• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Cooper, One-Shot Stops, Modern Technique, etc.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BerettaNut92

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
9,723
In reading Cooper (To Ride.... 1988) it seems he's big on the .45 and down on the 9 because the 9 doesn't guarantee one-shot stops.

I was raised on 'Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice'. As I inderstand it, he's the father of the modern pistol technique. When did doubletaps with pistols become the norm? Was this before quality 9mm hollowpoints?

Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg


Please don't let this become a 9mm vs .45 thread, I just want a little history lesson here.

TIA
 
All I know is that double taps probably didn't originate during the .357 Magnum era.:neener:
HGpartition_0611B.jpg
 
The FBI training did use,at one time, the double tap system with revolvers. Cooper on Handguns shows many different training courses ,though a quick look didn't show double tap.That was published in 1974. In 1980 only 3% of LEOs carried autos. IPSC started out about that time and many systems were introduced .I can't remember exactly but but I think the double tap started about that time.
 
In reading Cooper (To Ride.... 1988) it seems he's big on the .45 and down on the 9 because the 9 doesn't guarantee one-shot stops.
Click to expand...

Just curious here...is he under the impression that the .45 does guaranty one-shot stops? :scrutiny:

brad cook
 
Although there are probably other people in a better position to defend Mr Cooper than I am, I was lucky enough to attend Gunsite in 1977 and return a year or so later as a guest instructor. I feel compelled to at least explain, to the limit I understand it, where he's coming from.

Most of his opinions about stopping power (as it relates to the 9mm vs 45 ACP) were based on an assignment he had while still an active duty Marine officer. He interviewed returning WWII veterans and asked, among other things, their experiences with handguns. In those interviews he found 19 out of 20 times when an enemy was shot with the 45 they went down, while combatants shot with 9mms only went down about 50% of the time. This was obviously dealing with military ball, non-the-less it formed the basis of his belief in the superiority of the 45 ACP as a defensive pistol cartridge.

One should also remember he formulated his "modern technique" starting in the late 1950s, through the 1960s and into the 1970s. The hollow points available then were not always the rays of death the hype of today would have you believe. Cooper was for the most part underwhelmed by the effectiveness of hollow points because at the time they were very inconsistant.

Since Jeff Cooper has seen and done more with handguns, and contributed more than most anyone who has ever posted on the internet, I for one think he deserves at least a modicum of respect. That being said, I'm sure the wonder bullet, he's old fashion, I know better crowd will continue to villify both him and his point of view.

PS: At Gunsite Mr Cooper taught that you should generally always fire two shots at your assailant as it improved the hit probibility, and increased the chances of ending hostilities. It wasn't called "double tap" then, that's simply a name some later gun writer hung on the concept of engaging a target with two shots.
 
Dave T, must have been an honor. I really hope I can be in the same room as him some time in my life. I felt the same way with Earl Scruggs--I traveled to Eminence, Missouri (population 618) for a concert!

The stuff I read was dated information (1988), I wonder what his opinions are now that QUALITY 9mm hollowpoints are available to the general public?
 
The term "double tap" communicates little, except that two shots were fired. Way back in 19-ought-80, when I attended Gunsite, Jeff Cooper instructed us in a couple useful ways to fire two shots. One was called the "hammer" wherein one does not attempt to reacquire one's flash sight picture for the second round. This is a close-range/big target technique and, properly done, results in two hits pronto.

There is also the "controlled pair", wherein one reacquires and--if necessary--corrects one's sight picture for the second shot. The interval between the two shots will vary with the degree of difficulty the shot presents.

In shorthand;

Hammer - sight picture, trigger shot, recover from recoil, trigger 2nd shot.

Controlled pair - sight picture, trigger shot, recover from recoil, reacquire and correct sight picture, trigger second shot.

As to Cooper's fondness for the .45, one might wish to ponder that those .45's start at the diameter we hope a 9mm will expand to. The 9mm may expand, but the .45 won't shrink.

There have been incremental improvements--refinements really-- in pistol techniques post Cooper, but nothing like the quantum leap that Cooper's modern technique provided.

Rosco
 
I only wish that I knew all the stuff that Col. Cooper has forgotten.

Regards,
Happyguy:D
 
Dave T,

So far I haven't seen anyone villifying or disrespecting him in this thread so hopefully that won't start. I don't really know anything about the man. I was only questioning the implication that he believes that a .45 guaranties a one-shot stop..which I think we can all agree is not reality.

brad cook
 
DigMe- From what I have read, Cooper maintains that the .45 is out of his beloved 5" 1911 is good for one-shot-stops roughly 9 out of 10 times. This is provided proper shot placement of course.
 
