Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 208

Thread: "The Modern Technique" and "Competition Driven Shooting"

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Hayes View Post
    But, if one tests shooting technique in the real world of solving life and death encounters, using more powerful handguns than light 9mm's, there is still a whole lot to be said for the "modern technique."
    Marty hits on a good point, one worth remembering. At the time, all this fancy high performance designer ammo wasn't readily available, and the Modern Technique was designed around controlling heavy-recoiling rounds as those were seen (rightly or wrongly) as much better for defensive purposes. I will still revert to MT for a LW .45 with GI ammo, or a K-frame with 125 .357s in it.
    "PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Quote Originally Posted by doctorpogo View Post
    Enos has certainly written a very good book on shooting technique; I'm not sure it's so good that it replaces Morrisson's book.

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

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

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

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Are there any documented instances of 5 on 1 gunfights where the good guy was armed with a 9mm and shooting Iso?
    I'm having trouble pulling the name up, but IIRC a South African tank commander on a border op climbed out of his hatch and took out 7 terrs armed with AK with 8 shots from his Star BK 9mm. Don't think it fits into the traditional gunfight scenario, but given their training I'm pretty sure he was shooting ISso.
    "PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"

  4. #24
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by doctorpogo View Post
    My point, I guess, is that the serious shooters I'm aware of -- the SMEs on this forum, for example -- are using, and evolving, the Modern Technique.
    That's classic equivocation (in the logical fallacy sense). You're choosing to call everything that works "Modern Technique." But the Modern Technique was fairly strict in its technique and application. It's that Modern Technique that most people mean when they use the term. Someone can call a modern iso without the bladed Weaver stance, without the push-pull arm tension, without the grip, etc. "Modern Technique" if they want, but that's just silly in my opinion. I don't teach -- or use -- a modification of the Modern Technique. I teach -- and use -- something that is dramatically different in many ways from it. Are we still lining up the sights and pressing the trigger? Sure. But people were doing that before Modern Technique existed, too.

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

    Lumping all the developments and changes that have occurred in the last 40 years into "Modern Technique" -- especially when so many of those changes are diametrically different from the Modern Technique way of doing things -- is just a semantics game it seems to me. If you're teaching modern iso or some variant thereof, you're not teaching Modern Technique.

  5. #25
    We are diminished
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by David Armstrong View Post
    Marty hits on a good point, one worth remembering. At the time, all this fancy high performance designer ammo wasn't readily available, and the Modern Technique was designed around controlling heavy-recoiling rounds as those were seen (rightly or wrongly) as much better for defensive purposes. I will still revert to MT for a LW .45 with GI ammo, or a K-frame with 125 .357s in it.
    Cannot agree with this. The "it's good for games but not for real" or "works with 9mm but not .45" thing simply doesn't prove true. Ask Rob Leatham or Dave Sevigny what grip and stance they use when they need to get the fastest most accurate hits with a full power .45 or 10mm pistol. It's not going to be thumb-over-thumb Weaver.

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


  6. #26
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Hayes View Post
    Who would these people be?
    That would be: Who is SOCOM

    Not a mention of the weaver in Ken Hackathorn's Adv Tactical Handgun in Dec '11. How much this has changed (and really become almost settled case law) that this didn't even occur to me until just now; seeing that I shot weaver in the '70's and '80's.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BOM View Post
    This may be a red herring.

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

    Are there many 5 on 1 shooting incidents at all?

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

  8. #28
    Licorice Bootlegger JDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Hayes View Post
    Sorry to mislead. Five different encounters.
    Copy that.
    Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    That would be: Who is SOCOM
    .
    Given the mission of SOCOM is really different than your armed citizen, or even LE, and the equipment/gear that the average special forces soldier would be carring at any given time on a raid, I think the comparison is invalid. Furthermore, you gave no specifics, although Reitz certainly does in his book.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddG View Post
    If you're not smart enough to respect what Jeff Cooper and his cadre did for the shooting world, you're an idiot. But if you're still beholden to those 40+ year old techniques and have buried your head in the sand regarding the reality of what works better, you're equally an idiot.
    While I will not go so far as calling people idiots, I do question the comparison of using techniques that have been proven to win shooting matches where the best score is the fastest afoot to those techniques which have been proven to be deadly fight stoppers, and casting the proven fight stopping techniques aside in favor of the competition technques.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

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