History of pistol shooting techniques

[rob_s]

I'd like to see a discussion of who was most influential and how we went from this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/id_pistol_m1911_700_06.jpg


to this
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/gun%20stuff/IMG_2226.jpg

[Suvorov]

This is an excellent thread idea and I look forward to the more knowledgeable answers out there.

From where I sit on the outside looking in, not being in the industry nor a real competitive shooter, I think we really have 3 groups to thank for the evolution of the "modern handgun technique"

- The first were the pioneers in the 50s and 60s like Cooper, Weaver, and others who had military or law enforcement experience and realized that the old "bullseye" technique was lacking for any serious purposes. Add to that the NRA who came up with the first of the "combat" oriented matches with the PPC that opened the door for IPSC and all the others to follow.

- Second were the mostly civilian "combat action" competitors who in their never ending search for an edge and to shave a few tenths of seconds, threw common practice out the window and embraced the isosceles stance, press out, and other techniques. Unencumbered by department and institutional SOPs and equipment, they weren't afraid to try new techniques as the only thing they had to loose were matches. This proved to be a perfect breeding ground for new ideas to spring up and techniques to come to fruition.

- Lastly were the elite HSLD military and LE units that looked to the civilian competition shooters and training centers like Gun Sight to train their soldiers and then cross pollinated the more poguish units with their new found knowledge. There was no way that the big Army would ever look to the civilian action shooters for advice and the AMU was largely too involved in traditional shooting matches to be developing new styles, but the guys from SFOD-D and other like units were open minded and embraced change. Once the average soldier saw how the "cool kids" were shooting they wanted to do the same. The past 10 years has brought an abundance of real world combat shooting that has given these guys real world feed back which they in turn fed back into the world of training with guys like Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, and others decimating their wisdom.

As a side note, I will say that while the Euros might have had some influence (at least with the formation of HSLD units), this evolution of combat shooting style could ONLY HAPPEN in a nation with a healthy civilian gun culture. Ironic when you think that the latest techniques an SAS trooper is using, came from a nation who's gun laws the average Brit would find horrific.

[rob_s]

Little bit of PPC background

http://www.nrahq.org/law/competitions/ppc/index.asp

[Al T.]

IMHO, Col. Cooper was the most influential. Not due to his adaptation of the Weaver stance, but due to Gunsite. He was the first guy (IMHO) to both create a specific site for training and used his influence at Peterson's Publishing to get recognition and publicity.

Side note - Lucky McDaniel was one of the first guys to travel the country teaching folks how to shoot better.

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

[GJM]

A happy confluence of timing, his intellect, his interest, and his ability to write not just generally, but specifically about shooting, hunting, fighting and competition.

[Dagga Boy]

Two quick points on this:

On the L/E side-The legendary instructors at LAPD in SWAT/SIS/Metro Div., cut their teeth at Gunsite. They took the Modern Technique and adapted it for use in a highly restrictive environment in which they had lawyers who targeted them on every single shooting. They are some of the most successful police gunfighters in the country, and those they have trained have had similar results. Those same instructors also provided the training to the USMC Force Recon community with great success. You could also add the work of Pat Rogers in this regard as well.

On the Army Special Operations side, I will quote a guy who was there in the early years-"Until Ken Hackathorn came along, nobody shot a 1911 like they do today". Ken totally changed how the pistol was shot and ran. Ken was also a Gunsite vet., and had a ton of influence on many of today's top trainers.

I know that with my time dealing with the West Coast Naval Special Warfare community in the late 80's, they were heavily influenced by John Shaw and his three gun based shooting style.

While most I have talked to have said that the Modern Technique needed some tweaks when adopted into use in the Military and L/E communities, it was a solid foundation to build on. While poo poo'd by many, I can attest first hand how successful the LAPD Metro adaptation of the Modern Technique has flat worked in putting down bad guys in actual street shootings with higher hit rates than anything else I have seen. Keep in mind, it is not treated as a "shooting" system, but a balance of the weapons handling requirements for street operations that are heavily search and evaluation based and marksmanship requirements that emphasize proper application of lethal force (with US Federal Court standards) based over pure shooting. For pure shooting performance, there are better evolved ways to do things.

[Al T.]

Nyeti, good to see you back. :)

[Dagga Boy]

Nyeti, good to see you back. :)

Never left, just tend to read and not post any more. I just happened to have some unique insight on this one.

[DocGKR]

nyeti--I always enjoy your cogent posts, as they are always fact based and full of wisdom...

[GJM]

DB, that period of Gunsite inspired SoCal Law enforcement has to go down as the heart of the golden age of law enforcement shooting development. Larry Mudgett was also a "student" in my first class at Gunsite, API 270, and the cross pollination of Gunsite and LAPD was on display at most every class I took at Gunsite in the 90's.

I should also point out that I noticed the camel sneaking his nose under the tent on the shooting versus fighting argument. :)

[GOP]

I don't think law enforcement training has advanced much since those days at an institutional level from the outside looking in, it seems that all LEO I encounter are 20-30 years behind the curve outside of SWAT/SRT types or unless the individual trains on his own. I think Rob Shaw and Hackathorn are responsible for the generation like Defoor, Lamb, and Mcnamara

[JSGlock34]

There were some small pockets of innovation during WWII. I think it is hard not to acknowledge the contributions of the OSS in advancing more modern training techniques. While William Fairbairn (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/fairbairn.html), Eric Sykes and Rex Applegate certainly advocated point shooting (and are most associated with that technique), some OSS training included the isosceles stance in the 1940s.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/508/jedstraining45375.jpg
OSS Jedburgh training

But more important than pistol technique (as point shooting clearly fell out of favor) was their overall influence on combatives and combat marksmanship training. One of Fairbairn's innovations was systemically moving marksmanship training from a competition orientation (shooting bullseyes) to preparation for combat.

I always found this video (http://www.nps.gov/common/commonspot/customcf/audio_video/dspEmbeddedObject.cfm?vFileName=/media/ncr/avElement/conv/house_960x720.mp4&vWidth=960&vHeight=720) of the OSS 'House of Horrors' interesting (if dated and more than a bit strange with the 'Lone Ranger' masks). Probably the earliest use of a 'shoot house'. Note the occasional editing where the pistol changes from a 1911 to a revolver. Fairbairn is the instructor behind the mask.

http://www.nps.gov/cato/historyculture/images/house_bigger.jpg

From the National Park Service website (http://www.nps.gov/cato/historyculture/oss-training2.htm)...

The House of Horrors

A pistol range was initially constructed at B-2 for firing .45 Colt automatic and other pistols. The range had pop-up targets of enemy soldiers. Students were instructed how to fire a pistol using a special quick firing method from the hip called “Point and Shoot.”

Another unique OSS training structure at B-2 was the “Pistol House.” It was also known as the “Mystery House,” “House of Horrors,” and the “Haunted House.” At a cost of $6,000 it was the most expensive structure built by the OSS. The house was located where the stable is today in Camp Greentop. It was designed by British Special Operations to teach close shooting practice under realistic conditions. Trainees were sent into the house with an instructor and were armed with a .45 automatic pistol. The house simulated a building that was occupied by Nazis and the interior was kept completely dark. The floors in the house were unstable and included frequent drops. There was a hidden phonograph that played realistic sounds including men speaking German. As they moved through the house they encountered Papier-Mâché Nazis with pistols.

[Dagga Boy]

I don't think law enforcement training has advanced much since those days at an institutional level from the outside looking in, it seems that all LEO I encounter are 20-30 years behind the curve outside of SWAT/SRT types or unless the individual trains on his own. I think Rob Shaw and Hackathorn are responsible for the generation like Defoor, Lamb, and Mcnamara

Are you talking about L.E. training or shooting technique and style. Very different things. L.E. training made huge advances since I went to the academy in 1988. Shooting styles are cyclic. I started as a competitive shooter and a hard ISO shooter when I started in L/E. I will still use many of these techniques when faced with evil plate racks and fields of steel. I found the shooting techniques I was using were poor for handling people while armed with a pistol. They sucked ass for doing tons of cold searches in both structures and outdoors in low light. They were lacking in threat mangement. Many of those from the military and civilian shooting communities do not understand the threat assessment and evaluation expectations that are unique to the L/E community. The military is just starting to get a taste of this.