Jeff Cooper's formative experiences in this regard date from half a century ago. But he was (is) a well educated man who had a lot to do with pistol fighting doing 100 years of catch-up in a fairly short time. I well recall that cops were shooting .38 Spl RNL loads at bullseyes SA from duelling stances in those days and quite contented to do so. Sounds hard to believe but true.

I picked up a copy of his early book, "Fighting Handguns" in 1959 from another high school student and by the time I finished it I was bound and determined to get my very own .45. In the days of DCM guns @ $17.50 and steel cased surplus hardball @ $1 a box, it wasn't that hard to do...

Belatedly went to Gunsite in 1983--should have gone years earlier.

You could still do a lot worse than to follow his advice. Same for Elmer Keith; I sat down and reread "Sixguns" a while back, and most of it still applies.

Spent some time a few years ago trying to like the 9mm and came away underwhelmed. It's a lot better than it was, but big bores and the .357 don't leave too much to chance in good loads...
 
Like some others here I’ve known Jeff since the early 1980’s and a lot of water has gone under the dam since then. His attitude and opinions concerning pistol ammunition was largely formulated around full-patch ball, which is the kind used in the military services. He also observed that ball was the most likely to feed in any circumstances, and reliability was as important - if not more so – then power, speed, and accuracy.

Shortly after I met him he became involved in designing and developing his first-generation Gunsight Service Pistol (GSP). This was a simple arm that emphasized functional reliability along with low profile, high-visibility sights and a crisp trigger pull adjusted to between 4 and 5 pounds. It was a Plain-Jane fighting tool unencumbered with gadgets and you could stake you life on it as long as it was fed good ammunition. The whole project came about because he was fed up watching students with expensive but temperamental guns purchased from well-known builders get jam after jam. While these pistolsmiths knew how to build a cosmetically fancy pistol they didn’t really know zip about combat guns – in the real vs. game sense.

Jeff has never said to my knowledge that shooting someone with a .45 guaranteed a one-shot stop. What he has said is that the likelihood is much greater if the intended target is hit with a large rather then smaller bullet. The effectiveness of a smaller slug may be improved by making it a hollow point, but at handgun velocities expansion in not a sure thing in a human being regardless of what it may do in some laboratory medium. A large bore bullet does not have to depend on expansion, and to this degree is more of a “sure thing.†In either case accurate bullet placement is the key to success, not some so-called “magic bullet.â€

Col. Coopers views and opinions are based on his lifetime experiences, including some man-shooting within a military context. He has also drawn on the experience and knowledge of many other “fighting men†whom he has known, and they are a legion.

He once told me that everyone has a right to an opinion – about anything. But the value of it depends on that person’s knowledge and experience with the subject. I fully agree.
 
"I really hope I can be in the same room as him some time in my life."

Not that this has to do with anything, but I had the honor of meeting Col. Cooper last July and have a treasured picture of myself and the Col. while he is signing a book for me.
Oh, and this Sunday I will be back at Gunsite for my fourth class in the last year. :cool:
 
.02 cents worth......

Modern Technique:
1) Major Caliber handgun- historically is seems to be true that the larger bullet tranfers more energy, breaks bone better and has mass and momentum for flesh plowing duties. Most of the 'Empire' builder's that dealt with extremely aggressive critter's whether with two or four legs seems to reflect this in their handgun caliber's. And even in modern times, where hollowpoints work, they can still get plugged up by heavy clothing and such and not work. A .45 is still a .45 of 230 grains if it does not expand and .75 to .90 if it does. A 115-125 gr nine is still 'less' in mass and momentum. Though the hollowpoint HAS made a marked improvement in its 'stopping' power.
2) Two hand hold: hey, back then in the 30's, 40's and 50's...it was the bullseye thing, or the crouch and point thing; the bullseye was not fast, the P&S was not consistantly accurate for the average shooter.
3) Double Tap- well, when some one is trying to KILL you, two hits are better than one. The nervous system can shut down alot of imput when dealing with pain as we go into shock and get into the instinctual survival mode. So those extra 10 to 15 rounds may not be any better than the first 2, unless you hit the CNS(or have to deal with multiple assailants).
4) Other ideas were implimented with the Modern Technique that comprized a comprehensive package of training unknown at the time. Shooting from prone, speed reloads, shooting from cover, taking corner's wide, multiple target drills, etc..now understood and practised by pistolero's every where were ideas simply incorporated into a package that seemed to give the best overall training for the time.
The Southwest Combat Pistol Leagues experimental matches were set up to find what worked best for the most people. You could shoot ANYTHING(as long as it made minimum power) ANYWAY you wanted. The Modern Technique was formulated out of those matches, interviews and historical experiences. And integrated into a practise that becomes second nature, ingrained in the subconscious with repeated use.
Even then, the 38 and the nine were 'minor' cartridges, BUT if it hit in the center, it was still a five. The Col prefer's the .45(as do many), but he recognized that accurate hits are what is important. The .45 just seems to stack the odds in your favor a tad more.
Alot of things have improved....new handguns, hollowpoint design, even hotter, faster training methods and facilities that take the handgun to new levels as a defensive and offensive tool. Cooper's Modern Technique is the basic package, the starting point from where we can only get better...he made the handgun better, not from a mechanical standpoint but from the shooters ability to shoot it better, faster and more consistantly.
Hit 'em hard, fast, accurate and more than once was more or less the the summation of the Modern Technique IMHO.
My take on the subject.
Jercamp45
 
