Shooting a pistol one-handed

[RyanM]

In the modern schools of pistol shooting, one-handed shooting is pretty much only done if one of your hands is otherwise occupied. However, how well do the "armchair commandos" here think it'd work as a primary technique, for someone who does not have the time, motivation, or cashola to practice very often?

Properly pulling off a two-handed hold under stress can be difficult. Myself, I'm convinced that the phenomenon of shooting low under stress, which I hear some people talk about, is exclusively the domain of the Weaver stance and some isoceles variations. Pull too hard with your support hand, or push too hard with your strong hand, and the gun tilts low and to the left. Just using one hand totally eliminates that. Modern iso does as well, as yanking hard with your support hand only pulls the gun straight back, but there is still room for error which can't happen with only one hand.

The main problem is recoil management, however, like I said, this is for someone who doesn't hit the range as often as they "should," for whatever reason. Properly handling recoil with the two-hand stance of your choice is difficult, and usually takes quite a bit of practice to achieve. It's pretty common for beginners' hands to seperate under recoil, until they figure out exactly how much isometric tension needs to be applied for a particular gun in a particular caliber. Someone who doesn't have the luxury of putting a couple hundred rounds downrange a month may never learn how to manage recoil with two hands more than marginally better than they can with just one.

A one-hand hold may also increase the chances of limp-wristing, but a gun that can be limp-wristed while held in one hand is not one I'd trust for CCW anyway.

Then there's stability, but this is self defense we're talking about, not hitting the 10 ring at 25 yards.

It may be easier to disarm someone that's only holding the gun with one hand compared to two, but only if they have only one arm in the first place. Otherwise their free hand will be punching you in the face or clawing your eyes out.

And you could accidentally shoot your support hand, particularly in a grapple, but modern defensive ammo will punch through and keep going, and a shot which hits your hand and then the bad guy's chest is still better than a clean miss. Also, with revolvers, an improper two-hand hold can result in powder burns or even the loss of a finger, or could tie up the cylinder. With autos, an improper hold can induce a jam.

But the benefits of one-hand use? It's easier and may be more natural under stress (wasn't there a report that found that Weaver and iso trained police officers would quite often shoot one-handed in real life-or-death situations? I definitely remember that one of the cops who shot that cell phone-weilding idiot was holding his gun in just his left hand). The possibility of screwing up your aim with your support hand hold is almost eliminated. The possibility of impairing the weapon's function with your support hand is almost eliminated. And it leaves a hand free to do other things, like punch, grab, etc.

Most of those are "advantages" which are completely eliminated by proper training and practice with a two-hand hold. Obviously the ideal solution is to practice often, both two-handed and one-handed. But, at the risk of repeating myself too much, this is a discussion of what might work better for someone who is only able to shoot a couple times a year, if that. And absolutely nothing substitutes for live fire, with learning how to manage recoil properly, especially with two hands.

Thoughts?

 

[rcmodel]

Properly pulling off a two-handed hold under stress can be difficult.

I think if you can't do two-handed under stress, you can't do one-handed under stress either.

It takes more skill & training to hit with one hand then two.

rc

 

[RyanM]

I think if you can't do two-handed under stress, you can't do one-handed under stress either.

It takes more skill & training to hit with one hand then two.

At distances of 2-3 yards or less? I could definitely see that at 7 yards, but realistically, 7 yards is probably far enough away to just turn tail and run.

Also, this isn't any kind of real justification at all, but someone who practices that infrequently is also likely to be in "condition white" much of the time, and will probably be closer to the baddies by the time he realizes something's wrong.

I'm mainly thinking that, with very little range time, someone's performance two-handed would be just as bad as one-hand performance, not that one hand is as good as two hands.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What if the attacker can run faster? That would require a judgement call of course as to whether or not the attacker can.

 

[Gryffydd]

At distances of 2-3 yards or less? I could definitely see that at 7 yards, but realistically, 7 yards is probably far enough away to just turn tail and run.

At this point I'm not sure why you asked the question...

 

[Zundfolge]

...how well do the "armchair commandos" here think it'd work as a primary technique, for someone who does not have the time, motivation, or cashola to practice very often?

You need to practicing drawing to retention then transitioning to an Isosceles or Weaver stance and not worry about the shooting. You can do this at home every day for a couple minutes a day and it won't cost you a round of ammo.

