View Full Version : Please Explain What I'm Doing Wrong...
Ok, I'm not trying to start a debate, I just can't seem to be able to put a finger on what everyone is saying is wrong with my particular technique.
Part of it could be terminology (errors on my part). I have been taught all manner of techniques in the last 30 years and I'm not sure I can correctly define Weaver, Chapman, Iso and modified variants. As a result, I'm not even sure what my personal shooting position would be called or even if it correctly meets any particular definition.
Like most folks, I am a product of time and place. My first firearm instruction (not counting my Dad teaching me to shoot) was from 1980 to 1983 and mostly came from people coming out of the LFI program. These were mainly folks who shot with my father back when the outskirts of our south Florida town were fields that one could shoot in without incident. Other than that, my influences were military shooters at the range in Key West, Florida where I shot once a month every weekend while my Dad was in his office all day. The things I was taught in this period became my foundation for the most part.
In general terms my hand position is a punch in palm position with my shooting arm extended but not locked and my support arm bent and pulling back to provide stability. My stance is something like a 3/4 open boxers stance with my rear shoulder (almost 3/4 open) behind my lead shoulder.
This is the stance I usually adopt because it allows me to step away form a threat and turn my vitals away from my attacker. To me this seems more protected (unless of course you are wearing body armor and then you are actually slightly less protected because you have an unprotected armpit hole facing forward) than being squared up with even or mostly even shoulders. This stance also greatly compliments the approx five years of martial arts training I had up until this point. And finally, I found that it meant my handgun and rifle shooting position were basically the same in terms of stance and body position.
So here is my question.
What (if anything) makes this position unsuitable for defensive shooting when compared to modern methods? I'm not any kind of expert, but I find I can keep up with and perform as well as many shooters with similar shooting experience who use modern methods. I really don't understand why so many people on this forum consider what I do "wrong."
Please keep in mind I'm talking about practical shooting ability, not becoming any kind of shooting champion. I'm not terribly interested in gun sports. In fact, my approach (I said approach not technique) guarantees I could never win. When I began to join shooting clubs about 5 years ago, like most folks I began to analyze the course and plan tactics and strategy. I'd mentally run the course to "get it down" and I'd watch other shooters run it if I could and pick up their useful tactics.
Then I stopped doing that on purpose. I realized I was playing a game and not really doing practical shooting. Instead I decided to attempt to be surprised by the course with as little prior knowledge of what I was up against as possible so I would be forced to adapt to it as it came to me, just like any real world situation would be. This of course resulted in a lot more procedural errors (as I would often not completely grasp the course in my desire to only have a basic understanding of it) and my speed and accuracy dropped as I was forced to assess as well as shoot. But even then I still did "ok" and honestly this isn't an excuse as I'm sure I wasn't the only one trying to be surprised by the course.
So within the various shooting clubs I train with, populated by some very competent shooters (including lots of military folks with combat experience who have played for all the marbles and won) I shoot well enough to be "average" in terms of time and accuracy.
So what is so wrong (again if anything) with my shooting method that it is necessary for me to make changes and what specific changes should those be and how do they fix the problem?
NCPatrolAR
06-29-10, 18:44
Threads like these are truely difficult to discuss without seeing photos and/or video of your position(s) and tactics.
One issue that immediately comes to mind is when you mention "...and turn my vitals away from my attacker." We have to be careful when we start to introduce a serious amount of blading when we are dealing with guns. While you reduce your target profile; you greatly enhance your chance of encountering a cross-torso shot. It is the corss torso shot that takes us out of the fighter quicker than remaining fairly square to our threat and tking a hit in the liver, lung, etc. It is easier to fight with a hit like that compared to taking a hit to both lungs and your heart like we see with the cross-torso hit.
Threads like these are truely difficult to discuss without seeing photos and/or video of your position(s) and tactics.
One issue that immediately comes to mind is when you mention "...and turn my vitals away from my attacker." We have to be careful when we start to introduce a serious amount of blading when we are dealing with guns. While you reduce your target profile; you greatly enhance your chance of encountering a cross-torso shot. It is the corss torso shot that takes us out of the fighter quicker than remaining fairly square to our threat and tking a hit in the liver, lung, etc. It is easier to fight with a hit like that compared to taking a hit to both lungs and your heart like we see with the cross-torso hit.
true enough. But it is equally true that bladed you are a smaller target, and a hit that could take one lung while squared may miss completely bladed.
The reality is that you should be moving.