The 'Modern Technique' comprised of more. At the minimum

Compressed supprise break (the trigger that is.)
Mindset
Speed Rock

Yes, for the time it was formulated it was a leap in ability. Pity so many think small new things are such a big leap when they are just refindments. It's like the first caveman to make the wheel. That must have been one brilliant mind.

Now Mr. Cooper, when he first started writing, used one handed stances, hip shooting, point shooting, etc... He changed over to his new theories because he saw what it could do in competition. Yes, competiton is a game, but he knew, from his experience in combat, and experiences of others, that it would work!
 
Col. Cooper's writings formed a lot of my early impressions of shooting. As did Elmer Keith and Ross Seifried. I read everything I could get from these guys. I have a lot of respect in the things they learned first hand.

Speaking of the .45, I've read countless, countless articles, stories, etc. of .45 vs. 9mm, etc. But what I've found the most interesting, personally, is from talking with men who have actually shot people with both calibers.

I know a man that was in a position to have to shoot a number of people in another country a number of years ago. He says there is a definite difference in the way people react being shot with the .45 vs. the 9mm. He preferred the .45. (This was with ball ammo.)

I know another man that was in a postion to have to shoot a lot of people in SE Asia in the 60s, early 70s, being in a special Marine group. He said there was a definite difference in the way people reacted being shot with both calibers. This man has also trained with Israeli Special Forces, SEAL Team 6 and D. Force. He said The Isrealis were satisfied with 9mm ball. They told him "We have found this will kill a terrorist". He said D. Force says there is a difference in the way people react being shot with the .45 vs. 9mm. They prefer and shoot .45. He said some members of SEAL Team 6 told him they would prefer the .45 (they use 9mm, currently). This man has also been in a large number of LE SRT shootouts, with a major metropolitan police department. He prefers the .45. He is also very satisfied with ball ammo. (Of course, he has also told me a 12ga. and a .30-30 "will flat put somebody down...")

Now, I'm not saying 9mm is not effective, it's just, after hearing various stories from these guys who have had to use them, I feel more comfortable with .45.

Steve
 
You would be well advised to do a "google" search for the phrase "Mozambique drill". You'll be amazed at what you find:


From a website by Gabriel Suarez:


The third regular solution to this problem is the Mozambique Drill (aka Drug, Body Armour; or Failure to Stop, drill.) During turbulent years in Mozambique this technique was born. Jeff Cooper told me, one of his students, John Rousseau, was set upon by an AK-47 armed guerilla, complete with fixed bayonet - apparently intent to stick him en brochette.
Rousseau, an accomplished pistolero drew his Browning P-35 and hammered attacker twice amidships. Satisfied with marksmanship and quick reflexes, he lowered the pistol ... and was astonished to realize, his unimpressed adversary still charged. Rousseau quickly brought his pistol to shoot for the brain. Even the best of us would be rattled in similar circumstances and Rousseau was no exception. He fired his last shot in a time nick, but was a little low. Instead of the brain, it entered between the clavicles and broke the spine. A severed spine is pretty conclusive .

Rousseau related the incident to Jeff Cooper and thus the Mozambique Drill was Born: two shots to the chest area, lower the pistol to review the results. If the adversary is down, all is well. But if not , a single surgical shot to the head. (In training environments, the instructor calls for the head shot.) But it is one thing to pull this off, an demand, against benign paper targets. Against an armed agressor, who trys to kill you, it is quite another.
Click to expand...


I can't quickly find a year to attribute this to, but it was quite a while ago (early seventies) that the fighting that killed Rousseau was going on.
 
As to Cooper's fondness for the .45, one might wish to ponder that those .45's start at the diameter we hope a 9mm will expand to. The 9mm may expand, but the .45 won't shrink.
Click to expand...

a .45 caliber hole and a 9mm hole through a vital organ is still a hole through a vital organ.
 