As I tell people in classes, for pure shooting there are better techniques than what I teach and use. For dealing with the dynamics of managing encounters in the L/E world, I am pretty set on what I know works. I just had dinner with Scott Reitz a couple of weeks ago, and much of this was the topic of conversation. Scott often uses the Federal Court standards and standards of expectations placed on LEO's in a world where common sense and reasonable standards are at a higher bar than most realize.

Cars and guns are a favored analogy. I am sure that I would get my butt kicked on any track by any Indy class driver running a full house modern Indy car. In a fully loaded Crown Vic in a wholly unpredictable and ever changing high speed urban pursuit through alley's and the wrong way on SoCal freeways, I can hold my own with anybody.

I find that most of the critics of L/E training and procedures have not spent a lot of time in that world. I've trainined with a lot of NSW people and Army Special Operations folks. I enjoy it, like it, learn stuff, and find much of it non-applicable without a lot of modification. Unfortunately, there is a trend that cops are stupid and don't know how to shoot and those with no experience in that world will come in and fix things. Sounds good on paper........

[TGS]

Wow, awesome posts by JSGlock and Nyeti. Great info guys, thanks!

[rob_s]

One thing that I've noticed is how few know any of the history, even instructors. And often those looking to make a name for themselves repeat the (mistakes of?) the past thinking that they're innovating when in fact they are only discovering what others before them discovered, tried, and threw out as ineffective. This is why I think a compendium or comprehensive history of the last 50 years of pistol shooting, maybe even the last 100, might be interesting. The problem is, I don't know of many that have the knowledgebase, time, and literary skills to compile it. and with those such as Cooper who, regardless of what you thought or think of him, did have such a great background and understanding of the history from whence they came, I don't know if it's even possible.

Then there's the secondary challenge of attempting to separate dogma from reality.

[Failure2Stop]

Based on the history that I know, I give the most credit to Col. Cooper, and more specifically, his concepts.

He put together a well rounded concept of "gun fightery", which tied in the most cutting edge and effective practical shooting techniques and the best hardware of the time along with embracing the evolution of both.
He started a school, which brought in all kinds of people from around the world to learn and disseminate material that was orders of magnitude more effective in a practical sense than what was being done anywhere else.
He created the modern practical shooting competition which allowed the testing and comparison of technique in a more dynamic and stressful environment than the square range.
He was a prolific and easily read author, which further disseminated the concepts that we take for granted today.

I definately believe that there were other notable contributors, and I don't agree with all of his opinons, but I cannot think of anyone that has made a geater impact than he has.

[Dagga Boy]

If you go in with the idea that not much is new, it becomes easier to separate the marketing b.s. from what actually works (what works will differ from Military use, L/E use, civilian defensive use, and various competitive arenas). I have found one thing in common with the instructors I have learned the most from. They tend to give credit to others. Take a class with Scott Reitz, and will hear a lot of stuff about techniques dating back to the early days of firearms use and throughout the 20th Century, as well as context to why some things worked in certain time frames. Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn can keep me entranced with simply great historical information for hours. Pat Rogers fills in many holes about the transitional periods since the mid 60's. Many of these guys are encyclopedia's of great historical info. There are a lot of these guys out there, but the above are more publicly accessible.

[rob_s]

I definately believe that there were other notable contributors, and I don't agree with all of his opinons, but I cannot think of anyone that has made a geater impact than he has.

I think when evaluating history of anything, it's critical to keep in mind their era. Compared to what else was going on at the time, at least he had thought about things and had answers. Most at the time appeared to have not even asked the questions.

I think you hit the nail on the head RE: Gunsite. I think of the original Gunsite as a laboratory as much as a school. They had the facility, time, and people to try things and see what worked. I don't think that exists today, and Gunsite today has become too insular and too much of a self-licking icecream cone. It does not appear to be welcoming of new people and new ideas, and appears too stuck in the dogma and history.

[GJM]

Gunsite means something different depending upon what year we are talking about.

There is early Gunsite, where it was a labratory for ideas, and the ground zero for instructors.

There is later Gunsite, still with Jeff, but an older Jeff, where there may have been less development, and more confirmation of ideas Jeff had formed previously.

There was Gunsite in turmoil during the Rich Jee era.

There is the latest Gunsite which is stable, more business oriented, and based on a review of courses offered, largely a school of intro handgun, carbine and shotgun classes.

While it was easier to differ with Jeff, very late in his life, as the Enos/Leatham modern ISO changed pistol competition, all the while Jeff fought stances other than the Weaver, rifles other than the Garand, and bolt guns other than a Scout, I can't imagine a person not respectful and admiring of Jeff during Gunsite's heyday. Interacting with Jeff, in person or by letter, throughout his life was always a thought provoking and exciting experience.

No matter what differences you might have had with a particular idea of Jeff, so many of us owe so much to a way of living life, inspired by Jeff's ideas.

[zacbol]

Both Greg Hamilton and John Holschen spend a bit of time talking about the history of shooting in Insights Intensive Handgun Skills. Here's my summary of what Greg said when I took the class with him and which I posted in my AAR:


The first formalized training for handguns was probably the NYPD. They used 6 shot revolvers. This is where things like hammers or double-taps became popular because of training tended to do three two-round repetitions. Later the OSS started developing other techniques during WWII. These included things such as using the muzzle flash to identify targets and had all of four hours of handguns training.

Greg mentioned that most of what the great shooters did was to ‘figure out a way to get their ammo paid for’. This was what led Jeff Cooper to establish a shooting league. They had competitions of shooting balloons. Because of what had developed with the OSS and influence of Cowboy movies from the 20s and 30s, everyone had forgotten to aim. They all shot from the hip, because everyone knew that “That was what was fastest”. Jack Weaver was one of those who competed and noticed “It seems to be taking a lot of hits to get the balloons.” He spent an entire winter practicing with both hands on the gun. He came back the next year…and did horribly. Plus he got made fun of for having both hands on his gun and “shooting like a girl”. But he persevered and starting thinking “What if I aimed?” With both hands on the gun and using his sights, he “started to kick everyone’s ass”.

If you actually look at pictures from this time of how Weaver shot, it is remarkably similar to what we now call modern isosceles. The “Weaver Stance” was actually created by Jeff Cooper. “Like any good Marine , he added 90 degree angles to everything”. Weaver did sometimes have his arms slightly bent, but that was because he learned something it took others until the Steel Challenge of the 80s to learn, namely that you can shoot things you’re close to before you reach full extension. In fact, the first time Weaver heard about isometric tension was when he read about it in a magazine. He had to go out and try it to see if he actually did apply it and his answer was “I guess there could be”. Massad Ayoob made this error even worse by increasing the prescribed tension to 45lbs.

The next evolution in shooting occurred because of Second Chance Body Armor. The owner started to do demonstrations of himself being shot while wearing the armor then shooting bowling pins to prove someone wearing the armor would still be capable of fighting after being shot. He also took out an ad offering a free gun to anyone who was shot while wearing his armor and who managed to kill his assailant afterward. The Federal government did not think offering guns for killing people was okay so this offer was rescinded and he was left with a bunch of guns. He decided to start a competition and offer the guns as prizes. Until this point, most shooting competition had no awards. This was a game changer because people really started to be motivated to win. After all, a competitor could enter several classes of the competition and come away with multiple guns…which he could then trade for more ammo.
Suddenly, people were designing guns just to win this pin competition. They moved the gas port and created guns with a non-reciprocating sight. This led to the evolution of the isosceles stance because people could watch their front sight.

Jeff Cooper was watching what was going on and started to make up derogatory terms for the pin guns and say that a shooter could get away with an isosceles stance rather than Weaver, only because they were shooting ‘girly guns’. Cooper created the terminology around shooters, referring to the people who competed as ‘gamesman’ and the real shooters who used Weaver-stance and a .45 ACP as the “martial artists”. The only problem was that by the late 1980’s the “martial artists” started to get upset that they were getting the asses kicked at every competition. At this point, IPSC created the Limited class to try and allow the ‘martial artists’ a chance, whereas the Unlimited class was open to everyone. The only problem was the first winner of the Limited class, Jerry Burkhardt, also won the Unlimited class. This was “proof” to the martial artists that IPSC was “rotten to the core” and they founded IDPA. The first year Rob Laetham won. Coincidentally, he also won the IPSC competition that year. So, IDPA started asking the IPSC winners not to come to their competitions.

