For the New Revolver Shooter

Status
Not open for further replies.
But Jerry says the opposite about grips: he said in one video that he wants them smooth and slick and wooden so your hand doesn't get locked into a bad position.

I'm just bringing this up because I followed his advice, put slick wooden panel grips on my revolvers, and instantly solved my bad gripping issues. I know that 94 percent of guys prefer the sticky bumpy rubbery grips, so maybe I should keep looking for ones that work, but I've pretty much given up on them.

I do not like sticky rubber grips AT ALL (Pachmayrs aren't bad, because they're not tacky.) Hogue nylon (NOT rubber) are excellent. Not sticky at all. The "bumps" help you grip, but they're not sharp or anything. I like the smooth wood Hogue grips. I do NOT like checkering on a revolver (a 1911 is another story...). Checkering tends to tear my fingertips up. Just don't like it.
 
I wish someone would explain the pros and cons of the weird shooting stances you see in old training films.
Apparently they weren't thought weird back when they were used.

It never hurts to expose oneself to different ideas and methods and heck, try them out to see if they still work today. I don't see why not, if they worked back then. Pistols haven't really changed, neither have human beings.

I don't know what the pros and cons of the WW II army pistol stance are; maybe it was explained in the film, but I don't remember. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube.
 
With regard to some of the old stances - I probably do not have all the answers, but two that I have come across are that they presented a smaller target for incoming rounds, and also that if you were hit you would fall forward and still be in the fight, rather than backward and helpless. The latter, at least to modern thinking, sounds pretty dumb, but there you go.
 
With regard to some of the old stances - I probably do not have all the answers, but two that I have come across are that they presented a smaller target for incoming rounds, and also that if you were hit you would fall forward and still be in the fight, rather than backward and helpless. The latter, at least to modern thinking, sounds pretty dumb, but there you go.
Thank you for the info.

I can't believe that the crouch stance is very effective for preventing getting shot, but what do I know.

Which of today's techniques will be scoffed at in the future? The one where you pull the gun to your chest, then look left and right, looks ridiculous to me, but the idea behind it seems sound. What about that weird way the cool guys hold the fore-grip on their ARs? Is there a reason for this?
 
Border Patrol agent Bill Jordan (some say the father of the
Model 19 Smith) demonstrates in his book "No Second
Place Winner" the hip high style of shooting. He recommended
mostly one-handed shooting. He also demonstrates a
slight body dip at the knees while fast drawing.

John Lovell has a retention shooting video with a trainer on Youtube. It is impressive (to me, at least). Anyway, the guy says that hip shooting with the knee dip tends to produce inconsistent aiming. He teaches basically drawing from appendix to the strong-side breast and shooting from there, saying that it ensures the gun is pointed the same way every time, and keeps you from shooting your "keep off me" hand.
 
John Lovell ... teaches basically drawing from appendix to the strong-side breast and shooting from there, saying that it ensures the gun is pointed the same way every time, and keeps you from shooting your "keep off me" hand.

This is probably about the best way for fast shooting.

The "hip shooting" techniques, I think, were best for near
contact distances or just a yard or so. Or done by shooters
who dedicated a heck of a lot of hours to the technique.
One recommendation from the FBI was to draw, lock elbow
to side near the hip and stiffly point gun while moving torso
as if you were a turret.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top