Benefits of High Thumbs Grip

[Double Naught Spy]

I picked up the Jan issue of "Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement" and was once again startled by what I thought was something silly, maybe dangerous, in the form of a pistol handling technique. Previously, they had shown the Center Axis Relock (last year sometime?) that looked rather dangerous and from what was described, there was probably good reason that no police departments had adpoted the method (as stated in the article).

This new method is described in Scott Wagner's "Get a Grip/Take a Stance" article and is the "High Thumbs Grip." This is not the high thumb riding the grip safety as on the 1911, but where the weak thumb rides over the dominant thumb in a manner that would seem to make the dominant thmb completely disfunctional for operating controls.

The article notes that this is used with a weaver stance and that it was a competition grip that apparently produces a fine combination for shooting. Maybe it does. My concern her is the ability to safely used this technique in combat. Unlike more conservative shooting techniques using two hands that stress keeping the pistol next to the body, meeting with the off hand in front of the chest/gut midline close to the body, and being able to thrust the gun forward from there, the High Thumbs Grip suggests your off hand be extended further out than the gun in the strong hand. This is so the strong hand with the gun can be 'punched' into the off hand. Then the weak thumb locks over the strong thumb. The pictures shown do not actually show a 'punch' of the hand but more of a bowling swing of the gun hand into the off hand. The gun is arced up into position and not rotated above the holster in a more traditional technique.

Okay, aside from the fact that this is obviously not retetention technique, the bowling acr loses time where the gun could be fired on target if necessary, there are two alarming aspects that I just have trouble believing a gun rag supposedly for professionals would show and even describe as being proper. Why!!!? Why in the world would you want to have your off hand leading your gun hand in a potential shooting situation (life or death or competition)? Do these folks not realize that there is a greatly increased risk of shooting one's off hand?

This seems further compounded by the aspect that the shooter is supposed to 'punch' the gun-wielding strong hand into the off hand. Granted, one's finger is SUPPOSED to be off the trigger and well outside the trigger guard, but here I see the problem of squeezing the gun during the punch and if the finger isn't well outside the guard, there may be a problem. The way I see it as described and shown, the combination of off hand position in front of the gun during the draw and the 'punch' technique by someone other than who is performing this perfectly, and the shooter ends up with a negligent discharge and potentionally a few fingers/hand shy of what he started with during the draw.

Then there is the impact of the 'punch' with the squeezing strong hand impacting the off hand. The off hand is safe, but the potential for negligent discharge goes way up. At a point in time when you are about to be making a controlled trigger depression so as to get off a nice control shot, do you really want to be losing time recovering from the impact of a hand to hand punch? Obvoiusly, you can't be shooting before the hands come together and should should not have your finger in the trigger guard during the punch. So at worst, there is time lost waiting until after the punch is complete, the sights settle, and you can shoot. At worst, if you don't shoot your off hand, if your finger is in or close to the trigger during the punch, then you may have a ND.

Do I read this right or have I missed some really blatant aspect that makes this technique safe for training, competition, and combat? I understand it may work in competition to get quick aimed shots on target, but it isn't going to be a CQB shooting style if one wants to be shooting SAFELY before the hands come together and I don't see it as particularly safe to one's off hand.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Never heard of the technique you describe, and it certainly doesn't sound like any 'competition' grip I've ever seen. Most practical pistoleros use a "thumbs-forward" grip style these days: off hand canted downwards for maximum contact with the frame, thumbs roughly parallel and pointed at the target.

- Chris

 

[Erik]

The thumb high grip refers, and only refers, to the positioning of the thumb once the grip is achieved. Everything else up until that point is irrelevant, and sounds like another case of a writer filling up space. It has no bearing on one's ability to manipulate a thumb safety. It does help stabilize the pistol. Necessary? Maybe. Maybe not. Better? Maybe. Maybe not. A viable option that should be explored? Sure. Why not?

Erik - who recently attended a FLETC firearms course where the thumbs high technique was mandated in conjunction with the isoscelese stance.

New(er) shooters seemed to benefit from thumb high grip, from what I saw. Particularly new(er) shooters with smaller hands.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you guys get to see the issue of the rag, check out the picture, comments with the picture, and the text. Like Chris, I had never heard of it in competition, but figured I don't hear of a lot of things.