When that didn’t work, they scheduled them the same weekend to make it impossible for someone to attend both.

[Dagga Boy]

I wouldn't agree with all of that. This goes back to the difference between "shooting" and applying shooting to "problem solving" as a piece of a much bigger pie. One of the biggest reasons we had a lot of success with a "Weaver like fighting stance" is the due to the use of a flashlight in combination with a pistol to search and engage with. I spent a lot of years with Mike Harries. When you work a lot with a handheld light, you tend to use a technique that works well with it. Here is reality-the ISO based flashlight techniques totally suck-period. It wasn't till the advent of some of the X series Surefire WML's that you could actually work somewhat competently with a light and a ISO platform. This is still not a replacement in L/E circles for use of a light, BUT a WML will work well for Military units with lesser restrictive ROE's, and for most civilians who are working off reactive response for ID only and not really doing a lot of searching and other tasks with their lights.

I would agree with the assessment of the stance itself. We used a "Weaverish" hand and arm configuration out of an F.I. stance as the basis for what we were doing. Again, a little less effective "shooting", but more effective for everything else that was often leading up to and post shooting.

The key to early Gunsite was not purely Jeff Cooper, but the folks Cooper attracted to the laboratory. Mudgett, Helms, Reitz and later others from LAPD. Guys like Bill Jeans, Clint Smith, Pat Rogers, Mike Harries, the Stock brothers, Ken Hackathorn, Bill Murphy, Louis Awerbuck, and many others. A lot of "thinkers" were there who took what was going on very seriously, and were able to apply these techniques and tweak them. While I never got to meet Cooper, I have read almost everything he has ever wrote and have a HUGE respect for the man. With that said, many found that Jeff's ideas would not work in many urban settings without some tweaking. Most tended to be more pliable than Mr. Cooper. What was apparent is that most of the folks from that world did not fall into untested ideas. They tend to stick with what they have found works in the field. They were open to what came from the competition world, BUT were very wary of application in the field. I am very much wired the same way.

[GJM]

I wouldn't agree with all of that. This goes back to the difference between "shooting" and applying shooting to "problem solving" as a piece of a much bigger pie. One of the biggest reasons we had a lot of success with a "Weaver like fighting stance" is the due to the use of a flashlight in combination with a pistol to search and engage with. I spent a lot of years with Mike Harries. When you work a lot with a handheld light, you tend to use a technique that works well with it. Here is reality-the ISO based flashlight techniques totally suck-period. It wasn't till the advent of some of the X series Surefire WML's that you could actually work somewhat competently with a light and a ISO platform. This is still not a replacement in L/E circles for use of a light, BUT a WML will work well for Military units with lesser restrictive ROE's, and for most civilians who are working off reactive response for ID only and not really doing a lot of searching and other tasks with their lights.
.

For shooting, I find the Rogers flashlight technique to be the best of any, excepting a WML, and the Rogers technique works great with the Modern Iso. Nyeti, do you use the Rogers flashlight technique?

[jetfire]

Back on topic, a lot of the transition from weaver to iso happened in the 80's primarily because of Enos/Leatham screwing around and try to see what worked and what didn't. It spread from there to pretty much everywhere else. I do find it amusing that the "modern" iso is over 30 years old.

One of the things we're missing though is the current evolution. If you watch USPSA shooters, particularly the GMs that actually win, they all generally tend to stand fairly erect with their heads up. Contrast this with the stance I see in a lot of tactical classes, which is aggressively hunched forward with the head buried down in between the arms. Both of these are technically "iso", but they're radically different in terms of the kinesthetics involved.

[ToddG]

One of the things we're missing though is the current evolution. If you watch USPSA shooters, particularly the GMs that actually win, they all generally tend to stand fairly erect with their heads up. Contrast this with the stance I see in a lot of tactical classes, which is aggressively hunched forward with the head buried down in between the arms. Both of these are technically "iso", but they're radically different in terms of the kinesthetics involved.

There are tradeoffs to both.

The upright stance has a lot of benefits in terms of target to target transitions on static targets from a static position. That's the majority of IPSC and IDPA shooting. It's not a particularly common situation outside of those games; we don't normally see people standing out in the open, feet planted, engaging three or more close range immediate threats.

Once you start to move, being upright costs you. As an example, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVL3YIYNarc) of Bob Vogel starting at around 4:45. In particular, notice the difference between his stance when engaging the first set of targets (static) and the second (on the move).

Standing upright also has a cost in terms of recoil control. That isn't as big a deal to world-class competitors whose guns are tuned to recoil the way they want, who have good upper body strength and great grip strength, etc. As I tell students all the time, if you want to see what ideal technique is, look at top female competitors. They are normally lighter, have smaller hands, and have less upper body strength then their male counterparts. Here are photos of two of the best known women in the action shooting sports. Notice how radically different their Open (red dot, compensated gun) stance is to their Production/IDPA "gun type" stance:

Julie Golob, standard gun
http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jg_uspsa_06_c-350x233.jpg

Julie Golob, compensated gun
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4024/4461180713_bb0de950c8_m.jpg

Jessie Harrison, Limited gun
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2027788.jpg

Jessie Harrison, compensated rimfire
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cTTHxjXS9PI/SoyHU3A1D8I/AAAAAAAAAMI/bGhdZTueOKI/s200/Jessie+Rim+Fire.jpg

If you look back, you'll see the upright stance thing really got rolling first in Open division, even among men.

If you're not concerned with large arrays of static targets, if you haven't perfected recoil management, or if you lack the physicality of the the guys who are winning the top spots in major action pistol sports, the upright stances makes less sense. Furthermore, if you're not going to practice your static position shooting and your shooting on the move to the point where you'll naturally, preconsciously switch from upright to crouched when you need to start shooting on the move (i.e., 99% of the shooters on Earth) then spending all of your time shooting upright tends to interfere with best practice for shooting on the move.

[Ben Stoeger]

There are tradeoffs to both.

The upright stance has a lot of benefits in terms of target to target transitions on static targets from a static position. That's the majority of IPSC and IDPA shooting. It's not a particularly common situation outside of those games; we don't normally see people standing out in the open, feet planted, engaging three or more close range immediate threats.

Once you start to move, being upright costs you. As an example, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVL3YIYNarc) of Bob Vogel starting at around 4:45. In particular, notice the difference between his stance when engaging the first set of targets (static) and the second (on the move).

Standing upright also has a cost in terms of recoil control. That isn't as big a deal to world-class competitors whose guns are tuned to recoil the way they want, who have good upper body strength and great grip strength, etc. As I tell students all the time, if you want to see what ideal technique is, look at top female competitors. They are normally lighter, have smaller hands, and have less upper body strength then their male counterparts. Here are photos of two of the best known women in the action shooting sports. Notice how radically different their Open (red dot, compensated gun) stance is to their Production/IDPA "gun type" stance:


What are the advantages or standing upright? I usually stand fairly upright but that was always just a comfort thing.

[joshs]

What are the advantages or standing upright? I usually stand fairly upright but that was always just a comfort thing.

I've always felt that the major benefit from standing upright is in sight tracking. As you lean forward, your head also becomes less upright, which causes your eyes to move up to compensate for the forward lean. With a very aggressive lean it is possible to lose the front sight over the top edge of your lenses or the brim of your hat. I also feel that the speed of my vision is somewhat reduced when my eyes are not centered/relaxed.

[Dagga Boy]

First: I am finding the conversation above in regards to body position for competition and different applications with different guns interesting on the competitive side of the discussion.

For the field use side, I am going to use GJM's statement to lead into what has been missed on the Gunsite/Modern Technique side of the equation:

"For shooting, I find the Rogers flashlight technique to be the best of any, excepting a WML, and the Rogers technique works great with the Modern Iso. Nyeti, do you use the Rogers flashlight technique?"

Not only do I not use Rogers, it was flat out not allowed to be used by my people. We tested Rogers....It led to issues with negligent discharges under stress conditions in testing. When you use both hands to do essentially the exact same thing with one side giving light, and one a bang is a recipe for disaster. We also had some of the longer fingered guys get fingers in the trigger guard with their support hand. It is a un-natural way to hold a flashlight. You have to use a special light and specialized carrier. Once in it, you are stuck in it, and the light will not flow naturally into use for other tasks well at all. Ken Good told me that in the tens of thousands of simulated gunfights using lights while at the Surefire Institue and Strategos, he used Rogers exactly one time. It is a one trick pony-it is good to shoot with a light in ISO, and does nothing else well, especially searching.

