History of the "Modern Technique"

[Brownie]

The modern technique of the pistol is founded on the following principles.

The Weaver Stance - The modern shooting stance used with the pistol is the Weaver Stance. The Weaver Stance is sometimes thought of as simply two-handed shooting. It is, however, a specialized form of two-handed shooting which uses isometric tension to provide recoil control and a stable and versatile shooting platform for the pistol. It allows rapid acquisition and target engagement with a powerful sidearm.

The presentation - This is the drawing technique utilized to allow the swift, consistent, and safe presentation of the pistol, which in turn allows the rapid and accurate delivery of hits on the target. It involves smoothness and a precise procedure to accomplish its goal.

The flash sight picture - Sight alignment is simply the proper alignment of the front and rear sights which enable the target to be hit. If the sights are not utilized the chances that a target will be missed increase exponentially as the range increase past touching distance. The flash sight picture provides an almost instantaneous verification of the sight's alignment prior to discharging the pistol.

The surprise break - As with the use of the sights the manipulation of the trigger is also important. The surprise break is simply the application of a smooth squeezing of the trigger but done in a highly compressed time interval. The trigger is not "jerked" or "mashed," it is pressed smoothly but very quickly.

The heavy-duty big-bore semiautomatic pistol - To terminate the threat of a human attacker requires a powerful blow. The science of wound ballistics (some firearms media "experts" to the contrary) shows us that the best way to achieve immediate incapacitation of an adversary to make the biggest diameter and deepest permanent hole as possible. While some suggest that a medium caliber (9mm/.38, both of which are actually .35") with an expanding bullet can be used successfully, expanding bullets often fail to expand leaving you with a smaller than desired or hoped for hole. Thus it is better to start off with a bullet that is closer to the diameter you'd like the small one to expand to, rather than to rely on expansion to save your bacon. "Big bore" is considered to be .40 caliber or greater. The semiautomatic pistol has been shown over the years to be the most efficient way to deliver a powerful blow in a lethal confrontation, especially when confronted with multiple attackers.

"The Pistol. Learn it well; wear it always!" - Jeff Cooper

The excitement and challenge of wide open competition was what led Jack Weaver to develop the Weaver Stance, with the sole purpose of winning Jeff Cooper's "Leatherslap" competition in Big Bear, California. In Cooper's own words, "It began in 1956 at Big Bear when I set up the first Leatherslap. As far as I know, it was the first match of its kind held anywhere in the world. It was unrestricted as to technique, as to weapon, as to caliber, as to holster, as to profession. It was a straight quick-draw match — just draw and hit a target at seven yards."

At that time everyone shot from the hip or one-handed from the shoulder, which is a loosely defined style know as "point shooting." This worked well on television, but in real life competition things are different. According to Jack, sometimes "what started out as serious business soon produced gales of laughter from the spectators as most of the shooters blazed away…" Then "with guns empty and all 12 rounds gone but the 18 inch balloons still standing, they had a problem: load one round and take aim or load six and blaze away again."

By the time the 1959 Leatherslap rolled around Jack had realized that "a pretty quick hit was better than a lightening-fast miss," and decided to bring the pistol up using both hands and actually aim it rather than simply point and shoot. Quoting Cooper again, "Jack walloped us all — and decisively — using a six inch Smith K-38. He was very quick and he did not miss. And, of course, he shot from the Weaver Stance, which was, and is, the way to go."

As the world of practical pistol shooting evolved, more complicated contests were developed and it was discovered that when speed was not quite as important as it was in a "Leatherslap," the Weaver Stance worked even better. In time, everyone began using it.

In 1982, the Weaver Stance received what may be the ultimate endorsement. Jack received a letter from James D. McKenzie, then assistant director of the FBI, which had just completed a year long survey of handgun shooting techniques.

[Brownie]

We'll start with two non-Americans, Captains William Fairbairn and Eric Sykes, both British. In the 1920's, these two guys, both very tough hombres, went to Shanghai, China as police officers. Shanghai, at this time, was one very tough town. Together, Fairbairn and Sykes created a complete close quarter combat system that included firearms skills in order to combat the dangerous individuals that they would have to go up against on a daily basis. The firearms techniques they taught their fellow officers were based on simplicity and ease of training. They were only interested in what worked, and what would save lives. The most notable aspect of their techniques were the fact that they relied on natural physiological responses of human beings under stress. One handed, non-sighted fire, now known as point shooting, was the primary method for close and deadly encounters, as it was fast in engagements and got the job done. Point shooting, using one hand, was simply the fastest, most natural, and easiest-to-teach method of reactive shooting in lethal engagements at close contact distances, the most common type of combat situation in Shanghai during this time.

