It isn't true, it isn't that simple...it's more urban legend, like dragging someone into your house
Aim or point and shoot?
- Thread starter buster94
- Start date
- Status
C-grunt
Member
A good shoot is a good shoot. Im pretty sure I can make a 20 foot shot inside my master bedroom. With modern open floor plan houses (like mine) you can make 20 yard shots inside a house
Zerodefect
member
If you can't hit a target 21' away, practice more. Point shooting is key, especially in night shooting.
If a 10 year old kid can repeatedly hit a guy in the face with a paintball gun 50+ feet away, you real don't have any excuses for poor skills at 25'. Training, get some.
If a 10 year old kid can repeatedly hit a guy in the face with a paintball gun 50+ feet away, you real don't have any excuses for poor skills at 25'. Training, get some.
Glock Doctor
Member
Who do you plan to CQB pistol gunfight with? Philadelphia lawyers!
Twenty feet is NOT an adequate pistol gunfight SURVIVAL distance; it is, instead, your opponent’s ideal pistol (or knife) AMBUSH distance! I suspect your ‘cop friend’ has read too many of the old (and erroneous) FBI ‘Officer Killed’ reports. This fellow needs to ‘come up to speed’ by studying more modern CQB pistol gunfighting research and conclusions.
IMO, B-27 targets are huge — Huge! B-27’s are ‘yesterday’s technology’; and, for certain, you’d never find any target as monstrously large as a B-27 in any of today’s far more sophisticated pistol competitions. If you practice for working inside CQB ambush distances then, if that ‘pregnant moment’ ever does arrive, THAT will be the same distance at which you’ll, probably, end up getting yourself knifed, or shot.
Inside most successfully conducted CQB pistol gunfights: ‘Survivors act, and losers react!’ Especially — especially — if you don’t have the prerequisite proprioceptive reflexes to draw a pistol from the holster and quickly place a series of double or triple tap shots into an 8 inch COM @ 8 to 12 yards. Personally I haven’t practiced on anything as large as a B-27 target in more than 30 years; and, if I did, I’d think I was shooting at the ‘side of a barn’.
In a CQB pistol (or knife) gunfight: Never allow your opponent to sufficiently close the distance between the two of you in order to allow your ARMED AND DEADLY adversary to step into his own preferred CQB engagement distance. A competent gunman has to be, both, smarter and better than that.
What is more, I am convinced that any pistol gunfighter who isn’t, at least, this accomplished should put away his pistols, and take up some sort of other (much safer) recreational activity like fishing or golf. ‘Why?’ Because survivable pistol gunfighting requires a whole lot more than merely having a gun; and any hesitation-to-engage on your part will only serve to lessen your chances of surviving the event.
I’m reminded of something Sir Winston Churchill once said (and I paraphrase) ‘If you're going to win the battle then you've got to be every bit as: ruthless, brutal, and merciless as your opponent. Anything less only guarantees defeat ’
Sistema1927
Member
“Blessed are those who, in the face of death, think only about the front sight.” - Jeff Cooper
That said, if the target is close, while that front sight is going to be on the target, the alignment of that front sight with the rear sight might not even be in my sight picture. Focusing on the front sight helps to keep that muzzle where it needs to be, whether point shooting or during aiming.
That said, if the target is close, while that front sight is going to be on the target, the alignment of that front sight with the rear sight might not even be in my sight picture. Focusing on the front sight helps to keep that muzzle where it needs to be, whether point shooting or during aiming.
RecoilRob
Member
I haven't seen anyone mention the most important aspect of 'point shooting'...which is how the gun is held in your hand. This is one of my objections to the Isosceles stance being as the pistol is normally held at an angle to your wrist and arm...which makes point shooting a LOT more difficult. If you align the pistol with your forearm, then instinctive shooting becomes easier as your lateral dispersion goes way down because it's natural to be able to point your arm at things.
When the arm is pointing at the target but the pistol is at some other angle then you're asking your muscle memory to get that same angle down every time to the exact same one...or you'll miss laterally. Simplify! With proper pistol alignment then you're primary difficulty is not hitting the target...but where vertically you hit. At close range this is pretty easy to accomplish with a bit of practice, and at any sort of distance where you have time to raise the pistol enough to find the front sight...put it on the target and you'll hit pretty close to it. The farther away the more precise you must become and at some distance you start to need to also find the rear sight and combine the two to make good hits...but up close not so much.