How does this relate to the Modern Technique and Gunsite. What is often missed is that the cornerstone of the Gunsite teaching ideal is the Combat Triad that places EQUAL importance on Mindset (mental), Marksmanship (shooting), and Gun Handling (and tactics). The "shooting" part is only a third of the equation. The shooting part needs to work with the rest in application.

Back to flashlights and application (this is where "context" is really important). On a typical night as a uniformed policeman (different more high risk stuff working crime suppression) in Southern California I would conduct five traffic stops (didn't like writing tickets, so these were stops looking for an arrest), at least the same number or more contacts of pedestrians (dirt bag parolees or gang members), a couple of high risk felony vehicle stops, three commercial building searches and three to five searches of domestic residences (that are in no way shape or form like what members here houses look like) looking for hiding suspects, and at least one solid yard to yard outdoor K9 search for a hiding felon/felons. All of these activities required the use of a flashlight in order to do everything form searching to filling out a traffic citation, checking an ID card, or looking for contraband. Equally, many of these tasks involved the deployment of a pistol in conjunction with the flashlight. Mindset wise, any of these encounters could instantly turn into a shooting. In combination with that would go a ton of threat evaluation and assessments of suspects and their actions. At this point, it should be obvious that "mindset" and "gun handling" were of far greater importance than "marksmanship". Essentially, it was all in preparation to shoot, with a low percentage of having to. Now, when that light illuminates a gun.......and a decsion is made to shoot, you need to go to auto pilot on those marksmanship skills, and the MUST blend with all the other stuff listed above. There is not a single task listed where Rogers flashlight technique would be worth a crap or a superior means of deployment.

If we look back at the history of the application of the Modern Technique in combative situations, you will find that the whole Triad was in play and why many of the proponents of this "style" of shooting are pretty fixed on it. As an example, Larry Mudgett, Scott Reitz, and John Helms have all shot suspects form the Harries. Both of my shootings involved use of the Harries. In the case of Mudgett and Helms, it was during one of the most difficult hostage rescue problems ever encountered by L/E. In all of these cases, the "shooting" technique needed to work with the gun handling requirements for the situation. This is the context that these shooting techniques must be looked at in regards to anti-personnel use. The context will also change drastically for civilian defensive use, undercover/plainclothes use, and military deployment. It all needs to fit together.

[JV_]

The flashlight discussion has been split:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4360-Flashlight-Techniques

[fuse]

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread-delivers.jpg

[beltjones]

There are tradeoffs to both.

The upright stance has a lot of benefits in terms of target to target transitions on static targets from a static position. That's the majority of IPSC and IDPA shooting. It's not a particularly common situation outside of those games; we don't normally see people standing out in the open, feet planted, engaging three or more close range immediate threats.

Once you start to move, being upright costs you. As an example, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVL3YIYNarc) of Bob Vogel starting at around 4:45. In particular, notice the difference between his stance when engaging the first set of targets (static) and the second (on the move).

Standing upright also has a cost in terms of recoil control. That isn't as big a deal to world-class competitors whose guns are tuned to recoil the way they want, who have good upper body strength and great grip strength, etc. As I tell students all the time, if you want to see what ideal technique is, look at top female competitors. They are normally lighter, have smaller hands, and have less upper body strength then their male counterparts. Here are photos of two of the best known women in the action shooting sports. Notice how radically different their Open (red dot, compensated gun) stance is to their Production/IDPA "gun type" stance:

Julie Golob, standard gun
http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jg_uspsa_06_c-350x233.jpg

Julie Golob, compensated gun
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4024/4461180713_bb0de950c8_m.jpg

Jessie Harrison, Limited gun
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/image_archive/2027788.jpg

Jessie Harrison, compensated rimfire
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cTTHxjXS9PI/SoyHU3A1D8I/AAAAAAAAAMI/bGhdZTueOKI/s200/Jessie+Rim+Fire.jpg

If you look back, you'll see the upright stance thing really got rolling first in Open division, even among men.

If you're not concerned with large arrays of static targets, if you haven't perfected recoil management, or if you lack the physicality of the the guys who are winning the top spots in major action pistol sports, the upright stances makes less sense. Furthermore, if you're not going to practice your static position shooting and your shooting on the move to the point where you'll naturally, preconsciously switch from upright to crouched when you need to start shooting on the move (i.e., 99% of the shooters on Earth) then spending all of your time shooting upright tends to interfere with best practice for shooting on the move.

I think there are some misconceptions here. First, this post supposes that most of body position has to do with controlling recoil, which in most cases it doesn't. It also doesn't address the fact that the female shooters using the technique described compete equally with their male counterparts of the same ability level (meaning, it assumes that the technique used allows a female shooter to place as well in A class as other A class shooters). In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu we say that a smaller male or female has superior technique to a bigger, stronger, opponent if that smaller competitor is able to compete equally - if not, then may his or her technique isn't as good...

In my opinion, it's very difficult to say that the images of Jessie and Julie capture their shooting technique. A static picture is rarely useful when describing the nuance of a dynamic activity. I'm sure martians would say that Michael Jordan was good at basketball because of his ability to fly - based solely on the millions of still photographs of him soaring across the court. However, in the images above we don't know if Julie and Jessie are shooting through ports, moving, and so on.

But let's assume that they do lean forward aggressively. It certainly works for them - they are two of the top female shooters in the world. But I would say this: Posture is a function of vision and balance. Reverse that - balance and vision. If someone crouches because he is moving, it is because he needs to do so in order to stay balanced with the kind of knee bend that is best for absorbing shock while shooting on the move. It isn't something that requires conscious thought. If men and women tend to lean forward more or less than each other, it's because of our different centers of gravity. I mentioned vision as well. At a certain point one realizes how incredibly important vision is to shooting at a high level. It's like driving a high performance automobile on a track - any good instructor will talk about the importance of a wide field of view, which is best accomplished by keeping one's head up and looking out the "front" of the eyes. Just like with shooting, beginning drivers tend to try to look out of the "tops" of their eyes, and that restricts their ability to see well. A slightly more upright posture helps with seeing more when shooting, and that is extremely fundamental in both gun games and in a tactical situation (where the need to avoid "tunnel vision" is always stressed in training).

[Ben Stoeger]

I actually just had a 110 lbs chick in a competition shooting class. She had tiny hands and was running a big glock 34. I advised her the same as I advise a 300 lbs man. Stand comfortably squared up to the targets, have your shoulders in front of your hips (do not have an aggressive forward lean, just a forward weight bias). She was able to make center hits on a 7 yard target while shooting as fast as she could manipulate the trigger.

I have experimented many times with using my body position to try to minimize the effects of recoil. I have really played around with it SHO (where I feel recoil control is a big issue) by leaning way forward and such… I have never actually been able to produce observable and repeatable improvements (as measured by a shot timer) by leaning far forward.

[EmanP]

There are tradeoffs to both.
Once you start to move, being upright costs you. As an example, watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVL3YIYNarc) of Bob Vogel starting at around 4:45. In particular, notice the difference between his stance when engaging the first set of targets (static) and the second (on the move).


I remember that one. That's the one where he flat out admitts to dumping rounds and then teaches everyone when and why to do it then realizes it a minute later. Whoopsy.

[EmanP]

I actually just had a 110 lbs chick in a competition shooting class. She had tiny hands and was running a big glock 34. I advised her the same as I advise a 300 lbs man. Stand comfortably squared up to the targets, have your shoulders in front of your hips (do not have an aggressive forward lean, just a forward weight bias). She was able to make center hits on a 7 yard target while shooting as fast as she could manipulate the trigger.

I have experimented many times with using my body position to try to minimize the effects of recoil. I have really played around with it SHO (where I feel recoil control is a big issue) by leaning way forward and such… I have never actually been able to produce observable and repeatable improvements (as measured by a shot timer) by leaning far forward.

Every time I've tried shooting agressively forward, and I've been told to by several trainers, I've found it harder and more fatiguing to shoot. I've also found it harder to maintain consistency in my draws with both the pistol and my head moving around.

[LOKNLOD]

I've always felt that the major benefit from standing upright is in sight tracking. As you lean forward, your head also becomes less upright, which causes your eyes to move up to compensate for the forward lean. With a very aggressive lean it is possible to lose the front sight over the top edge of your lenses or the brim of your hat. I also feel that the speed of my vision is somewhat reduced when my eyes are not centered/relaxed.

