[Spec ops Grunt]

Been curious since reading this post by RyanM

"Funny how people strongly preferred the Luger type grip angle, until people started coming out with all these weird stances with weird names. If pistols were meant to be fired with both hands, they'd be called handsguns instead of handguns!"

Thoughts on one handed shooting, what guns do you prefer with it.

[Standing Wolf]

NRA bullseye shooting is always done with a single hand.

[popbang]

Everybody has an opinion. Just wonder which Luger grip angle is being refered to. Guess we forget all the dueling style handguns that made one handed shooting the norm, and then the various revolvers that came along.

If a person likes to shoot one handed nothing wrong. If another shoots two handed nothing wrong with that either.

For one handed I shoot the same guns as two handed Ruger single action revolvers. I even go one step further and shoot with either hand one handed.

[Merkin.Muffley]

I like a gun with excellent grips. I find the grips more important than the gun when shooting one handed.

[depicts]

I'm with poopbang, I shoot all my guns single handed, both left and right handed. I also shoot both left and right eyed, and both eyes open.

I think if I were in a combat situation, and insticts took over, I'd return to two handed fire, as that is what I practice most, but every way is fun training.

[49hudson]

Depicts has it right!

[c_yeager]

Single handed shooting was the traditional, and common method, which interestingly enough existed well into the start of these "new fangled" grip angles. The military taught one-handed shooting with the 1911 along with everyone else.

[ChristopherG]

Isn't the practice of one-handed shooting rooted in the origin of the handgun as a cavalry officer's weapon (i.e., you've also got a hand fulla reigns)?

[c_yeager]

Isn't the practice of one-handed shooting rooted in the origin of the handgun as a cavalry officer's weapon (i.e., you've also got a hand fulla reigns)?

I think its more rooted in the fact that one-handed weapons are the traditional tool of gentleman, while two handed weapons are for soldiers and ruffians. WAAAY back when flintlock pistols were starting to come into production there were one-handed weapons, and this long predates their use as the tools of cavalry.

[Zen21Tao]

I think its more rooted in the fact that one-handed weapons are the traditional tool of gentleman, while two handed weapons are for soldiers and ruffians. WAAAY back when flintlock pistols were starting to come into production there were one-handed weapons, and this long predates their use as the tools of cavalry.

Yes. And if recall correctly from my history classes the earliest firearms designed were used as off-hand weapons along with a sword. There has also been a long history of using a gun in each hand.

[c_yeager]

We could probably go through a zillion reasons for the historical use of pistols as one-handed weapons. I think the basic fact is that they were built to be used one handed in the first place, if you wanted to use two hands you would have picked up a long gun instead.

There are some practicle reasons in addition to the cultural reasons. For example, there is dueling, which is inexorably tied with the development of the pistol. The traditional duelist stance places your opponent directly to your side, which necesitates one-handed shooting. There were cultural reasons for this, as aiming was considered to be a tad unfair but, there were also practicle reasons. By showing your profile to your opponent you present a much smaller target, you also place your upper arm between the vital organs in your chest cavity and the other shooter.

I would be interested in knowing when two-handed shooting became popular. I have seen footage of military and police training into the 50s and 60s that showed one-handed duelist style shooting, I have a feeling that putting two hands on a pistol is a fairly modern tradition.

[LAK]

I can not think of any handgun that I actually prefer to shoot one-handed as opposed to two, but to pick the most pleasant would be my Colt Woodsman .22.

Although handguns have a grip, ergonomics, and often operation, making them capable of being employed single-handed; that does not mean that two-handed shooting is some modern invention and historically this is not the case at all.

However, I think it is very unwise to be unable to employ a handgun one-handed fast and effectively at contact and close distances. As many of the best light to medium weight pieces can be very fast and effective in this way. Such as, but not limited to, the 2" to 4" K Frame S&W revolvers for example.

One may not always be in a position to turn the entire body in the direction of a target - hence the advantage of being able to simply move a single arm, hand and gun. To employ it against a target in almost any direction within the mobile limits of the limb and practical abilities of the shooter.

Another reason to be at least shoot with some acceptable level of effectiveness one-handed is that one might not be helpless if one hand or arm becomes disabled either prior to or during a fight. Thus one must also be able to shoot with the weak hand.

