ABCs of Handgun Marksmanship ?

[ong45]

We all take if for granted that the modified iso is better for a lot of things including recoil control , however looking at it from a new shooters pov the " push-pull" seems to allow for better recoil mamagement.

Any suggestions on how to explain otherwise ? Just saying the fastest shooters in the world do it this way seems like a cop out.

[Shawn Knight]

The best shooters in the world don't debate on what technique they use.

[Duane Thomas]

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".

Gotta love open-mindedness.

[Flexmoney]

Any suggestions on how to explain otherwise ? Just saying the fastest shooters in the world do it this way seems like a cop out.

Burkett has a bit on that in his grip and stance tips. (They are on Saul's site, if you can't find them on Matt's).

Those words hit home with me when I started this stuff, and I changed up. Of course, I was looking for something better and was open to it.

[Flexmoney]

BTW...I think I read the article in question and found it to be well above average, overall.

[JimmyZip]

I used to shoot Weaver as this is what I was taught as a kid in the early 80s. (Like 1980) I was very young and just learning to shoot what was then called combat shooting. I can say without reservation that the Weaver stance is not really conducive to lateral movement and transitions. I also don't really think that it helped recoil management for me whatsoever. After switching I noticed that my sights track way better and more consistantly. Just try it sometimes and you will really begin to understand. When I changed it felt better immediately to use iso. I did have alot of trouble not shooting Weaver when I got stressed or excited, but lots of dryfire fixed that.

Still see people shoot it though and they are happy with it. I like the iso though and how it lets me shoot wide transitions easier. Try it, and I think you will agree.

That's my experience anyway.

JZ

[Punished]

Gotta love open-mindedness.

What really got me was on day 1 I tried their way. I truly did, but I couldn't hit groups worth anything. So I swapped back to an ISO stance and shot great. Then they told me I need to shoot it there way and I am not giving it a chance. To me, if I am trying your weaver, with thumbs over thumbs. I have terrible groups, not on purpose I might add, then why continue to tell me to use it. On the flip side, it worked better for my father than him shooting ISO. But I think part of that is someone his age was teaching him instead of his 23 year old son.

But each day I would get nagged and asked if I was ready to give up that bad form I use. I understand how they choose to have all instructors shoot the same style and that's what they teach. But they claim they teach it because it is the best since that is what the founder uses. To me, you can't teach the exact way to everyone, each person needs a slight change in their stance and form. I for one have my right foot back 8 inches or so to give me a solid shooting platform, I tried squaring up my legs but it just wasn't working. I had to make adjustments for my father as well since he shoots weaver. He is a big guy and doesn't quite have the ability to tuck his elbows in completely. It was annoying to hear the instructors who kept telling him he is not tucking in tight enough or not doing that when its fairly obvious it can't be done.

[Chills1994]

A couple of posters already hit the nail on the head with the terms "dogma" and "doctrine".

I have to piggy back on that with the term "paradigm".

Never underestimate people's resistance to change.

Yeah, watching those American Rifleman TV people shoot and flinch and blink their way through a few rounds would almost be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[kurtm]

MarkCo, GM Eddie Rhodes shoots weaver. As for the "bladed thing" I fail to see how the ball of your strong side foot being in line with your week side foot's heel constitutes turning completely sideways to "open up" armor. I have done both positions and I just don't see the "vast difference" talked about. Is the Weaver the best? Probably not. Is it viable? yes......but then again the ability to make fun of others is what seperates us from the animals

[kellyn]

MarkCo, GM Eddie Rhodes shoots weaver.

There's ONE.

But in all fairness GM Steve Hendricks advocates a push/pull grip although the rest of his shooting looks modern iso to me.

I guess the guys at Tigerswan, Larry Vickers and Viking Tactics are all lucky to be alive using those weinie Rob Leatham techniques!

I don't really agree with the idea that stance aids in actual marksmanship which is more about trigger control than anything else. Stance is more about recoil control, movement, and target transitions.

[MoNsTeR]

We all take if for granted that the modified iso is better for a lot of things including recoil control , however looking at it from a new shooters pov the " push-pull" seems to allow for better recoil mamagement.

