Teacup Grip

Like so many shooting practices it probably cannot be traced back to a time ,a place-an individual. Recall reading an account about Patton in the Villa Expedition, mentioned some cavalrymen using a two-hand hold, getting good results-no details recorded.

 

I think part of it too is that aside from being taught at one time, the teacup grip is sort of a natural way to just grab a handgun if you haven't ever held one before. Until I knew better that's how I shot if I'm honest. Granted, these days it feels wrong as heck to hold one that way (I do the standard thumbs forward now), but shooting preferences and styles come and go.

I still can't get into the whole overhand "C" style rifle grip that so many of the "operator" types are using these days. I'll be using the more traditional hand under the forend rifle grip for the remainder of my days .

 

i learned in the early 1970s the teacup, and one-handed/off-hand on chest, “old” handgun shooting grip. i’ve tried others since then. more important than one’s grip style is one’s amount of practice, imho.

to be honest, i can’t get past seeing the “modern,” thumbs-forward, two-handed shooting grip, as a piece of the post-9/11, bearded-operator, tactical, wanna-be, look.

 

I have usually seen this support grip method called “Cup and Saucer,” but, yes, it has seemed common enough, among shooters I have observed. Mostly older, but some younger, among shooters I have observed since the 80s. When shooting revolvers, many shooters have not wanted the support hand to interfere with the ability of the revolver to rise, in recoil.

Notably, if one has an injured or otherwise gimpy support hand, but a decently healthy weapon hand, something like cup-and-saucer can still be valid. My right thumb, hand, and wrist are a wreck, so I very much understand this, though I do not exactly use cup-and-saucer, when shooting lefty. (My days of shooting right-handed are numbered, but I still carry “primary” on my right side.

 

A thumbs-forward, two-handed shooting grip does actually improve shot-to-shot recovery, quite measurably, but, one can age-out of being able to use this technique most effectively. I learned the thumbs-forward hold in my forties, and by age fifty, could no longer use it when shooting lefty, when firing duty/service pistols.

 

Always thought the most important thing is accuracy, anything that gets the shooter on target is good. I have been shooting handguns for 50 years, the Weaver Stance never worked for me.
Won several IPSC matches using the Isosceles stance-with an AMT Hardballer !

 

The advantage of having learned and used each of the different stances up until now is, you are a lot more readily adaptable to things than someone who only knows one and that's all they shoot.

They can all have their uses, even if it might be only a one trick pony sort of thing (the Quell system certainly is. ), but if you dont know, understand and have experience with them and why, you tend to miss out. And if you have to do things youre not used to, you may just maybe try and make things up as you go, and that really isnt the way to go.

Where you really see that using just one type of stance falls apart, is when you start to move and shoot. They all work for the most part when shooting statically, but once you add movement, and different directions, speeds, etc, things change pretty rapidly, and one may have a definite advantage over another.

Moving straight forward, Isosceles works pretty well as you move, but break off to the right and try and shoot a target to the left, especially quartering away, and it doesnt work, and the Weaver picks it right up, and naturally so. Go the other way, and in the same sort of situation, moving off left and dealing with a target off to the right and quartering away, and your shooting one handed, and again, naturally so.

You need to figure out what works naturally best for you, without having to think about doing it as you shoot, and let your brain just morph through things as you go and as it sees fit. The only way to do that, is to actually spend some time and ammo doing that in practice.

 

I still see lots of people shooting teacup. Goes to show that training is severely lacking among gun owners.

I’m confused by the comments about grips being too small for a 2 handed grip. I don’t really understand how a small grip prevents you from wrapping one hand around the other. I don’t seam to have this problem even when shooting micro pistols in big hands.

 

I always shot weaver until I started shooting a local IPSC style league, and then found isosceles to be better for moving and shooting. I do naturally revert back to weaver when I’m shooting steel because I shoot slightly more accurately that way on challenging targets. The only modification I make with a revolver is to wrap my left thumb around the back to manage recoil better.

 

We had to qualify once a year on the S&W model 15 and later the M9. One year, guessing around 1989ish, the CATM guy was trying to push that grip on us and most of the others went along. Most of them shot a gun once a year and the qual was it. Since I shot a lot on the side I refused their attempt to change my grip, but all these years later I still remember how hard they were pushing it.

 

Agreed, and agreed.

Especially to the second - my wedding ring is a size 13, I can close one fist completely and wrap my other hand around it… that would be a zero dimension pistol grip… Beretta Tomcat, Jennings J22, Keltec P3AT, Ruger LCP, Sig P235… no such thing as a grip too small to fit one hand around the other in an isosceles grip.

 

Recall Jeff Cooper writing that an IPSC contestant would not be told how to shoot and IMHO the Weaver Stance sort of became THE stance, though as Weaver himself said "Practice, experiment...."

 

This is what they taught before the teacup, just move the off hand down one joint for teacup.