---------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[CajunBass]

I seem to remember the two handed hold as something really radical about the time that IPSC and the Weaver stance started to catch hold. That's the way I learned to shoot, and I seldom use just one hand now.

I know I never saw Roy Rogers use both hands on a handgun. All the old pictures and movies I've ever seen show the police standing and shooting like bullseye shooters, or the FBI crouch with the weak hand across the chest.

Using two hands to hold a handgun used to be what girls did.

[ChristopherG]

LAK, I totally agree with your reasoning on the helpfulness--necessity, really--of one-handed competence with the handgun. Bill Jordan's "No Second Place Winner" is a good little primer to support and lead on from what you say (and also focusing on the revolver, perhaps not coincidentally?). The guns I shoot most and best one-handed are S&W j- and k-frames. But--to answer the original question, I don't PREFER to shoot ANY gun one-handed, if that means I can do it BETTER. I can't.

I believe CajunBass has it right, that the origins of IPSC were also the origin of competitive shooters using two hands. And this raises an interesting point. No-one, no-one, no-one shooting competitive handgun games anymore uses only one hand unless the rules specifically require it. And this is true whether it's fast and furious (IPSC, IDPA) or slow and deliberate (IHMSA or NRA silhouette).

Now c_yeager has suggested at least one reason or set of reasons for historical single-hand use, and others have been mentioned as well (I'm still sticking to my horses!); but here's a thing that puzzles me. Why did the armed forces of the U.S., for SO LONG, teach only one-handed pistol shooting (with the result that this practice was transcribed into the rules for NRA bullseye etc.)? Was it just tradition, or was it some practical consideration--and if so, what?

[1911 guy]

However, I think it was a case of "We've never done it that way before". In the early sixties when the likes of Cooper, Weaver and Jordan were developing the "modern technique" the military took notice. Not long after, both hands got involved in training. When I joined, one handed shooting was a distant memory except in a few stages on the qualifying range.

[CajunBass]

The military tradition of one handed shooting goes back at least to the days of the horse calvary I would think. Then you carried a saber on your left side for a right hand draw, and your pistol/revolver on the right side, butt forward for an either hand draw. If you had your saber in your right hand you could draw the revolver crossdraw, or if your saber was still sheathed, you could twist your right hand around and draw the revolver with your right hand.

I guess southpaws were out of luck back then.

[RyanM]

Single handed shooting was the traditional, and common method, which interestingly enough existed well into the start of these "new fangled" grip angles. The military taught one-handed shooting with the 1911 along with everyone else.

Yes, but IIRC, the common opinion among shooters up until somewhere around the middle of the 20th century was that the 1911's grip angle was uncomfortable, unnatural, and suitable only for shooting downhill. I believe Rex Applegate addresses this in Kill or Get Killed saying that the "thrust the gun forward" method of point-shooting doesn't work with automatics with a grip angle like a 1911, because you'll end up pointing the gun about 20 degrees low.

Then, at some point apparently coinciding with two-handed shooting stances becoming more popular, you start to hear people saying how the 110 degree grip on the 1911 is "perfect," and you also start to see revolvers getting dressed up in weird grips that block the space behind the trigger guard completely, and give you a grip almost identical to a 1911-style autoloader.

At least that's how it seems to be. I have noticed that for 99% of people, if they hold their wrist in a relaxed, natural position, the 1911 points very low in relation to the forearm, Glocks point a tiny bit low, and revolvers with "normal" grips point spot on. The end result is that you need to crank your wrist up to get a 1911 pointing in the same direction as your forearm. And since nearly all modern autos have a grip angle very similar to the 1911, this is accepted as normal nowadays.

I'm guessing the reason for the 1911's grip angle was mostly reliability. The rounds don't have to rotate as far to feed into the chamber, and having the wrist cocked up can help eliminate limp-wristing problems.

[Steve C]

I shoot in a Bullseye league so most of my competition shooting is one handed. When I’m practicing at the range with my self defense pistols I shoot two handed about half the time and one handed the rest. With my 50+ year old eyes one handed helps get that front sight out far enough o focus on it.