So I think this whole part of the srgument is miniscule and otherwise a wash unless you introduce body armor. Body armor isnt a concern of mine personally.
Steyr,
1) we do need pics and video if possible.
2) Im not sure how to say this gently. Yes, gun games are just games. But they are games based on shooting ability, you cant do very well without being skilled. They arent for tactics (no matter what some of the IDPA geeks think as they crowd cover). Take them for what they are. I often find those that disdain them do so because they cant perform as good as they think they are, and rather than adress their deficiancies they disparage the game.
NCPatrolAR
06-29-10, 20:18
true enough. But it is equally true that bladed you are a smaller target, and a hit that could take one lung while squared may miss completely bladed.
I'm not a fan of counting on a round missing me when there isnt a piece of cover out there to soak it up.
We can also look at the extremely bladed position as being less than ideal for the close quarters fight. There are multiple angles this can be approached from.
The reality is that you should be moving.
The reality is that we should move when it is advantageous to do so; not just moving for the sake of moving.
So I think this whole part of the srgument is miniscule and otherwise a wash unless you introduce body armor.
Maybe; maybe not. ;)
points well taken.
we can disagree on how to weigh those concerns in the overall problem.
Im not opposed to a more square stance.
Part of the reason for this thread is Steyr's posts in my thread about moving to ISO. I shoot a modified Weaver currently. But Im more than willing to experiment and asses and change if I feel compelled. If there is an advantage to be had Im taking it.
Steyr, all I can say is that I dont think your going to either get clear answers you cant argue with online or fortify your position for your own satisfaction here.
You need to go out and TRY it, with good instruction, and really be open minded and honest and work at it. Then asses and make a decision.
Threads like these are truely difficult to discuss without seeing photos and/or video of your position(s) and tactics.
One issue that immediately comes to mind is when you mention "...and turn my vitals away from my attacker." We have to be careful when we start to introduce a serious amount of blading when we are dealing with guns. While you reduce your target profile; you greatly enhance your chance of encountering a cross-torso shot. It is the corss torso shot that takes us out of the fighter quicker than remaining fairly square to our threat and tking a hit in the liver, lung, etc. It is easier to fight with a hit like that compared to taking a hit to both lungs and your heart like we see with the cross-torso hit.
I'm not saying a cross torso hit is preferred to a front torso hit. But with an angled posture the front shoulder acts as a first barrier to some of those vitals. While it isn't kevlar, it is better than nothing.
Admittedly, the turning away of the vitals is more of an "unarmed combat" application. Getting shot anywhere in the upper body regardless of how you are standing will end most fights. So the slight protection offered by the front shoulder is a very secondary consideration.
I primarily do it as a result of learned body dynamic from martial arts training and for the thinner target it presents.
As to cross torso vs. front torso hits, if we take the possibility of the shoulder and arm as a barrier out of the equation, I'm not sure the heart and lungs are dramatically protected in one vs. the other. I understand your point that if you take a very side stance, a single round can strike both lungs and the heart. But with a front stance, being struck in the heart will have more or less the same result. Getting hit in the lungs as well won't make a fatal hit more fatal.
2) Im not sure how to say this gently. Yes, gun games are just games. But they are games based on shooting ability, you cant do very well without being skilled. They arent for tactics (no matter what some of the IDPA geeks think as they crowd cover). Take them for what they are. I often find those that disdain them do so because they cant perform as good as they think they are, and rather than adress their deficiancies they disparage the game.
I'd worry about how well I score if my goal was to win. And if that was my goal, I'd do all the mental preps and study other shooters for advantage. This is not to say the gun sports don't develop applicable skills. I'm certain anyone who does well would fare extremely well in a dark parking lot against armed attackers. My goal isn't to disparage gun sports, but simply to recognize them for what they are and understand what my goals actually are.
It doesn't prevent me from engaging in scenario shooting sports. I simply do it with a different goal in mind. I like scenario shooting because it is far more relevant than the bench and it is interesting enough to keep me involved. And it's fun.
But I'd much rather force myself to "adapt to the situation presented" and see what I can do with a "oh crap...another target I didn't know was going to be there" mindset and a low score than have a higher score because I mentally "cheated" and ran the course three times already in my mind and even designated targets by priority and efficiency.
I don't need to be number one. And honestly, I don't have the time and ammo it takes to be number one. And quite possibly I don't have a technique that is efficient enough to be number one. What I am concerned with is that I have a technique that is sound and effective.
You said you have some MA experiance. Im not sure what style/styles. I hope it is some that incorportates full contact sparring.