I think that the aggressive forward lean really provides some benefit in tracking the sights during a pressout. The body mechanics in my arms and shoulders are much more favorable to getting the gun leveled out earlier and pressing straight out ("scraping the glass") versus bowling the gun up into position.

[ToddG]

If someone crouches because he is moving, it is because he needs to do so in order to stay balanced with the kind of knee bend that is best for absorbing shock while shooting on the move. It isn't something that requires conscious thought.

(emphasis mine)

This is absolutely incorrect and cannot be based on actually watching real people shooting in real dynamic situations. It's not even limited to shooting. Talk to tennis coaches and they'll tell you that people need to be taught -- and drill -- maintaining proper position when moving in a 360 world. Plenty of people lean forward a little bit when moving forward. But many give that up when moving in other directions, especially while moving backwards. At that point, they bias their center in a way that it becomes far easier to trip, slip, and/or fall.

A drill I use in class illustrates this every time. It involves constant dynamic movement and many people shift their weight backwards when moving backwards... even after being taught to keep a forward crouch and being reminded to do so right before the start of the drill. It takes practice and conscious thought until that body position becomes habituated. The drill in question is something I stole from Scott Warren who for many years was the principal firearms instructor for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. His experience with guys at that level led him to believe it needed training and practice, too.

The problem is dramatically compounded when you leave the competition grid -- which is specifically scrubbed to avoid trip and fall hazards -- and step into a real room, onto a real sidewalk, etc. It's further compounded when foot speed becomes part of the equation. When playing games, it's almost always better to move slowly and shoot quickly within a very small segment of the path. Outside of games, moving very slowly doesn't accomplish much that's useful.

[Odin Bravo One]

Every time I've tried shooting agressively forward, and I've been told to by several trainers, I've found it harder and more fatiguing to shoot. I've also found it harder to maintain consistency in my draws with both the pistol and my head moving around.

Kind of along the same lines as Todd's most recent comments..........

Leaning forward or aggressive forward lean, or whatever you choose to call it, or how you choose to describe it may or may not affect your shooting. If you strictly play games with guns, then no problem.

But away from the game, having an aggressive stance, while slightly fatiguing, will pay dividends. Taking a punch to the face is never a fun way to begin your evening, but try it standing straight up. You will quickly find yourself attempting to shoot from the flat of your back, at least from anyone who knows how to punch.

Certainly there are many factors that will influence whether you finish that fight standing up, from the ground, or not at all...... but stance is one of them.

[GOP]

Kind of along the same lines as Todd's most recent comments..........

Leaning forward or aggressive forward lean, or whatever you choose to call it, or how you choose to describe it may or may not affect your shooting. If you strictly play games with guns, then no problem.

But away from the game, having an aggressive stance, while slightly fatiguing, will pay dividends. Taking a punch to the face is never a fun way to begin your evening, but try it standing straight up. You will quickly find yourself attempting to shoot from the flat of your back, at least from anyone who knows how to punch.

Certainly there are many factors that will influence whether you finish that fight standing up, from the ground, or not at all...... but stance is one of them.

Big +1 here.

Several years of MMA and combatives has pretty much ensured that I stand in basically a Muay Thai stance naturally while shooting. I've tried to stand straight up, but under any kind of stress I revert back to my MT stance. The aggressive stance hasn't seemed to effect my speed and accuracy at, and I have the added bonus of having the same stance when shooting or fighting.

[jstyer]

I found that though a lower, more forward aggressive stance was fatiguing at first for me... after dedicated practice it quickly became second nature and is now not uncomfortable at all.

[beltjones]

Big +1 here.

Several years of MMA and combatives has pretty much ensured that I stand in basically a Muay Thai stance naturally while shooting. I've tried to stand straight up, but under any kind of stress I revert back to my MT stance. The aggressive stance hasn't seemed to effect my speed and accuracy at, and I have the added bonus of having the same stance when shooting or fighting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW1zbUN8xRg&feature=related

The link is two top Muay Thai fighters going at it. They stand pretty straight up, tucked chin notwithstanding (which is tucked for defensive purposes, not because it lets them punch or kick or see better).

[ToddG]

Do you know what happens when one of them falls down (which happened repeatedly in that video)? The fight stops until they get back up. I fail to see the correlation to a real fight.

Anyway, I'm not interested in yet another round 'n round with you. Believe and do what you want. God bless America.

[TCinVA]

First, this post supposes that most of body position has to do with controlling recoil

An MP5, which is hardly a viciously recoiling weapon, will easily push an average adult male backwards if his body position isn't correct. Body position is pretty important in terms of keeping someone in control of the gun, especially if they want to shoot multiple shots in a rapid fashion.

[TCinVA]

How does this relate to the Modern Technique and Gunsite. What is often missed is that the cornerstone of the Gunsite teaching ideal is the Combat Triad that places EQUAL importance on Mindset (mental), Marksmanship (shooting), and Gun Handling (and tactics). The "shooting" part is only a third of the equation. The shooting part needs to work with the rest in application.


Referring to the training of police officers and the success that they saw on the street:

Based on your familiarity with the training, would you say that the instructors you cite from the SoCal scene spent significant amounts of time teaching (or even simulating) bad guy behavior? In other words, were they spending significant time explaining to students behavior that signals the likely need to use lethal force in such a manner that the students recognized it clearly in the situations they faced on the streets and as a result were able to act with confidence to solve the problem?

If so, would it be possible for you to describe some of the methods they used to accomplish that?

[jetfire]

Back to body position and recoil, when I was shooting a 180 PF .45 ACP through a Glock 21, body position was a lot more important than it is when I'm shooting a 130 PF .38 Super through a 44 ounce DA/SA gun. There are two immediate benefits for me and my shooting applications of standing more upright - I can move the gun a lot faster in transition, and my draw is faster because I'm moving just my arms, so I get better economy of motion. I end up going back to shooting Major through really light guns (which isn't a lot of fun) I'll probably get a little bit lower in my stance again.

[beltjones]

Do you know what happens when one of them falls down (which happened repeatedly in that video)? The fight stops until they get back up. I fail to see the correlation to a real fight.

Anyway, I'm not interested in yet another round 'n round with you. Believe and do what you want. God bless America.

Irrelevant. One member asserted that the Muay Thai "stance" was hunched forward, and I provided evidence to two top Muay Thai fighters who do not use such a stance.

The point is, how one stands to best kick another man in the legs and punch him in the face has little to do with how one stands to shoot a pistol, especially when such a technique is described incorrectly.

[beltjones]

(emphasis mine)

This is absolutely incorrect and cannot be based on actually watching real people shooting in real dynamic situations. It's not even limited to shooting. Talk to tennis coaches and they'll tell you that people need to be taught -- and drill -- maintaining proper position when moving in a 360 world. Plenty of people lean forward a little bit when moving forward. But many give that up when moving in other directions, especially while moving backwards. At that point, they bias their center in a way that it becomes far easier to trip, slip, and/or fall.

A drill I use in class illustrates this every time. It involves constant dynamic movement and many people shift their weight backwards when moving backwards... even after being taught to keep a forward crouch and being reminded to do so right before the start of the drill. It takes practice and conscious thought until that body position becomes habituated. The drill in question is something I stole from Scott Warren who for many years was the principal firearms instructor for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. His experience with guys at that level led him to believe it needed training and practice, too.

The problem is dramatically compounded when you leave the competition grid -- which is specifically scrubbed to avoid trip and fall hazards -- and step into a real room, onto a real sidewalk, etc. It's further compounded when foot speed becomes part of the equation. When playing games, it's almost always better to move slowly and shoot quickly within a very small segment of the path. Outside of games, moving very slowly doesn't accomplish much that's useful.

I absolutely agree with all of this.

I don't believe that bending the knees and shooting well on the move and all that encompasses it are things that people are born with, and that are governed by the balance center of the inner ear.

What I do think is correct is that when one bends one's knees and holds a two pound weight at arm's length and tries to hold it steady as one walks around an uneven surface, one will automatically compensate for the awkward position by bending at the waist to such a degree that it allows one to stay balanced.

