Videos Of Brian Enos?

[Gumby]

Are there any online videos of Brian Enos shooting? He looks pretty awesome in his book, but I've never seen him in live action. Some sort of clip on youtube/googlevideo would be great...

On a related note for those who have seen them, what do you think of the DVDs; How to Shoot Fast & Accurately, IPSC Secrets, and Pistol Masters?

[Gwhiz]

Did they have video when Brian was shooting.

Merry Christmas to all

[Scooter]

The only one I've ever seen was of the Steel Challenge on Outer Limits but it wasn't a good run. I did manage to find the video again on a different site.

http://www.cgpsa.co.za/videos/Steel%20-%20...uterlimits.mpeg

[uscbigdawg]

I've got videos of Brian on Pistol Masters, How To Shoot Fast & Accurately, IPSC Secrets, 1993-1995 Open Nationals and 1994 Limited Nationals. That and having shot with him at one of the last Golden Gate Championships, I can see he is smoooooooth.

Rich

[kevin c]

I saw BE at the GG as well. Grace and elegance.

Talking about floating the gun...

[George]

Ayup, saw him shoot several stages at several GG Championships in the way, way back. Smooth and focused is an understatement ;-)

[benos]

Did they have video when Brian was shooting.

Merry Christmas to all

Well, yes, video was in its infancy... and in addition to the videos Rich mentioned, there is some "bonus footage" on "Competition Reloading."

[Duane Thomas]

On a related note for those who have seen them, what do you think of the DVDs; How to Shoot Fast & Accurately, IPSC Secrets, and Pistol Masters?

I've seen Pistol Masters (which is a video of the Steel Challenge) and IPSC Secrets. The former is worth it just for the vivid, live fire demonstration of the efficiency of the Isosceles stance versus the Weaver. At one point in the video, Lenny compares the two fastest draws at the match (one of them Brian's, natch) by running them simultaneously on a split screen. The "other guy" is using the Weaver stance. Yes, the times to the first shot are very, very close. If memory serves me correctly, they were within a hundredth of a second. The big difference is the amount of muzzle flip and time to the second shot. Brian's gun barely moves, he's got the second shot off while the Weaver guy's muzzle is still pointing at the sky.

For IPSC Secrets, Lenny, realizing he had all this footage of the best shooters in the world performing at matches, decided to do a video arranged into separate sections, each one relating to a core skill - Draw, Speedload, Movement, etc. - and then show people like Robbie Leatham, Todd Jarrett, Michael Voigt, Jerry Barnhart, etc. executing the skills. There's only a tiny bit of footage of Brian shooting at the very beginning, sadly, BUT what really elevates IPSC Secrets is that Lenny was smart enough to drag Brian into the studio both to comment on how to execute various skills and to critique the other shooters. Okay, Brian is way too nice to say anything bad about the other guys, but it's well worthwhile when he points out what they're doing right.

The shortcoming of IPSC Secrets is the footage of Lenny demonstrating the skills on the range - and I like Lenny but he's no Brian Enos. The info he's putting out is actually pretty good, he's just not able to show the level of performance the techniques allow in highly skilled hands. The video would have been much better if he could have used Brian for the live fire stuff as well as studio commentary. On the other hand, Robbie's .55 second draw in the studio, and Todd Jarrett's speedload during a stand-and-shoot stage, have to be seen to be believed. Good stuff. If you want to learn the core skills, this is actually my favorite stand alone video.

[uscbigdawg]

Did they have video when Brian was shooting.

Merry Christmas to all

Well, yes, video was in its infancy... and in addition to the videos Rich mentioned, there is some "bonus footage" on "Competition Reloading."

BE,

Forgot about that one. I will say that along with Dillon's video on the 650, these were tapes it takes me twice to watch. Dry is an understatement, but very, very informative.

In IPSC Secrets, I dig the interviews about the draw and bringing the sights into our line of sight. The drill where you show starting with the grip on the gun and acquiring sights and working backwards from there has what's helped me the most.

Like Duane, while Lenny can hardly show these skills to their full hilt (see the 3' square shooting boxes that he uses to show entering/exiting from positions) the tape in and of itself is a very good tool for beginning and intermediate shooters to refresh some of the basics and a vehicle for more self-analysis.

