Locking The Strong Elbow

[Dowter]

In my never ending search for the optimum technique, I was working with locking the elbow in my strong arm and I found some interesting results. I'm interested to hear others opinions about the matter. I'm still learning this thing.

I was shooting at a bowling pin target(5 pins drawn on a paper) with about 200 rounds and just about for the first time ever, I didn't get the bullet-shanked-to-the-bottom-left pattern. I was trying to shoot at top speed; accuracy wasn't my main focus. I missed a few but my misses were evenly distributed around my intended impact area. My usual bullet pattern dispersal is a clump of holes of where I aimed and from that clump a trail going down and to the left from the shots where I performed poor trigger control.

This time I didn't get that pattern and though I was pleased not to see it, I couldn't figure out why. So I studied my new stance with the strong elbow locked and I realized that with the elbow locked I was able to totally relax my shooting hand. There was almost no tension in my hand. The dexterity in my trigger finger vastly improved.

(Also the front sight flipped less and the gun felt more in control, but this is minor compaired to improved trigger finger dexterity)

The muscles in the arm are all connected so it's hard to keep the hand loose while the muscles in the arm are flexing and trying to keep the arms bent at a certain angle. When I lock my elbow, the recoil is being handled by my bones and not the muscles so the muscles are totally loose. I probably have about a 70/30 grip with my weak hand doing most of the gripping, but I'm not bothered by the increased tension in my weak hand since it doesn't require the dexterity of pulling the trigger.

One of the criticisms of locking elbows that I heard before is that it sends all the recoil into the shoulders. So...? There's some increased tension in my strong shoulder but that might only slow me down (a little) with vertical transitions and since IPSC Transitions are about 95% horizontal transitions thats a good trade for improved finger dexterity. (and of course everyone knows that horizontal transitions are done with the thighs and that the upper body only needs to stay in place.)

The one thing bad about this technique that I found was that it doesn't work well while moving, it's too inflexible. It doesn't allow for compensation of the gun bouncing up and down. This is more of a stand and shoot stance.

[Loves2Shoot]

How flexible is that stance, like shooting around baracades, under tables, through ports all the crazy stuff we have to do. I think that you will find it takes to long to setup and it is not adaptible to the scenarios we shoot. Just one of the pitfalls to shooting locked arm.

[Chriss Grube]

The one thing bad about this technique that I found was that it doesn't work well while moving, it's too inflexible. It doesn't allow for compensation of the gun bouncing up and down. This is more of a stand and shoot stance.

There is the problem. Do you really want to waste time on a stance that has very limited application and will probably screw up a match for you? KISS, one stance that works for everything. You already said you suffer from poor trigger control. Why not fix your problem by working on trigger control rather than a different stance?

[Dowter]

I think that you will find it takes to long to setup ...

uhh, how long does it take to extend your hand 1/2 to 1/4 inch forward in your part of the world.

How flexible is that stance, like shooting around baracades, under tables, through ports all the crazy stuff we have to do.

As well as any other "stance" where the intention is to keep the upper body a solid shooting platform. I've never seen a stance that could be used in every possible shooting problem without some modifications.

[Dowter]

You already said you suffer from poor trigger control.

I did?

I think that you are imagining a much larger bullet pattern than what I had described earlier. The point that I was trying to make was that my grouping became more consistant and smaller, not that it was bad before.

In a match less than a month ago on a stage where 13 out of 24 shooters zeroed the stage because the shots were too tight, I won it outright with a limited gun. 2nd place was an open guy with 99.52% and 3rd was 67.34% - a limited gun shooter who came from a bullseye background.

I most definitely have deficits in my IPSC game but trigger control isn't one of them.

There is the problem. Do you really want to waste time on a stance that has very limited application and will probably screw up a match for you?

I don't think that a stance that works well while standing and not moving is that limited.

KISS, one stance that works for everything.

This stance "works" for everything - just better in some situations and worse in others. Just as the stance that you are probably imagining works better for movement and worse for standing.

It's a trade off. The real question (at least to me) is how much should I trade off one for the other.

Another question is why can't a person just use a more bent arm upper body stance for movement and a straight arm for shooting? It is about 1/4 to 1/2 inch of difference.

[Chriss Grube]

My usual bullet pattern dispersal is a clump of holes of where I aimed and from that clump a trail going down and to the left from the shots where I performed poor trigger control.

That's where I got the poor trigger control.

Sounds like you are shooting a variation of the Weaver stance.

13 out of 24 zeroed the stage? Sounds like piss poor stage design more than anything.

TJ used to have different stances, draws etc. Now he has simplified it down to one. That's the great thing about this game. What works for you might suck for me. There are too many things that can and do go wrong after the buzzer without throwing something else into the mix. I'll stick to one stance, less chance of screwing it up and it simplifies practice.

