Why I Hate the Modern Technique

[Matthew Temkin]

OK..perhaps hate is too strong.
But.....
By the end of the Civil War the army knew what worked in combat.
A large lead bullet, at a slow velocity, powered by a strong musket cap was a proven combination.
But....
Soon after that war technology took a rapid change.
First with the fixed cartridge, then with breech loaders and then with reliable repeating rifles and revolvers.
Then, with the invention of smokeless powder, everthing that was known about ballistics and killing power took a rapid change.
Rifle bullets now had three times the speed of the old Mine ball, and reliable semi and full automatic weapons were withing reach.
Suddenly the Civil War technology was truely obsolete.
Such change was enormous and would have a serious effect on combat tactics----although WW1 generals were slow to grasp this fact.
Just as early Civil War generals had a hard time understanding the effectiveness of the rifled musket.
Now let us jump ahead to 1945.
By the end of that war certain weapons..the semi automatic pistol, the double action revolver, the M1 rifle and carbine, grease gun, Tommy gun and others Allied waepons were well proven in combat. As was the use of such weapons both in close and longer range combat.
Not to mention the many of the German & Soviet small arms, which still have an enormous influence on small arms technology and tactics.
Now IMHO not much change in weapons has occured since 1945.
The single action auto is still touted by some as the ultimate pistol, while the DA auto was first produced in 1929.
Nor have rifles and/or carbines changed much since the German assault rifle and the AK 47.
Heck, even the M 16 is over 40 years old.
Which is why I have always been puzzled at the popularity of the (so called) modern technique.
Why did a group of sport shooters suddenly decide that decades of combat proven techniques..such as point shoulder, 3/4 hip, half hip and other methods, were suddenly ineffective?
OK..perhaps they did not do so well in competition, where--unlike reality---the targets are small and the distances are long.
Fair enough.
But what the hell does this have to do with man to man, eyeball to eyeball close combat?
Now we are seeing many progressive instructors--both in and out of law enforcement---reaching the conclusions that the old stuff is actually quite good and should be re adopted.
A good thing, IMHO.
Others, who are not familiar with the old methods are now rediscovering the old ways are are giving them new names.
An Ok thing, but I do feel that such men should do their research before adding too many bells and whistles to stuff that was worked out during The Great War.
A few are so awestruck with what they have ( re) discovered that they feel compelled to share it with the world.
Another good thing, I suppose, but rather humorous to the old guys who never forgot the original source.
I look at these instructors as I do at Bernie Goldberg.
Bernie is the author of the book BIAS, in which he finally discovered that the media was biased to the left and felt compelled to share it with all of us "ignorant" conservatives who have known this for decades.
But we thank Bernie anyway.

[RAM]

MT has it's place but I don't think it should be the trash can. I'm proud of my accomplishments with MT, there is something satisfying about making 7 yard head shots in under a second from the holster using the sights.

That said, Please don't get me wrong I am anxious to learn QK. I think it will be a valuable asset in my toolbox. Who knows I may come around to your way of thinking but for the time being I still think it is valuable for people to learn how to place accurate shots on target using sight alignment, sight picture and trigger control.

No matter what the shooting style if you can not press the trigger straight to the rear consistantly without disturbing the alignment of the bore with the intended target you won't hit that target consistantly and using the sights to fire at distance provides a platform for learning that trigger control. IMHO!

[Brownie]

RAM:

Matt trains people in FAS shooting techniques, not QK

[Matthew Temkin]

You are assuming that the ability to use the sights, trigger control--in fact basic marksmanship---was not a part of the old school shooting bag of tricks.
And that assumption would be dead wrong.
Which begs the question..what is so modern about the modern technique?
What exactly do people mean by the MT?

Weaver stance?
I have a book titled SHOOTING that was published in 1930 that shows this stance.

Use of the big bore semi auto single action pistol?
That has been around since 1911.

Flash sight picture?
Could that not be what Wyatt Earp meant by taking one's time quick?

Use of unrestricted competition to prove what works in combat?
Would not actual combat be a better vehicle?

