Off-hand pistol shooting.

If you needed glasses you were probably in trouble but then back in those days people didn't live long past the age where most people start needing them.
Click to expand...

Probably because of their healthier and less overly processed diets and no screen time. :D

As to no sights on dueling pistols, it helps to understand the code of honor of the era, which was quite different from what we have today. In some ways it seems odd and even foolish to us, today, but I'm sure someone from the 1780s would feel the same about our attitudes today.

Military muskets are smooth bore, and as such not very accurate. The generally don't have sights or if they do they are very rudimentary compared to rifle sights.

People today generally figure that, well since they were smoothbores there's little point putting sights on them, and that is true, but there is also more to it. British troops in the 1700s were taught to "aim" (meaning point) their muskets at the enemy formation, directed by their officers, then "turn their heads" (look away), and fire.

It was considered "ungentlemanly" to actually look at someone when you shot them. There was a practical effect, turning your head reduces the dazzle from the pan flash, but in the main it was a point of honor. Of course it was probably disobeyed as often as obeyed, but it was the rule...

Commanders aimed units individual soldiers did not aim their arms at individual enemy soldiers. The whole point was not to specifically kill the enemy with gunfire it was to break them. The usual practice was to give the enemy a volley, then another , sometimes 3, and then charge and settle the issue cold steel.

The unit that broke under fire usually lost. The point of honor was to stand there and take fire, and that attitude carried over to duelling.

The point of a duel, unlike what appearances seem to show (and popular fiction always shows) was not to kill the other guy, it was to SHAME them.

Yes, of course there were many duels where the entire duel was contrived in order to kill someone, but those were not considered honorable, if that truth came out. History doesn't record many duels where no one was killed (there are a few but you'll have to dig for them) probably because they were not "news". But there were duels (possibly many more than you'd think just reading the usual records) where "honor was satisfied" and no one was killed. Both with blades or guns.

The point was to prove your honor, or the rightness of your cause by standing there and taking the risk. If you died as a result of that, you died, but with honor, not a craven. That mattered to people in those days.

SO, not putting sights on a dueling pistol was a way of avoiding actual aiming, which was something only a pure scoundrel would do....of course you were expected to look at your opponent and point your pistol but actual precise aiming was bad form old chap....

However there were it seems, some "workarounds" to tilt the odds in one's favor. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, some years back an actual set of original period dueling pistols was shot and tested for accuracy.

They were well made, and considering smoothbore and no sights, they shot very accurately, putting all their shots in a reasonably small group at the classic 20 paces distance. Interestingly, BOTH pistols in the set consistently shot two feet to the left of point of aim at that distance. Think about the possible results if the owner knew that and his opponent did not....:eek:
 
No. 41 above is most excellent.
My contribution is a brief discussion of dueling by sword, as was explained to me by my fencing master in the late 1970’s.

Again, except in rare cases, the duel’s true aim was for the parties involved to save face or to gain social position by maintaining “honor”. While a gentleman was held in high esteem, one who killed too many opponents for political or material gain was an assassin and not an honorable title at all.

For the most part, sword duels consisted of a few passes- one man receiving a light wound to the arm or thigh (these areas closest to steel while the aggressor attempts to keep his own self at distance- closing in is more lethal yet also puts the aggressor at greatly increased risk. There are exceptions, of course.

This continued as a tradition among university students at Heidelberg where a duel consisted of two men standing with heavy saber blades held over each other’s heads and simply dropping of the arms to inflict a bloody but non-lethal cut. The goal.. prove courage, honor, and get cool scars. Chicks dig scars, apparently- in the minds of young men at University.

Lately it has been on my mind that video entertainment is most often a large distortion of reality in order to promote a plot line. Popular stories then become “well known facts.”

It’s not an easy story to sell that two rich men are a bit drunk and have a silly argument then vow to duel. They wake up sober the next morning and both of them are frightened of getting killed, wounded, a serious infection with no antibiotics... their friends meet and work out acceptable apologies and honor is satisfied.