I still use the hold sometimes. I don't fully understand where you mention limited mobility or poor recoil management. When I use the hold, I interlink the little finger of my grip hand between the index and middle finger of the support hand. It works great for a revolver with a small grip like a J frame or K frame round butt when you can't get all four fingers of the shooting hand on the grip. It also locks the hands together, increasing stability, but still allows the hands to immediately part for reloading. It's also possible to use it with full size target stocks. Works great in situations where precision (as you mention) is more important than speed, but when practiced can be just as fast.

Agreed on both points. How a shooter's hand fits the grip varies widely due to finger length, girth (fat fingers) and overall hand size. The grip should feel natural and be comfortable. The two-thumbs-forward semiauto grip is the least natural feeling grip for me, and I never use it.

I hope somebody is behind her, ready to help her off the ground or at least massage her back. Her feet are in the right position, it looks, but she still has that leaned-back stance like she's trying to get as far away from the gun as she can. She needs to learn that the length of her arms determines that.

 

[ sarcasm ] Yep, it's the best, that's why Rob Leatham, Todd Jarret, Bob Vogel, and Jerry Miculek use it [ /sarcasm ]

 

Cup & saucer hold, done well to improve support stability, dictates a heavily bladed stance, precluding movement “off of the X” as well as limiting panning efficacy without reorienting the bladed stance. Isosceles hold, using a more even stance and not requiring the back and hip to lock out for stability, offers broader panning and greater mobility in every direction. Pretty simple, well documented, which as I mentioned above is one of largest driving forces for broad sweeping adoption of the isosceles technique and nearly full abandonment in mil and Leo training, competition, civilian defensive training for the Weaver stance. Even the relatively stodgy and outdated training material from the NRA has been redrafted to make this transition.

Recoil management is also simple - the biomechanics of the cup and saucer hold and weaver stance are simply not as well designed to catch recoil or return the firearm onto target. There’s less mass directly in line with the pistol when the support hand is cupped beneath the grip, the support elbow is dipped below the line of recoil, and the strength of the support wrist is completely removed. Rather, the support hand is pressing upwards on the pistol, promoting recoil response, and the curled fingers pressing against the gripping hand such they promote pistol roll. The shoulders are not square behind the pistol, the head is turned from centerline, and the hips are not square, so while the split stance is better suited to catching recoil, the bladed twist of the shoulders and hips promote rotation around the spine, rather than a split but forward facing stance used with square shoulders in the isosceles gripping technique. Again, these disadvantages are proven and well documented. If a shooter wants to shoot SMALL onto a single target from a fixed position, the dipped elbow, bladed hips, and cup & saucer grip are advantageous. If a shooter wants to do anything else with a pistol, history has proven the advantage of abandoning the cup & saucer technique.

 

I still shoot longer barrel big bore revolvers with the teacup and saucer stance for longer range accuracy like hunting.

 

Tea cup is useful when used during very long shooting sessions, using a big heavy gun or if you have very little strength in your hands or arms. I've taught this method to young people and older folk that had trouble holding a gun but wanted to learn a method they could use for self defense.

It still worked better than older methods like the old FBI hold



It's a derivative of the Weaver hold

and it actually works pretty good for folks with little strength.
I know folks that have muscle, would laugh at the tea cup but it's a usable method and better than no method at all.

Not everyone is a He-Man, bench 300 lbs athletic type. Some folks need techniques like this. It's actually very helpful.

 

Teacup predates Weaver by a long stretch.
Weaver only dates to the 60s-70s, teacup has been around for around a century.
Weaver was suggested as being an improvement on Isosceles.
The use of the elbow graced against the ribcage being similar, and for similar reasons.
Now, that was also the time of "Dynamic Tension" where "dynamics" in muscle upon muscle were much in the zeitgeist. Which dovetailed nicely with the long-standing idea of "bone on bone" rigidity being useful for rifle accuracy.

 

that's a beautiful P210

 

They all started shooting with a Walther P22... Every time you pull the trigger, the recoil makes your trigger finger hit the mag release that is located on the trigger guard.

 

I have seen guys post that all handgun shooting should be done one-handed, otherwise they would have called it a "HANDSGUN."

 

Had to laugh (a little) at getting stung by the Chiappa side blast; wondered how long it would take before it happened, with the latest, greatest climb toward the muzzle. Even with conventional revos, there are limits to how far forward you want to creep.
A lot of this is just the latest, greatest high speed, low drag thing. In addition to the cup and saucer, ever notice the hook on Glock, and many other trigger guards? They look like hell, but the big deal was the support hand index finger on the guard, which is, apparently, making a return.
Guessing that molded in 'gas pedals' will be next.
In any case, full agreement with trackskippy; "Old isn't necessarily bad, and new isn't necessarily good, but using what works best for you is where it's at". Take that to the bank.
Moon