Hmmm..perhaps a better question is how do we define the MT?
Cooper had his opinions...4 of which I just mentioned.
What say you?

[sweatnbullets]

MT has it's place but I don't think it should be the trash can. I'm proud of my accomplishments with MT, there is something satisfying about making 7 yard head shots in under a second from the holster using the sights.

That said, Please don't get me wrong I am anxious to learn QK. I think it will be a valuable asset in my toolbox. Who knows I may come around to your way of thinking but for the time being I still think it is valuable for people to learn how to place accurate shots on target using sight alignment, sight picture and trigger control.

No matter what the shooting style if you can not press the trigger straight to the rear consistantly without disturbing the alignment of the bore with the intended target you won't hit that target consistantly and using the sights to fire at distance provides a platform for learning that trigger control. IMHO!

You have every right to be proud of your MT accomplishments. You are definitely squared away. When it comes to MT you could teach me a thing or two. I took another path though, I went for well rounded over attempting the Combat Masters test. Nothing wrong with either direction. Can't wait to meet you and share our knowledge.

[sweatnbullets]

It is my opinion that any type of extensive formal training or competition puts you in an excellent position to get the very most out of your newly learned threat focused skills......That is as long as you have an open mind, and want to excel at these skills.

There is no doubt in my mind that when you walk into you first threat focus course and you are squared away, you will take to threat focus like a duck to water. You will find yourself in a position to get the absolute most out of your new training. Due to the fact that you can completely concentrate on the new skills because your old ones are on auto pilot.

I may not use my pure MT skills as I used to, but it is still my foundation. A foundation that I can build anything on.

So........ not hating so much here.:)

[RAM]

Matt, Brownie, SNB,

First it is obvious that my perspective is one of ignorance, I truly am ignorant of FAS, Point shooting, QK, etc. If it was not taught in the LE academy I attended or FS. then I don't know much about it.

The good news is that I want to learn (that's the cure for ignorance).

Matt,
I didn't mean to step on your toes, but I wasn't wearing my steel toes when I read your post :D

[Matthew Temkin]

Matt, Brownie, SNB,

First it is obvious that my perspective is one of ignorance, I truly am ignorant of FAS, Point shooting, QK, etc. If it was not taught in the LE academy I attended or FS. then I don't know much about it.

The good news is that I want to learn (that's the cure for ignorance).

Matt,
I didn't mean to step on your toes, but I wasn't wearing my steel toes when I read your post :D
Rest assured that my tongue is somewhere near my cheek on this one.
But...I still would like some info on the MT.
For example...when was it officially "born"?
What exactly does it comprise of?
That would be nice for starters, so we can them use evidence to see if any of it's techniques are truely new/unique/modern.
Then again..since Jeff Cooper killed those three Japs with his pistol during WW2 we must assume that he did not use the MT since it was not yet invented.
Yet, for some reason, he choose to abdon what saved his ass for what would win in competition about 15 years later.
Interesting...
And something which deserves our open minded investigation.

[The Searcher]

Matt, I don't believe Cooper killed any Japanese with a handgun during WW2 or even saw any ground combat. He was assigned to the battleship Pennsylvania as either OIC or Exec of the the ship's Marine detachment. He later served stateside with a unit training up for the invasion of Japan.

IRRC, he was reputed to have engaged in some pistol fights in Asia post WW2 against communist guerillas or bandits.

[7677]

I made the mistake once of asking my grandfather what he thought about Col. Cooper. His words were for christ sakes son you was enlisted! What do officers in general know about real combat? I'll tell you what they know how to do...they say sgt. or cpl. take your squad and take that objective. My grandfather was at pearl when it happen and the joke between General Vandergift and Col. Edson was don't send him on recon missions because he never brings back any japs alive.

[Roundeyesamurai]

I'd post on the subject of Cooper's "credentials", but then some of his lackeys would probably end up here "defending the guru".

Likewise, the above statement applies to just about everyone who has taught at Gunsite.