Otherwise, you're just relying on the gun to be a "Magic Talisman of Protection" ... which is a good way to end up on the dirty end of things should you ever need to shoot anything.

 

[catspa]

I would try drawing and presenting with a laser equipped handgun (because you can see where the muzzle is pointing). Try it one-handed and two-handed and see which is steadier.

Parker

 

[Justin]

With the possible exception of shooting from a one-handed retention hold at arm's length, the notion of a one-handed grip being easier, faster, or more accurate than a two-handed grip is pretty silly, especially for someone who doesn't actually take the time to practice.

Speaking as someone who's competed in both Bullseye Pistol competition (Expert scores with a .22, high Sharpshooter with a .45) and IPSC matches (currently a C-ranked shooter, knocking on the door to B) I can tell you that a one-handed grip is much, much harder to master than a two-handed grip.

But you can try this yourself, at home. Print out three reduced-size IPSC targets, hang them on the wall, and time how quickly you can draw and dry-fire two shots on each, execute a reload, and fire two on each again. Try with two handed and one-handed grips and let us know the result.

When I was seriously doing dry-fire practice, I could run a six-reload-six drill with two hands about three seconds faster than with a one handed grip.

 

[gwillys]

my ccw is a little pocket 380. it's never occured to me to fire it anyway but one handed. in a sd situation, if i had the luxury of time and space, i could adopt a two handed stance.
with a full size pistol, i practice one & two handed.
but then, i've always been a lucky shot.

 

[RyanM]

the notion of a one-handed grip being easier, faster, or more accurate than a two-handed grip is pretty silly.

That's not what I'm saying though. Maybe I should've repeated it more. This is for someone who does not have the money, time, or dedication necessary to develop much proficiency with the usual two-hand grip. I see it at the range fairly commonly, when I look at what the people around me are doing. Anything with more recoil than a 9mm, their hands seperate under recoil more often than not. If that happens, the support hand isn't doing much.

If you're actually going for mastery, then yes, two hands trumps one in all respects, except in a grapple. I'm not arguing that at all. But if you make enough money to shoot 50 rounds a year, and even that involves skipping a couple meals...

There's just less room for error. The only times I ever read about "pulling shots low" as a reaction to stress, is in material published after the Weaver stance caught on. That's pretty easy to demonstrate, even without a gun. Put your hands in the usual Weaver position, and pull excessively hard with your support hand. Where's the muzzle go? Modern iso corrects that flaw 100%, but if your grip is imperfect, as it will be with poor / nonexistant training, the possibility still exists.

But you can try this yourself, at home. Print out three reduced-size IPSC targets, hang them on the wall, and time how quickly you can draw and dry-fire two shots on each. Try with two handed and one-handed grips and let us know.

If I had a timer, I would. But I would also need to undo a few years' worth of practice first. And the difference might not be so marked with live fire. Recoil management with two hands takes a few hundred rounds to really get the hang of. Recoil management with one hand will always be poorer, but with less than 50 practice rounds under your belt, you're going to do terrible either way.

The reason to use one hand is not to increase speed or accuracy at all. It's to reduce (hopefully) brainless mistakes, like yanking too hard with the support hand, blocking the slide with your thumb, etc. The tradeoff being, that at very low levels of proficiency, the gap between one and two hands is somewhat narrower than it becomes after you've shot a few hundred rounds.

Take however many shots you usually burn in a range session, divide it by 10, and make that the number of shots you shoot per year.

For a really fair test, we'd need to round up some new shooters, and have one half attempt modern iso, while the other half tries one-handed, perhaps something like pure, unmodified Fairbairn Shooting to Live. Each person gets only 5 practice shots total, then they compete head to head. Then let them practice 50 more shots, and compare again.

I don't pretend to know what the results would be. I'm just saying what I think are the advantages of one hand. Less chance of inducing a malfunction, and performance otherwise is only slightly compromised when working at very low proficiency levels.

One thing I could try is buy some 158 gr fullhouse .357s, try and borrow a timer, and try both techniques in my SP-101. It's been well over a year since I last shot that gun or any other revolver, as I'm selling it (a friend has been paying in installments). So between unfamiliarity, and using vicious ammunition, and not being a very good shot in the first place, I may be able to pretend to be a newbie again.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm a bullseye competitor. Almost all of my shooting is done one handed. I shoot better one handed than with two.