Well, in the early 1940's, an army colonel named Rex Applegate, familiar with Fairbairn and Syke's techniques and their effectiveness, instituted them as the primary training system for the troops in World War II. For their firearms training, Applegate taught the G.I.'s how to use one-handed point shooting to hit a target at 50 meters very quickly with very little training. This was basically a technique where one pointed, one handed, at the target with the gun, with the shooter focusing on the target over the gun's slide. The weapon was brought up to line of sight, under control and using a straight arm, with the strong foot forward. Many of the guys that went through Applegate's program ended up using these point shooting techniques to win many deadly encounters during the course of the war. This brings us to the late 1950's and into the 1960's.

This is the time of Jeff Cooper(considered to be the father of modern pistolcraft, or the "modern technique"), Bill Jordan, and Chic Gaylord. Jeff Cooper was the most outspoken of the three, and started the Southwest Combat Pistol League (SWCPL) in Big Bear, California in the 1960's. He formed the league with 5 other "masters". These were Jack Weaver, Elden Carl, Thell Reed, John Plahn, and Ray Chapman. Jack Weaver's "Weaver technique" became the predominant technique used by the top shooters, as those that used this technique were winning all the competitions. The Weaver technique employs isometric tension, where the strong hand pushes, while the support hand pulls back to control recoil. While using the Weaver, the shooter is bladed towards the target, and the support elbow is in a downward position below the strong arm. The Weaver technique simply proved to be superior to one handed techniques for long distance shooting on the types of shooting stages that were set up for the competitions of that time.

True to the politics of California, the SWCPL was soon forced to change it's name by the Governor of California at the time, to the Southwest Pistol League (SWPL). The name change was forced on it because the word "combat" was too strong for the politicians. Now, it needs to be understood that the founding members of the SWCPL, and subsequent SWPL were, at that time, considered to be the best shooters in the country. The SWPL became very important in the shooting world, and shaped the entire shooting community in the ensuing years.

In the mid 1970's, Cooper and others from the SWPL established the International Practical Shooting Confederation, a.k.a. IPSC. When it was first formed, IPSC was designed to be a testbed for combat shooting techniques, equipment, and mindset. Here was a place where the Weaver stance and other combat techniques and principles could be tested in the safety of competition. All the equipment used for this competition was defensive type gear. The matches themselves were designed with combat in mind. This would later change, and IPSC would become a pure shooting competition where high-tech competion style gear, including compensators and optical sights, would come to rule.

The Modern Tecchnique has 5 elements according to Cooper himself. The Weaver stance, the presentation, the flash sight picture, the surprise break of the trigger and the use of a big bore handgun.

The Modern Technique is 50 years old this year. When one speaks of this technique, it doesn't necessarily have to mean modern in the true sense of the word. It was born of competition, not combat. It was born through peoples experiences of one handed shooting at distances that were not conducive to one handed shooting, that had been used up until the end of WW2 by Fairbairn/Sykes and Applegate.

It is what it is. History tells us the story of the how and why of the Modern Technique and why it became considered successful over the older one handed shooting disciplines then in vogue based on combat at combative distances.

Not because it was better at staying alive, but because it was better in a competition at certain longer distances not usually encountered in self defense shootings.

The Modern Technique [ the weaver stance ] was adopted by the FBI back in 1982. It then moved through the US Law Enforcement community over decades. The same US LE community who usually takes their lead from the FBI and still does primarily today for better or worse.

There's the history. It is factual and indisputable. What can be debated is whether the LE community or the FBI should have ever adopted it to begin with for the streets.

Keep your responses civil, and factual here. The information provided is gleened from historical data.

[Matthew Temkin]

"Not because it was better at staying alive, but because it was better in a competition at certain longer distances not usually encountered in self defense shootings."

And that pretty much sums up my objections to both compeition and the MT.
In other words, it adds much confusion as to just what is practical and what is not.