I suggest you look at gun games in the light of sparring in MA's and tournament fights. There are rules, its not like a "real fight". But it does isolate and teach certain aspects of the whole puzzle. In combination with other skills and practice excercises you can deal with reality one piece at a time.
You dont have to be #1. BUT, you can effectivley score and judge your gun handling and marksmanship under different circumstances and compare different approaches for efficiancy and effectiveness.
Steyr, all I can say is that I dont think your going to either get clear answers you cant argue with online or fortify your position for your own satisfaction here.
You need to go out and TRY it, with good instruction, and really be open minded and honest and work at it. Then asses and make a decision.
That is not my aim. After attempting to explain myself, there still seems to be a consensus among some people (some who I know are very qualified shooters) that I'm still doing it wrong.
I'm trying to pin down exactly what is wrong, and more importantly why.
To use an example, when I teach people martial arts the first thing I teach them is to make sure you understand what I'm showing you. Because if you don't understand what you are being shown, how to do it and why it is preferable to do it that way...it is useless to you. Additionally, even IF you understand the how and why, if it is something that is simply not compatible (not just hard and needs practice) to you...it is also useless. Just because "I" can do it, doesn't mean everyone else can.
And I already tried to incorporate the basic elements of Iso. I have no resistance to it. I wasn't resistant to weapon lights because we didn't have them in the 80s. They came out and I basically had to buy every gun I already owned in a rail variant. I saw Iso in the same way as everything else that was new, something that might be useful to have.
What I discovered in my efforts is that it ran against everything I already knew and did naturally. And I didn't see anything with significant enough advantage to scrap 30 years of training and restart with a new grip and stance. I know a few guys who simply "added it" and they can effortlessly move from one position to the other and shoot both effectively. I found I was not one of those people.
And the point of this post again, is because some folks seem to be insisting that my particular shooting method isn't merely dated but is somehow ineffective for my needs.
And I'm trying to understand exactly why.
NCPatrolAR
06-29-10, 21:47
But with an angled posture the front shoulder acts as a first barrier to some of those vitals. While it isn't kevlar, it is better than nothing.
Is there any way you can take a picture of your body position? If not; can you do a google search and pull some images that are similar to what you are talking about?
Getting shot anywhere in the upper body regardless of how you are standing will end most fights.
Having seen one or two people shot; I would say this isnt a factual statement. The human body is an incredible machine and can withstand great amounts of trauam and keep on ticking. Look at the FBI shooting from the 80's between Platt, Mattix, and the FBI and look how someone can have thier heart shredded and continue to shoot the hell out of people.
One of the best quotes for being shot in a gun fight comes from a VA Beach officer. It goes along the lines of "if I'm shot, I'm not dead. If I'm shot dead I'll never know it".
I primarily do it as a result of learned body dynamic from martial arts training and for the thinner target it presents.
I've been training in martal arts for close to 20 years and realize that being more square, as opposed to an extremely blade, is much more desirable and functional. This position allows to me to strike, grapple, etc well. An extreme blade prohibits this.
I'm not sure the heart and lungs are dramatically protected in one vs. the other.
It isnt an issue of anything being protected. We are taking the organs out of alignment, as much as possible, for a single projectile striking us.
You said you have some MA experiance. Im not sure what style/styles. I hope it is some that incorportates full contact sparring.
30+ years, primarily Shotokan (some Shito Ryu and Wado Ryu), Okinawan Shorin Ryu (several variants from Hohan Soken to Matubayashi), Kobujutsu, several Chinese boxing styles (7 Star Mantis, Choy Li Fut, Wing Chun), classical Japanese (usually both the classical Do and Jutsu variations but in some cases the modern Budo as well) Kendo/Kenjutsu, Iaido/Iaijutsu, Aikido/Aikijutsu and Judo/Jujutsu. Okinawan Kobujutsu and some Okinawan Goju and Uechi Ryu.
Also studied some modern eclectics such as Parkers Kenpo, Kajukenbo and various American Kenpo offshoots. Some Arnis and Kali. Some modern Japanese eclectics such as Kyokushin and Issin Ryu. And mostly done with a practical application in mind (meaning contact training).
I suggest you look at gun games in the light of sparring in MA's and tournament fights. There are rules, its not like a "real fight". But it does isolate and teach certain aspects of the whole puzzle. In combination with other skills and practice excercises you can deal with reality one piece at a time.
And that is how I see them. And just like I once did "point tournaments" I understood that, while difficult and requiring significant talent, you could get to the point where you could become a tournament winner and no longer know how to fight real fights. They are two different things.