It’s not an easy story to sell that two fellas stand 40 yards apart, both entirely pumped to the gills with fear and adrenaline and naturally would rather duck than stand calmly as if shooting at ye olde dinner plates- it’s not a great story that both flinch their shot 40 feet wide.

It’s not a great story that most cowboys were poor young men in a low wage job who often drank too much and Gene Autry and The Lone Ranger are about as authentic as James T Kirk is at representing astronauts.

Why can’t we see John Wick getting fitted for hearing aids? Why don’t his guns recoil like mine do? Grrr! My wife says “Shut up! Enjoy the movie! And no, I don’t want to shoot a gun for myself!”
 
There eyesight was probably quite good considering their healthier and less overly processed diets and no screen time. If you needed glasses you were probably in trouble but then back in those days people didn't live long past the age where most people start needing them.
Click to expand...

I needed glasses @ 13. We did not have computers then.

I still shoot better without my glasses than with them.

https://allabouteyes.com/see-past-fascinating-history-eyeglasses/
 
Bullseye Shooting is the Source of pistol ability

if nothing else, formal one handed shooting teaches the essentials of sight alignment, sight picture and trigger control like nothing else does. Formal target shooting instills the necessity of first shot placement.

One handed shooting is irrelevant unless one has the other hand occupied. Carrying something important (without which one has no reason to be in the position). Perhaps a child? I have a grandchild less than one year old. "Problems" do not give warnings.

No multi-round magazine will replace first shot shot placement. A bullseye shooter can move to any other hand gun discipline and have a good beginning.

The late Lt Col J. D. Cooper made any number of comments worth remembering: Two of those are to the effect of '..a pistol shooter should be able to keep all shots in the black of a twenty five yard target at twenty five yards before starting any 'combat' training...' and the other being the advice of '... a (combat) pistol course of fire which can be fired better with a rifle is poorly designed... '
 
IIRC part of the Code Duello was "Choose your weapon" so even if the owner had one that shot well for him there was no guarantee he would get it. Also I think they were to be loaded either in public or out of sight of the dueling parties so nobody could load one with a blank. And if one party missed, the other was expected to keep on target to let everybody sweat, then fire into the air to show that honor was satisfied.
Recall a gun magazine article years ago about Patton, in recounting his service with the Pershing Expedition of 1916, the author mentioned incidents of border pistoleros using a two hand hold. Fairbairn had his Isoceles stance. I suspect Cooper and Jack Weaver didn't invent so much as explain and refine.
 
SIGSHR said:
...even if the owner had one that shot well for him there was no guarantee he would get it.
Click to expand...
Maybe they both shot well but the owner knew the point of aim while the other person did not.
44AMP said:
However there were it seems, some "workarounds" to tilt the odds in one's favor. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, some years back an actual set of original period dueling pistols was shot and tested for accuracy.

They were well made, and considering smoothbore and no sights, they shot very accurately, putting all their shots in a reasonably small group at the classic 20 paces distance. Interestingly, BOTH pistols in the set consistently shot two feet to the left of point of aim at that distance. Think about the possible results if the owner knew that and his opponent did not...
Click to expand...
 
In my training (long time ago, but no flintlocks), we were drilled into shooting one handed; both hands. We were also taught to always carry a round in the chamber.

Reasons were basically the same. You might not always have both hands/arms to use. Therefore, you need to be trained on how to shoot effectively with one hand, and if you have only one hand/arm that can be used; you will sure hope there is a round in that chamber.

You can always rack a slide with your boot, a curb, a car bumper (at least in the old days when they were actually steel), top of a door frame, etc., but that takes a lot of time compared to just aiming and pulling a trigger.

So, why not learn to shoot one-handed?
 
