"The Modern Technique" and "Competition Driven Shooting"

[Robinson]

Thanks everyone for your input. I do plan to attend a training class this fall -- with an open mind.

[jeffreywt]

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

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

[Robinson]

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

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

[joshs]

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

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Unless this thread gets back on track and off of one personality, it's going to get locked. Yes, I'm addressing "both sides" on this.

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

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

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

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

Tony Muhlenkamp

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Original Poster here:
Technique, weapon, caliber, ammo, stance, grip; etc. don’t matter.

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

Tony Muhlenkamp

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

The whole reason someone gets instruction is to be taught, not to be left adrift to figure it all out on his own....

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

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

[4sooth]

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