"The Modern Technique" and "Competition Driven Shooting"

[orionz06]

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]

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]

The discussion about where to go for good technique focused pistol instruction has been moved here.

[Jeff22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?