Please Explain What I'm Doing Wrong...

[SteyrAUG]

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]

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.

[Shawn.L]

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]

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.

[Shawn.L]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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.

[Shawn.L]

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.

[SteyrAUG]

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]

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.