Post 38

The butt-forward, right side position of the holster enabled a right-handed person to draw with either hand. Whereas if the butt were to the rear, a right-handed person would find it more awkward to draw the pistol. The reins were held in the left hand to control the horse...everything else on horseback was done with the right hand. A mounted trooper could either turn his right hand around to draw his gun, or draw his saber by reaching across his body to the sabler which was carried on the the left side of the horse. Calvary at some period carried carbines attached to carbine slings which also were draped across the trooper's chest and hung on the left. In short, the trooper did not normally draw the pistol with his left hand, but could if the situation warranted. Note: There are several sources on the internet wherein it is erroneously stated that the cavalryman drew and fired his pistol with his left hand. Also, some sources state that a cavalryman would wield his gun in his left hand, saber in his right. But those are myths perpetuated by non-horsemen. In short, the left hand is always on the reins to control the horse, the right hand is used for everything else, including the pistol.
Click to expand...

I've been busy but wanted to come back to this. Back to the OPs good question.

Soldiers, and others who fought on horseback, were trained to shoot one handed from horseback. This had nothing to do with formal dueling. It was combat training which was separated from training a person from the basics of handgun shooting.

Formal dueling was the province of "Gentlemen" as were dueling pistols. (The average trapper, farmer, cowboy or lumberjack had no dueling pistols and couldn't afford any such a thing.) It's from there, formal dueling by Gentlemen, that the basics of formal competitive bullseye shooting began. Custom brought that into being. The same was true of training individuals in how to shoot, the basics of gun safety, etc. They began with one handed shooting for a very long time. That's mostly gone these days.

In police work and the military both one handed and two handed shooting have been taught for generations. I posted those videos on page one to show that. "Combat" shooting training was separated from the basics of handgun shooting. The latter being taught one handed with a bullseye stance. But doing that has slowly fallen away beginning in the post war period. Folks today learning to shoot begin two handed. A lot of how to work a gun one handed has been lost or ignored unfortunately.

A lot has changed since the FBI crouch.
 
First it must be said that probably less than 5% of my pistol shooting has anything to do with self defence or combat training. Shooting is just a relaxing hobby for me, that's it.

I started my pistolero career shooting one-handed, and at least once was quite good in it. Most often my practice mimics various ISSF disciplines where rules dictate the one-handed stance. My usual quip for modern style shooters is that if a pistol was intended to be fired two-handed, it would have two grips :-) OK, and jokes aside, I do shoot IHMSA and my Glock 17 with isoceles stance.

It may be that when shooting one-handed, originally turning one's body sideways had the intention of providing the smallest possible target for the opponent. But nowadays, ISSF shooters do that also to an extent, while rules do not dictate it. The reason is human physiology. Do an experiment. Close your eyes, raise your shooting arm horizontally and swing ot slowly sideways. You feel a "sweet angle" where the arm wants to settle, where it stays naturally without having to use muscle force to push it left or right. Changes are that the angle is around 45 deg from the shoulder line. That's also the angle where it is easiest to hold your arm up, using just enough muscle tension.

Some ISSF shooters turn their arm a little more backward to gain more rigidity to the shoulder joint; in extreme cases up to being parallel with the shoulder line. But this forces one to turn head more than at least I am comfortable with. The optimal angle between the arm and the shoulder line is personal for every shooter, and good results seem to be possible with varying degrees of turn. I shoot more "in front" than most, mainly because of my stiff neck. But none of the top ISSF shooters keeps his or her chest towards the target.
 
I'm a little bit confused by this thread, is it about shooting one handed or offhand without a rest.
I was still a teenager when I realized I couldn't carry a rest everywhere with me and targets don't always stand still and pose for me to shoot so I would have to learn how to make offhand shots at game that was moving.
Pretty sure bad guys don't stand around waiting for you to find a rest either.
 
I'm a little bit confused by this thread, is it about shooting one handed or offhand without a rest.
Click to expand...