You dont have to be #1. BUT, you can effectivley score and judge your gun handling and marksmanship under different circumstances and compare different approaches for efficiancy and effectiveness.
And again that is what I'm doing. While approaching scenario shooting with a practical mindset I have discovered I shoot as well as other people I know are effective shooters. It is an environment that requires me to move and shoot. This is a very basic skill that those restricted to the bench simply do not have. It isn't hard unless you've never done it.
I don't think my approach to scenario shooting and shooting sports is the issue. Like I've said, I'm just trying to understand why some think my particular shooting grip and position is no longer effective for my needs.
Im not sure how to say this gently. Yes, gun games are just games. But they are games based on shooting ability, you cant do very well without being skilled. They arent for tactics (no matter what some of the IDPA geeks think as they crowd cover). Take them for what they are. I often find those that disdain them do so because they cant perform as good as they think they are, and rather than adress their deficiancies they disparage the game.
^Agreed.
Many people overlook this aspect of competition, tactics are extremely important, but you still have to be able to shoot well to compliment the package.
As far as form, it's hard to ascertain your positioning without seeing a picture or diagram. It sounds as if you are using a semi-bladed stance that has a Weaver-ishness profile? Please advise.
If you are interested in increasing accuracy & speed, let's throw out the different reasonings of the tactical why on these stances and positions and see what works for you. I've found that some of my students will shoot significantly better using ISO, and others mod-Weaver. Some advanced shooters use a variation of both depending on the distance of contact or space limitations.
Recently I was honored to be guest instructor at a school that taught a specific style 'extreme' bladed stance as their main system. It was an entry level class. Some of these students were very new, and it was interesting for me to see what a person who had no prior formal training but maybe the basic NRA class, would do under stress of the timer. Without the timer, most of the students adopted the form quite well. Once we started the timer, it was interesting to see some them default to a semi-ISO arms extended position.
I don't doubt that with enough training the system in this school can be ingrained into them that they may re-act using the system. With that said, it seems to me to be fighting a natural instinct.
I'm not a tactical/shooting religious type, and I would hope my experience may explain that many habits that we've learned may not be instinctual for us personally. Maybe it's time to attend a few schools that teach something a little different for you? I've always been able to learn things from different schools that has made my personal system precise, economy of movement, brisk.
Is there any way you can take a picture of your body position? If not; can you do a google search and pull some images that are similar to what you are talking about?
Probably is what I need to do before we can go further.
Having seen one or two people shot; I would say this isnt a factual statement. The human body is an incredible machine and can withstand great amounts of trauam and keep on ticking. Look at the FBI shooting from the 80's between Platt, Mattix, and the FBI and look how someone can have thier heart shredded and continue to shoot the hell out of people.
I probably should have qualified that better. You are correct, I was addressing the Hollywood scenario where a guy takes 5 hits from a 1911, makes a grunt and shoots back.
I've been training in martal arts for close to 20 years and realize that being more square, as opposed to an extremely blade, is much more desirable and functional. This position allows to me to strike, grapple, etc well. An extreme blade prohibits this.
Well you probably know this. In martial arts there are no fixed positions. Stances are points of transitions. You can't side kick from a squared stance and it is extremely difficult to front kick from a side stance. This is why to do one technique or another you adopt various positions.
What I was addressing is the more or less basic movement of stepping away into a side stance to create distance and move targets to a more dependable location. In a fight I will use side, 3/4 and square body positions depending upon my intentions.
But in a gunfight I'm probably not gonna front kick anyone or go for a hip take down.
It isnt an issue of anything being protected. We are taking the organs out of alignment, as much as possible, for a single projectile striking us.
Well if the debate is whether it is preferable to just be shot in the heart vs. the heart and the lungs I'm not sure there is a winning answer. And if that is the only reason for adopting a new shooting position that I don't adapt to very well I think my time would be better spent towards the goal of effectively shooting my attacker before I get shot in the heart or the heart and lungs. Because quite honestly I'm probably done shooting in either scenario.
And I can always serpentine.
:D
This is more or less representative of the shooting position I typically use.
http://www.azccw.com/weaverstance.gif
http://www.tucsonshooting.com/pic/2007-8/00-8-18-07-0039.jpg
Steyr:
Are you opposed to taking a class/training to uses ISO as their system? I'd recommend doing that, and enter the class as if a new student-clean slate. You may ultimately not adopt that particular style, but you will enrich your understanding of why it works for many.