[Brownie]

MT was found to be better [ more accurate and faster on targets/threats ] at the longer ranges of the leatherslap matches put on by Cooper.

It was the start [ 1956 ] of most two handed shooting with the stance Jack Weaver developed [ which was only a variation on a previous stance ].

As I see it from the history lessons, it's plain that this two handed shooting was deemed a viable platform for the street by the FBI in 1982. Most every state and local dept soon fell in line with their adoption of the Weaver and two handed shooting thought process.

Apparently people forgot about the up close and personal effectiveness of the FAS systems from WW2 days over the years and just used Weaver two hand to solve all problems where a gun was the solution.

Sorta the mindset of one technique for every situation. Of course we all know that that mindset will get you killed and one needs to be more well rounded and have different skills for different resolutions based on the problem thats presented at that time. Law dogs didn't see it that way and over a long time of training in one way, were hesitant to listen to reasonable men with knowledge from the past.

Men like Applegate who, on podium after podium in front of law dogs over the years attempted to get them to look at other ways to resolve self defense scenarios with a firearm. Most of it fell on deaf ears and was lost in the haze of an unwillingness to change that which had been the status quo for generations of law dogs.

We are in different times, change has been slow, but change is in the air. It gathers momentum as we talk about it. Things have a way of coming full circle. Threat focused mthodologies will not replace training out there presently, but it will be accepted as an enhancement and is now recognized by a larger segment as something vital to the survival of officers on the streets.

It's a long, hard road to get people to accept that which was proven in the past and to change. It's happening and we need to embrace those willing to change and not just tell them " I told you so"

[Ankeny]

Just a note for those folks who are not current with the current state of affairs with USPSA competition. The Modern Technique is way out dated and has very little resemblence to what is currently taught or employed by us evil square range shooters. :D

[Guantes]

Something else that enters into the mix with changes by law enforcement. Administrators in law enforcement realize that a change to a new/old/different technique, until it has tenure and acceptance by the public, leaves a department open the possibility of greater criticism and civil litigation. This at times being their primary concern, adds to their already leathargic action re change.

[Guantes]

A,
Care to elaborate.

[Brownie]

In preparing the information in the posts for this thread, I've had a few thoughts I'd like to share. These are only my personal views on the subject, based on the historical records.

The techniques developed by F/S and later Applegate were effective for that time and place and the situations officers found themselves in. They were specifically developed to help solve shortcomings and to increase the chances of survival at the distances most commonly encountered.

In that regard, the techniques they developed were for close in, rapidly developing scenarios where a handgun would be the best solution. They worked in self defense within a given range very well and they still work as well today.

These FAS techniques did not work as well at longer distances when and if they were encountered and subsequently were found to be somewhat lacking. No fault of the techniques, they were specifically designed for bad breath distances and some distance beyond for the most part.

After WW2, America got back to "normal". We were no longer at war and the country prospered. Life and crime on the streets of main street USA were not the same as in Shanghai. For over a decade until the mid 50's, most people were still shooting one handed. Target shooters posed the classic sidestance and took careful aim, fast draw became the fad based on that new fangled technology called a tele-vision and shows like Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers and Dale, etc. Everybody wanted to be a cowboy and shot from the hip like they saw the good guys do in the early westerns on the screen.

I grew up in that era, and had my share of sixguns strapped on, while I fought the BG's and those we forced to play the role of indians. No respectable cowboy would dare shoot two handed, he'd be laughed out of Dodge City for sure, nor did we even know you could shoot two handed unless there was a gun in both of them, of course.

We already know how the Weaver two handed stance came on the scene and why. It was the answer to a specific problem that was obvious, as discussed in the above history.

By then, the war to end all wars was only a feint memory to most. People were looking to the future of America, not the past. No one wants to remember the lessons learned in battles, and most didn't even know where Shanghai was, let alone what happened there or the men who changed history through necessity, which is the mother of all invention.

Necessity, the mother of invention? Hmmm, thats why Weaver created the two handed technique come to think of it right? It solved a specific problem people had in a specific situation. It just happened to be competition, but still it was a solution that worked for shooting pistols at longer distances better than other methods where speed and accuracy were needed.

Speed and accuracy issues were solved with two handed shooting and a relatively stable shooting platform. That one fact brought two handed shooting to law enforcement eventually and it also brought acceptance of how a handgun could be fired without the stigma of using two hands and not being the cowboy.