When the arm is pointing at the target but the pistol is at some other angle then you're asking your muscle memory to get that same angle down every time to the exact same one...or you'll miss laterally. Simplify! With proper pistol alignment then you're primary difficulty is not hitting the target...but where vertically you hit. At close range this is pretty easy to accomplish with a bit of practice, and at any sort of distance where you have time to raise the pistol enough to find the front sight...put it on the target and you'll hit pretty close to it. The farther away the more precise you must become and at some distance you start to need to also find the rear sight and combine the two to make good hits...but up close not so much.
Glock Doctor
Member
Really! Where'd you hear that?
Glock Doctor
Member
Redacted!
Last edited:
Glock, I am puzzled. I think maybe we're talking past one another. I don't know who D.R. Middlebrooks is, but I know exactly who Leatham and Enos are.... and I would agree that the stuff they developed works. It works so well that basically every top shooter uses some slight variation of what they did. Most people talk about their way of shooting as being an iso'.
I was responding to R'Rob's post (and, indirectly, to a post in another thread where he advocated getting a "cheek weld" on the arm with the arm). He seems to be pitching some technique where the gun is aligned centered up on the arm and shoulder, rather than centered in the body. That's what I was asking about.
I was responding to R'Rob's post (and, indirectly, to a post in another thread where he advocated getting a "cheek weld" on the arm with the arm). He seems to be pitching some technique where the gun is aligned centered up on the arm and shoulder, rather than centered in the body. That's what I was asking about.
Glock Doctor
Member
I don't know, maybe? At face value I addressed the remark: 'So a lot of the top pistol shooters are eschewing the isosceles? For fast shooting? ' To my mind it's never been just Enos, and Leatham. Instead it's always been Enos, Leatham, and Middlebrooks. These men are all preeminent, pistol shooting peers of one another. Neither are any of my remarks directed at the use of a long arm. I'm talking about pistols, and pistols only.
In fact I don't know any competent pistol shooter who is still using a true isosceles grip and stance — No one! The majority use either a Modified Weaver, or Modified Chapman grip/stance. D.R. is using a Reverse Chapman grip and stance which, for his own purposes, he refers to as 'Fist-Fire'. (Possibly because he's slightly modified the exact physical grip he uses. I do this too; and, yes, it certainly does work.)
If you like pistol shooting I'd recommend both Middlebrooks' book and any of the several biographical articles he's written about his time and experiences on the pistol competition circuit.
Now I'm sure we're in some kind of terminology disconnect. I'm certain I have one set of definitions in mind and you have another, and that's making communication difficult.
Glock Doctor
Member
OK! I don't know what to tell you, Dave. I've written numerous long and detailed posts on the Enos' forum; and I've never had a problem being understood. (Repeatedly thanked, actually!) For several years I personally communicated with D.R. Middlebrooks; and we always understood each other perfectly well. (In fact I, kind of, regret that we finally lost touch with one another. As I said: Even after a lifetime of pistol shooting, I still learned a lot from the man!)
I just mean that it appears to me that substantially all the top shooters grip the gun high, firmly, and with both hands, and that (barring one-handed or extreme lean restrictions), they will generally center the gun in the center of their body with their shoulders pretty much square to the target. To me, that's iso'. And that's pretty much what Leatham and Enos developed and popularized. So when you say everyone has ditched iso' for modified Chapman or Weaver stances, I feel like we must be using different definitions.
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
'Modified Isosceles' is term I use to describe what the top shooters are doing, and I've always believed it to be the correct term.
It's isosceles in that the torso is square to the target, with the arms basically centered across the chest and extended outwards.
It's modified in that the legs are not also squared to the target - rather one is somewhat in front of the other and the weight balance is not necessarily equal - and the arms are not (necessarily) locked out as is often seen in 'pure' isosceles, but rather bent at the elbow to at least a certain degree.
But I'll be the first to admit I'm the one who should be asking questions, not answering them. This has always been my understanding, however.
In videos, I've seen Angus Hobdell of team CZ refer to his stance as 'Modified Isosceles', and he shoots pretty much like everyone else barring some very minor variations. So either he's wrong, or that's what it is.
I gotta think y'alls disconnect comes from referring to modified chapman & modified isosceles as being the same thing? I don't even know what modified chapman is though, so I couldn't say.