So the trapping of the thumb by the non-dominant thumb, bowling swing, punching, and the like is not part of this technique?

With all that said, the thumb high and riding the safety on guns like the 1911 really does help many shooters including those with small hands and others like me as well. I am not sure if this is supposed to be a different style than what Erik described or not. It is ONLY the dominant thumb that rides the safety and it is NOT covered by the non-dominant thumb. The non-dom thumb does not interfere with the dom thumb in any manner.

The article, however, refers to 'thumbs' being high, plural, not singular.

 

[Monty]

If you guys get to see the issue of the rag, check out the picture, comments with the picture, and the text. Like Chris, I had never heard of it in competition, but figured I don't hear of a lot of things.

Double Naught, go back and read the article, don't just look at the pictures. Scott was saying no to high thumb/isosceles stance and yes to locked thumbs, modified Weaver Stance. At least that's what I got out of it when I read it late last night.

And yes the pictures did look like he was going to shoot his hand off, hoping that was just the pictures.

Monty

 

[Monty]

Erik - who recently attended a FLETC firearms course where the thumbs high technique was mandated in conjunction with the isoscelese stance.

This is EXACTLY what the article was about. Officers who did just fine in qualifications but then went and got training that taught high thumb, isoceles stance and couldn't then shoot worth a damn. Good results when they switched back to locked thumb grip and modified weaver stance.

Monty

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I DID miswrite "high thumbs" versus "locked thumbs" which should have been what I noted. High Thumbs was a heading title. I took that as the term of importance and transposed it with Locked Thumbs. My bad. I also did not realize that what I learned as "thumb high" was the same thing as "thumbs high" which I thought was some attempt at some sort of niche delineation.

I read the article, but the pictures and associated text provided a clearer description (or not?) of how the method was to be employed/deployed. The pictures and associated text talk about the off hand being in front of the gun during the draw. Right or wrong, what the rag is depicting sounds really unsafe. In the article's regular text, the notation is to just "lock the weak thumb over the strong." This is supposed to compensate for the weakness between the weak thumb and index finger. However, when I do this, I lose a lot of contact of my weak hand with the grip. They are correct in that the grip of the gun does change quite a bit, but it does not seem to be in a positive manner for me with a 1911. Maybe it is gun/hand specific?

 

[sanchezero]

Yeah, I love that picture of the gap in the 'high thumbs' grip . I guess no one ever actually showed him how his hands were supposed to come together there...

It seems to me that there was alot more office/interagency politics in that article than actual gunhandling knowledge.

 

[Monty]

The pictures and associated text talk about the off hand being in front of the gun during the draw. Right or wrong, what the rag is depicting sounds really unsafe.

You may be right, let's hope he doesn't train it like he says/shows it. I think/hope he is a better LE trainer than gun rag writter. Don't recall ever seeing his name in print before.

Monty

 

[Erik]

"So the trapping of the thumb by the non-dominant thumb, bowling swing, punching, and the like is not part of this technique?"

Just the trapping of the thumb. Think about it, "high thumbs grip" refers to just that, the grip, and only the grip.

"Maybe it is gun/hand specific?"

I'll buy that for a dollar. Medium or small hands coupled with relatively thick high capacity pistol grips leads to issues on the range and in the field. Imo, the high thumbs grip helps resolve the shortcomings inherant for some with handling issue pistols ill suited for their use.

In typical government fashion, said solution is being universally taught, instead of introduced as necessary. (Edited to reflect that this is agency specific,as with most firearms related policies and practices.) In equally typical government fashion, it si being taught as "the one correct way, inherently superior to other ways, because folks in the G who know far more than you do have decreed it as such."

Anyway, new(er) shooters who had yet to have developed the muscle memory and preference for other grips seemed to perform well with it.

Folks like me had a bit more trouble. I adjusted. The range guy stopped yelling in my ear. My scores remain in the high 90 percentiles. All was well. I still play back and forth on occassion, trying to determine what I prefer grip wise. The same goes with stance.

Anyway, if your gloves have an "M" or "S" sewn into them I'd recommend giving it a try. Even if you don't, why not? You may like it. I have several accomplished shooters that I work with with large hands who were pleased enough with their improvements that they made the switch. YMMV.

 

[Penforhire]

Questions of grip and stance seem to generate arguments akin to religion or politics. Each side claims to have groups of shooters who shot wild, only to improve magnificently when "their" system was used.

