Not to demure too much -- Jeff's post was right on and really said all that needed said -- but I think The Modern Technique of the Pistol is pretty well documented. There's a whole book on it (same title, worth a read for some probably, at least for historical interest). The Weaver technique of controlling recoil is an element of it; I don't think I can agree that it was the sum of it. Most serious shooters are still mostly using the Modern Technique. Lots of serious shooters use elements that have evolved since the last time it was well codified: more lateral tension in the Weaver, the press-out, stuff like that. The Modern Technique evolves, on a continual basis, and I'm not aware of anyone who's taken Colonel Cooper's place in codifying that evolution.
Not at all to disagree with the general thrust of Todd's post -- just to make sure the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater, as it were.
Last edited by JAD; 02-07-2012 at 06:10 PM.
The problem rests in what people percieve is the test of technique worthiness. If one judges pistol technique on whether or not said technique wins IPSC or IDPA matches, using the equipment of choice for these endeavors, then by all means, the modern competition driving shooting techniques are the clear winner.
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."
Scott Reitz put down 5 BG's using his .45 1911, and a Weaver stance. Only had to shoot each of them once or twice. That is pretty good work. I would like to see a similar example of the same efficiency using the modern isos. technique and a 9mm.
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?
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
Clint is doing a good job of producing very usable videos, and is writing good articles, and is actively teaching; in that sense, he's codifying and documenting. I guess I was trying to think of someone who is documenting the changes in shooting technique that have been adopted in consensus; maybe there really isn't consensus yet. 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.
I need to rewatch Clint's basic stuff to see what he's saying about the MT elements; the classes I've taken from him have skimmed right past shooting technique and focused on stuff he seemed to think was more important.
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.