[beltjones]

An MP5, which is hardly a viciously recoiling weapon, will easily push an average adult male backwards if his body position isn't correct. Body position is pretty important in terms of keeping someone in control of the gun, especially if they want to shoot multiple shots in a rapid fashion.

I wasn't aware we were talking about subguns.

[EmanP]

I've been told that the reason one leans aggressively forward is because 'in a fight' and they always used that term, your body would naturally drop down a little along with your head because it was a body reflex. So since you'd be in that position anyway because that's what happens in a fight, you should learn to shoot from that position. And your head being tucked down is protecting it. I also figured it's the same position most people are in when hiding either behind something or wishing they had something to hide behind. In that way it always made sense to me. Then later when I started shooting compitition I found that it limited my vision (especially wearing a hat) since as was mentioned earlier I was looking out the tops of my eyes but worse it 'locked' me into a position that was harder to get out of rather than just standing and staying loose. Now, if I was in a fight, maybe I would want to stay tight and keep my head protected but of the fights I've been in I always found that everyone stood upright hands down to get the other guy close and not telegraph your strike until you were locked together and grappling. Growing up in L.A. I was always fighting someone but we're talking young adults, not trained fighters.

I think there is a difference though between contact distance, intermediate and longer distance. Certainly one would want to keep their head down so it doesn't get blown off or hit and knocked over such as when hiding behind something or squaring off with someone. Southnarc would probably be our best resource on that. But if you've got some ground to clear with a gun in your hand, even relatively short distances don't most people with experience just tell you to run and find cover and shot from there instead of running and shooting? Wouldn't guys like Kyle Lamb, Larry Vickers, etc be the ones to consult for that? But that's a different environment. Scott Reitz describes his first engagement (first?) as being on the move in a Harris because he had to to get to covering the front of a house. Look at Rob Leatham or Ben winning matchs and they're upright. I think the point is that situations are soo varied it's hard to say do it this way or do it that way when the situation will dictate what you do which may or may not be the correct way to do anything.

It's that whole reload discussion. Some say reload up high, some of the top shooters reload low, you know what, just reload the damn thing as best you can. If you need to run, run. If you need to shoot, shoot. If you need to do both, neither is going to be all that great. At that point can you really say there is a best way to do anything? I remember a class with Massad Ayoob where he taught to walk gracho marx to shoot and move; that was a complete waste. Isn't the whole idea of any doctrine to be rigid and tied to something yet Bruce Lee said not be tied to anything and be fluid, like water. Not everything works the same for everyone which is why there are soo many different things to teach and learn and then keep or disgard. Head position and forward lean is completely personal. I think the only thing in the shooting world that we've figured out that works best is how to hold the thing for stability and recoil management, everything else is general principles which vary.

[LittleLebowski]

I wasn't aware we were talking about subguns.

This is an example of snarkiness and disrespect towards a Staff member that will not be tolerated. Don't argue, just listen and take direction.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[GOP]

Irrelevant. One member asserted that the Muay Thai "stance" was hunched forward, and I provided evidence to two top Muay Thai fighters who do not use such a stance.

The point is, how one stands to best kick another man in the legs and punch him in the face has little to do with how one stands to shoot a pistol, especially when such a technique is described incorrectly.

[edited out any sarcasm]

I said that I use a pretty aggressive stance like what I use in MT. I did not assert that it was "hunched forward", I also realize by your quotations that while sparring or fighting, your "stance" is going to be much less "stance-like" because you are moving, throwing strikes, blocking, checking, and possibly adding in head movement (depending on your style). My MT instructor was ranked in the top 10 in the world in kickboxing before he switched to focusing almost purely on MMA, so I feel that I have a pretty solid understanding of what an "MT stance" looks like. I never competed in MT like I did in BJJ, but I think I understand the basics somewhat well. I think the difference in terms is massive between an aggressive stance shooting (generally hunched very far forward, head somewhat low, etc) and an "aggressive" Muay Thai "stance" (feet roughly shoulder width apart, weight distributed on balls of feet, feet placement so that you have a solid, steady base when punched/kicked/elbowed, etc). I was not Buakaw unfortunately, so I wasn't quite as natural and comfortable bouncing around during a fight. Although no one would question that whatever his technique is, it works extremely well. No one here (I don't think) is implying that a fighting stance is hunched forward, you can very much be standing upright as long as you can take a punch without falling on your butt.

[beltjones]

Belt, you are being pretty annoying here to be honest.

I said that I use a pretty aggressive stance like what I use in MT. I did not assert that it was "hunched forward", I also realize by your quotations that while sparring or fighting, your "stance" is going to be much less "stance-like" because you are moving, throwing strikes, blocking, checking, and possibly adding in head movement (depending on your style). My MT instructor was ranked in the top 10 in the world in kickboxing before he switched to focusing almost purely on MMA, so I feel that I have a pretty solid understanding of what an "MT stance" looks like. I never competed in MT like I did in BJJ, but I think I understand the basics somewhat well. I think the difference in terms is massive between an aggressive stance shooting (generally hunched very far forward, head somewhat low, etc) and an "aggressive" Muay Thai "stance" (feet roughly shoulder width apart, weight distributed on balls of feet, feet placement so that you have a solid, steady base when punched/kicked/elbowed, etc). I was not Buakaw unfortunately, so I wasn't quite as natural and comfortable bouncing around during a fight. Although no one would question that whatever his technique is, it works extremely well. No one here (I don't think) is implying that a fighting stance is hunched forward, you can very much be standing upright as long as you can take a punch without falling on your butt.

Sorry to be annoying, but this post is pretty interesting.

You mention that when moving and in a dynamic environment your "stance" isn't very stance-like. I totally agree. In fact, that's the crux of the argument, isn't it?

The point is that there really is no "competition shooting stance" or posture or whatever because the whole point of competitions - except rare classifier stages and such - is that the stage designers are trying to get you into a dynamic environment. So a still photograph of someone in the midst of a USPSA stage can never tell the whole story of that person's competition shooting technique, because we as the viewers have no idea what the extenuating circumstances are.

"Aggressive" is more of a state of mind than a posture or stance, and in fact I would go so far as to say that no static posture in the world is "aggressive." I imagine with your training you would agree. And just as you say, you can be standing upright as long as you can take a punch without falling on your butt, you can be upright and still manage to shoot without getting disrupted by recoil. After all, the outcome is the final determinant of the effectiveness of a technique, not the dogma or the appeal to expertise or anything else.

[DocGKR]

Shooting competition is NOT the same as trying to save your life. An individual would have to be incredibly STUPID to not carefully heed the comments made by SeanM, a guy coming from a similar background as Kyle Lamb and Larry Vickers referenced above, and clearly the person in this thread with the most experience using lethal force in a dynamic environment:


"Leaning forward or aggressive forward lean, or whatever you choose to call it, or how you choose to describe it may or may not affect your shooting. If you strictly play games with guns, then no problem. But away from the game, having an aggressive stance, while slightly fatiguing, will pay dividends."

Likewise, someone would have to be very ignorant or insolent to ignore the hard won experience and advice from highly experienced LE officers like Nyeti, Wayne Dobbs, and tpd223.

[Coyotesfan97]

An MP5, which is hardly a viciously recoiling weapon, will easily push an average adult male backwards if his body position isn't correct. Body position is pretty important in terms of keeping someone in control of the gun, especially if they want to shoot multiple shots in a rapid fashion.

+1. I use the same basic stance and footwork to shoot my pistol that I use while running an MP5 or an AR.

[Failure2Stop]

There is a difference between fighting and shooting, and I bias my shooting to support direct physical violence where I believe that it is more advantageous.

Though I am at a bit of a loss as to how this argument has anything to do with the evolution of modern shooting technique and who helped bring them to the forefront.

[John Hearne]

At the risk of bringing this back to the original question, the missing component in our discussions has been Jelly Bryce. Jelly was an incredibly gifted shooter with supernatural vision. He claimed that he saw every bullet he ever fired. Jelly was able to use his superior vision to point shoot very well. His success led other to emulate him. The FBI tried to make everybody shoot like Jelly. They were somewhat successful but Jelly's success with his technique led a lot folks to ignore potentially better ways to shoot.

Two-handed eye level shooting was recognized in the 1920's. In the book "Shooting" (published 1930) the author's platform looks like a modified Weaver. I also suspect that nobody knew how quickly you could teach someone to get quick hits with two-handed eye-level shooting. Drawing and shooting with one hand while protecting the chest with the other stuck around for a long time.