I don't want to get into a ISO vs. Weaver vs. Mod this or that debate. What is important is that you keep an open mind to new techniques that may accentuate your shooting skill. Accurate brisk hits count as much as learning to pie a corner or use cover correctly.
NCPatrolAR
06-29-10, 23:11
In martial arts there are no fixed positions. Stances are points of transitions.
Sounds just like shooting :eek:
But in a gunfight I'm probably not gonna front kick anyone or go for a hip take down.
Never say never. Distance and oppertunity can open a great many windows for us.
Well if the debate is whether it is preferable to just be shot in the heart vs. the heart and the lungs I'm not sure there is a winning answer. And if that is the only reason for adopting a new shooting position that I don't adapt to very well I think my time would be better spent towards the goal of effectively shooting my attacker before I get shot in the heart or the heart and lungs. Because quite honestly I'm probably done shooting in either scenario.
While the discussion has been fun; I honestly get the impression that no answer you get is going to satisfy your quest. I say just do what you do already since it appears that's what you are going to do anyways. :)
That is not my aim. After attempting to explain myself, there still seems to be a consensus among some people (some who I know are very qualified shooters) that I'm still doing it wrong.
I'm trying to pin down exactly what is wrong, and more importantly why.
Could you explain the reasons why they think that.
John_Wayne777
06-29-10, 23:25
This is more or less representative of the shooting position I typically use.
http://www.azccw.com/weaverstance.gif
http://www.tucsonshooting.com/pic/2007-8/00-8-18-07-0039.jpg
Grip:
The support hand wrist is not fully locked, decreasing the weak hand's ability to control recoil. The attempt to use isometric tension to control recoil can, if improperly applied, cause the weapon to torque which prevents the muzzle from going straight up and then straight back down, dropping the front sight back in the rear notch. It can also be fatiguing during longer strings of fire.
You can hit something with that grip because hitting something is about sights and trigger...but you cannot optimally control the pistol with that grip. Again, Weaver adopted that stance because he had a physical handicap. If you don't share that handicap it's probably best to use the more effective technique.
Stance:
The stance is too upright. The knees are not flexed. The chin is not forward of the mid section. As a martial artist you know that you don't throw punches like that. You don't want to shoot a pistol like that. An aggressive forward lean helps to control the recoil of the weapon. Someone standing straight up can be pushed off balance with one finger and little effort. A 300 pound dude standing straight up can be pushed off balance by a 9mm shooting ball ammo. Meanwhile a 120 pound female in an aggressive stance will dominate the gun.
So there are a couple of things.
May I suggest Surgical Speed Shooting (http://www.amazon.com/Surgical-Speed-Shooting-High-Speed-Marksmanship/dp/1581601433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277871777&sr=8-1) by Andy Stanford? He covers all of his reasons for switching from Weaver to ISO, he has a martial arts background, the book doesn't cost much, I understand that he's a well respected authority and he hasn't already posted in a thread on this subject so he can be presumed to be objective, at least as regards you. It's also available on the kindle. Personally, your reasons for not switching make sense to me, as do the reasons others suggest you should consider switching. I don't know enough yet to have an opinion, myself.
At the end of the day, you only have to answer to yourself, so why keep asking others if you already know what your answer is? Finally, there was a link posted recently to a Kyle Defoor thread about being "good enough" that seems like it should have some bearing here.
MarshallDodge
06-29-10, 23:44
So within the various shooting clubs I train with, populated by some very competent shooters (including lots of military folks with combat experience who have played for all the marbles and won) I shoot well enough to be "average" in terms of time and accuracy.
If you are happy with being average then carry on with the same way you have been doing things but it sounds like you are looking to improve. I was fond of the Weaver stance for many years and could shoot some great groups but once I started shooting thumbs forward in an isosceles my speed increased tremendously.
Shooting in the occasional competition that pushes you for time and accuracy will show you where you really are.
A 300 pound dude standing straight up can be pushed off balance by a 9mm shooting ball ammo. Meanwhile a 120 pound female in an aggressive stance will dominate the gun.
Very true. You should see my wife run a 1911. :cool:
Steyr:
Are you opposed to taking a class/training to uses ISO as their system? I'd recommend doing that, and enter the class as if a new student-clean slate. You may ultimately not adopt that particular style, but you will enrich your understanding of why it works for many.
I don't want to get into a ISO vs. Weaver vs. Mod this or that debate. What is important is that you keep an open mind to new techniques that may accentuate your shooting skill. Accurate brisk hits count as much as learning to pie a corner or use cover correctly.