 

[10-Ring]

A couple years ago, I taught myself to shoot one-handed using weak side -- it was ugly for a long time but it became fun afte ALOT of practice.

 

[Cannonball888]

It is recommended only at contact distances while being held back and close to your side.

 

[Rat Robb]

A friend of mine ask me all the time why I practice shooting with one hand and my biggest reason is in a self-defense situation you wont always be able to use both hands, i.e. if someone is attacking you already or your other arm is injured somehow.

I also find that when I'm really going for the X or a concentrated grouping, one-handed is easier to aim.

-Robb

 

[Gryffydd]

I'm a bullseye competitor. Almost all of my shooting is done one handed. I shoot better one handed than with two.

But going back to the OP...

as a primary technique, for someone who does not have the time, motivation, or cashola to practice very often?

I don't think you're the example he's looking for.

 

[Toml]

What is the stance called when the off arm is braced w/a locked elbow below the wrist...like when holding a flashlight? I can eliminate many of the two-hand problems you describe using this hold.

 

[conw]

Hey, your logic is off. It is harder to achieve any level of proficiency one-handed than with two, period. Not just harder to master, harder to achieve ANY level of proficiency as others have said.

That said, I think you need to get some A-zoom snap-caps dealies and do tons of dry fire EVERY day. That won't cost very much at all (you could also use a spent piece of brass until you get them) and will allow you to work on the fundamentals safely, i.e. presentation, retention, and trigger technique/follow-through.

You will, quite simply, be better off NOT carrying if you shoot 50 rounds per year and don't dry fire practice. Dry fire practice daily and those 50 rounds may actually get you to an acceptable level.

 

[Huddog]

I guess my biggest concern is that if someone is in condition white by default and yet carries a ccw what are the chances that if one doesn't realize the threat until 2-3 yards that one can draw and fire the gun. Would that same individual be trusted to determine when it was necessary to discharge the firearm?

 

[RyanM]

You will, quite simply, be better off NOT carrying if you shoot 50 rounds per year and don't dry fire practice. Dry fire practice daily and those 50 rounds may actually get you to an acceptable level.

That part, at least, doesn't match my experience. I've gone through quite a few dry spells with practicing, while in college, and often only had the time to dry fire or use primers and rubber bullets while home for the occasional weekend. Then on spring and Christmas breaks, when I'd get a chance to actually shoot, my flinch would come back and my recoil control would be off, and it'd take 50 to 100 rounds or so to get back to normal.

There really is no substitute for live fire practice. Someone who doesn't get enough is just plain going to suck, with any technique whatsoever.

Question is, do the benefits of one hand, at only that proficiency level, outweigh the disadvantages?

I am game for trying it with my SP-101, though someone would need to lend me a shot timer, and maybe someone that handloads could make some real barn-burner rounds. My estimates, from dry firing, is that I'd be maybe 25% slower one-handed. Would that outweigh the reduced possibility of "pulling low" or tying up the cylinder? I dunno. But pulling low especially would be more likely to happen with that gun, as you can't shoot a revolver in standard modern iso without cutting off the tip of your thumb, and I have almost no practice with Weaver.

 

[Justin]

That's not what I'm saying though. Maybe I should've repeated it more. This is for someone who does not have the money, time, or dedication necessary to develop much proficiency with the usual two-hand grip.

And my point is that if you don't have the dedication to learn a proper two-handed grip, you don't have the dedication to learn to shoot with a one-handed grip which, while in theory might appear to be simpler, is still probably the most difficult thing you can learn to do with a pistol.

If you're actually going for mastery, then yes, two hands trumps one in all respects, except in a grapple. I'm not arguing that at all. But if you make enough money to shoot 50 rounds a year, and even that involves skipping a couple meals...

This has nothing to do with mastery, and everything to do with basic competence. Nowhere do I see any evidence that a one-handed grip would be easier, especially with a round count as limited as 50 rounds a year.

There's just less room for error.

I don't see any evidence of that. Again, you can argue that a one-handed grip is easier, and the argument will hold up until you actually go to the range. Shooting one-handed requires much more mental concentration and attention paid to consistent grip than shooting two-handed, and expecting someone who possesses sub-standard proficiency with their weapon to be effective with such a grip under the stress of a defensive shooting stretches credulity.

