ABCs of Handgun Marksmanship ?

[TreblePlink]

October's American Rifleman, beginning on page 84, in the article The ABCs of Handgun Marksmanship, written by Wiley Clapp, under B Stance, appears to advocate the Weaver push-pull method.

Am I reading this right? The NRA prints this? What top shooter uses this antique technique? Is the NRA teaching our newbies bad habits?

[MarkCO]

Am I reading this right? The NRA prints this? What top shooter uses this antique technique? Is the NRA teaching our newbies bad habits?

Yes, Yes, None, Yes.

Watch American Rifleman. I used to show an episode of this in my training classes just to illustrate improper technique. Some of the range shooting with the camera pointed back towards the shooter, you can see obvious flinches, they blink their eyes, dip the muzzle. Prety sad. But I still belong.

[Shawn Knight]

Thats why I watch Shooting USA.

[AR Gunner]

I read that article and wondered the same thing. I'm not qualified to rebut an American Rifleman article on shooting stance and methods, but maybe some well written letters to the editor from some of our experienced forum members may shed light on how the world's best shooters are doing things.

[Shawn Knight]

I really have to say that is all about who sponsors what. I mostly see the Gunsite folks in those magazines and I also see them on the TV shows sponsored by the same folks. The Gunsite method is very easy to tecah to new shooters and that is also a reason that they use it.

We are competition shooters and we don't always see eye to eye with the Tactical crowd. Bladed stances are good for keeping cover and presenting less of a target to the bad guy but not always the best for movement.

Just seems that the NRA articles and TV shows are more geared toward the defensive side of the house.

[RufDog]

I saw that too, at first I thought I was reading "Guns Go Blammo" magazine

[smokshwn]

We are competition shooters and we don't always see eye to eye with the Tactical crowd. Bladed stances are good for keeping cover and presenting less of a target to the bad guy but not always the best for movement.

Bladed stances are also excellent for presenting multiple organ systems to trauma from one bullet....not really that tactical when you look at it that way.

The real reason the Tactical crowd sticks with the bladed stance is feet of clay. There has been beaucoup research in the tactical community to show not only the benefits but the absolute reality that your body will create the squared up/crouched stance it is just taking time to pervade those who don't change well.

[shred]

Interestingly, old pictures of Jack Weaver show him shooting a pretty Iso stance when face-on to targets.

NRA prints all that stuff because their main pistol authors are old Cooperites and it takes them forever to make doctrinal changes. At least they tell people it's ok to use two hands now :D

[G-ManBart]

The real reason the Tactical crowd sticks with the bladed stance is feet of clay. There has been beaucoup research in the tactical community to show not only the benefits but the absolute reality that your body will create the squared up/crouched stance it is just taking time to pervade those who don't change well.

Most of the big agencies and departments have dropped the bladed stance....the change has been going for a while now....thankfully!

[smokshwn]

The real reason the Tactical crowd sticks with the bladed stance is feet of clay. There has been beaucoup research in the tactical community to show not only the benefits but the absolute reality that your body will create the squared up/crouched stance it is just taking time to pervade those who don't change well.

Most of the big agencies and departments have dropped the bladed stance....the change has been going for a while now....thankfully!

Yes, a very good thing It has been a while but I was talking with one of our firearms Instructors (he also shoots USPSA when he has some time) about this subject and he was mentioning how even after all the big boys were changing there were still those instructors who would not even try the technique let alone incorporate into their training.

[Walküre]

We are competition shooters and we don't always see eye to eye with the Tactical crowd. Bladed stances are good for keeping cover and presenting less of a target to the bad guy but not always the best for movement.

Bladed stances are also excellent for presenting multiple organ systems to trauma from one bullet....not really that tactical when you look at it that way.

Not to mention that for the body-armor-wearing LEO and .MIL crowd, it presents the least protected parts to the target.

As said, a lot of it is simply resistance to change. A portion (not all) of the "tactical" crowd also shuns "competitive" techniques that are popular in USPSA & IPSC just because they are dominant in the competition crowd.

[XRe]

I really have to say that is all about who sponsors what. I mostly see the Gunsite folks in those magazines and I also see them on the TV shows sponsored by the same folks. The Gunsite method is very easy to tecah to new shooters and that is also a reason that they use it.

I've taught modified iso as we use it in the "practical" sports to people with absolutely no firearms exposure - its easier to teach them than a so-called "expert", actually. Its quick and easy to teach, and easy to demonstrate why it works so well.

Show me video of a gun fight where the Weaver trained shooter doesn't have time to prepare to fight (ie, (s)he's surprised, as happens with most "social events") and they actually shoot Weaver, rather than "panic, push the gun straight out toward the target in something extremely close to modified iso and blindly yank on the trigger, praying that I hit something". The only reason that people want to train using a technique that they will never use under real pressure, that presents the wrong parts of the body to the bad guy, that's slower, that manages recoil less well, and allows less freedom of movement to respond to threats is tired old dogma.... unfortunately.

Ideas can lead to better ideas, better techniques, better skills, better performance. Beliefs (that is, dogma) will get you killed when it really matters... so it seems...

That's obviously just my opinion....

[Mistral404]

Shred has it right on the money. I have been reading AR since I was a kid and still do. A second generation NRA member. It is a very conservative magazine. The editors have been around for a long time and are very resistant to new ideas around techniques. New ideas for guns, etc. they are good, not great.

I still enjoy reading, it is not my bible with regards to all that are guns.

