Holding your pistol

HiBC said:
"Push-pull" technique all day. It's how the Pros-in-the-know do it.

Don"t be an amateur.
Click to expand...
Well,Jerry Miculek IS a "Pro-in-the-know"

Watch the vid linked in post #33.
Click to expand...
I watched the video -- more than once. My sense was that Jerry was talking about push-pull as an integral part of the Weaver stance, which of necessity involves having at least one elbow bent.
 
Do whatever works for you.

At 4 min 15 seconds Jerry specifically addresses the Weaver stance and push-pull.
He uses those specific terms. If you want to believe "Well,what he really means is..." You go right ahead.

Its a lot easier and more precise for you to go to 4 minutes 15 seconds and listen to Jerry.

I'm passing on straight up Jerry without putting any of my spin on it.

There are more than one "maestro" Take your pick. I'm sure I did not send the OP on a wrong path.

Above,someone mentioned Rob Leatham is not a proponent of "Push/pull".

Thats two "Those in the know pro shooters"

Jerry did mention something about "We USED to use Push/pull and the Weaver stance when we didn't know anything"

Then he went into "Push/pull sounds good but it does not work"

But I think everone should do whatever makes them happy.
 
HiBC said:
Jerry did mention something about "We USED to use Push/pull and the Weaver stance when we didn't know anything"

Then he went into "Push/pull sounds good but it does not work"
Click to expand...
YMMV ... I have watched that segment multiple times, and it's clear to me that his discussion of push-pull is integral with his discussion of the Weaver stance.

But I think everone should do whatever makes them happy.
Click to expand...
I think everyone should use what works best for them. For me, that's an isosceles stance with a push-pull grip/hold.
 
Do whatever works for you.
Click to expand...

These days I use whatever hold/stance my progressive eyeglasses dictate. It's likely a variation of what we used to call the "Fairbairn isosceles" stance.

Before I started wearing Rx glasses I liked the Weaver stance.

I see White Eagle mentions the "isosceles."

I guess we're saying the same thing. I'm old school.
 
There are some guidelines how to properly use your handgun, but it doesn't mean that if you still have great accuracy and not following these guidelines, that you are not properly holding your gun. Every shooter should find the right position and right stance. Do whatever works for you!
 
YMMV ... I have watched that segment multiple times, and it's clear to me that his discussion of push-pull is integral with his discussion of the Weaver stance.
Click to expand...
It does seem very clear and while it is discussed along with the Weaver Stance--which is natural since that's where it was introduced, it seems obvious that the comments stand on their own, even outside the context of the Weaver Stance.
"...you're pushing with this hand and pulling with this hand. What they were trying to do back in the day was to get more control over the handgun and they went at it the wrong way.

The thing about opposing forces--it sounds really good until you screw it up. So if you have a little bit of less technique right here, pushing and pulling, you get weird oscillations on the front sight and it's not repeatable. If it's not repeatable, it's not competition worthy, and it's not...it's just not worthy of your time. So, we got rid of that a long time ago.

If you really watch the true professionals of the game, they're going to stand with the Isosceles Stance and if you do anything less you're going to be behind the curve and, uh, it's not even worth training for."​
Let's see what another top-level shooter does and recommends.
Here's another video on the topic of grip and technique--this one by Bob Vogel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45QhpvY9LZc

At 3:20 he starts talking about the force he exerts on the gun.

..."now the actual pressure that I'm using here is in with both hands. So my right hand is torquing this way <<twists right hand to the left>> and my left hand is countering that <<twists left hand to the right>> and torquing that way. So what that does is it really locks it in there.

The gun--in recoil--obviously comes back. What we don't want to do is help it back. The older technique--more the Weaver-style shooting that was popular in the 1980s was more the push-pull method. I don't believe in pulling--that was the method of pushing with this hand <<moves right hand>> and pulling with this hand <<moves left hand>> to steady the gun. And it may somewhat steady the gun--but when you're pulling with this hand <<lifts/pulls gun back with left hand>>--the gun's already coming back. Why do you want to help it back in recoil?

It just--it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So all my momentum is forward, I'm torquing in with both hands and again I'm just--I'm locked out here--really, really solid."​

Here's a video with Rob Leatham talking about the push-pull. He points out that the nature of the grip that the support hand has on the pistol demands a small amount of pull for the hand to stay in position and not get left hanging out in space when the gun recoils back. But he makes it clear that it's not very much pull at all. He demonstrates with another shooter doing the shooting so we don't have to worry that his size/strength/shooting skill is affecting the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNNlb7QjfGI

Here's a video with Ernest Langdon talking about grip and stance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VP4X6FVa4E

Toward the end he also talks about a "slight amount of isometric tension" caused by a slight pull of the support hand--but in the context of maintaining a proper grip (like Leatham's comments) not in the context of recoil control. His earlier comments make it clear that recoil control by the support hand is by friction on the side of the gun. Like Leatham talking about the two hands pinching the gun between them.

I think it's clear that push-pull as a recoil control method has fallen out of favor with the top-level shooters. There is some slight amount of pull/isometric tension required by the support hand to keep the grip intact, but that's quite a different thing.