[Dowter]

Oh, ok I see what you mean. I meant a deviation of a standard that I had set for myself for trigger control when I said "poor trigger control". (the groups were still relatively small) It wasn't meant as a generalization.

Sounds like you are shooting a variation of the Weaver stance.

Good lord, man! Bite your tongue! My left arm is straight and my left wrist is bent all the way with the thumb on the trigger guard. It's far from a weaver. The straight strong arm is the only part that resembles a weaver.

13 out of 24 zeroed the stage? Sounds like piss poor stage design more than anything.

Well if anything hard is poor... than yeah it was poor. The course designer vastly overestimated people's willingness to look at their front sight. He made something different from opening a door,firing at 3 targets point blank, going to a window, firing at 2 targets point blank, running down a path... and firing at some targets point blank.

What did annoy we was the name of the stage "Not Virginia Count", when in fact it was a virginia count stage. Atleast it taught me to read course descriptions.

[Loves2Shoot]

how long does it take to extend your hand 1/2 to 1/4 inch forward in your part of the world.

Too long, with a neutral stance it takes no time. I can shoot moving, standing, whatever. I just try to float the gun and let it recoil and take the next shot when it's done. You can't stop recoil, so let it happen and take the next shot, locking out may be your option, but I think you will find there is a reason why most of the shooters at top don't lock out. If you think that locking is better then by all means knock yourself out using it. When that doesn't work, read BE's book again and work on the other aspects of breaking the shot you are obviously having problems with.

You might try this, hold the gun entirely in your left hand and just activate the trigger with you right hand. I have seen an 11 year old do this and hit his target repeatedly. Then he realized there is no need overgrip your gun with your right hand, as the gun will move, the trick is getting it to reurn the same way everytime, and if you shoot with tension, as the tension varies, so will the return of the gun.

[Guy Neill]

It sounds very similar to the Chapman variant of the Weaver. Perhaps the primary difference is that in the Chapman you treat youir strong arm as a rifle stock, and you did not mention doing this.

Guy

[Dowter]

It sounds very similar to the Chapman variant of the Weaver.  Perhaps the primary difference is that in the Chapman you treat youir strong arm as a rifle stock, and you did not mention doing this.

Guy

Hmmm.... maybe my strong arm is Chapman like but it really does end there. My weak arm is more similiar to what is being taught by D.R. Middlebrooks (the other bane of the isoceles ) http://www.tacticalshooting.com/new/photos.htm (Though my thumb is on the trigger guard and not the frame)

The rest of my stance is isocoles orthodox - head is up, body square to the target, wide foot stance. The only thing that i do a little bit different is that I try to keep my feet parallel or just a little bit inward. I found that this last part keeps me better balanced over the center of my feet.

My stance isn't the result of a master plan but just an interest in testing out many different things and keeping those that work best.

[Guy Neill]

And if it works for you - that is what is important, not some stylized ONE WAY.

Guy

[Steve Anderson]

Ignore the naysayers!

If you when win shooting "the Dowter" they'll all be copying it anyway...

Myself, I've been working on hard on not needing a position. I've learned I can shoot poppers on the move from 20 yards in...If that's the case why would I need to "set up" to shoot one static?

Answer: I feel like I need to.

The benefit of these new ideas is that they get you seeing and feeling different stuff. Kinda like Brian and Robbie's "tricks of the day"

I haven't paid a lick of notice to grip or stance in months til I read your post...

SA

[Flexmoney]

The world is flat.

[Run n Gun]

Dowter,

Something that I read in a post by Erik Warren sticks in my head:

“I don’t argue I let my timer do the talking.”

I doubt that’s an exact quote but I’m sure we can appreciate the sentiment…

Flex,

Only your part of it.

Ed

[wide45]

There is an other side to that statement.

[Singlestack]

I think Dave Sevigney locks his arm/s. If not, he is dang close to it. Look at the FS front cover pic. I have basically the same body type as Dave (+30 lbs and a couple of inches) and my form developed into something very similar to his (before I ever saw him). I think the subtle differences in form (in modern iso) can be tied to body type.

[ErikW]

Great Minds Think Alike, Steve... I, too, was thinking "le trick du jour."

Run n Gun, wow, people remember my one-liners. Almost as good as being known as a top IDPA shooter.

[tightloop]

Totally absorbing any recoil with your elbows cannot be good for your elbows, in the long run. Might take a while with a 9mm, but when it gets here, can you spell cortisone shot.

[bountyhunter]

I don't lock the elbow. There may be an infinitesimal increase in accuracy, but it puts noticably more strain on my elbows and shoulders. When I shoot two guns back to back (open and stock) in bullseye where the gun is held out for a long time, pulling the gun a couple of inches closer to the body by slightly bending the elbows drastically reduces the strain on the shoulder muscles. You young guys maybe can hold a 65 ounce gun straight out on locked elbows for the better part of 45 minutes without suffering, but us old guys can't.