While Mr.Cooper is an old fart and fairly set in his ways, as someone else posted I wish I knew all he's forgotten. I carry a .45 and have for three years, and shot them years before. Now I'm a "youngun" by most people's standards (26) but I spent two years as a news photographer for NBC and saw a number of shootings. Several of them I saw within a minute or two of occurence while the target was still on the ground either assuming room temperature or screaming and yelling. I was not impressed by 9mm ball, and several 9mm JHP shootings I saw they didn't do much better, hindered of course by crappy shooting (gangbangers don't aim well). One I saw was four 9mm FMJ in the leg point blank, guy was on the street again quite soon. Directly after being shot he drove seven blocks and limped indoors. Another guy took eight rounds through the back window of his Buick (mistaken ID shooting) and only one hit him, lower left back .40 JHP. After going through the car, it hit him and didn't do much (going through a window and a seat first) he was out of the hospital within two weeks, and when he was hit, he was hurting but not "down" he was trying to get up while the medics worked on him. Bad shot placement.

Another guy I saw was a bankrobber who took 2 .40 JHPs point blank COM from arm's length distance by a detective when he grabbed for the gun (G23) and after being shot and piled on by two patrol cops and the detective (all 6' plus, 200 lbs) he was still resisting. And the robber who'd been shot was 5'7 140lbs or so.
I know two guys who've put someone down with 9mm JHPs and both switched to bigger calibers (.40 and .45 respectively) one, the .40 by department change, the other cause he could.

I saw one guy hit by a .357 and two by .45s and none got up again from COM hits.

Edit: forgot.......one drive by, three 9mm FMJs at point blank range the guy crawled up on a porch and expired. Good shot placement. Sucked for the guy, but oh well. I shoot .45s well and will take my large slow bullet by preference anytime, though I'd use a 9 if I had to. You just have to REALLY be good on shot placement with a 9mm.
 
clubsoda22 wrote;

"a .45 caliber hole and a 9mm hole through a vital organ is still a hole through a vital organ."

True enough, but if we embrace this notion, we could
all just go to .22's

A hole is a hole, but a bigger hole is better. Remember,
we aren't concerned with lethality. We are concerned
with stopping the threat right now. If we shoot
our attacker and he dies in the hospital two days after
he killed us, it is a Phyrric victory.

Rosco
 
Definately not wanting to turn this into a 45 vs 9mm but just commenting in general...

A 9mm hole is a 9mm hole. If it expands, great, but a .35" hole through someone is going to do... something. Two or three of them will as well. I definately subscribe to the concept of expanding bullets. I think that in civilian combat, if I can call it that, if a bullet goes completely through, it has failed. 45 ball and 9mm ball almost certainly completely penetrate a reasonable-sized target when fired face to face. I'd rather have a .45" caliber hole than a .35" hole. But when talking about modern expanding HPs, well... it gets more complicated. Even discounting platform preference, in my experience most folks can just shoot similar 9mms faster and more accurately at speed than 45s. Not comparing a $800+ 1911 to a 9mm Hi Point, but, say a G17 vs a G21. Assuming 9mm +P as the minimum, two shots on target as quickly as possible is what I would prefer to achieve. I've been shooting 1911s ever since I have been shooting handguns at all. I have more rounds through my Taurus 9mm than any other gun and without a doubt, I prefer a 1911 to the PT99. Having said that, I can draw the Taurus (cocked and locked) and put two rounds in a 5" target at 15 yards faster than I can with a cocked and locked 1911. I can shoot the Taurus faster and more accurately (while drawing from the holster) than any 1911 I've ever used and I've used several. First shot is faster with a 1911, two shots for me is faster with a 9mm consistantly. I never timed myself using my 9mm 1911.

Honestly, I grew up thinking the same thing about shooting every close target twice. I figure, if the person is within 10 yards (which is very likely in SD situations), there is NO WAY I'm going to fire once then evaluate. I know I'll shoot twice because that is how I have practiced 95% of the time and 100% with carry guns. And something tells me that I might be likely to fire more times after that.

Concerning expansion and one 'shot stops' and the like, and with the advent of the upcoming Gold Dot intended to be used in 38 snub revolvers, I wonder how a 124 gr Gold Dot fired at 1150 fps and designed to expand at 1000 fps and up would compare to a 124 Gold Dot fired at 950 fps and designed to expand at 875 fps and up... That is to say, with the 9mm vs 45, we compare small and fast vs big and slow. I've never read on small but expanding and slow... might not initally make much sense, but you never know...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top