[RAM]

Rest assured that my tongue is somewhere near my cheek on this one.
But...I still would like some info on the MT.
For example...when was it officially "born"?
What exactly does it comprise of?
That would be nice for starters, so we can them use evidence to see if any of it's techniques are truely new/unique/modern.
Then again..since Jeff Cooper killed those three Japs with his pistol during WW2 we must assume that he did not use the MT since it was not yet invented.
Yet, for some reason, he choose to abdon what saved his ass for what would win in competition about 15 years later.
Interesting...
And something which deserves our open minded investigation.


Matthew,

For the longest time I thought when someone referred to MT they were referring to you!

Seriously though, until about 6 months ago I did not realize that what I was doing was called MT. It took some time and reading numerous posts on different forums to figure it out.

My interpretation is that MT is basically the delivery of sighted fire to a threat/target using some sort of stance/grip be it weaver, iso or some combination thereof.

Why it is called Modern Technique is outside my reasoning since most guns have had some sort of sights on them since even before they started rifeling the barrels and I assume they put them there to deliver sighted fire.

I can only conjecture that the term got started by someone who was tired of saying the technique taught by the likes of gunsite, thunder ranch and that other upstart Front Sight and it was shortened to The technique taught by the modern shooting schools or Modern Technique.

Who knows :D

[Matthew Temkin]

Matt, I don't believe Cooper killed any Japanese with a handgun during WW2 or even saw any ground combat. He was assigned to the battleship Pennsylvania as either OIC or Exec of the the ship's Marine detachment. He later served stateside with a unit training up for the invasion of Japan.

IRRC, he was reputed to have engaged in some pistol fights in Asia post WW2 against communist guerillas or bandits.
I beg to differ.
Quite a few articlers on Cooper stated that he killed three Japs in WW2 with a pistol.
Andy Stanford talked about these three fights over on GT a few years ago and confirmed this.
In fact, it has beeen reported that he used hip shooting in at least two of these gunfights.

[Matthew Temkin]

Matthew,

For the longest time I thought when someone referred to MT they were referring to you!

Seriously though, until about 6 months ago I did not realize that what I was doing was called MT. It took some time and reading numerous posts on different forums to figure it out.

My interpretation is that MT is basically the delivery of sighted fire to a threat/target using some sort of stance/grip be it weaver, iso or some combination thereof.

Why it is called Modern Technique is outside my reasoning since most guns have had some sort of sights on them since even before they started rifeling the barrels and I assume they put them there to deliver sighted fire.

I can only conjecture that the term got started by someone who was tired of saying the technique taught by the likes of gunsite, thunder ranch and that other upstart Front Sight and it was shortened to The technique taught by the modern shooting schools or Modern Technique.

Who knows :D
That may be true but....
It is also true that so many of these modern gurus have claimed for decades to have "invented" everything except gunpowder.
In other words, there is nothing modern about the modern technique.

[RAM]

You have every right to be proud of your MT accomplishments. You are definitely squared away. When it comes to MT you could teach me a thing or two. I took another path though, I went for well rounded over attempting the Combat Masters test. Nothing wrong with either direction. Can't wait to meet you and share our knowledge.

Roger,

I too wish to be well rounded that's why I have taken as many Adv. Tactics and Tac. sceanarios classes as Master Prep classes (simunitions help keep it real) and now I'm looking into QK. The main reason I took the HCMP classes is it really gets you off your butt in the speed department and there are quite a few little things to learn that help with that on the square range. My opinion of pushing your self to higher levels of proficency in any area of handgunning is that uaually it will improve your abilities in most other areas as well.

I am anxious to meet you also, but I think I will be the winner in the exchange of info.

By the way the first thing they taught me in Handgun Combat Master Prep. was that the name really shouldn't have the Combat in it since the class is more about learning how to pass the Masters test than anything Combat!

But hell, if it's got guns in it it's got to be fun :D

[Bugaboo]

Interesting thread, I had a student in my last Class with Israelis. The guy was very good with Pistol (MT), really good. After the Class we discussed a lot and he told me it is a new experience for him to see a training that comes purely from the Combat side of shooting. He said he can see the difference.
I took two so called MT Classes, one was pistol Low Light and one was Carbine. My problem with the MT approach was that one instructor tells about so many techniques how to do something simple it makes you wonder why. I never was in a life and death situation but I had some funny moments in my life (parachuting incident to name one) and I know how I felt. I instinctively chose crude but effective way out because I was running out of time (the flowers grew unnaturally fast). My shooting instructors put me through situations under stress and I know there was no time to play, just looking around to find targets and shoot them.
What are the most frequent arguments against PSing used by the MT crowd? And what do you answer? I have to expect the same here when I start with classes. I will try to keep out of the discussions but I want to have good answers when students start to ask.