Not opposed to it at all, in fact that is how I first became aware of it. What I found is that I wasn't able to adapt to it. I can even do the squared up stance for the most part, but for some reason even if I start with a palms even grip, I end up with a Weaver type grip and my stance naturally angles as a result.
Sounds just like shooting :eek:
Too a degree. Except in gun fights I generally won't be entering and exiting to and from trapping ranges. But yes, on the move shooting positions are merely transition points.
Never say never. Distance and oppertunity can open a great many windows for us.
It could be done. This issue constantly came up with traditional weapons training and new students thinking they could kick opponents while fighting with bo, nunchaku and sai. Our teacher explained that it could be done, but much like hauling gravel with a corvette...just because you can doesn't make it a good idea for the most part.
While the discussion has been fun; I honestly get the impression that no answer you get is going to satisfy your quest. I say just do what you do already since it appears that's what you are going to do anyways. :)
The answer I guess I'm looking for is the one I wasn't aware of and haven't already considered. I suppose I'm just making sure.
Grip:
The support hand wrist is not fully locked, decreasing the weak hand's ability to control recoil. The attempt to use isometric tension to control recoil can, if improperly applied, cause the weapon to torque which prevents the muzzle from going straight up and then straight back down, dropping the front sight back in the rear notch. It can also be fatiguing during longer strings of fire.
You can hit something with that grip because hitting something is about sights and trigger...but you cannot optimally control the pistol with that grip. Again, Weaver adopted that stance because he had a physical handicap. If you don't share that handicap it's probably best to use the more effective technique.
Funny, I don't seem to have that problem. Even when shooting the mighty 10mm or the Atomic .45 I seem to control recoil as efficiently as I do when I attempt to employ a palms together grip and extended arms. I do this well enough to knock down rows of plates with the same efficiency and speed as others with similar amounts of training using Iso grips.
Stance:
The stance is too upright. The knees are not flexed. The chin is not forward of the mid section. As a martial artist you know that you don't throw punches like that. You don't want to shoot a pistol like that. An aggressive forward lean helps to control the recoil of the weapon. Someone standing straight up can be pushed off balance with one finger and little effort. A 300 pound dude standing straight up can be pushed off balance by a 9mm shooting ball ammo. Meanwhile a 120 pound female in an aggressive stance will dominate the gun.
So there are a couple of things.
I will give you that one. When I stated that is the stance I use, I meant the angle. That upright position is extremely static and would have the same flaws as a similarly upright Iso position. Mine is more of a boxers (bent knee) quarter open stance because I know what is necessary to be mobile.
May I suggest Surgical Speed Shooting (http://www.amazon.com/Surgical-Speed-Shooting-High-Speed-Marksmanship/dp/1581601433/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277871777&sr=8-1) by Andy Stanford? He covers all of his reasons for switching from Weaver to ISO, he has a martial arts background, the book doesn't cost much, I understand that he's a well respected authority and he hasn't already posted in a thread on this subject so he can be presumed to be objective, at least as regards you. It's also available on the kindle. Personally, your reasons for not switching make sense to me, as do the reasons others suggest you should consider switching. I don't know enough yet to have an opinion, myself.
At the end of the day, you only have to answer to yourself, so why keep asking others if you already know what your answer is? Finally, there was a link posted recently to a Kyle Defoor thread about being "good enough" that seems like it should have some bearing here.
I'll pick it up.
Thanks.
If you are happy with being average then carry on with the same way you have been doing things but it sounds like you are looking to improve. I was fond of the Weaver stance for many years and could shoot some great groups but once I started shooting thumbs forward in an isosceles my speed increased tremendously.
I am content to be average among competent shooters. But I like to learn and improve. I'm just currently of the opinion that improvement will come more from additional practice at what I do rather than scrapping what I do naturally and starting over.
Shooting in the occasional competition that pushes you for time and accuracy will show you where you really are.
That is why I still shoot about once a month at my club. It ain't because I'm gonna get a cash prize.
:D
John_Wayne777
06-30-10, 08:04
Funny, I don't seem to have that problem. Even when shooting the mighty 10mm or the Atomic .45 I seem to control recoil as efficiently as I do when I attempt to employ a palms together grip and extended arms. I do this well enough to knock down rows of plates with the same efficiency and speed as others with similar amounts of training using Iso grips.
...again I would remind you that most people screw up ISO. I screwed it up for years without knowing it. I was also doing just fine according to my observations made of others I was in classes with. I eventually got to the point where I figured out that being the tallest midget in the room wasn't really leading to an improvement.