The OP is talking about
standing upright, strong side forward, pistol held in one hand
Click to expand...
Which is the classic target shooting stance and wondering why it is still taught as one of the basics when it has no apparent use in defense or hunting, which he says is the majority of handgun shooting.

We've discussed its history, with a couple of sidetracks:rolleyes:, and how it is still a useful basic instruction.

I'm more than a bit "old school" and feel that, when teaching adults with no prior experience the one hand stance (and slow fire) are the "baby steps" that should be taught. I'm also a fan of using the .22LR and a single shot, or Single Action revolver (or DA shot SA) for the beginning steps, and moving beyond that as soon as the shooter demonstrates a degree of competency and the desire to do so.

Everything else, the "important stuff" for defense, etc. should come later. Doesn't have to be much later, depending on the trainee, but it should be after the very basics.
 
I don't shoot at game one handed but as discussed there's lots of scenario's where one might be forced to shoot one handed or with the weak hand in self defense.
 
I'm a little bit confused by this thread, is it about shooting one handed or offhand without a rest.
I was still a teenager when I realized I couldn't carry a rest everywhere with me and targets don't always stand still and pose for me to shoot so I would have to learn how to make offhand shots at game that was moving.
Pretty sure bad guys don't stand around waiting for you to find a rest either.]
Click to expand...

You make some valid points.

Consider if you are standing in the open you might look for some cover. Cover often presents a rest. Around a barricade,over a fender, etc. Do what you can with what you have.
 
From what I've seen on security camera's from crime scenes the combination of running, shooting and finding cover is your best chance for survival in a shootout, pretty hard for anyone to make a running shot at someone while they're shooting back. It's nearly impossible to run and shoot with both hands, I can run pretty fast and hit a man size target at 20ft away with at least a few shots from a full magazine one handed either hand-but I practice it. It's rare to see real life footage of a bad guys continue to shoot once the other person starts shooting back, they're going for cover. Shooting around/from behind cover with two hands exposes to much of body if it's the weak hand side, another reason to learn to shoot weak one handed.
I guess what I'm trying to convey is that learning to one handed is a useful skill in self defense, the military stance is as good as any for learning the fundamentals before going to more difficult shots.
 
My friend who taught me to shoot used an odd method. All off hand, or using a tree to brace on. We would walk down a ridge and play a version of HORSE. Call a stump, or patch of sunlight and shooting position and alternate until we hit it. between 25-75yds, usually a 6-12in target. It was the BEST training/practice I have ever had!
 
well, I shoot game one handed because that's how I am most accurate. Deer don't shoot back. I have shot from sitting, two handed with knees up for braces. It's NOT comfortable!

Using a vertical tree for a rest is okay for a rifle but don't try it with a hand cannon! Your paw might get mangled by the tree on recoil.
 
Last edited:
Use the tree trunk to brace your BODY, not the gun or your hands!
Forearm on a limb, ok. Wrist/hand on the limb, OUCH!

Been there, done that, learned the painful way...;)
 
I did the bullseye thing back in 70s. It was unnatural to me I always shot two hands since a kid. I don’t know why unless it was because of weight. My dad had a Artillery Luger and it required me to use two hands when I was a kid. One hand or two, it is handgun shooting.
When portable rest and optics are used it’s in another class.
 
I'm sure one of the resident mathematics professors here can explain this better than I, but since the theory hasn't been mentioned yet....

The reason bullseye shooters turn sideways and use one hand it to get the front sight as far away from the eye as possible. Something like 6 to 8 inches further away than is possible using both hands.

This makes the front sight appear smaller in relation to the target and provides more potential for accuracy.

Certainly, with the evolution of tactics, its not very useful in combat shooting, but I wouldn't say that its useless for hunting at all, provided the shooter is experienced in taking this type of shot.
 
Yes, the effect in target shooting is to give the pistol a longer sight radius, allowing for more precision, IF the shooter can use it.

And, no, I won't even begin to tackle the math as to why that works the way it does, either. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top