[Roundeyesamurai]

What are the most frequent arguments against PSing used by the MT crowd? And what do you answer? I have to expect the same here when I start with classes. I will try to keep out of the discussions but I want to have good answers when students start to ask.

Oh boy, that's a tough question.

To answer it, we have to distill 30+ years of potstirring into a single post.

Here's the most frequent:

1) "Pointshooting results in poor hits" or "results in missing the target".

a.) No it doesn't;
b.) Not any poorer than MT under combat conditions, and usually much better;
c.) Not if the person has been competently trained in a pointshooting methodology;
d.) The person making the comment is describing "spray-and-pray", not pointshooting;
e.) Which pointshooting method are you describing? There are several distinct methods, with different applications. The criticism may apply to one or two, but not all of them;

2) "Pointshooting isn't a skill, since anyone can point at the target and shoot"- more often summarized as "sighted fire can degrade to pointshooting, but pointshooting can't upgrade to sighted fire".

a.) The person making this comment has likely not recieved competent training in a pointshooting method;
b.) The person making the comment is describing "spray-and-pray", not pointshooting;
c.) Which pointshooting method are you describing? There are several distinct methods, with different applications. The criticism may apply to one or two, but not all of them;
d.) No rational person suggests that pointshooting methods are a substitute to sighted fire, rather that they are a complimenting skill.

3) "Pointshooting is outdated (or obsolete)".

a.) Which pointshooting method are you describing? There are several distinct methods, with different applications. The criticism may apply to one or two, but not all of them;
b.) Human anatomy, physiology, and psychology have not changed in the span of a few decades. Firearms have not changed substantially in a few decades, either. People are doing the same thing with firearms now, that they have been doing with firearms since people started carrying firearms- and throughout that entire span of time, people have been pointshooting in one form or another;
c.)The person making this comment has likely not recieved competent training in a pointshooting method;
d.) No rational person suggests that pointshooting methods are a substitute to sighted fire, rather that they are a complimenting skill.

4) "Pointshooting is a bunch of _____" (magic, hocus-pocus, slight-of-hand, Kool-Aid, bull****, etc.).

a.) The person making this comment has likely not recieved competent training in a pointshooting method;
b.) (For those willing to listen) The way in which pointshooting methodologies work is extremely simple to explain, and even simpler to demonstrate. Most pointshooting methods can be taught (or at least gisted) in a span of minutes. (Insert name of instructor) would be happy to show you, if you would like to make an appearance at the range.
c.) No rational person suggests that pointshooting methods are a substitute to sighted fire, rather that they are a complimenting skill.

[Matthew Temkin]

Most who poke fun/downplay/dismiss point shooting usually have no training in it.
They also usually have an enourmous stake---be it financial or ego----in the MT and feel threatened by something that can be learned in a matter of minutes and has a proven combat track record.
The fact that they are depriving the student--who may be going into harms way---of a vital survival technique somehow does not faze to them.
Another reason why I hate the MT.

[Bugaboo]

Roundeyesamurai, tell the truth, you answered those questions before, didnt you? :)
Thank you, it si always good to see the thoughts summarized. Besides I expect exactly those comments.
Matt, ego is a widely used acessory to guns here, it seems it has a rail mount.

[Dave James]

Just remember

"Another tool in the box"

[Nscale]

As I search out the many techniques available, the term MT has been interpreted (by me) to be a reference to the combination of or training of established techniques. I was of the impression that the new part of the MT was the way the established techniques are combined for effectiveness. Of course my research is limited but isn’t it true that all MT’s boast the use of at least one established/respected technique?