FAS had long been forgotten in a far off land at this point. Sure there were some who tried to keep the information in the right hands where it could do some good, but for whatever reason, they were unsuccesful. Could have been that people heard it was used on the mean streets in wars in battle and couldn't see their own police departments having that mentality of killing efficiently and effectively.

Could have been a kinder gentler mentality was taking over the country. People lost their taste for killing, didn't want to think about our enforcement officers having to be involved with all that real world nastiness.

Okay, here's the point of this:

If it had not been for Weaver, for the competition it was spawned from, we would have probably discovered two handed shooting eventually through some other necessity and mother of invention. It has to have been inevitable and only a matter of time.

Since Weaver, things have progressed with interpretations on a theme to create ISO, modern ISO, modified Weaver, etc. All of these have strengths and weaknesses, but all of them allow for better recoil management [ as a rule ] and for most, better accuracy coupled with speed increases.

Perhaps Weaver and Cooper are responsible for bringing two handed shooting acceptance to where it withstood major overhaul and developments to be what two handed is today.

A natural progression and order of events. Someone would have come up with two handed shooting if Waever hadn't eventually. Two handed shooting has evolved into a viable way to "get er done". I shoot two handed like most people. I shoot faster and more accurately at the same time two handed, as I'm sure a lot of people do.

These two handed skills are necessary IMO. Certainly not for those times when one handed reactive skills are needed up close and personal, but still a necessary skills set to be well rounded.

Remember it was mentioned that one technique will not work all the time? Like Weaver won't work all the time, neither will FAS or any one handed technique work all the time.

Tools in the tool box, like DJ reminds us often here and elsewhere. The more tools the better right? Two handed skills have been ever evolving like everything does in life.

Competition brought us two handed skills, and competitions of today have brought variations on that theme to a high level skills set. One necessary to own whether we want to admit it or not.

How and when the different platforms and skills are used between one hand and two hand shooting is subject to interpretation. Skills developed through competition have evolved from experimentation and reseach and developement by some very innovative shooting advocates.

These skills are viable on the streets IMO, at least as viable and one handed skills. It's the when and where to use them [ which one ] that brings debate now for the most part.

Like Weaver was bad in some situations and had it's strengths in others, so one handed shooting has it's shortcoming and strengths. Know the difference and when to use these to your advantage, and you stand a greater chance of surviving a lethal encounter when the handgun is needed.

Use one or the other at the wrong time and suffer the consequences, possibly fatal consequences of those choices. There is no right or wrong way, no right or wrong technique, only the use of them at the right or wrong time that makes or breaks you.

Just like there is a time to use your sights, or some part therof, there is a time to ignore them as well. Again, it's not an either or, it's both, and knowing not only both way to run the gun, but more importantly, when to use them or not use them to your advantage.

Whether we like it or not, competition has spawned many ways to skin the cat pretty damned well. Whether we like it or not, one and two handed threat focused methods have spawned many ways to skin the cat pretty damned well also.

This site may very well become the first place where people feel comfortable enough to open up and not fear reprisals or ridicule for expressing their viewpoints. We don't have to agree with everyone all the time, but here at least no one has to fear being attacked for those viewpoints either. Not as long as I'm at the helm anyway.

[5shot]

Robin is a super natural writer, explainer, plain talker, and polite.

And as many have attested to, a real good shooter too.

A rare bird in the world of the gun.

[Matthew Temkin]

The one thing that seems to be forgotten was that Fairbairn/Sykes and Applegate all taught two handed aimed fire techniques when time and distancers permitted.
And Fitzgerald was showing the Weaver stance in 1930.
Hell, in Shooting To Live the illustration of the officer using a telephone pole as cover sure lookk very Weaverish to me. Also, the 1944 training film, Point Shooting, shows some very effective two handed aimed fire methods from the standing, kneeling and prone positions.
So let us not pretend that two handed techniques were somehow discovered during the Big Bear competition days.
Yes, 5 shot, Brownie has written an excellent history of the MT.
Not many people realize that the MT was born/proven not on the battlefield, but in the competition arena where the goal was to shoot small balloons at longish distances.