One of the more important later breakthroughs was the ability to quickly teach the draw stroke. Initially folks like Cooper thought it would take years to develop the drawstroke but one of the SWCPL participants understood kinesthetics and was able to shortcut the process.

As already mentioned, the arrival of "practical shooting" was critical as well. Prior to Cooper, everyone who shot, shot bullseye or something inspired by it, like PPC. Practical shooting was an excellent laboratory from which a lot of our contemporary technique arises.

[TCinVA]

More to the topic of the history of pistol shooting, something from the FBI from many moons ago:

Shooting For Survival (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4e_wpDc54)

From the WWII era Army:

1911 Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY)

I believe the 1911 video shows some Applegate influence.

[beltjones]

More to the topic of the history of pistol shooting, something from the FBI from many moons ago:

Shooting For Survival (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4e_wpDc54)

From the WWII era Army:

1911 Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY)

I believe the 1911 video shows some Applegate influence.

Very interesting stuff.

[ToddG]

John raises two great points that are often glossed over by the "just do it however you want until you get awesome" crowd.

First, blindly following a self-taught phenom doesn't necessarily mean it will work as well for you.

Second, the evolution of good technique has a component of trainability to it. An awesome technique that requires five years of near daily effort is great for the fraction of a percent who can dedicate their time like that. But for most people, effort and retention are issues.

[beltjones]

John raises two great points that are often glossed over by the "just do it however you want until you get awesome" crowd.

First, blindly following a self-taught phenom doesn't necessarily mean it will work as well for you.

Second, the evolution of good technique has a component of trainability to it. An awesome technique that requires five years of near daily effort is great for the fraction of a percent who can dedicate their time like that. But for most people, effort and retention are issues.

I really don't think anyone is saying "just do it however you want until you get awesome." If anything people are saying "If it works for the best in the world, maybe it can work for you, too."

To your first point, I think that was uncalled for and not furthering this thread as a professional discussion.

To your second point, I don't think that is demonstrable with evidence, and in fact I once had a discussion with a shooter who used similar logic, only he was arguing that it's better to teach the average shooter to use a teacup grip because it is easier to remember for people who couldn't practice consistently. His argument was that the teacup requires less effort and is easier to remember.

I say it is better to train using the best known techniques, and let your skill level be determined by your level of commitment and the limits of your God-given natural ability. If you believe it's better to teach people sub-standard technique because it is easier to learn or remember, that's up to you as an instructor. I say one technique is as easy to learn as another when it comes to pistol shooting, and it's better to ingrain the best habits early on to eliminate some of the performance dips plateaus that inevitably occur when switching from one technique to another.

That's just my respectful difference of opinion.

[Ben Stoeger]

Second, the evolution of good technique has a component of trainability to it. An awesome technique that requires five years of near daily effort is great for the fraction of a percent who can dedicate their time like that. But for most people, effort and retention are issues.

I think this is a fair point. I am part of the small faction of a percent and only ever train with other people in that same demographic. I suspect most of the posters here are in the "hardcore" club as well.

[Suvorov]

From the WWII era Army:

1911 Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY)

I believe the 1911 video shows some Applegate influence.

This film is fascinating and actually dispels many misconceptions I had about combat pistol marksmanship in WWII. I had always thought that the "bullseye" technique was the only one taught and also that the only targets used were "bulleye" style (this I believe I got from Col. Grossman's first book). From the video it seems that they had a pretty good idea on a "forward" leaning stance and were developing a two handed position as well, albeit with the "cup and saucer" grip. The two things that struck me as absent from this training were:
1) Recoil Management
2) Reloading

I am of the understanding the Weaver was the one who pioneered the "modern" grip in an effort to help control recoil and that Cooper and others advanced it. Is this correct and if not, when did the idea of using "as much meat on the grip as possible" come in vogue? Also, when did the rapid reload techniques that we all use today come about?

This thread is proving to be as informative as suspected. I am somewhat embarrassed by my feeble attempt early in the thread considering all the big guns that have followed.

[JHC]

This film is fascinating and actually dispels many misconceptions I had about combat pistol marksmanship in WWII. I had always thought that the "bullseye" technique was the only one taught and also that the only targets used were "bulleye" style (this I believe I got from Col. Grossman's first book). From the video it seems that they had a pretty good idea on a "forward" leaning stance and were developing a two handed position as well, albeit with the "cup and saucer" grip. The two things that struck me as absent from this training were:
1) Recoil Management
2) Reloading

I am of the understanding the Weaver was the one who pioneered the "modern" grip in an effort to help control recoil and that Cooper and others advanced it. Is this correct and if not, when did the idea of using "as much meat on the grip as possible" come in vogue? Also, when did the rapid reload techniques that we all use today come about?

This thread is proving to be as informative as suspected. I am somewhat embarrassed by my feeble attempt early in the thread considering all the big guns that have followed.

Don't be. It was solid. All I could come up with was to start the American pistol legacy with Earp and Hickock for their dictums of accuracy above speed. ;)

[DonovanM]

edited by LittleLebowski: If you have questions or concerns about Staff activities, contact Staff directly via PM. Often, as in this case, decisions are made by Staff based on more than just what members may see in a thread.

[JSGlock34]

I am of the understanding the Weaver was the one who pioneered the "modern" grip in an effort to help control recoil and that Cooper and others advanced it. Is this correct and if not, when did the idea of using "as much meat on the grip as possible" come in vogue? Also, when did the rapid reload techniques that we all use today come about?

Shooting to Live (http://www.amazon.com/Shooting-Live-Capt-W-E-Fairbairn/dp/1581606788?ie=UTF8&tag=kenda03-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969) by Fairbairn and Sykes was published in 1942. It had this illustration on two handed grip. Looks pretty decent to me. The description of the grip and stance sounds almost like the Chapman stance - as the shooting arm is rigid. This stance is suggested for shooting at 10 yards distance and greater.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_j612DZCPAyE/TDfow_msDFI/AAAAAAAAAEY/2arMdFjdK_s/s1600/FSWeaver.jpg

No question that this method gained wide acceptance under Weaver and Cooper - a key addition being the use of the sights and aimed fire. Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate are rightly associated with one-handed 'point shooting' techniques - the full title of the book after all is 'Shooting to Live - With the One Hand Gun'.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/158/Shooting-to-Live-Fairbairn-William-9781581606034.jpg

An interesting piece of history.

[Tom Givens]

Two quick notes:

I have one of the Shanghai Municipal Police 1911's (#233). It was made by Colt in 1928 and has the original, tiny 1911 sights, not the later 1911A1 sights. This is why point shooting was popular in that time frame--the sights were damn near invisible at speed or in anything other than perfect light.

Jack Weaver shot a 6" barrel K-38 with wadcutters, so he was not concerned with recoil control. The "push-pull isometric tension" of the classic Weaver stance was added by Cooper after research by John Plahn, an early Southwest Pistol League competitor who held a degree in phys-ed.

[TGS]

This film is fascinating and actually dispels many misconceptions I had about combat pistol marksmanship in WWII. I had always thought that the "bullseye" technique was the only one taught and also that the only targets used were "bulleye" style (this I believe I got from Col. Grossman's first book).

Don't forget that there's always the concept of what should be taught, and what actually is taught due to various constraints. When my grandfather enlisted to go fight in the Korean War, the US Army didn't have enough time to give the recruits a full boot camp, so they simply said "From you until you *points* will do the first half of Basic. From you until you *points again* will be doing the 2nd half of basic." Yup.......so you had half the recruits not even receive range training on the M1 Garand. For real, you had young men going off to fight hordes of Chinese and they didn't even know how to shoot an M1. Gramps found himself giving impromptu lessons on how to sight and shoot an M1 Garand on his way to Pusan, and even on the train ride from Pusan going north. The specific techniques to US rifles, such as a BZO, wasn't taught to those that did get rifle training even when it was so fundamental to US rifle marksmanship that our sights were designed specifically for it. So, the concepts of what needs to be taught and what are actually taught can be drastically different.

[JSGlock34]

I have one of the Shanghai Municipal Police 1911's (#233). It was made by Colt in 1928 and has the original, tiny 1911 sights, not the later 1911A1 sights. This is why point shooting was popular in that time frame--the sights were damn near invisible at speed or in anything other than perfect light.


