Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Isoceles and two handed strong arm shooting alignment

  1. #11
    FWIW, I agree with the comments here. My reply in a similar thread. There is additional info in that thread.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter taadski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Good stuff in there. Figured it made sense to drag it over.

    Quote Originally Posted by Surf View Post
    I think I may have replied to something similar in the past but it does depend on the type of shooting. Arm / bone alignment in bullseye or even one handed shooting and alignment might be more optimal. IMO with the modern iso type of stances, bone alignment is not ideal. A more neutral alignment of the pistol inline with the dominant eye is IMO a better option than worrying about aligning with the arm bone. When I had a more Chapman like position many years ago, alignment was more prevalent.

    For my smaller hand size and preferred trigger finger placement I am nowhere near bone alignment with my preferred grip. If I keep a rigid bone alignment then I have to use muscle tension (bad tension) to torque the pistol straight. This does not as easily create a repeatable track of the pistol through the recoil phase.

    As for the tac turtle, don't like it, don't teach it. This IMO is a poor upper body position and also creates what I consider "bad muscular tension" and is something I really try to get shooters out of doing. Once a shooter understands how to more effectively place the weight of the body into the pistol instead of attempting to use what I consider "bad muscle tension" the results are pretty much 100% positive for the shooter.

    Many think that Recoil management should come from tension of the upper upper torso as in lats, traps, shoulders and neck. When in reality many who think this use what I consider to be excessive amounts of muscular tension that creates other negative results. There is good tension and bad tension. Bad tension will often end up in the grip, but more so in the trigger finger and that equates to poorer results on target.

    Shooters may also think that more bend or forward bias at the waist is correct. While not exactly incorrect it is not optimal if you already have a good bias forward at the waist. The shooter should keep the same upright body position and correct bend at the waist no matter how fast the string of fire. Increased recoil management does not come from increased upper body muscle tension (tac turtle or similar) nor does it come from increasing the bend or forward weight bias at the waist. The increase in forward weight bias and added mass behind the weapon to manage recoil comes from increasing the bend in the leading legs knee. A slight increase in bend or angle at the leading knee puts much greater amounts of body mass forward into the weapon. This allows for the upper body to remain in a more correct position at all times.

    Yes we might get more "into the gun" as pace increases, but IMO, if your body position / tension looks dramatically different depending on your strings of fire and how rapid you might be shooting, there is probably a lot of room for improvement.

  3. #13
    Average Guy cor_man257's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Surf View Post
    FWIW, I agree with the comments here. My reply in a similar thread. There is additional info in that thread.
    That was an awesome post, and explained a few things folks had suggestes to me that I didn't quite grasp.

    I don't care if SME titles are gone, you remain an obvious one.

    -Cory
    Last edited by cor_man257; 04-24-2018 at 07:17 AM.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Ventura County
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Depends on the hand and the gun.
    This. I tried that (align wrist/forearm to bore). Not possible. I have medium sized hands that adapt to the platform

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by cor_man257 View Post
    That was an awesome post, and explained a few things folks had suggestes to me that I didn't quite grasp.

    I don't care if SME titles are gone, you remain an obvious one.

    -Cory
    Thanks, Cory. Never felt comfortable with the SME title, but wished to help Todd and this site, still do. I did vote to do away with the title, but I very much appreciate your compliment which that means a lot to me. Sorry back on track fellas!

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by NH Shooter View Post
    Having spent over a decade shooting Bullseye competitively, the alignment shown in the OP is the proper "Bullseye grip."
    It's become apparent that the majority of what has been (and still commonly is) taught about practical shooting is rooted firmly in bullseye shooting methodology.

    • gun aligned with the forearm
    • so-called "surprise break" technique
    • staging the trigger
    • crystal clear, razor sharp focus on the front sight
    • pinned trigger/deliberate trigger reset after recoil
    • lack of grip emphasis/recoil control methodology
    • breath control


    There is nothing wrong with the discipline of bullseye shooting, but it is woefully deficient as the basis for practical shooting. It's important to understand where they diverge and where they converge. Bullseye shooting can inform aspects of practical shooting, but should not be the basis.

  7. #17
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham View Post
    It's become apparent that the majority of what has been (and still commonly is) taught about practical shooting is rooted firmly in bullseye shooting methodology.

    • gun aligned with the forearm
    • so-called "surprise break" technique
    • staging the trigger
    • crystal clear, razor sharp focus on the front sight
    • pinned trigger/deliberate trigger reset after recoil
    • lack of grip emphasis/recoil control methodology
    • breath control


    There is nothing wrong with the discipline of bullseye shooting, but it is woefully deficient as the basis for practical shooting. It's important to understand where they diverge and where they converge. Bullseye shooting can inform aspects of practical shooting, but should not be the basis.
    I employed some of those back when I still shot from a Weaver stance too, except for staging and pinning the trigger. And the Weaver was designed to deal with recoil differently. It's funny how unnatural it seems when I try it nowadays.

  8. #18
    I would say the following — while that might be a good bullseye list, it doesn’t cut it at all for action shooting. You want to hold the pistol firmly, utilizing optimal skeletal alignment so as to reduce leverage (meaning muzzle raise), make the gun, especially polymer ones, function reliably, have the gun return predictably shot to shot, and allow the most aggressive trigger pull with the least displacement of the sights.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

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
  •  

TLG 1970–2016 RIPRampageForTheCure.org