[Dino]

Great info. so far. Very interesting. Regardless of who came up with what and when the bottom line for me is this. Know what to use and when to use it. You may have a favorite technique but use it at the wrong time and you will suffer the consequences. You must pick the appropiate tool for the job. Sometimes one hand, sometimes two, sighted fire or target focused each has its place. Each fight is different and you can't change that. Be a well rounded fighter.

[Dave James]

Damn Dino ,,there you go again using COMMON SENSE

[Brownie]

The one thing that seems to be forgotten was that Fairbairn/Sykes and Applegate all taught two handed aimed fire techniques when time and distancers permitted.

If they were not the first to use two handed shooting techniques, they themselves developed variations on a theme just like Weaver did.

History repeats itself often throughout mankind in many disciplines. Knowledge has been gained and lost and then rediscovered sometime later. The knowledge thats "rediscovered" is then adapted to the particular circumstances and further advanced based on what is deemed appropriate for that time in history.

So let us not pretend that two handed techniques were somehow discovered during the Big Bear competition days.

In an earlier post, I stated "It was the start [ 1956 ] of most two handed shooting with the stance Jack Weaver developed [ which was only a variation on a previous stance ]."

It wasn't the first technique to use two hands on the handgun but it may well have been the technique that brought two handed shooting to be accepted as the norm rather than the exception in the general publics opinion. Right or wrong, for good or bad, that seems to be what happened according to historical data as prior to that, two handed shooting was not considered the norm.

If we accept that Weavers recognition and accomplishments brought two handed pistol shooting to mainstream USA through competition, we should also recognize this contribution set the stage for all two handed techniques to be further developed and adapted that have come since.

Further contributions to the effective use of the handgun with use of two hands have mostly come from the competition circles as well. The men and women who compete have developed, tested and tweeked two handed shooting to a very high degree in that regard.

Many self defense situations dictate one will not need two hands on the gun to effect a successful resolution combatively yet situations will also be resolved better with the use of some of these two handed skills that have been highly refined.

Before Weaver, the world didn't use two hands to shoot very much. He was, at least in part, responsible for the acceptance of two handed pistol shooting and the advancements that have been made due to that acceptance by the general population.

Two handed shooting overtook the combat proven effectiveness of one handed techniques that F/S/A developed for close combat with a handgun used for personal defense [ which was the original intent and purpose of the development of the handgun to begin with ].

That has proven to be a detriment to surviving on the streets in many instances since the mid 50's. If we are smart, we learn from the mistakes of history. We rediscover and embrace the skils and techniques that have been tested on the streets [ and found to be effective ] before those with the knowledge and the actual physical skills who can pass the torch of knowledge physically to others pass into history themselves.

Men who most have forgotten knew how to survive on the streets using techniques with a handgun. Tested in battles, these techniques are as valid today as they were then.

There is a resurgence underway of that which had almost been forgotten and discarded. The techniques have survived the test of time for one very important reason. It's because the techniques are an effective means of survival in lethal encounters where a handgun is used.

Though FSA skills fell out of favor for decades, be that good or bad, they were not forgotten as they have as much value now as they did in the past.

Knowing both two handed and one handed skills is imperative to being a well rounded pistolero. Most of the one handed skills come from one camp, and most of the two handed skills come from another camp. In the past, the camps have not agreed on what would be most effective and what should be used.

Now is the time for both camps to take a hard look at themselves, put their heads together and merge the skills from both sides into a cohesive co-existance in the goal of using a handgun to our own personal level of ability based on training and our fluid situational responses that are needed in any one particular scenario.

[Matthew Temkin]

True enough.
But let us not forgot just which camp was doing the attacking for a long long time.
As Dino pointed out, every method has it's place and, as I have been saying for over 15 years, it is the situation--not the shooter--that decides just what technique to employ.
Nothing wrong with the Weaver stance for some situations, but the shooting public has a right to know from whence things came.

[DocH]

I totally agree, there really needs to be "cohesive coexistance" of both camps. I think we ,as point shooters ,for lack of a better term,happen to know also that there are times when using sights can be advantageous.
It is,however, real task to convince sights only shooters of the usefulness of another method. A lot of headway is being made in this,thanks to this site and the continuous arguments and discussions that have taken place over the years.
Sights only people just have to be shown,I don't think any amount of discussion will convince them that there really is another way until they can see it for themselves.
And just a question. What about the "big bore "auto pistol. Big .45 fan here,but I like my 9mm Glocks,too.