[Gunsmoke]

Another bane to the weaver... the US Army.

In countless tests the US Army has identified that when a human is confronted with a stressfull confrontation it drops to the lowest comon denominator, squares off to the threat, throws away all fine motor skills, squats slightly and, when a handgun is involved, locks BOTH elbows. Although I would definatelly not recomend it for bullseye shooters, it is the basis for the US Army's advanced marksmanship courses.

As for time to set up, if anything it would be less because the handgun is punched straight out to full and locked extension, no bounce or spring settling into the "comfortable" position.

Recovery is faster because, with proper form, recoil is transfered through the bone structure and into the ground.

Multiple targets are rapidly engaged by pivoting the entire upper body from below the waist like a turret.

While moving, shock is absorbed with the knees which are slightly bent and the spine which is curved slightly forward at the abdomen in a natural "getting low" crouch.

I don't suppose that I actually converted any old weaver shooters. I had this method forced on me after being a modified weaver shooter myself and have since seen its merits. Afterall I don't know many nationally recognized professional shooters but I was taught by people who compete in matches where the winners prize is ... another day!

[Skywalker]

Gunsmoke,

you are basically agreeing with Massad Ayoob's stance (he too defined it the "turret stance").

Have a look (if you didn't already) at Mas book "Stressfire Vol.1".

[AikiDale]

In countless tests the US Army has identified that when a human is confronted with a stressfull confrontation it drops to the lowest comon denominator, squares off to the threat, throws away all fine motor skills, squats slightly and, when a handgun is involved, locks BOTH elbows.

Disclaimer: I do not have the experience to even suggest whether the elbow should be locked when shooting.

That said, determining what an untrained human does when stressed may be a starting point for modifying behavior but should not be taken as the correct thing to do. The normal reaction of an untrained person is not the most effective reaction to stress, it is the most common untrained reaction.

When an untrained human falls or is thrown to the ground for example, the same reaction occurs, including the locked elbows. This results in a visit to the othopedic surgeon if the fall has sufficient impetus. Those with training modify this initial movement into one which results in a fall which protects the limbs as well as the rest of the body.

Experimenting, controlling for one variable at a time then testing would seem to me to be a better way to improve human performance than to adopt the untrained norm.

[Duane Thomas]

I think Dave Sevigney locks his arm/s. If not, he is dang close to it. Look at the FS front cover pic. I have basically the same body type as Dave (+30 lbs and a couple of inches) and my form developed into something very similar to his (before I ever saw him). I think the subtle differences in form (in modern iso) can be tied to body type.

I recently interviewed Dave Sevigny. The resulting article will be published in this year's Glock Annual. One of the parts I hated to cut, but which had to be whacked for length, went something like this:

DS: Looking at old photos it's really interesting for me to see how my technique's evolved over the years. When you look at photos of me shooting today, it looks like my arms are really straight. But they're not, they're both bent. Because I don't drop my arms much they look straight from the side, but if you were to look from the top, it looks like a hug. I've got both arms bent, I just bend the right arm less, and the reason is that I'm cross-dominant.

DT: Really?! Me, too.

DS: I bend the left arm more than the right and that moves the gun over in line with my left eye. When I started shooting I realized I either had to do that or tilt my head over - I don't see why anyone would want to do that unless you only ever stand in one place and shoot without moving. The whole cross-dominant thing is no big deal. You just have to dial-in a few minor changes to your technique.

DT: Wow, I'd thought - and this was probably true until you came along - that Brian Enos was the only cross-dominant shooter who'd ever attained much real success at the national level. Now people will know: you are, too.

[Sam]

Aikidale-" That said, determining what an untrained human does when stressed may be a starting point for modifying behavior but should not be taken as the correct thing to do. The normal reaction of an untrained person is not the most effective reaction to stress, it is the most common untrained reaction." - Man, that is a great insight!

No criticism of U.S. Army training methods or Mas Ayoob intended at all. For some strange reason, that just strikes a chord with me.

[Gunsmoke]

In countless tests the US Army has identified that when a human is confronted with a stressfull confrontation it drops to the lowest comon denominator, squares off to the threat, throws away all fine motor skills, squats slightly and, when a handgun is involved, locks BOTH elbows.

... determining what an untrained human does when stressed may be a starting point for modifying behavior but should not be taken as the correct thing to do. The normal reaction of an untrained person is not the most effective reaction to stress, it is the most common untrained reaction.

Who said they were untrained? In fact the majority were well trained and most with the weaver technique. Time and time again video of actual shootings (on a two way range) show weaver trained law enforcement and military personnel going iso. The army stesses the importance of training as you would fight so why practice the weaver when your gonna go iso anyways? Unless, of course, you are shooting at something that doesn't shoot back.