[BWayne]

Anyone who has doubts about FSA point shooting should get the CD from IPDTA which has Matt instructing folks in PS. The targets just get hammered with rounds.

[Matthew Temkin]

Anyone who has doubts about FSA point shooting should get the CD from IPDTA which has Matt instructing folks in PS. The targets just get hammered with rounds.
Hey..where can I get a copy of that?

[Matthew Temkin]

As I search out the many techniques available, the term MT has been interpreted (by me) to be a reference to the combination of or training of established techniques. I was of the impression that the new part of the MT was the way the established techniques are combined for effectiveness. Of course my research is limited but isn’t it true that all MT’s boast the use of at least one established/respected technique?
The true hallmark of the MT is the use of the Weaver stance for all distances.
Apparantly this was first worked out in the Big Bear competition days and later became a system designed to replace everything else.
Had a long talk today about this with 7677, but I will allow him to post his conclusions about the MT.

[BWayne]

Hey..where can I get a copy of that?

Matt-I got it from Slavo. I emailed him at ipdta@ipdta.com

Otherwise, maybe I can copy the CD for you.

[rwleonard]

I thought that Cooper's "Modern Technique" had pretty much been supplanted by the IPSC-style "Modern Technique".

I think "Modern" means "currently in vogue."

In "Practical Shooting: Beyond the Fundamentals" (an outstanding book, BTW) Brian Enos describes several ways he uses the sights, ranging from a pure target focus to tracking the front sight through recoil.

Rick

[Roundeyesamurai]

I thought that Cooper's "Modern Technique" had pretty much been supplanted by the IPSC-style "Modern Technique".

Huh?

In "Practical Shooting: Beyond the Fundamentals" (an outstanding book, BTW) Brian Enos describes several ways he uses the sights, ranging from a pure target focus to tracking the front sight through recoil.

Rick

Right, "see what you need to see".

[rwleonard]

Maybe my experience is too limited, but the major academies I am familiar with switched from the tension-based Weaver to the positon-based modified isosceles about a decade ago.

Rick

[Roundeyesamurai]

Maybe my experience is too limited, but the major academies I am familiar with switched from the tension-based Weaver to the positon-based modified isosceles about a decade ago.

Rick

And those would be...?

[rwleonard]

FBI and DEA.

Rick

[sweatnbullets]

Maybe my experience is too limited, but the major academies I am familiar with switched from the tension-based Weaver to the positon-based modified isosceles about a decade ago.

Rick

Rick, welcome to our forum. I agree that this is the way things have gone in competition. But, there are still a good number of self defense schools still teaching Coopers Modern Techniques. As the competition circles have progressed forward, SD is also trying to progress forward. But there is a lot of resistance to this progression due to financial concerns of the "old guard" Modern Technique schools.

Looking forward to your input, but please remember that we are all trying to leave the baggage from other forums in the past, off of this forum.

[7677]

FBI and DEA.

Rick

When I think of major Leo academies, NYPD's Rodmans Neck and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) stand out as they both train over thirty thousand students in a year.

[Brownie]

Welcome to the campfire here rwleonard.

MT probably means different things to different people. I think most of the competition folks here would not say their playground is MT, and probably as far from the original MT as one could get.

MT has been spelled out by Cooper which I quoted in a previous post. MT in it's original form may not even exist in reality with the exception of some of the true holdouts, but IMO, they are a dying breed at this point.

MT has morphed, like everything does over time. Some of the current training probably still has much of the MT doctrine in certain circles.

Right or wrong, that's probably the reality of the situation

[7677]

Gentleman,
The play ground is open to everyone if you two cannot agree or share toys or opinions find a new play buddy but do not ruin for the rest of the members on this forum.

[English]

Matthew Temkin,

I think you have Cooper the wrong way round. I don't believe that it was a matter of inventing new techniques to win competitions but of inventing competitions to test new techniques.

It is very hard to test techniques in combat because too many people die to allow you to test different variations. What you need is lots of people trying different things without dying in the process. When some of those different combinations of people and techniques are successful, other people take up the same techniques in the hope that it is the technique that is successful rather than the man. Then you can find out whether the technique is successful or not. Actual combat teaches us things very slowly. Such as the fact that the .38 revolver used in the Philipines way back when was just not effective enough. A very large number of men died to gain that simple piece of information. That lead to La Guardia's tests on pigs - a scientific approach - and the change to the .45 and the 1911.