[ChrisMcCracken]

It's easy for us to see this perspective. Scores talk. We look at the GMs. They've obviously worked out any extraneous techniques. We're motivated by scores... shooting faster more accurately. I wish more of our LEOs were required to shoot USPSA/IDPA. Things would change much faster then.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Erucolindon

[Singlestack]

That will be enough about gunfighting.

[VegasOPM]

Let's just say that Wiley is an "early adopter" of Cooper's "Modern" system of pistolcraft and hasn't seen fit to change.

[ChrisMcCracken]

That will be enough about gunfighting.

Noted. I don't even think this has anything to do with gunfights. I think it primarily has to do with mastery of the weapons we carry and compete with. I've shot a long time just for fun before discovering USPSA. I feel my shooting has dramatically improved since, and I'm struggling to get to C class. One of the reasons is that I think this sport provides a frame of reference that most shooters lack unless you compete or seek out training above your basic handgun safety and marksmanship class.

[Jack Suber]

In South Carolina, we have to trach the NRA Basic Handgun Course as part of the CWP course. The NRA Handbooks show the Weaver stance and a terrible grip. I tell my students to ignore it and I show them the "proper way."

FWIW - the last to South Carolina State Troopers who were shot in killed in the line of duty were all wearing body armor. Both were shot in the side. One with a .22 LR that hit him in the arm pit....no body armor there.....

[eerw]

trying to teach someone the weaver is very complicated..the push pull that is advocated is very hard to teach a beginner..

I remember years ago..I was in a John Farnham class and I was happily shooting away in a ISO stance. fast presentation, good hits, especially in the night shooting portion. He wanted me to shoot a weaver stance..so I did and ended up missing the small plates more. He said go back to ISO, I hit, he said go back to weaver I'd miss.. He finally gave up and said..you hit with the ISO..use it.. I just smiled.

[Duane Thomas]

Years ago I went to several of John's handgun courses. (Yes, I did earn the yellow pin that means so much.) I always loved training with him; John is just a kick in the pants. He was (and is, I'm sure) a major Weaver proponent. He also recommended a high thumbs grip which is, ironically, very similar to the way I grip the gun now. Back then I shot thumb-over-thumb. Anyway, early-on in the class I stepped aside with him and said, "John, look, if I PROMISE to hit the center of the target fast, do you have a problem with me straightening my arms out in that wimpy ol' isosceles stance and locking my thumbs down?" He told me, "Hey, if you can hit the center of the target fast, as far as I'm concerned you can do anything you want."

That was a two day course shot on steel plates so it was very obvious when you hit and when you missed.

I didn't miss a single shot all two days.

Actually, John had said to bring 1,000 rounds to the class. I watched people burn through their first 1,000 rounds and start on their second by the morning of the second day. I fired a grand total of 307 rounds all two days. NOTE TO SELF: The more you hit, the less you have to shoot.

Now, I have to admit, one of the reasons this class took some people a lot of rounds was that those heavy steel plates John used generally wouldn't fall with one hit from a 9mm. I had been told by others who had taken this class that would happen. I showed up with a Glock 17 (old style, cobblestone grip) loaded with Cor-Bon. When I ran out of that I switched over to Remington +P+. Lemme tell ya what, one shot with that stuff, those plates went DOWN.

I should go to another John class. This thread has made me miss his company.

[Joe4d]

In the early 1990's I got ahold of a current latest greatest Pistol marksmanship US Army manual, You think The NRA's Wiley is bad ? The Army was still teaching pistols based on shooting from horseback, Granted the horses had been removed but I guess each author simply copied the book from the previous edition, Look at the bullseye hold strong hand only, arm extended out to the side,

Strong hand because the weak hand is holding the reins, arm extended out to side to keep from hitting your horse in the head.

[Tom in Ohio]

In the law enforcement community (I'm a LEO firearms instructor) it is mostly a generational thing. The truth is that the vast majority of law enforcement firearms instructors neither compete nor have been in gunfights. The Weaver stance is what the older ones were taught, and with the big targets and liberal time limits of most qualification courses of fire, its worked for them. In their limited experience, they see no advantage to a large amount of the techniques written about on this forum and widely accepted within the competitive shooting community.

Thankfully, it is changing.

[Steven Cline]

He told me, "Hey, if you can hit the center of the target fast, as far as I'm concerned you can do anything you want."

This!

I teach basic pistol. I advocate the Iso and thumbsforward, but when another stance or grip is what is working for the student, that's what they use... but then again, when I have them use iso and thumbs forward, they typically shoot better.

[Matt Griffin]

In the early 1990's I got ahold of a current latest greatest Pistol marksmanship US Army manual, You think The NRA's Wiley is bad ? The Army was still teaching pistols based on shooting from horseback, Granted the horses had been removed but I guess each author simply copied the book from the previous edition, Look at the bullseye hold strong hand only, arm extended out to the side,

Strong hand because the weak hand is holding the reins, arm extended out to side to keep from hitting your horse in the head.

To be fair, I think the Army manual is geared more towards Bullseye competition than any practical application, and while a true 90-degree stance isn't quite right, a good bullseye stance is pretty close to 90, depending on your personal body type.

H.

[Punished]

I took a 4 day hand gun course at Front Sight in Nevada over the summer. They were full force on the weaver stance, thumb over thumb. I shot the whole thing Iso and was nagged about it the whole time. I was used as an example as well, about how competitive shooters do things differently then in the "real world". I ranked top 5 for that whole weekend.