[Brownie]

But let us not forgot just which camp was doing the attacking for a long long time.

I can only speak of my own experiences in that regard. The biggest problems have been from trainers who have a business model based solely [ or at least primarily ] on the use of sighted fire methodologies.

A few reasons became evident over the years for this.

The biggest one was due, IMO, to their not having the threat focused skills to begin with, having never been professionally trained in that arena. They are in the business of making money training others how to run a gun for self defense. They themselves were trained in sighted fire only.

A combination of their willingness, in fact, their lifes blood, of wanting to protect their income generating sighted fire methodologies or lose revenue.

That coupled with their lack of knowledge in any effective threat focused skills which threatened their very existance if those skills were found to be more effective than their business model drew "the line in the sand". They took the position that if they didn't know it, they didn't need to know it.

Afterall, they were well respected trainers in their own right with reputations to protect within the shooting community as a whole. God forbid they be discovered to have been wrong in the past when they made comments that pointshooting skills were useless, hokus pokus, voodoo magic, etc, etc.

They protect the status quo, they have to or die on the vine. They can't allow themselves to be discovered for what they didn't understand then or know now, and subsequently have argued against for decades through their own ignorance or worse.

Threat focused methodologies are enjoying a ressurgence within the shooting community. Proponents for threat focused skills have taken it on the chin hard for years, and literally decades, by certain people respected and deeemed the "gurus" of the shooting world. They have reputations to protect, and it is not surprising when looked at in the proper context.

They'll go kicking and screaming into the 21st century as before. They don't have a choice really at this stage of the game. Other trainers have seen the threat focused train leave the station and pick up steam, and have attempted to jump aboard late in the game. In effect changing their business model in an attempt to re-capture and keep that revenue generating publics interest.

These are the ones to watch out for presently. They are in the beginning stages of using their considerable public persona and presence to now convince people they understand that which they don't know, and to take back the ground, that ground which has been being lost recently, due to people being educated slowly that they have been duped all these years where threat focused skills are concerned.

It's becoming apparent that some are now thinking along the lines of "if you can't beat em, join em" and will try to use their reputations to get people to stay in their own circle of students.

The real threat of attack now comes from these people who have not been the least interested in developing their own threat focused skills, but will attempt at all cost to keep people believing they are still the ones that understand and can get people up to speed, that they are still the conductors of the train thats left the station.

These trainers are not the conductors of the train and they know it. Others who are not williing to prostitute themselves at this point claim their business models will never include threat focused skills training. The try to work around the real issues. I'll let both of these types of trainers go on their way, they'll be discovered in due time for what they really are.

Throug it all, there has been the competition camp. They have developed some very effective ways to run the handguns. They have their own research and development models which work from specific circumstances within their own match structures. They have been successful at developing some very good skills in this regard.

Some of them have been attacking over the years as well, but not for the same reasons the sighted fire trainers have been attacking. Their issues, IMO, stem from their skills being developed to a high degree of proficiency and some, not understanding the differences between the skills used in their own arena and the street.

It's my opinion, and only my opinion, that we should look at their models of running the guns. The skills the competition shooters have are highly honed and these higher levels of skills are worth knowing. The skills can be put to good use on the streets, not the tactics, but the gun skills.

Running the gun more efficiently, at a subconscious level, leaves lots of room to develop other skills like FAS and QK. The higher level comp guys can run the guns at incredible speeds. I want some of that myself.

I don't have to necesarily use their "how" where sighting methods are concerned, but if the comp crowd can show me better trigger speeds with better recoil management [ developed through their own research and development ], I'm all ears. I continue to be the sponge like I have been for some 35 years where pistol skills are concerned.

The MT trainers need to keep interest in their business model. That they have at times thrown up walls of misinformation relative threat focused skills is not in dispute. But they are losing the war here. They are losing ground everytime an MTer comes out of the darkness and into the light like Sweatnbullets has.

People like Roger have become some of the more vocal proponents of what we are about. They can stand the arguments from the MT crowd, they belonged to that arena for a long time.

There are some competition shooters who post here, and we created a subforum for them to have a voice and further the information exchange. The battle is not here, but rages elsewhere on the net. Thats all old news and history on this forum.