[c_yeager]

but here's a thing that puzzles me. Why did the armed forces of the U.S., for SO LONG, teach only one-handed pistol shooting (with the result that this practice was transcribed into the rules for NRA bullseye etc.)? Was it just tradition, or was it some practical consideration--and if so, what?

That probably has some roots in what the pistol was used for by the military. The only people who were issued a pistol as a primary weapon was the cavalry, who had to shoot one-handed for a reason. Officer were issued the weapon, and as gentleman would be expected to fire one-handed. Additionally, as a back-up weapon for regular soldiers the reason for one-handed shooting might be related to the idea that soldiers would likely have something else in their offhand, such as their empty rifle, a flashlight, or a grenade. I suspect that the real reason why regular soldiers were trained in the manner was simply because noone had suggested doing it any differently.

[U.S.SFC_RET]

I agree one should learn to shoot one handed. Right handed as well as left handed. I'm almost as comfortable shooting left handed as shooting both handed.

[WarMachine]

I have the most control with both hands, so that's what I use. However, I do practice strong and weak hand from time to time.

But being so dense as to say that the two-handed hold is flat out "wrong" is just asinine.

[30Cal]

I shoot more accurately with one hand than with a 2 handed grip (but I can shoot faster with both hands in action).

Shooting with a pair of pistols at once--now there's some seriously scary firepower!

[f4t9r]

I like a gun with excellent grips. I find the grips more important than the gun when shooting one handed.

as long as its a gun I know is dependable!!!!!! I agree

[Zen21Tao]

I, like some others here, have better control and prefer two hands but I also see the importance of being able to shoot one handed (with the on and off hand). Ideally if I ever had to employ my weapon I would prefer two hands but if it was part of a close quarters enounter I may have to use one hand to deflect the attacker, including blocking a weapon he may be using against me. In that type of encounter I would like to know my one handed skills, with the free hand available to me, are enough to save my life.

[RyanM]

But being so dense as to say that the two-handed hold is flat out "wrong" is just asinine.

Who's saying two-handed holds are wrong? I did make a handsguns crack, but that was obviously a joke (and a stolen one, to boot).

Just pointing out that it seems like grip angle preference has reversed over the years, apparently coinciding with the shift in focus from one-handed to two-handed grips.

Or it may be that the change happened during WWII, that every shooter in America collectively decided that the all-American 1911 is "correct," while the more natural Luger/Parabellum grip angle, being a dirty Hun design, is "wrong." Hm, that would also probably account for the irrational hatred for 9mm.

[Ankeny]

I believe CajunBass has it right, that the origins of IPSC were also the origin of competitive shooters using two hands.

LEOs were shooting PPC competitions with two hands long before IPSC came into the mainstream.

[ChristopherG]

Interesting, Ankeny. I thought PPC didn't get off the ground until the 60's. Wasn't that about the same time as Colonel Cooper and Jack Weaver were advocating putting that support hand to work? My timeline is a bit fuzzy (I wasn't there or anything ;) ), and I'm always eager to learn.

As for the grip-angle hypothesis, I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate it. I mean, shooters use pretty much exactly the same two-hand hold on a Glock, these days, as they do on a 1911 (of course, it's not a Weaver stance for the most part...).

[RyanM]

As for the grip-angle hypothesis, I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate it. I mean, shooters use pretty much exactly the same two-hand hold on a Glock, these days, as they do on a 1911 (of course, it's not a Weaver stance for the most part...).

That's kinda part of the point. Grip angle makes a huge difference with one-handed grips, especially when point-shooting, but not so much with two hands.

[30Cal]

Or it may be that the change happened during WWII, that every shooter in America collectively decided that the all-American 1911 is "correct," while the more natural Luger/Parabellum grip angle, being a dirty Hun design, is "wrong." Hm, that would also probably account for the irrational hatred for 9mm.

Elmer Keith actually said that the Luger was one of the best natural pointing guns out there. He also argued that the 9mm was barely adequate for a back-up gun.

Ty

[kennyboy]

I feel more assurance with two hands. However, I do shoot one-handed at times. I shoot with both eyes open. I can shoot quicker and just as accurately this way. When shooting with one had, hold the gun at the 11 and 5 oclock position. This usually provides more stability.