Unfortunately La Guardia did not go far enough but it was almost as far as he could have gone at the time. What we lack now is equivalent tests with modern cartridges. The Strasburg tests seemed to be that and now it is suggested that they were faked. This takes me away from the direct point but it is all relevant to test experience versus real experience.

The Cooper concept, if I understand him correctly was not that he knew what technique was best but that he believed that the way to find out was with competition using realistic handguns, realistic scenarios, and freedom of technique. Unfortunately, once you have a competition it is taken over by the gamesters and they soon developed unrealistic equipment in order to win. In one sense the Modern technique is not so much a technique as an attitude open to new techniques. In another sense it is what has developed out of the concept that Cooper and friends initiated.

Perhaps it came about because he found that the techniques he had been taught in the Marines had not proved very effective even though he had survived his encounters with the enemy.

English

[Roundeyesamurai]

Hi English, welcome aboard.

I think you have Cooper the wrong way round. I don't believe that it was a matter of inventing new techniques to win competitions but of inventing competitions to test new techniques.

That's even worse- one creates a theory, and then designs their own experiment to prove the theory, when such experiment is designed to prove the theory in question. That's the height of bias.

It is very hard to test techniques in combat because too many people die to allow you to test different variations. What you need is lots of people trying different things without dying in the process. When some of those different combinations of people and techniques are successful, other people take up the same techniques in the hope that it is the technique that is successful rather than the man. Then you can find out whether the technique is successful or not. Actual combat teaches us things very slowly.

Does it teach slowly? Or does it not teach enough to keep things "new and revolutionary"?

Such as the fact that the .38 revolver used in the Philipines way back when was just not effective enough. A very large number of men died to gain that simple piece of information. That lead to La Guardia's tests on pigs - a scientific approach - and the change to the .45 and the 1911.

Combat against the Moros taught us that the Victorian era model of handgun "stopping power"- namely, that handgun bullets demonstrate the best "stopping power" when they do not penetrate the body, and therefore should be slowed down to such a low velocity that containment within the body is absolutely guaranteed- was bunk. An increase in both bullet mass and velocity proved to be fantastic- but the caliber itself was not the issue (as we know today). This was borne out by the fact that no-one was really dissatisfied in the performance of 9mm Parabellum vs. .45ACP during the Second World War- they proved to be comparable cartridges.

And actually, it was La Garde. La Guardia is an airport.

The Cooper concept, if I understand him correctly was not that he knew what technique was best but that he believed that the way to find out was with competition using realistic handguns, realistic scenarios, and freedom of technique. Unfortunately, once you have a competition it is taken over by the gamesters and they soon developed unrealistic equipment in order to win. In one sense the Modern technique is not so much a technique as an attitude open to new techniques. In another sense it is what has developed out of the concept that Cooper and friends initiated.

The Cooper concept was to standardize pistol training. Standardization was lacking between those different organizations that issued sidearms to their personnel (differences between military branches, between training facilities within the same branch, between police departments, and so on).

If you believe that "realistic scenarios", "freedom of technique" and "open-mindedness" were part of Cooper's doctrine or thinking, you must be thinking of some other Jeff Cooper, who devised some other product also called, coincidentally, "Modern Technique".

Perhaps it came about because he found that the techniques he had been taught in the Marines had not proved very effective even though he had survived his encounters with the enemy.

The veracity of his "encounters with the enemy" is highly questionable.

[English]

Hi English, welcome aboard..

Thank you for the welcome Roundeyesamurai.

That's even worse- one creates a theory, and then designs their own experiment to prove the theory, when such experiment is designed to prove the theory in question. That's the height of bias..