There are MT'er members amongst us here as well. I want them and the competition crowd to feel they are welcome here on this forum. That everyone is entitled to their opinions, opinions based on their own experiences and training. Enlightenment and openmindedness with everyone may just be a breakthrough here on this forum, where it has failed miserably elsewhere. If the dialogue can not be opened here, I'll be surprised.

Openminded discussion without the baggage from elsewhere is what we are looking for. Its my hope we can learn from each other. Imagine, if you will, one day when the free flow of information brings people to realize every camp has something to offer. Thats when the fighting will slow to a crawl, and eventually it may die out entirely.

We don't have to convince anyone they are right or wrong in their thinking. We only need to reopen the dialogue between us so that everyone better understands what can be better utilized to great effect in these fluid situational responses we train for on the streets.

Lets see if we can walk in another mans shoes. We may find the common ground and a renewed respect for them. None of the "camps" has all the answers but all the "camps" deserve a place to post their thoughts without fear of ridicule for those thoughts. I'm a sighted fire shooter, I'm a threat focused shooter and I'll shoot blindfolded if someone can show me how to do that as well and it helps in staying above ground another day.

The alternative has always been ugly to think about.

[7677]

It is my IMHO that any serious shooter should be able to effectively shoot from any point of the draw. And, be able to do it one handed or two. The one thing I have discovered is that one has to be flexible and be able to shoot from any position PERIOD. Sometimes it may be one handed, another it may be from mod weaver or Iso. Distance and time are the benchmarks for which technique(s) to use.

The problem with using competition as a bench marks is the targets do not act as a real person. I'm not knocking competitions just pointing out reality from doing both. Clearing a jam on the range, no big deal, but clearing one during a match can be stressful but having a guy charging down an isle way of a 727 with a large knife who is going whack you with it adds a whole new level of stress. In this situation, the shooter has to decide do they continue to work on the malfunction or go to H2H and which H2H techniques are they going to use? In competition, there is only one choice clear the weapon and continue. Competitions are good for testing the person gun skills and keeping ones skills sharp. Nothing wrong with that.

The Modern Technique was Cooper's way to promote his system over the other systems of the time. Like Beta vs. VHS, sometimes for reasons unknown the better of the two systems does not win. The problem with MT it was designed to be the gun solution to every problem in the book. And, unless it was within touching distances, the thrusting of the gun out into the weaver stance with the use of sights was advocated. Stances such as the speed rock were created to eliminate H2H techniques. Because MT, eliminated all point shooting and H2H techniques it was designed to replace it does not have effective close quarters fighting techniques. In the last 20 years, the data has shown that a large number of LEO's are losing close quarters gun fights because they did what they were trained to do draw, extend gun, aim and fire.

I have joked with Roger that if you took MT and combined it with point shooting you would have almost the perfect system to deal with both close quarters and threats at distance. Well the truth was that Fairbairn, Sykes, and other were teaching just that but somehow during those competition days that pitted the "point shooters" against the "Modern Technique" shooters none of the point shooters acknowledged or stated that point shooting was for close quarters and they used two handed iso with sights for long distance shooting then I'd bet you that the Modern Technique would not have been so modern or effective.

[Matthew Temkin]

Here here.
Quite frankly I get a bit tired of being labeled a "point shooter."
I am a shooter who believes in the use of point shooting when used within it's limitations.
Actually I am a FIGHTER who one day may have a pistol handy when forced to defend myself.
Because in the end fighting is what it is all about.

[RAM]

[I] Imagine, if you will, one day when the free flow of information brings people to realize every camp has something to offer. Thats when the fighting will slow to a crawl, and eventually it may die out entirely.

Brownie,

I really like the way you think.

Now just throw in a couple I have a dream's and we'll start callin you Rev. :eek: :D :D

Or is that Rev, Brownie, Sir!

[Ankeny]

A,
Care to elaborate.

Things have changed a lot since the old leather slap days, starting with the grip, stance, balance, recoil management, visual inputs, and course designs. The last IPSC match I shot had over 90 rounds in it and I shot fewer than 20 rounds (12 were a classifier) from a totally static position. I shot only one shot from a static draw position. Things are a lot different now.

[sweatnbullets]

Dang brownie! If you keep writing post like that, I'm going to need to start saying, "I was his friend, before he became famous.":D

Nice....very nice!