Rich

[Derek45]

1993, 1994 Limited Nationals. (with Lenny Mcgill )

My wife taped "Friends" over the '93.

I haven't had a VCR in years anyway.

[Gumby]

On a related note for those who have seen them, what do you think of the DVDs; How to Shoot Fast & Accurately, IPSC Secrets, and Pistol Masters?

I've seen Pistol Masters (which is a video of the Steel Challenge) and IPSC Secrets. The former is worth it just for the vivid, live fire demonstration of the efficiency of the Isosceles stance versus the Weaver. At one point in the video...

Thanks for the review. I'll have to add those videos to my "to buy" list.

[Duane Thomas]

I'll have to add those videos to my "to buy" list.

Kewl.

Thanks for the review.

And normally, when I put that much work into something, I get paid money for it.

[Carmoney]

The big difference is the amount of muzzle flip and time to the second shot. Brian's gun barely moves, he's got the second shot off while the Weaver guy's muzzle is still pointing at the sky.

Too bad Lenny couldn't find somebody who understood how to apply a good, strong isometric Weaver stance to serve as a better example.

I'm all in favor of the "modern isosceles" and so forth, particularly in the competition setting where light to moderate loads are being fired. However, Weaver remains a valid technique for some circumstances. Unfortunately, most don't know how to do it right.

[Duane Thomas]

I'm all in favor of the "modern isosceles" and so forth, particularly in the competition setting where light to moderate loads are being fired.

I have to - respectfully, I hope - disagree with that. The idea that the Isosceles stance only works in competition because of the "light to moderate loads" being fired is, I think, an example of what, in my high school Logic class, they called "the quid pro quo logic error". If memory serves me correctly, "quid pro quo" is Latin for "If this, then this," and refers to the idea that because two things are happening simultaneously, one of them must be causing the other.

It's true that the rise of the Isosceles stance as a competition technique happened right about the same time as the rise of the .38 Super compgun. Many assumed that meant the only way that wimpy ol' Isosceles stance could work was because the top shooters were running .38 Super compguns. And that's simply not true. For one thing, a .38 Super compgun is not the easiest thing in the world to fire; it's actually a really nasty piece, recoil-wise. For another, I would have thought the myth of the Isoceles stance only working with light to moderate loads would have totally gummed the big one with the advent of USPSA Limited and Limited-10 divisions, and the spectre of many, many shooters firing .40 and .45 caliber Major loaded auto pistols fast and well - using the Isosceles stance. There are, to my knowledge, no top shooters these days using Weaver, and it's not because they don't know how to apply a "a good, strong isometric Weaver stance". If Weaver worked better, we'd be using it.

[George]

If Weaver worked better, we'd be using it.

Exactly!

In fact, the Weaver stance (IMHO anyway) may be inherently less capable of fast, controlled repeat follow-up shots than Isosceles because the locked strong arm is transferring some large amount of the recoil to the body and that requires a stiffer body posture to absorb it rather than rock with it to some degree.

The Isosceles on the other hand provides a natural recoil absorbing system in the equally tensioned and flexed, but not locked arms that absorbs recoil in a springlike manner without transferring as much of it to the body as in the Weaver. This allows a more fluid and relaxed overall posture/stance and IMO, a much faster and more consistent shot to shot recovery process. Not to mention the wide transitional flexibility without requiring near as much lower body movement that Isosceles brings to the table compared to Weaver.

I came up back when Weaver was still a contender because it was used more. I tried learning it, it just did not makes sense compared to the new Isosceles thang' that was coming on. I am from a racing background and when I analyze something for it's potential of getting me going faster and with more power under my control, I am all over it. Well, next thing ya' old George has settled on the zbig-new "I" method. That was back in 88 and time has proven it out like I was sure it would.