What I was trying to say was that I did not believe that Cooper started with a "theory" of combat shooting with a handgun ( except, perhaps, that the 1911/.45acp was the best current weapon for the purpose) so much as a belief that there must be better ways to do it and that realistic competition was the way to develop them. Perhaps I am putting ideas into what I imagine to be his mind since that approach is the one I would take. I also seem to remember that he was unhappy about the way that things developed from The South West Pistol League. Like La Guardia rather than La Garde I am only calling on distant memory rather than checking the facts.

As to your general principle that creating a theory then designing tests to fit is a BAD thing, I could not agree more. "Bias" is not a strong enough description - fraudulent would be better! The disagreement between us is only one of whether the "Modern Method" was complete in his admittedly dogmatic mind before the method of testing was produced or vice versa. I frankly admit that I do not know.

I have no hands on experience of Cooper inspired schools of combat handgun shooting but prior to Cooper, most handgun shooting consisted of slow one handed precision fire at 25 or 50 yds. This never seemed to me to have much relationship to combat and a lot of the things that came from the "Cooper revolution" had a lot to do with combat. Since then a lot of it has been to do with an unjustified emphasis on semi peripheral skills and complex courses of fire that could be preprepared for and which used "silly" race equipment.


Does it teach slowly? Or does it not teach enough to keep things "new and revolutionary"?

I think warfare does teach very slowly and at great cost. How much better it would have been if the army had employed La Garde before they bought their .38 revolvers. Instead of that they had to wait for anecdotal evidence to build up to a believable level. Then it had to overcome the entrenched view points of the senior people who had chosen the .38 in the first place. I suspect that this is saying much the same as you are and that it is the entrenched mind sets of the "Cooperistas" that you are against.

The army has no interest in "new and revolutionary". That is a commercial lever to sales. 50 yd slow fire was of little combat relevance but are you suggesting that Cooper set out with a life game plan of setting up a fast exciting sport of simulated combat handgunning in order to create and run a school of handgunning and thereby to become rich? He might have done better to sell ammunition! As a writer in a major gun magazine he was in an ideal place to boost his own image and become a leading school owner but it doesn't seem to me to be much of a business plan to start with so much as an oportunity to be seized when it materialised.

Combat against the Moros taught us that the Victorian era model of handgun "stopping power"- namely, that handgun bullets demonstrate the best "stopping power" when they do not penetrate the body, and therefore should be slowed down to such a low velocity that containment within the body is absolutely guaranteed- was bunk. An increase in both bullet mass and velocity proved to be fantastic- but the caliber itself was not the issue (as we know today). This was borne out by the fact that no-one was really dissatisfied in the performance of 9mm Parabellum vs. .45ACP during the Second World War- they proved to be comparable cartridges.

And actually, it was La Garde. La Guardia is an airport.

I accept the airport correction but I thought that lots of people were dissatisfied with the 9mm How did they measure the comparability during WW11? Perhaps the relative unimportance of the actual calibre was borne out of evidence from the .357 magnum rather than the 9mm.

You touch on an interesting question. My personal bias is towards the 10mm, and the 9x23mm Winchester also looks very interesting. This is partly because I believed the Strasburg tests. It is now suggested that they and Marshall and Sanow's data were faked.

If so then perhaps I am wasting my time shooting 10mm. I am sure my mind is open on the matter and I would really love to know. Until I can see believable data it is hard to reach a conclusion but there does seem to be substantial anecdotal evidence from handgun hunting that the 10mm and .357 magnum are moderately effective on medium sized game and that the 9mm is significantly ineffective. Of course, even a .380acp (.32acp, .22LR?) will work as well as a .44 magnum with a CNS shot but what is more important is the effect of a chest shot. As things stand there seems to be a reaonable relationship between the energy delivered to the "target" and the speed of incapacitation. Maybe James Bond had the right idea with his Walther PPK!

The Cooper concept was to standardize pistol training. Standardization was lacking between those different organizations that issued sidearms to their personnel (differences between military branches, between training facilities within the same branch, between police departments, and so on).