The only times I ever read about "pulling shots low" as a reaction to stress, is in material published after the Weaver stance caught on. That's pretty easy to demonstrate, even without a gun. Put your hands in the usual Weaver position, and pull excessively hard with your support hand. Where's the muzzle go?

This argument makes no sense because you're assuming that the "simplicity" of a one-handed grip would avoid any such problems. Take a pistol, attain a one handed grip, but don't tighten the ends of your fingers around the gun. Then tell me where the gun points. You are assuming a sloppy two-handed grip vs. a perfect one-handed grip, which is an unfair comparison and a flawed argument.

Modern iso corrects that flaw 100%, but if your grip is imperfect, as it will be with poor / nonexistant training, the possibility still exists.

Again, you're assuming a poorly attained two-handed grip vs. a proper one-handed grip. This just doesn't compute. The bottom line is that if you haven't trained to grasp the pistol and draw it properly, your choice of grip is immaterial because in either cases you're doing it incorrectly.

In this case, one's budget doesn't matter nearly as much as actually taking the time to practice drawing a pistol and getting it on target. This is something that you can do as often as you want for free.

If I had a timer, I would.

Shot timers are cheap enough that nearly anyone can afford one. If you're that hard-up for cash, you can always use an egg timer to set a par time. There are also online ones available, for free, such as the web-based dry fire drills at mattburkett.com.

Recoil management with two hands takes a few hundred rounds to really get the hang of. Recoil management with one hand will always be poorer, but with less than 50 practice rounds under your belt, you're going to do terrible either way.

So you admit that the technique you're advocating is worse?

The reason to use one hand is not to increase speed or accuracy at all. It's to reduce (hopefully) brainless mistakes, like yanking too hard with the support hand, blocking the slide with your thumb, etc. The tradeoff being, that at very low levels of proficiency, the gap between one and two hands is somewhat narrower than it becomes after you've shot a few hundred rounds.

Again, all things that can be fixed with proper dry-fire practice. If you practice gripping your pistol properly to the point of it being ingrained muscle memory, none of these are an issue.

Take however many shots you usually burn in a range session, divide it by 10, and make that the number of shots you shoot per year.

If you're operating under a heavily restricted round count, then dry fire practice becomes absolutely imperative. No matter what your chosen technique is, you cannot expect to have even an adequate level of proficiency if you don't practice.

I'm just saying what I think are the advantages of one hand. Less chance of inducing a malfunction, and performance otherwise is only slightly compromised when working at very low proficiency levels.

I don't see evidence that there is less chance of a malfunction with a one-handed grip. There are simply too many variables, from the chosen firearm/ammo combination to the person and how they grip the gun.

The biggest thing is that people shouldn't simply fall back on inadequate levels of proficiency, especially when it comes to something that could very well save your life. This goes doubly so given that dry fire practice is free and can be undertaken anywhere, and that one can avail themselves of the web to find free resources on proper shooting technique.

 

[Justin]

If you're a college student, have you checked to see if there is an extracurricular shooting club? Many universities have them.

 

[Gryffydd]

Shooting with two hands doesn't double your chances of making a mistake. Using two hands means you have a better chance of canceling the mistakes made by one or the other of your hands.

Also, trigger pull weight, travel, and technique become much more important when shooting one handed. The only hand holding on to the gun is also the one manipulating the trigger. This is one of the reasons many two handed grips emphasize providing as much grip as possible with the off hand.

 

[ChristopherG]

Shooting low under stress is not typically a manifestation of screwed-up isometric pressure; it's a manifestation of poor trigger control, snatching at the trigger and nosing the muzzle of the gun down in an effort to offset recoil (a.k.a. 'flinch'). One-handed shooting is not a solution to this problem.

One of my favorite reads in handgun literature is Bill Jordan's 'No Second Place Winner'. Jordan was a master quick-draw shooter and knew his way around one-handed point-shooting as well as anyone in his day (or maybe since his day); but he always ASSUMES that, if you have time to assume a two-handed grip, you do so.

In the scenario the OP sets up--someone who shoots less than 50 rounds a year (and without stopping to reflect on whether or not this would be a life worth living)--both live-fire and dry-fire practice should be divided among the techniques best suited to different shooting situations. Very fast and close, maybe one-handed point shooting. One hand disabled or occupied, maybe one-handed aimed fire. Any situation in which you have time to grab it with two hands (it doesn't take long) and two free hands to grab it with?--Two handed aimed fire.

