Originally posted by TunnelRat
I get what you’re saying, but I also think that there’s a potential trap in this type of logic. Let’s take reloading a revolver as an example. When I was taught to reload a revolver, I was taught to transition the revolver to my non dominant hand so I can use my dominant hand to do the reload. When it comes to the “I want my techniques to be as broadly applicable as possible” argument, does that mean that I should also switch hands when I reload a semiautomatic? Should I only fire 6 rounds out of my semiautomatic pistols to keep myself in tune with reloads at revolver pacing? Should I not trust the lock back on a magazine if not all my firearms lock back? How problematic is it for my mind/body to apply different techniques for different firearms?
Obviously with drastically different platforms like a revolver and semi-auto, certain differences in technique will be necessary. To use your example, I carry my reloads for a semi-auto on my non-dominant side (in my case my left) while I carry revolver reloads on my dominant side (for me, right). This not only serves to place them in the most optimal place for the different reloading techniques, but also serves to remind me in the heat of the moment which technique I need to use.
Originally posted by TunnelRat
I shoot thumbs forward with semiautomatics and I don’t with revolvers. I don’t somehow forget how to do one or the other by not using one exclusively. By the same token I have sledgehammers and ball peen hammers. I don’t swing both of them with the same force as the sledgehammer and I don’t use both for the same job. I apply the technique/tool that makes the most sense for the job at hand.
Now if someone doesn’t want to use a certain technique that’s completely his/her call and I make no claim to knowing the “best” way to do just about anything. I also accept that my examples could be argued as more extreme than the differences we see in many techniques. I just think the human brain can learn/process more than a lot of people credit for, even under stress (if practiced).
Certainly one can adapt to different techniques for different firearms, in many cases it's even necessary depending on how different two given firearms are, but I see no need to further complicate switching from one gun to another with different techniques if I don't have to. To use cars as an example, I have two different vehicles which both have automatic transmissions but one's shifter lever is on the steering column while the other is in the console between the front seats. When I drive one that I haven't driven in a week or two, it's not uncommon to find myself reaching for a shifter lever that isn't there. Now, I consciously know which car I'm in and putting my car in gear isn't exactly a high stress situation, but muscle memory is still taking over.
Fully releasing the trigger, using a crossed-thumbs grip, and sling-shotting the slide are all techniques that work pretty universally even if they might be sub-optimal for certain guns. I just don't see myself getting that much benefit from gun-specific techniques to be worth the trouble if I don't have to. Perhaps you get more benefit from these techniques than I do and if so that's great, but for me it just isn't worth the trouble YMMV.
Originally posted by TunnelRat
Lastly, just because something was done a certain way in the past doesn’t mean there isn’t another way to do something that’s worth trying. I could use a slide rule rather than a calculator and in some cases the former is very good, but that doesn’t mean if I went back in time and offered up that person a calculator that he/she wouldn’t jump at the opportunity.
This really isn't what I'm talking about, a slide-rule and a calculator are very different items and thus the method of using one or the other is very different. I'm talking about using different techniques for identical or very similar items. For example, until the 1960's and 1970's the prevailing way to shoot handguns was some variation of a one-handed stance sometimes called a "dueling stance" or "bullseye stance." Over the years, most of us have found that, outside of certain competitions where one-handed shooting is mandated, we shoot better using two hands. That being said, I've known some older shooters who could shoot better one-handed than I could with two and I'm not about to tell them to change. Their technique works as well as it ever did and their results are still impressive by modern standards so they have little reason to adopt the more "modern" techniques.
I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that, contrary to what some trainers and Youtube personalities might tell you, beyond the basics of safety, reliable operation of the gun, sight alignment, sight picture, and trigger control I really don't think that there's any right or wrong way to shoot a handgun, just what works best for the individual. When I start rolling my eyes is when people like the aforementioned trainers and Youtubers start criticizing guns that they're obviously not familiar with because they've become dogmatic about a particular technique that's tailored to their particular gun of choice.
Originally posted by 44AMP
If you usually drive a standard, does your left foot stomp the floor when you drive an automatic? (or worse stomp the brake "thinking" its the clutch??) Doubt you'll do that, more than once, anyway...
Back when I was a teenager and routinely drove a car with a manual transmission, I did exactly that in my dad's car. My foot caught the far left edge of the brake and I came to a very abrupt tire-squalling stop. Not only was I embarrassed, but I scared the living daylights out of my elderly grandfather who was in the passenger seat