Fairbairn and Sykes discussed the limitations of the sights of the day - especially in low light, which they noted was often when criminals tangled with police. They also discussed mounting shotgun type silver bead sights on pistols to provide a bright reference point for use in low light - an early night sight concept.

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/fairbairn3.jpg

[EmanP]

edited by ToddG: If you have questions or concerns about Staff activities, contact Staff directly via PM. Often, as in this case, decisions are made by Staff based on more than just what members may see in a thread.

[BaiHu]

More to the topic of the history of pistol shooting, something from the FBI from many moons ago:

Shooting For Survival (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri4e_wpDc54)

From the WWII era Army:

1911 Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro7N7dAmjLY)

I believe the 1911 video shows some Applegate influence.

Awesome links that were very historically illuminating to a noob such as myself. I've been leaning towards learning technique at this point and history has not been a focus for me, but this was enjoyable and educational, especially on ricochets-wow!

Thanks!

[LittleLebowski]

I have one of the Shanghai Municipal Police 1911's (#233). It was made by Colt in 1928 and has the original, tiny 1911 sights, not the later 1911A1 sights.

I'd like to see this if possible.

[Suvorov]

Two quick notes:

I have one of the Shanghai Municipal Police 1911's (#233). It was made by Colt in 1928 and has the original, tiny 1911 sights, not the later 1911A1 sights. This is why point shooting was popular in that time frame--the sights were damn near invisible at speed or in anything other than perfect light.

Jack Weaver shot a 6" barrel K-38 with wadcutters, so he was not concerned with recoil control. The "push-pull isometric tension" of the classic Weaver stance was added by Cooper after research by John Plahn, an early Southwest Pistol League competitor who held a degree in phys-ed.

Was it the Shanghai Police that later adopted the Inglis made High Powers with the tangent sights?

Speaking of sights, when did the modern standard of the 3-dot (or similar white dot enhanced) sight start becoming standard?

[JSGlock34]

Speaking of sights, when did the modern standard of the 3-dot (or similar white dot enhanced) sight start becoming standard?

Good question...I'd speculate that as the various manufacturers submitted their pistols for the JSSAP/XM9 trials in the late 1970s/early 1980s, the white dot sight became more common among service pistols. Trijicon's website states they introduced "the first tritium-illuminated iron sights for handguns" in 1985, and they were adopted by the FBI for issue on the SIG in 1988. I imagine the FBI adoption further opened the door for widespread issue by US law enforcement.

[okie john]

I'd like to see a discussion of who was most influential and how we went from this

to this

No one has mentioned Ed McGivern. Like almost everyone else in the 1930's, he was a revolver guy, but he was a pioneer of speed shooting with sights (especially on aerial targets), combining speed and accuracy, and on courses of fire that tried to reflect actual gunfight conditions. On the other hand, I may be the only guy here old enough to have tried to use some of the stuff in "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" to improve my skills.


Okie John

[JHC]

No one has mentioned Ed McGivern. Like almost everyone else in the 1930's, he was a revolver guy, but he was a pioneer of speed shooting with sights (especially on aerial targets), combining speed and accuracy, and on courses of fire that tried to reflect actual gunfight conditions. On the other hand, I may be the only guy here old enough to have tried to use some of the stuff in "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" to improve my skills.


Okie John

Wow. You GOTTA be old to have played with AERIAL targets. ;) Great catch. The man (McGivern) too fast for a semiauto!

[BaiHu]

No one has mentioned Ed McGivern. Like almost everyone else in the 1930's, he was a revolver guy, but he was a pioneer of speed shooting with sights (especially on aerial targets), combining speed and accuracy, and on courses of fire that tried to reflect actual gunfight conditions. On the other hand, I may be the only guy here old enough to have tried to use some of the stuff in "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting" to improve my skills.


Okie John

LOL!

My dad just got me that book last year and I was impressed and disappointed, knowing that my range would shoot me if I started shooting stuff in the air :eek:

[NickA]

I'd be curious to know if there's a big difference between what was considered a fast time on, say, the El Presidente, in the 1970's and 1980's, compared to now.
If times are faster now, is it due to evolution of technique, evolution of equipment, or just more people having more time to practice and more opportunities to compete?
<edited for clarity >
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[jetfire]

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Cooper said a good El Pres would be in the 10 second range with all your hits. Nowadays a good time in Production would be around 6 seconds with all your hits.

[Chris Rhines]

A 6-sec El Prez with no points down is a solid Production GM run. I'd say that anything under 8 seconds is pretty sporty (if you're hitting all A's, that is.)

-C

[JHC]

A 6-sec El Prez with no points down is a solid Production GM run. I'd say that anything under 8 seconds is pretty sporty (if you're hitting all A's, that is.)

-C

I have always assumed the standard was all A's. On a youtube vid from the AMU one of their burners demo's it on GIANT steel targets, doesn't go to slide lock for the reload and shoots it in under 4.0. It was fast and impressive but IMO, not an El Presidente.

[John Hearne]

I see very few folks shoot a proper El Prez. 10 yards, A zone hits, Emergency Reload, targets 3 ft or 3 yds apart.

[jstyer]

I see very few folks shoot a proper El Prez. 10 yards, A zone hits, Emergency Reload, targets 3 ft or 3 yds apart.

Even with the above restrictions... I'd say that 10 seconds is a quite a bit of time.

[vcdgrips]

You would be surprised how tough an all a's sub 10 run can be in front of 19 of your closest friends, your rangemaster, three range officers, the guy from the gunsmity and a couple of ground guys who decide to take their break and watch. All the while, the spirit of Col Cooper is nearly tangible in the air. Targets set old school style, 10 yrds out , 3 yrds apart.

[okie john]

Wow. You GOTTA be old to have played with AERIAL targets. ;) Great catch. The man (McGivern) too fast for a semiauto!

I just turned 50. My eyes were really good when I was a kid. I also shot almost nothing but Smith & Wesson revolvers, and I had access to places where the range fan was nearly infinite. I did all of my work in those days with a K-22. After reading too much Elmer Keith, I switched to a 4" Model 29 loaded down to 44 Special/45 ACP ballistics.

Aerial targets aren't that hard once you get over the idea that they're in the air. I started with 5-gallon cans, then moved pretty quickly to 1-gallon cans (paint thinner and such), then graduated to the old paper 1-qt oil cans that had steel ends. I tried beer cans but they were too small to hit reliably.

One BIG part of it was learning how to toss the can consistently--the job is far harder you don't have consistent tosses. (McGivern spends several pages in the book talking about the machine he invented for this. He also gives credit to the thrower in most of the photos of him with multiple broken targets in the air above his head.) I learned that if you put a little bit of gravel in the can, then the added weight carries it up a little higher and keeps the bullets from knocking it around while it's in the air. It also helps if you throw the can straight up and stand almost exactly underneath it when you shoot. I'd start with the revolver in my right hand, toss the can underhanded with my left, assume something kinda like the Weaver stance and get after it double-action using the sights. I didn't get as good as Ed McGivern, but I didn't have Remington giving me boatloads of free ammo, either. At my best, I could hit a 1-qt oil can 3-4 times out of a cylinder on one toss with the K-22. One hit per toss was more like it with the Model 29.

I also learned some of the other tricks that McGivern talked about, like splitting a playing card with one shot. Most of them are actually pretty easy if you follow the instructions in the book.


Okie John

[JHC]

50???? I have you beat by 4 sonny! LOL man, no more slack. ;)

[TCinVA]

Another FBI video...even older this time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj0fhyWHZvs

[pax]

For someone interested in the history of firearms training, what would you guys consider the must-have books about shooting that were written before 1980 or so?

pax

[TCinVA]

Jeff Cooper and Bill Jordan for starters.

[David Armstrong]

For someone interested in the history of firearms training, what would you guys consider the must-have books about shooting that were written before 1980 or so?

pax
Fairbairn's "Shoot to Live", Applegate's "Kill or Get Killed", and McGivern's "Fast and Facy Revolver Shooting" sort of laid the groundwork for others to follow, IMO.

[JAD]

Cooper on Handguns, 1974, Petersen Publishing. Most of Cooper was post-1980.

[peterb]

Charles Askins, Jr. "The art of handgun shooting" (1941) is an old favorite. Mostly bullseye, but I like the language and the photos of the guys in fedoras and neckties on the firing line in competition.

Bill Jordan's "No second place winner".