It's isosceles in that the torso is square to the target, with the arms basically centered across the chest and extended outwards.
It's modified in that the legs are not also squared to the target - rather one is somewhat in front of the other and the weight balance is not necessarily equal - and the arms are not (necessarily) locked out as is often seen in 'pure' isosceles, but rather bent at the elbow to at least a certain degree.
But I'll be the first to admit I'm the one who should be asking questions, not answering them. This has always been my understanding, however.
In videos, I've seen Angus Hobdell of team CZ refer to his stance as 'Modified Isosceles', and he shoots pretty much like everyone else barring some very minor variations. So either he's wrong, or that's what it is.
I gotta think y'alls disconnect comes from referring to modified chapman & modified isosceles as being the same thing? I don't even know what modified chapman is though, so I couldn't say.
Glock Doctor
Member
Redacted!
Last edited:
OK, but I'm still unclear on what you say is the difference. I continue to think that labelare getting in the way. Which of these things are you saying the better shooters do not do: "grip the gun high, firmly, and with both hands, and... center the gun in the center of the[] body with the[] shoulders pretty much square to the target"?
Glock Doctor
Member
Redacted!
Last edited:
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
I described - to the best of my knowledge - the Modified Isosceles stance. If you're saying my description of the stance is incomplete, that's a possibility. But to say the stance itself is not appropriate to action shooting is ridiculous.
I just got through watching a video of Angus Hobdell (along with 2 other GMs who used the same stance) specifically referring to his stance as the Modified Isosceles. As a 20+ year competitive action shooter with multiple national and international titles under his belt, I think he should know the difference. It's also the stance nearly every one of his competitors uses, whether they call it that or not (and I'm pretty sure they do).
Heck - just google "Modified Isosceles + USPSA" (or "+ IDPA", or "+ IPSC") and you'll find the entire internet agrees it's the de-facto stance for action shooting.
Maybe whatever stance you're referring to has another name. Maybe that other name is: "Modified Isosceles".
Or are you honestly suggesting that this stance - the one used by people taking home action-shooting championships - is not suitable for making follow-up shots?
Last edited by a moderator:
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
OK - This is a joke, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Glock Doctor
Member
No, it's no joke. It's the way I shoot; but, tell ya what. Never mind! I think you're too used to talking back and forth with too many wannabes on internet gun forums. You don't seem to want to study; you don't seem to want to learn; you'd rather simply argue, instead. Me? I don't like to argue; and, right now, I wish I'd listened to all the people who know me well, and and have told me over and over again to stay, the hell, say from internet gun forums.
I share too much; and, now, I find myself regretting it.
I share too much; and, now, I find myself regretting it.
FWIW, I dug through some DR Middlebrook videos. What he calls "reverse chapman" I would still characterize as being within the range of iso'. The left arm being straighter than the right - which he characterizes as "reverse chapman" is obviously just a function of the left hand being a little further forward on the gun. He seems to be an advocate of a near-Vogel-like level of forwardness/high-ness (or Vogel has a DR-like level... I don't care which way), but not anything that seems to be really distinct in terms of the arrangement of the hands. I'm not trying to minimize what he's doing, I'm just saying that, as I suspected, we were using labels differently. You and your mentor use a very narrow/specific meaning of iso'. I and others often us it a little more broadly. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, I'm just saying that there's a disconnect in terminology/labels.
Hell, particularly with my USPSA race gun with a thumb rest, my left elbow/forearm is higher than my right. I guess I'm Fist-Firing?
Hell, particularly with my USPSA race gun with a thumb rest, my left elbow/forearm is higher than my right. I guess I'm Fist-Firing?
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
No, sir, it's you who's inflexible and unyielding. Again - a quick internet search confirms it's not just me and my 'ignorance' suggesting that what people call "Modified Isosceles" is what's winning championships. It's EVERYONE. Including the championship-winners themselves.
We may be arguing over semantics - and that's a concession I made with my very first post on this thread. But you appear to be unwilling to accept that possibility. So if it's not semantics, then there's only one possibility left on the table: You believe modified isosceles to be inadequate. To which I reply: Then why is everyone who wins doing it?
You seem to be so intent on 'educating' people that you're failing to see we're all talking about the same darn thing.
Oh enough. Y'all want to debate form and stance then start your own thread, you've taken this one far enough off the op that I am shutting it down.
- Status