Objections that "I shoot better with one hand" do not belie the experience of competitors and trainers throughout the modern period; that, given equal training and effort, you too would shoot BETTER with two hands.

 

[RyanM]

Graduated a year ago. And I practice modern iso. Not nearly as much as I should, but I've shot enough to gain basic proficiency, and practice enough to maintain it. I'm not really advocating a one-hand grip for myself, or most likely for anyone who's gun-savy enough to be reading this forum.

However, I'm mainly thinking back to my first box of ammo, a number of years ago, dirt poor and still applying to colleges, when I had no clue what I was doing, and even less disposable income than I do now. Recoil on even a .380 was a bear to manage, mainly because I had no real training, just safety instruction, and no clue of what I was doing other than to try real hard not to touch the trigger unless aiming at the target, and not to point the gun at anything. On those points, I was successful, but not on much else. I even forgot to bring targets with me, my first time at the range, and had to bum them off someone else. Then when that one was shot up, I had to dig in the trash bin to find one with relatively few holes.

My first box of ammo, maybe half of my shots hit the target (it wasn't a very big one, though, a bit smaller than a paper plate). I did a little one-handed, but it was mainly weaver with very poor technique (hadn't heard of iso at that point). My experience then was that there was no noticable difference in accuracy or rate of fire between one hands or two.

Then I got a part time job and could afford to practice more regularly, learned about modern iso, and got a tiny bit of real training. I'm still pretty terrible, but incrementally improving.

But those first 50 or so shots were terrible. I'm sure I would have benefitted a lot from some actual training beyond basic safety and operation, but I couldn't afford it and couldn't get into any of the free NRA things.

And Fairbairn's Shooting to Live method allegedly had great success, in the days before tacticality was invented. That was actually the first "real" method of combat shooting I ever tried, and it accounted for most of my second or third box of ammo. It was all "do like they do in the movies, I guess" until then. And I distinctly remember my first shot ever trying it, raising the gun one-handed, looking "through" it, clenching my whole hand convulsively, and "BANG!", a shot hit about an inch low of the bullseye at 5 yards. Tried it a few more times, and I never missed the X by more than about 2-3", and the greater part of them clustered right around that first shot, an inch low. Compared to no-clue weaver and 12" patterns at 10 yards, that was a massive improvement, and a huge confidence-booster.

And strangely, if I tried applying the same square stance, look through the gun, etc., principles to my no-idea-weaver, the groups opened right back up again.

I do better now with modern iso, of course, but I can still hit a 6" circle the vast majority of the time, maybe 3 times in 5 seconds (this is trying to deal with .40 S&W recoil one-handed, with crappy upper body strength), using pure Shooting to Live. Which is really no better than the first time I tried it, with about 100 rounds under my belt at that time, which is kind of my point. One-hand Shooting to Live resulted in pretty much instant competency (though not much better, granted). How much of that is due to shooting one-handed? I don't know, I just know my luck trying it two-handed back then was terrible. These days I do utilize the "look through the gun" alternative to a sight picture for very fast, close-in shooting with modern iso, with good success, but I've also had a thousand or three shots between then and now.

It does seem to me like there's less that can go wrong with just one hand instead of two. It may be half as steady, but it's also half as complex. And I do think that using one hand had something to do with my initial success with Shooting to Live. When you're still clueless, still working on not putting the rounds in backwards, still trying to remember the difference between clips and magazines , then trying to tension your support hand right, have it in the same place every time, and not pull right or left or up or down with it, is a lot more to try and mentally juggle.

Maybe some people are natural born shooters who fall right into modern iso or weaver or something, and definitely some people can afford good training right off the bat. But I've had to fight for every bit of proficiency I've gained, and one handed Shooting to Live was a big shortcut to being confident that I could use a gun to defend my life.

But, I was also trying to avoid this turning into yet another Shooting to Live / point shooting thread.

 

[Rellian]

I would recommend every CCW permit holder practice shooting one handed (each hand) for familiarization (not necessarily mastery). I have carried for years now and always shot two handed. A week ago a broke my right hand. Now I feel like I'm back to square one. Shooting with my weaker hand was not something I ever planned on doing, but I really don't want to stop carrying for a month and a half! So I find myself trying to get comfortable and proficient with a left handed shot because my right seems to be a non-option for the time being.
:banghead: