Question about handgun technique

C

CDR_Glock

New member
I’ve been shooting for quite some time since I was 21, many eons ago.

For hunting, bullseye and target shooting I have a particular shooting style, that I would say is ideal for static shooting. One shot at a time, firm hold, stable platform. I use an isosceles stance.

However, I have just starting competitions and I’m noticing the above technique is not ideal for more dynamic shooting. Multiple targets, repetitive shooting, shooting while moving.
I’m doing respectable and in the upper 1/3 but I am noticing a less rigid style of shooting, Ron Avery and Ken Nelson for example. If I used their technique for my 44 Magnum, 454 Casull, or 500 I could end up with a slap to the face.

Do you use static versus more dynamic techniques based upon what you’re using?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I use very different stances for accuracy than for speed, the gun is pushed out farther for accuracy and I am standing more erect and less open. The trigger finger placement can also change, when I shoot revolvers fast in double action, I give it more trigger finger than when I am shooting slowly.
 
Absolutely. In dynamic situations you don't have the luxury of choosing the stance you'll assume when the critical moment comes. It may not be a stance at all. That's why so many trainers focus on learning to shoot kneeling, crouching, lying on your side, flat on your back. I personally find it awkward to shift from movement to isosceles, and then back to movement. I find a somewhat more narrow stance, usually more like what would be called "Weaver" to be easier to get into and out of, especially if I'm moving toward or away from a target while shooting.

I guess it strikes me that isosceles is meant for a stable, static shooting position, but if you're under attack, static is the worst thing you can be.

(Incidentally it's also why many people who advocate for red dot pistol sights say they made the switch, and I'm in that process myself. Dynamic situations are also poorly suited to closing one eye and focusing intently on a point 18" in front of your face. The front sight isn't attacking you, and another threat -- or obstacle to be avoided as you escape -- could lie where your closed eye no longer sees. Both eyes open and scanning the area, with a bright dot indicating your point of aim, is so much more natural to me).
 
Ive always been a follower of Bruce Lee theory, and for most things, not just shooting.

Learn as much as you can about as much as you can, and then take from that, the parts that are useful to you, and make things your own.

Ive been shooting a long time now, and tried most all the different thoughts on techniques and methods, and done the above. And a lot of that seems to just come naturally anyway.

When I stand still, I usually shoot thumbs forward Isocoleses, but as soon as I start to move, I find myself morphing in and out of a number of different things as I move and targets present themselves. No one method works well in most cases, and in many cases, its morphing in and out of a combination of a few.

I think more importantly, use what works best for you, even if others poo poo it. If its working for you, what do they know?
 
"...just starting competitions..." Bullseye shooting is a competition. No triangles involved with most of 'em. However, you must use whatever stance applies to the particular shooting game you're playing. And the one that works best for you.
Large calibres are more about control than anything else. I've seen a guy stick the front sight of an M29 into the over head plywood shooting one handed. Mind you, those cannons aren't used much in any shooting game. Mostly about recovery time between shots.
 
I shot speed pistol events for many years. I spent a lot of time observing some of the best shooters in the country shooting these events and one thing stood out while watching them. They almost all used a modified isosceles stance when shooting. That "perfect" triangle was modified in the form of slightly bending their elbows while shooting. This less rigid stance worked well for them. I too adopted this stance years ago and it worked very well for me also. It's probably almost as stable as rigidly pushing your arms out and allows the flexability to move your gun without giving up stability. Simply google any of the top shooters shooting action events and you'll see that most, if not all of them shooting this way. For long range silhouette type shooting, a rigid isosceles stance is probably the best way to go.
 
Figure out what technique works best for you in the amount of time you train, practice, or "play". Hone that technique to be as good as it can be for you and hope it is enough.

Almost assuredly there is better technique out there that would work better for you. You could learn this technique and be more proficient (however you define proficiency) as long as you took hundreds or thousands of hours to practice it, practice it correctly, and ingrain it as "natural" to you.

Accept both the former and the later. As there are limits to your time and willingness to make wholesale changes to the very basics make the choice to either commit to those changes or don't and move forward. Perhaps one of the worst points to get stuck in is between changes where the new way doesn't feel natural and you have hindered your ability with the old way.
 
NoSecondBest said:
I shot speed pistol events for many years. I spent a lot of time observing some of the best shooters in the country shooting these events and one thing stood out while watching them. They almost all used a modified isosceles stance when shooting. That "perfect" triangle was modified in the form of slightly bending their elbows while shooting. This less rigid stance worked well for them. I too adopted this stance years ago and it worked very well for me also. It's probably almost as stable as rigidly pushing your arms out and allows the flexability to move your gun without giving up stability. Simply google any of the top shooters shooting action events and you'll see that most, if not all of them shooting this way. For long range silhouette type shooting, a rigid isosceles stance is probably the best way to go.
Click to expand...



This is my take, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I have never used a rigid stance or rigid arms.. there is always a slight bend in my elbows and knees. I do not participate in comp or any form of shooting entertainment. I train for self defense
 
I have never used a rigid stance or rigid arms.. there is always a slight bend in my elbows and knees. I do not participate in comp or any form of shooting entertainment. I train for self defense
Click to expand...

A major Texas police department, where officers are often engaged in firefights, is teaching to stretch the arms out.
 
A major Texas police department, where officers are often engaged in firefights, is teaching to stretch the arms out.
Click to expand...

A major Texas police department (which one?), where officers are often engaged in firefights (cite some examples...how many, etc), is teaching to stretch the arms out (who's teaching the course?). This statement is pretty vague. I'd like to know more.
 
I find if I roll my elbows in (pointy part down) I better handle hard recoiling pistols; but it often magnifies muzzle flip. If I roll my elbows out, it is easier to keep my eye on the front sight in rapid fire strings; but if I get too loose, I’ll get malfunctions, especially with say a Glock 34 shooting Blazer.

I haven’t given the matter conscious thought in years but video says current position is elbows are not quite locked out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top