There's more to the dynamics of the grip than just pointing your thumbs at the target, but a lot of people who think they are doing ISO don't get that. If you want to confirm who gets it and who doesn't, watch how many people have to adjust their grip if they fire more than 4 or 5 shots in a row.
It works better, pure and simple. I honestly wish we had access to high speed video of somebody shooting Weaver...you'd see how much the gun really moves compared to how efficiently the front sight drops back down in ISO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjbFHK8Kz1k&feature=related
There's more involved in performance on target than just the grip. It's impossible to remove all the human factors from evaluations of shooting performance based solely on observation. Somebody can have a great grip but severe problems with anticipation...they can have a great grip but zero clue how to manage their sights at speed so they don't break shots as fast as they could...etc. All of that factors in to the score they end up with at the end of the match. Flawed application of a superior technique will still yield sub-optimal results.
So the question becomes this:
If you are just fine with keeping up with the guys at the match, so be it. Have fun.
If you want to actually do better you're going to have to leave the comfort zone and completely re-evaluate everything you think you know about what you're doing. I've had to do that multiple times in the last couple of years and I've always come out far better on the other end of that process. If you keep practicing what you are doing you may become slightly more efficient at doing it wrong but that's about it.
It works better, pure and simple. I honestly wish we had access to high speed video of somebody shooting Weaver...you'd see how much the gun really moves compared to how efficiently the front sight drops back down in ISO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjbFHK8Kz1k&feature=related
I love that video for a few of reasons...
1. Slo-mo is awesome.
2. You can see him tracking the front sight and shooting right as it's back on target.
3. You can see the forces of recoil at work thru his body.
Number 3 is the easiest way to illustrate why ISO tends to be better, in my opinion. Recoil energy is of course, used to cycle the action, but where does it go after that? In the video, you can see the reactions in his muscles and elbows absorbing recoil energy in equal directions, being the arms are in damn near the same position in relation to the gun . Whereas with a Weaver type stance, there's a whole lot more ways for the recoil energy to go. I've been using a modified ISO for years to good effect, but I didn't always shoot this way. The pistol recoils in a straight line, with the muzzle moving perpendicular to the ground, whereas when I've tried shooting other techniques, the muzzle moves up and right. Travis Haley went into this a bit during the Pueblo class and it kinda confirmed what I'd been seeing over the years. I first learned it from a police officer buddy of mine, God rest his soul.
To me, it simply boils down to physics. The energy has to go somewhere, it might as well go where you direct it to in the most controllable manner possible. There's a reason they didn't build the pyramids with one side longer than the others... symmetry and stability.
So the question becomes this:
If you are just fine with keeping up with the guys at the match, so be it. Have fun.
If you want to actually do better you're going to have to leave the comfort zone and completely re-evaluate everything you think you know about what you're doing. I've had to do that multiple times in the last couple of years and I've always come out far better on the other end of that process. If you keep practicing what you are doing you may become slightly more efficient at doing it wrong but that's about it.
Actually the question for me is, is there a reason to switch?
If I were trying to win matches, the answer probably is yes.
If I'm simply interested in in practical / defensive shooting the answer seems to be that my Weaver style is more than suitable. And I think even with this dated method there is still plenty of room for improvement.
Unless somebody is already shooting 4 times a week, they aren't anywhere near their developed potential.
Again, I'm just exploring the notion that my method is somehow "wrong" for my needs.
John_Wayne777
06-30-10, 17:17
It's wrong if you want to significantly improve on where you are.
If you judge where you are to be good enough (with "good enough" defined by your circumstances and requirements) then that's that.
Ok, I'm not trying to start a debate, I just can't seem to be able to put a finger on what everyone is saying is wrong with my particular technique.
Part of it could be terminology (errors on my part). I have been taught all manner of techniques in the last 30 years and I'm not sure I can correctly define Weaver, Chapman, Iso and modified variants. As a result, I'm not even sure what my personal shooting position would be called or even if it correctly meets any particular definition.
Like most folks, I am a product of time and place. My first firearm instruction (not counting my Dad teaching me to shoot) was from 1980 to 1983 and mostly came from people coming out of the LFI program. These were mainly folks who shot with my father back when the outskirts of our south Florida town were fields that one could shoot in without incident. Other than that, my influences were military shooters at the range in Key West, Florida where I shot once a month every weekend while my Dad was in his office all day. The things I was taught in this period became my foundation for the most part.