To me this comparison was the exact analog of the "hanging off" thing Kenny Roberts took to the European F1 motorcycle scene back in the late 70's and swept the board clean with it. When a better/faster technique for handling a 100+ horsepower machine on the edge of control at 120+ mph rears it ugly head, the "fast" folks take notice and snap it right on up. Back when Kenny took Europe by storm, some of the more straight-up folks (who weren't really that "fast" anyway) tried to have him banned for using his "Hanging Off" dirt track riding style on the pavement by claiming that him blowing their doors off was "unsafe"! He was pushing the rear AND the front tire with his loose on the edge riding style. He opened the door to a new era of fast with this "new" technique.

Nah, there is no question really, the Weaver is pretty much dead and gone for shooting powerful cartridges at speed, kinda' like dialup internet access is dead for surfin' the Forums with speed, accuracy and agility ;-)

[AikiDale]

The big difference is the amount of muzzle flip and time to the second shot. Brian's gun barely moves, he's got the second shot off while the Weaver guy's muzzle is still pointing at the sky.

Too bad Lenny couldn't find somebody who understood how to apply a good, strong isometric Weaver stance to serve as a better example.

I'm all in favor of the "modern isosceles" and so forth, particularly in the competition setting where light to moderate loads are being fired. However, Weaver remains a valid technique for some circumstances. Unfortunately, most don't know how to do it right.

I could be wrong about this Mike but doesn't Robbie win National titles shooting an isosceles stance behind factory Winchester .45's? The Weaver works for some just fine, I regularly shoot with a fellow who shoots factory or hotter loads with it with no significant muzzle flip, but so does the isosceles. I was taught to shoot that way by folks who treat it as dogma. Fortunately for me, my karma ran over my dogma. From what I've read here and in Brian's book they tried every variation they could come up with and settled on the isosceles because it worked better and proved it in competition just as Col. Cooper intended.

[Flexmoney]

Ummmm...I agree with Mike. I can think of instances where the Weaver performs quite well.

ergo

Middle English, from Latin, from Old Latin, because of, from (assumed) Old Latin e rogo from the direction (of)

: THEREFORE , HENCE

quid pro quo

New Latin, something for something

: something given or received for something else ; also : a deal arranging a quid pro quo

??

[Carmoney]

Guys, I'm not advocating a mass return to the Weaver stance. And I never said that modern Isosceles only works in competition because we use moderate loads. All in all, I think if a shooter is going to become proficient in one stance, a modern isosceles (as developed by L/E) might indeed be the best. I get around to quite a few big matches each year, I know what's going on out there.

But the fact remains that the Weaver and Chapman (sometimes called "Modified Weaver") stances can actually work pretty well too, if properly employed.

Too often, you see these old heads that try to shoot from a classic Weaver, but they don't know how to do it right. They have their bent arms splayed out to the sides, and they're obviously not applying the push/pull tension that is the essence of the stance. The FBI actually taught this crap for awhile. This does nothing to control recoil or muzzle flip, and it explains the guy who's gun "was still pointed at the sky." On the other hand, if you keep both arms bent with the elbows down, grip the gun firmly, and push forward with the gun hand while pulling back with the support hand, you have a stance that will keep the muzzle down remarkably well.

So I will stick with my contention that those who think Weaver is worthless have never been shown how to do it correctly.

Now George, that locked strong arm stance is actually not a Weaver stance, it's a Chapman stance (although some call it "Modified Weaver"). The idea here is you keep your shooting arm locked straight, bend the support arm but keep the elbow pointed down (not out to the side) and pull back on the gun hand like you're pulling a rifle stock into your shoulder. That's how Ray Chapman developed it.

Is Chapman the best stance for most people? Probably not. But it works well enough that I can think of one shooter who shot Chapman stance to multiple Area and Section match victories over the past couple years, back-to-back Point Series high overall wins in 2005/2006, and a 3rd place overall finish in his division at the 2006 USPSA Nationals.

I never said Weaver was better. Did I teach Sam to shoot from Weaver or Chapman? Nope--I taught him modern isosceles from the beginning, and I'm glad I did. He shoots a .45 ACP revolver with 175 p.f. loads, has no trouble handling the gun, and recently reached B class at age 13.

I'm just saying dogma works both ways. And those who insist there's one and only one way to shoot well have missed the entire point of Brian's book. Or so it seems to me.