In terms of sources I am specifically thinking of "Surgical Speed Shooting" versus "Stressfire" versus Gunsight ("Modern") doctrine.

I admit to some degree of confusion and that's not a good thing. Iso, Weaver, semi-whatever ... there should be an optimum platform to shoot from. Maybe it is different for various bodies and weapons. But the dogma-approach taken by many instructors pisses me off. As if there is no room for improvement.

 

[Erik]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Dave Luack of D&L Sports has a photo or two illustrating the high thumbs hold with a 1911. Anyone have a copy of "Tactical 1911" or "Practical Pistol" lying around?

 

[Paul Gomez]

This article really irked me because, well the author's pictures of the "right way" seemed sloppy and no-so-good and his articulation of the 'bad stuff' was not-so-clear.

The "High Thumbs" grip that he describes, and is shown in the inset, isn't any sort of 'high thumbs' grip that I've been taught. I know that some trainers use/used to use a 'flying thumbs' grip where the offside thumb is foreward of the gunhand thumb [to the shooter's eye, the thumbnails are stacked one top of each other]. I'm familiar with 'both thumbs down'. I use the IPSC-inspired 'riding the rails' grip, myself [which has been called a 'high thumbs' grip by some]. Then, of course, there is the Colonel's gunhand thumb on the thumb-safety of the M1911 with the off-side thumb on top of the gunhand thumb [which has also been called a high thumb grip]. But, none of those grips looks like the one identified in the "overhand close-up of high thumb grip" photo.

His description of stance drasticly affecting the officer's hits on the target sound a whole lot like someone trying to compensate for shooter error by making them adjust their position relative to the target rather than working on the error itself. [Kind of like when the instructor tells you to aim high and right, so when you jerk low and left your rounds will be good hits. ]

His diatribe about this "High Thumbs" grip causing the gun to jam sounds, to me at least, like he got a bit of second-hand information and got it backwards at that. Some shooters who shoot with a 'riding the rails' grip will inadvertantly depress the slidelock lever so that the gun does not lock open when empty, but I've never heard of anyone causing the gun to lock open inadvertanly using this grip. If that happens, how do you know & what do you do? [Gun goes click. Hmm, Tap-Rack. Gun goes to slidelock. Hmm, MOVE & reload.]

The whole arguement about 'Weaver is a fighting stance'/'Mod Iso is a shooting stance' is just a strawman. In a real fight, no one is standing still. No one is moving around in any sort of text-book lower body position. Your feet will move as they have moved since you were two years old. You shoot from the waist up and your lower body just moves. Whether you are shooting pistol, shotgun, carbine, deploying a knife, baton or OC, your feet will be where ever they will be. When I fight, my feet may be parallel to the threat [probably not], my feet may be at a 45-degree angle between me and the threat [probably not] and they may be anywhere in between [probably so]. It's simply not that big a deal, as I see it, and I've got lots more important things to be concerned with than where my feet are [other than attached to my body ]

This topic [Weaver as Fighting Stance/Isoc as Shooting Stance] was covered more thoroughly (without the significant errors of Wagner) by retired Alaska State Trooper Jeffrey Hall in Issue 33 of "The Firearms Instructor", the IALEFI magazine, for those who are interested.
Hall is a dyed-in-the-wool Weaver guy and he makes the case for the Weaver-as-fighting-stance with a certain zeal. The pics accompanying his article are competant pics of the techniques and things he is attempting to illustrate.

 

[Mr Grinch]

What is the matter with you guys?

The technique is posted in a Gun Magazine, therefore it depicts a magic solution that will dramatically improve everyone's shooting, and is by decree, the only way everyone must shoot.

This never ending debate and commentary on stances and grips reminds me of how dogmatic firearms pontificators are compared to say, professional athletes.

Baseball players use a variety of stances and grips to hit a baseball, all designed to maximize performance in connecting the bat with the ball, while taking the idiosycracies of a particular players habits, stature and strength into account. But oh no, not in the shooting world. There must be but one way to do every task, and we are going to spend our collective lifetimes debating until we agree on a single, mandated solution that often disregards the fact that a shooter will be in an unlimited number of scenarios and under extreme duress.

What works against a high inside fastball is certain failure against the off the plate changeup. Learn to deal with both...

Grinch - keeping his eye on the ball