In general terms my hand position is a punch in palm position with my shooting arm extended but not locked and my support arm bent and pulling back to provide stability. My stance is something like a 3/4 open boxers stance with my rear shoulder (almost 3/4 open) behind my lead shoulder.
This is the stance I usually adopt because it allows me to step away form a threat and turn my vitals away from my attacker. To me this seems more protected (unless of course you are wearing body armor and then you are actually slightly less protected because you have an unprotected armpit hole facing forward) than being squared up with even or mostly even shoulders. This stance also greatly compliments the approx five years of martial arts training I had up until this point. And finally, I found that it meant my handgun and rifle shooting position were basically the same in terms of stance and body position.
So here is my question.
What (if anything) makes this position unsuitable for defensive shooting when compared to modern methods? I'm not any kind of expert, but I find I can keep up with and perform as well as many shooters with similar shooting experience who use modern methods. I really don't understand why so many people on this forum consider what I do "wrong."
Please keep in mind I'm talking about practical shooting ability, not becoming any kind of shooting champion. I'm not terribly interested in gun sports. In fact, my approach (I said approach not technique) guarantees I could never win. When I began to join shooting clubs about 5 years ago, like most folks I began to analyze the course and plan tactics and strategy. I'd mentally run the course to "get it down" and I'd watch other shooters run it if I could and pick up their useful tactics.
Then I stopped doing that on purpose. I realized I was playing a game and not really doing practical shooting. Instead I decided to attempt to be surprised by the course with as little prior knowledge of what I was up against as possible so I would be forced to adapt to it as it came to me, just like any real world situation would be. This of course resulted in a lot more procedural errors (as I would often not completely grasp the course in my desire to only have a basic understanding of it) and my speed and accuracy dropped as I was forced to assess as well as shoot. But even then I still did "ok" and honestly this isn't an excuse as I'm sure I wasn't the only one trying to be surprised by the course.
So within the various shooting clubs I train with, populated by some very competent shooters (including lots of military folks with combat experience who have played for all the marbles and won) I shoot well enough to be "average" in terms of time and accuracy.
So what is so wrong (again if anything) with my shooting method that it is necessary for me to make changes and what specific changes should those be and how do they fix the problem?
Doesn't sound like anything is wrong to me.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" as the saying goes.
Actually the question for me is, is there a reason to switch?
If I were trying to win matches, the answer probably is yes.
If I'm simply interested in in practical / defensive shooting the answer seems to be that my Weaver style is more than suitable. And I think even with this dated method there is still plenty of room for improvement.
Unless somebody is already shooting 4 times a week, they aren't anywhere near their developed potential.
Again, I'm just exploring the notion that my method is somehow "wrong" for my needs.
I think that you are getting a little too much involved in the semantics of the whole discussion. "Wrong" is really subjective to the subject and skill you want to improve.
Weaver can be improved upon, but that does not indicate that it will improve your accuracy or speed compared to Iso. Just as one could improve their lap times on a Honda S2000 by changing this or that, but will probably do better with a Porsche 911 GT3.
I hate to break it to you, but if you want change, you have to change or learn a more efficient way of getting accurate brisk hits. And I can speak for most of the those out there that have had formal training, weaver will not get you where you want to be. It perplexes me that some do the same dang thing expecting different results.
BTW, what are your shooting standards? That is, what times do you give yourself to do a specific task or drill? From holster 7 yards 3 targets etc.?
It's wrong if you want to significantly improve on where you are.
If you judge where you are to be good enough (with "good enough" defined by your circumstances and requirements) then that's that.
But that is exactly the sort of thing that doesn't make any sense. Using the various Iso methods I won't gain significant improvement. In fact I will very much be just about going back to square one and starting over. How long will it take me to overcome 30 years of training and muscle memory to arrive at my current level of ability?
One year? Two years?
And even that is no guarantee.
I shoot as well (and in some cases better) than a lot of guys who have the similar background and experience to me but they use Iso.
So if I'm already shooting as well as guys who shoot about as much as I do except they use the Iso method, why would anyone think changing would suddenly make me some kind of firearm wizard?
I think that time spent completely retraining myself until I can finally do the new method correctly would be better spend simply improving my ability given my current method.
I think we've established there isn't anything wrong (broken) with the method I currently use. Seems to me that for some folks the new method simply works better "for them." But just because my pants fit me, doesn't mean they are a perfect fit for everyone else.
NCPatrolAR
07-01-10, 01:19
Since it appears the OP has discovered the answer to his question its time to close this down.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.