Any suggestions on how to explain otherwise ? Just saying the fastest shooters in the world do it this way seems like a cop out.

How could pulling on the gun possibly do anything but make recoil worse? You can think of Iso as push-push, which makes more sense and works much better.

[konkapot]

Just went to Gunsite this summer; what a nightmare. The only problem with the Modern Technique is that............it isn't modern. Additionally, they don't even teach a true Weaver there.........much closer to a chapman/modified isoceles.

Mr Ong-I rebut push-pull with students by showing them how much tension this grip creates........tension that doesn't help them manipulate their trigger smoothly/precisely. A dryfire demo with them holding their gun usually clears it up for them.

FY42385

[twodownzero]

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.

Yeah, I'd be scared out of my mind. Most of the cops I've met can't hit anything!

[Aglifter]

Is push-pull correct for heavy amounts of recoil? I was told to use that, and have been, on my 454, 500 S&W, etc. Admittedly, I haven't learned how to do the straight thumbs technique yet, but it did improve my ability to control the revolver relative to a "combat" grip -- i may have just been gripping the gun more firmly, however.

[Bongo Boy]

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.

Gotta give John 10+ points for conducting the experiment at all. You don't see that everyday!

We all take if for granted that the modified iso is better for a lot of things including recoil control , however looking at it from a new shooters pov the "push-pull" seems to allow for better recoil management. Any suggestions on how to explain otherwise? Just saying the fastest shooters in the world do it this way seems like a cop out.

I think it's great to challenge the "everyone does it that way" logic, and to me it's perfectly valid to do so. My ONLY exposure to push-pull is having just viewed Lee Laster's instructional video on the topic, so I'm armed with an opinion. My logic thread with assumptions, etc., goes like this:

You need to to know what's involved in getting the weapon back on target quickly, and unfortunately I don't really know any 'scientific' way to do that. From a physics perspective, it seems you'd like to see uniform motion of the weapon from shot to shot, and you'd like 'symmetric' action on shooter in the sense that recoil doesn't put a lot of torque on the upper torso. From a biomechanics view, you'd like to minimize changes to the muscles that are involved from shot to shot. IOW, I'd prefer not to have relatively new & untrained muscles get too involved just because my shot isn't dead center in front of me.

So, I'd think a nice symmetric stance would be a good thing. But, I can't help but notice the ability to use both arms to equally resist to recoil in a symmetric way is nil. The strong hand is the only one with the opposed thumb, and that's the only way to absorb recoil into the body. The weak hand can't do squat...certainly not without a near-death grip (clasp?). What that arm and hand can do is help ensure a consistent recoil path on each shot. Anyway that's my opinion.

Back to the 'push-pull' thing, at least from Laster's video, it looks from the outside to be pretty much the same as any other stance I've seen anyone use, and looks just like how I shoot, except for maybe some added arm flex. The only way I'd maybe be able to tell if someone was using it would be if I could the muscles in their weak-hand arm standing out like Lee's. That would suggest tension in the arm, and I'd want to ask the shooter if they were anticipating a .50 AE round going off in that Glock or something.

Anyway, it isn't a matter of opinion, in my opinion that push-push means torque on the upper torso which has to be countered with muscles. It just suggests to me you have quite a little bit of muscle mass doing a whole lot of nothing that's actually needed or beneficial. What it does to my mind is encourage the idea that you have to have a good, tight grip on the gun. To me, that's one of the first things beginners should be taught is NOT true. Now, if a sense of a slight front-to-back pressure on the gun, between the two hands, allows a shooter to better manage the trigger with less death grip in the strong hand, I'd look into it with an open mind.

At least conceptually, I'd prefer the imagery of two hands working together, naturally, to BOTH guide the weapon to target in such a way as to avoid any overshoot or correction. The gun goes from the holster to sight picture on target, the gun goes off, and by magic both hands establish an environment in which the sights are able to find their way to the next desired target. No pushing, no pulling, and no sense of 'controlling' the gun.

Final opinion then I'll have another coffee.

