to be left adrift to figure it all out on his own....

I teach people the way I think is best. [/b]

I agree completely; this is EXACTLY what I look for and expect from an instructor. Thanks

4sooth
05-25-2012, 09:37 PM
See the Special Forces Annual 2008 about page 62. Pictured are Jedburghs being trained in the use of the .45 auto pistol. Some hold the weapon at a 45 degree ready position, others aim using the "Weaver" stance--all are using a two hand hold. This is circa 1943--1944 (approx). These techniques were probably known prior to WWII--maybe before.