I can't comment because I don't know. I will now proceed to comment! Standardised training is a bureaucratic necessity. The problem comes when the theory behind it is significantly wrong. The standard training of the American police was significantly wrong and needed to be changed. Provided that a significant improvement can be made, it is not necessary that a new system be perfect. To the extent that the methods developed by Cooper or the South West Pistol League or both were used as the basis of replacement for the previous systems of training it seems to me that the improvement was so significant that it was worth doing. The real question was whether the standard existed in Cooper's head and remained unchanged by any experience within the SWPL. I don't know, but out of it has come the Weaver and Iscoseles stances and modifications; several different supporting hand positions; bent elbows, very bent elbows, and straight elbows; supporting trigger finger beneath trigger guard or around front of guard; thubs up or down; bulets in mag holsters forwards or backwards; and on and on. Cooper even promoted the 10mm and Bren Ten and admired the CZ 75 - he can't be entirely locked into preconceived ideas.

If you believe that "realistic scenarios", "freedom of technique" and "open-mindedness" were part of Cooper's doctrine or thinking, you must be thinking of some other Jeff Cooper, who devised some other product also called, coincidentally, "Modern Technique".

I feel sure we are talking about the same thing - whatever it really was!

The veracity of his "encounters with the enemy" is highly questionable.

I was only refering back to an earlier post in the thread. I didn't know whether he had ever shot anyone with a handgun or anything else or whether it was a matter of dispute. Relative to whether his "revolution" was a success or not, it is irrelevant. Relative to his image, that is another matter!

English

[Brownie]

First, welcome to our campfire English

The historical record of the modern technique was posted here:

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163&highlight=modern+technique

It is obvious from the records that Cooper and friends started competitions, the slap shooting from the hip was overshadowed by Jack Weavers stance in those matches, they all adopted his technique as he was kicking their butts, and eventually Cooper made it a doctrine of his and furthered/sold the concepts to others.

Cooper promoted the 45acp as THE round for defense. It's got a good track record, no revelations there. In his time, the 9mm was not as developed as today and was not as effective in stopping street thugs, but that has changed.

To the extent that the methods developed by Cooper or the South West Pistol League or both were used as the basis of replacement for the previous systems of training it seems to me that the improvement was so significant that it was worth doing.

Cooper didn't develop the Weaver stance, he adopted it from the SWPL's competitions where Weavers methods were beating the hip shooting in a specific type of competition. His furtherance of that thought process for the street was what people now know to be less than stellar [ Cooper sold the MT Weaver methodologies as THE ONLY way to win/survive ]. At the time it was probably better than most training out there in that narrow range of circumstances, but as we all know, one should have many different skills in the bag of tricks and not rely solely on one skill like the weaver stance, sight picure etc. The street requirements are very different than the SWPL's competitions requirements, and whether he pushed the competition based MT idea through ignorance or for his own marketing benefit is something we may never know.

Realtive the Straussburg tests, they may or may not have been performed. No one really knows definatively that I've ever seen in print.

The 10mm in it's true guise is, IMO, potentially excessively over penetrative on humans and hard to control relative other calibers. As such it is not a round everyone will enjoy or shoot well. The 10mm is a good hunting round on tough skinned and grisle'd game like Javelina.

The 9mm has come a long way since Coopers heyday. I know of one dept who has had 9 one shot stops with the 147 gr Win Ranger load out of 9 shootings. Thats nothing to sneeze at and there are other effective 9mm loads out there today to choose from. The 9mm delivers about 350-375 FPE on threat, and that seems to be enough for humans [ if the bullet design is adequate where controlled expansion and penetration is concerned ].

[kilogulf59]

I feel we have something to learn from everyone. Let's assume that everything Col. Cooper, as an example, taught was completely wrong. If one takes a bit of time to study his methodologies we'd learn what NOT to do.

The narrow-mindedness of some of us amazes me. We were the ones being crucified and banned on other forms for giving a contrary viewpoint.

[Brownie]

I personally think the Col. and his doctrine helped us in many ways.

His advocating MT to the exclusion of all else was harmful in many ways as well.

Buyer beware, many people bought into the narrow range of his thinking, not his fault, but theirs. Like you say KG, take what is good and discard the rest is the best advice in anything.

[kilogulf59]

Hiya Brownie,

Exactly. What works for one doesn't for another, etc.

Glad you understood my post as a "positive".