The "all the fastest shooters do it" IS significant, in the sense that, to be fast, you have to get back on target fast. This can be in part due to recoil management and in part to shooting weapons that basically have no recoil. In any case, top shooters can choose from a variety of training styles and can choose any techniques they please, and they have presumably chosen what works for competitive shooting that can really go long--lots of shooting.

Likewise, only sharp eye can discern the techniques of the top 200 PGA golfers, in the sense of 'shooting stance'. They all look pretty darn identical to me, anyway, and their adjustments are subtle. I think the reason for this is proven performance, and certainly not what is the easiest to learn for a 40 year old amateur, for example. Can a competitor be a top shooter and do something different? I think of course he/she can...and shooting probably has its share of Furyk's who are champions in spite of doing some things 'all wrong'.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Bongo Boy

[Duane Thomas]

Is push-pull correct for heavy amounts of recoil?

No. What "controls" recoil is an arm position that doesn't move around during recoil. Because with Weaver the arms are significantly bent, they have a tendency to flex in recoil. Not only is this bad from a standpoint of consistently bringing the gun back to the same point every time - because for that to happen the arms would have to flex and re-extend the exact same amount every time - it actually accentuates muzzle flip.

The reason the gun flips when it's fired is because it's on a pivot, your hands, and the pivot point is below the line of energy the gun is giving you when you fire it, the barrel, so the gun has leverage to flip its muzzle. We've all heard the bit about guns with high bore axes, where the barrel rides significantly above the hand, all else being equal having more perceived recoil, and more muzzle flip, than guns with lower bore axes because the former have more leverage to flip their muzzles. This is one reason we want to get as high up on the gun as possible with our grip - if we can get our hands higher up on the gun, we have de facto lowered the bore axis so the gun has less leverage to flip.

The hands are a pivot point, but so are your elbows. (So, to a lesser extent, are your shoulders.) With the arms coming down from the gun with a Weaver stance, you have the gun way above your elbows, thus it has huge leverage to flip its muzzle.

Also push/pull generates forces onto the gun that cause it to do a hula dance in recoil. You want a neutral technique that puts equal amounts of pressure on either side of the gun butt, so when the gun fires it will track consistently up and then back down to the same spot. Don't think in terms of "controlling" recoil, i.e. fighting the gun. Think in terms of "managing" recoil to get the gun to do what you want it to do. What you want it to do, when you fire it, is flip up, flip down, and come right back to the same spot. Lowered elbows with isometric tension does not serve that purpose.

[G-ManBart]

Is push-pull correct for heavy amounts of recoil? I was told to use that, and have been, on my 454, 500 S&W, etc. Admittedly, I haven't learned how to do the straight thumbs technique yet, but it did improve my ability to control the revolver relative to a "combat" grip -- i may have just been gripping the gun more firmly, however.

+1 to what Duane said about the problems with Weaver and managing recoil (hey, that guy should be a writer!).

I've shot up to full .454 with Iso and it worked pretty well....and I'm not even close to being a big guy.

Something I'm not sure has been singled out in this thread is that when you shoot Iso your shoulders can move forwards and backwards a bit to help absorb the recoil like shock absorbers. Similarly, your elbows will flex to absorb a little recoil as well. It's like a compound spring....your wrist angle (relative to your forearm) will change, the angle between your forearm and upper arm will change and your shoulders will roll back a bit each time you shoot the gun. It's a complete system and each little bit that "gives" is soaking up recoil. With Weaver you have almost none of that happening since you only have your strong hand/arm behind the gun, and when the gun goes off your strong side wrist breaks upwards, and your elbow bends upwards and everything is coming straight back with nothing really "behind" it at that point...and the support side hand/arm is really just along for the ride. R,

[Duane Thomas]

(hey, that guy should be a writer!)

But....do you really think I could? (hopeful little puppy dog look)

Maybe if I tried really hard....

[huntershooter]

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.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Video.aspx?vid=1881

Yeah, this is sad.

The guy screws up the difference between the Marine 36 yard vs. the Army 25 meter zero procedure and states the setting incorrectly. M16A4 is 6/3+2 (NOT -2) and the short barrel M4 should be 300 meters (6/3)

The AMU Service Rifle team has a MUCH better video:

http://www.usaac.army.mil/amu/ProTips/May09/protips.html