I think a big part of the reason for the push-pull being introduced in the first place is easily explained by thinking about what the context was. At the time the Weaver was introduced, handgun competition was basically bullseye.

In bullseye, everyone knew that the strong hand was supposed to be as relaxed as possible. That's what provided maximum accuracy and recoil control wasn't really a big issue.

The push-pull was an attempt to solve the dilemma of controlling recoil while keeping the strong hand very relaxed as a holdover from bullseye

As the two-handed technique developed and evolved, it became obvious that the strong hand needed to grip the pistol quite firmly for the best results. In fact, now it's pretty common for the top level shooters to talk about gripping the pistol with the strong hand as firmly as possible without shaking. Miculek and Langdon, for example are two that have explicitly made that comment.

It used to be that instructors taught a very light grip with the strong hand, with the support hand making up almost all of the gripping strength. That meant that the strong hand was reduced to mostly only being able to push on the gun--since it wasn't gripping the gun tightly. With that limitation, it was necessary to come up with a way to control recoil with the support hand and it made sense to try to pull with the weak hand since about all the strong hand could do while mostly relaxed was push on the gun.

As it became obvious that a firm grip with the strong hand gave better results, it also became obvious that there was no need to pull with the support hand--both could be used to counter recoil. Other benefits (besides improved recoil control) then became obvious. The big one, mentioned by Miculek, is that recoil behavior became more symmetric and repeatable making it easier/faster to bring the gun back onto target after muzzle lift.
 
Thanks for the videos. There are so many to a point where everyone will say, "everyone has their own technique. The videos and your comments gave me some ideas to try at the range in a few weeks. What I'll try is hold my handgun with my three lower fingers and base of thumb fore and back and leave my thumb and trigger finger free. This will alleviate sideways torque. Obviously the handgun will seem like it could fall out of our hand. As everyone I think has experienced, a one handed shot with handgun rises up to the right. And so, I'll wrap my support hand knuckles with my other hand to press my other hands fingers closed, then rise that hand up so it's thumb base meets with the other handles indent on the thumb side. This gives a 45 degree downward angle for the muzzle rise and a slight pull for the upward right rise.. I might play with how high I raise my support hand forearm to adjust for the left torque. Then, I'll dry fire practice and on an actual fire I'll exhale while focusing on the point of impact or front sight ( I'm testing to see which will work for me ) and try this out. Obviously this is theory so I'll try it out later.
 
Respectfully, I believe you are over-thinking this -- in extremis. Especially this part:

This gives a 45 degree downward angle for the muzzle rise and a slight pull for the upward right rise.
Click to expand...
The angle will be determined by the angle of the pistol's grip frame. It is what it is.

I might play with how high I raise my support hand forearm to adjust for the left torque.
Click to expand...
If you are going to use an isosceles stance, both arms are at the same elevation, fully extended, elbows locked. There is no wiggle room anywhere in that to "play" with how high you raise your support forearm. The "iso" in isosceles means "equal."
 
If you are going to use an isosceles stance, both arms are at the same elevation, fully extended, elbows locked.
Click to expand...
The modern two-handed grips will put the wrist bones from the support hand farther away from the shooter than the wrist bones on the strong hand. So unless one arm is longer than the other, the person will have to either blade slightly, or will have to have slightly more bend in one arm than the other.

There are differences of opinion as to whether the arms should be fully extended and locked. It seems to be pretty common to see it taught with just a slight bend in the elbows to provide a bit more shock absorption using the elbow joints which is both easier on the elbows and the wrists and helps with muzzle rise.

In the Langdon video, he recommends against locking the elbows citing extra wear and tear on the elbows from the practice.

Here's a source that mentions the issues and provides a picture from the top.

https://gunbelts.com/blog/3-basic-shooting-stances/

isosceles-shooting-stance.png


In it, one can see that the support hand wrist is going to be farther from the shooter than the strong hand wrist which forces either a slight blade, or a slight difference in how the elbows are bent.

What's also evident in the picture is that if it were viewed from the side, the elbows would appear locked. The shooter is holding his arms so that the elbows are going to bend in a plane that's nearly parallel to the floor. In this tutorial, Miculek touches on the topic.

http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/MICULEK3/miculek3.html

He wants his elbows to be positioned "behind the gun" (rotated so they don't allow the gun to pivot upwards on the elbow joint) to control muzzle rise.

Vogel also positions his arms so that the elbows bend outwards, in a plane nearly parallel to the ground. Sevigny is another who shoots like this. His arms look like they are locked from the side, but from the top, he's actually got a pretty good bend in his elbows--again in the plane parallel to the ground.

I think a big part of this is to look at the general concepts provided and then work with those concepts to adapt them to one's own specific anatomy.

For example, I can't replicate Bob Vogel's support hand position on the gun. When I try, it causes significant discomfort in my support hand wrist, and cause the front sight to want to stay high and to my strong hand side. I can just barely pull the muzzle of the gun down onto target and when I do it causes me pain. My wrist just won't angle down as far as his does. I don't think it makes sense for me to embark on a stretching/exercise program to try to increase the range of motion on my wrist to duplicate his. So I modify my grip slightly from his but while trying to accomplish his stated goals to the extent that my particular anatomy will allow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top