[13.45]

i enjoy shooting single-action revolvers one-handed. it just seems "right" ;)

[JMusic]

I seldom shoot one handed but do practice close range some now. An interesting note: I have had to draw my weapon on several occasions in the past. When I thought I was going to draw and shoot I always did so one handed. I simply drew and pushed the gun at the BG while pulling the trigger. At the time I did not practice one hand shooting except for a bullseye shooting course which is no where close to a combat taught scenereo.
Jim

[cortez kid]

I shoot both hands and one handed. There IS something about one handed single action. My deepest secret, hope no one is watching, is to be able to do the "Hickock" shot. One handed, seventy five yrds, through the heart, on a draw. Real or not, that is a heck of a shot. I think He did it.
kid

[280PLUS]

FWIW in 1975 the US Navy took me aside and taught me how to shoot a .45 extra special good. They taught me to use the two handed "cup and saucer" method. Recently I was introduced to IDPA style and someone taught me the "push - pull" method. The push pull gives you better control of the recoil for a faster follow up shot. When we shoot our IDPA style we use all combinations of hands just to be familiar with them.

When I shoot bullseye it's strong hand only.

and, shooting the S&W 500 magnum CAN be done one handed.

Ask Cortez... :D

[JohnKSa]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

Even the 1911 seems to have been influenced by the idea that a steeper grip angle is better. If you look at JMB's early autopistols and even his prototypes for what became the 1911, they had a nearly 90 degree grip angle. It seems very likely that the military pushed him to make the grip angle a bit steeper, and then pushed again later for the arched mainspring housing on the 1911A1 to make it feel even steeper.

If you read Keith's writings, he was unhappy with the 1911 grip angle--even with the A1 mainspring housing although he admitted that it helped. He praised the Luger grip angle and the grip angle of the original Colt .45 (SAA). It's also not unusual to read other endorsements of the Luger grip angle from that era and even much later.

I think there are a few reasons that the 1911 grip angle is popular these days.

1. Nearly universal use of sights. If you're going to use your sights, the grip angle is less important. Instinctive or point shooting was a bit more important in the days of black powder (think clouds of smoke) and before electronic and glow-in-the dark sights came along.

2. In the past, the primary use of a pistol was as a backup or last ditch weapon, or as a weapon for when you COULDN'T use both hands. As pointed out, grip angle is more of an issue when you're using only one hand. Coincidentally, some of these situations also tended to focus a bit more heavily on instinctive type shooting. (Hard to use your sights on a horse, no time to use your sights if you're using your pistol as a backup to your sword.) These days, the pistol is likely to be a primary weapon, especially in LE or Self-Defense scenarios. Keith advocated one handed point shooting for maximum speed in quick, close up encounters but went to a two-handed technique using the sights for longer shots where time wasn't so critical.

3. The "fathers of modern defensive handgun technique" pretty much decided that the 1911 was IT and sang its praises interminably for decades. Rather than say: "The 1911A1 is a good gun but needs a better grip angle." (as Elmer Keith was wont to say), these guys were reticent to criticize ANYTHING about the pistol. They went farther and praised nearly every aspect of it. Furthermore, their continuous endorsement of the pistol made...

4. ...the 1911 itself very popular, and it turns out that with a little (or a lot) of work, a human is capable of adapting to most any grip angle that is not totally unnatural. So many people have shot the 1911 a lot and are used to the grip angle. That makes other grip angles feel "wrong" and we hear this complaint so often, we begin to believe that there really must be something to this other than acclimatization and preference. New shooters are especially affected by this sort of thing because they don't have the knowledge to understand what's going on. So they buy 1911 type pistols and get used to the grip angle and then perpetuate the myth.

[ChristopherG]

Superb post, John. Thanks for your quality contributions.

[Mad Chemist]

I practice one-handed and off-hand much more than I practice two-handed these days. I'm still not confident in my ability group com rapidly with my off-hand at distances >10yrds. Hopefully' it's a skill I'll never need, but I still intend to keep training it.

JH

[Mad Chemist]

I feel more assurance with two hands. However, I do shoot one-handed at times. I shoot with both eyes open. I can shoot quicker and just as accurately this way. When shooting with one had, hold the gun at the 11 and 5 oclock position. This usually provides more stability.

I've been playing with this lately. It seems to control the recoil more effectively.