The grip

[Mauser lover]

I have been wondering about proper grip too, can somebody post some pictures of the "new standard perfect" two handed grip, (meaning not having a finger on the front of a trigger guard), and also without having a thumb on a slide please? I don't feel safe with my thumb touching the slide, or anywhere near the slide.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I have been wondering about proper grip too, can somebody post some pictures of the "new standard perfect" two handed grip, (meaning not having a finger on the front of a trigger guard), and also without having a thumb on a slide please? I don't feel safe with my thumb touching the slide, or anywhere near the slide.

I wouldn't be as presumptuous as to call it perfect, but I'd be willing to go with optimal for fast and accurate shooting.

I posted it back on post #14...the strong thumb isn't on the slide, it is atop the support thumb (well clear of the slide).

This is a SIG 220ST in the picture, if the thumb wasn't clear of the slide, it would interfere with the slide stop

 

[9mmepiphany]

OK, I'll stand corrected. I had been under the impression that modified casued the body to be less bladed, more of a 45* angle to the target than almost perpendicular.

And that is also one of the advantages I see with the Weaver; Blading the torso makes your opponent's target area smaller.

I was personally never comfortable with Isoscelese, no matter what I did with my feet. I don't like to square up with the target. Maybe it's because I'm first and foremost a rifle shooter, maybe it's because I'm not extremely flexible. Whatever it is, it's just not for me.

The original Weaver dropped the strong foot back...like in a boxer's stance...which some folks call 45 degrees, it is actually closer to 30.

The Chapman, named after Ray Chapman, was more bladed and straightened out the strong arm. His intent was to make the stance more like a rifleman's stance and to have his arm take the place of the rifle stock. This is sometime referred to as being perpendicular to the target, but it really is a bit less than 90 degrees...and is closer to a karate player's T-stance.

Modern military training has riflemen more squared up, facing the enemy, with the rifle/carbine more centered on their body. Besides being faster to assume, it allows faster lateral and forward movement.

When moving around corners, using the Slicing-the-Pie technique, the Modified Weaver in painfully slow as you need to reposition the rear foot as you rotate round. Dynamic movement when shooting requires the ability to shoot from both positions (as well as a reversed Weaver) when transversing 270 degrees (refer to Ayoobs Stressfire Star), the Isosceles just allows move coverage to either side to start with as you start centered

 

[Flintknapper]

9mmepiphany wrote:

Modern military training has riflemen more squared up, facing the enemy, with the rifle/carbine more centered on their body.

Yes, but this is something fairly NEW and I would have to see for myself if it is actually "practiced" much under real battlefield conditions. It does make the most efficient use of body armor....but that is not usually applicable to the general citizenry.

Besides being faster to assume, it allows faster lateral and forward movement.

Faster forward and rearward movement agreed, but when your target is roughly 90° to your direction of desired travel (seeking cover) nothing will be faster than turning that way and going, (you can't stay squared up to your target that way).

When moving around corners, using the Slicing-the-Pie technique, the Modified Weaver in painfully slow as you need to reposition the rear foot as you rotate round.

To your "strong side" yes. But there is nothing (except individual physical limitations) that prevents you from slightly canting your weapon, bending your knees and turreting to get quite a bit of extra "reach" when using the Weaver technique (either direction). It just doesn't get taught much.

Dynamic movement when shooting requires the ability to shoot from both positions (as well as a reversed Weaver) when transversing 270 degrees (refer to Ayoobs Stressfire Star), the Isosceles just allows move coverage to either side to start with as you start centered

Agree 110% that Dynamic situations are best handled if the person can shoot BOTH ways and then apply the technique where appropriate. Isosceles (in its various forms) can be quick (IF you can turret well). It is generally faster to your strong side than is Weaver. Weaver is quicker to your weak side.

NEITHER technique is ideal for ALL situations (a point you make and I agree with).

I am equally comfortable shooting either way...but Weaver "feels" more natural for ME....and I move much more fluidly shooting that way (when shots on the move are called for).

Good discussion, lots of angles and ideas.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Faster forward and rearward movement agreed, but when your target is roughly 90° to your direction of desired travel (seeking cover) nothing will be faster than turning that way and going, (you can't stay squared up to your target that way).

A squared up stance is also faster when moving laterally, Off The X

To your "strong side" yes. But there is nothing (except individual physical limitations) that prevents you from slightly canting your weapon, bending your knees and turreting to get quite a bit of extra "reach" when using the Weaver technique (either direction). It just doesn't get taught much.

I didn't realize they didn't teach it. I know that I don't see a lot of folks using it (I learned it a long time ago)...It think because they believ that it compromises their hard stance.

One of the advantages of the Isosceles is that you can lean out either way just as easily by sinking slightly on the leg on that side

 

[Flintknapper]

9mmepiphany wrote:

A squared up stance is also faster when moving laterally, Off The X

OK, I'm with you now. Yes a "couple of steps" laterally to get off the "X" it is faster (assuming laterally is where you need to go).

Its no faster "getting off the X" than Weaver if all you need to do is move. Weaver just takes you off at an angle.

Not a reason (by itself) to shoot Isosceles....but a valid point in some circumstances...I concede that.

Anyway, I am helping to take this thread WAY off topic, sorry.

Thanks for your thoughts and input.

Flint.

 

[Bobson]

This thread has me really curious. I recently qualified with my department for the first time, and I got an "expert" score - room for improvement, ofc, but certainly better than I've shot at any point in the past. The point is, despite my score, I actually have no clue what stance I was standing in. What I do know is I was constantly reminding myself to practice the numerous grip pointers I've learned since joining this forum, and evidently, they helped a lot, because in the past, I had poor results with shooting handguns. Happy to see my grip was basically identical to what you're showing, 9mmEpiphany.

As far as my stance though, from what I read here, I think it was a combination of many, but maybe it actually is a specific one? Basically I stood with my primary foot back - around 45 degrees, with my primary side arm fully extended to a locked elbow, but my weak side elbow was bent. Knees bent, leaning slightly forward from the waist. Does that sound like any particular stance? Is there something I could change in the future to shoot more accurately, that would still be a good choice in an actual defensive engagement?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Anyway, I am helping to take this thread WAY off topic, sorry.

I don't think we are. Grip and stance go hand in hand (pun intended).

Modern military training has riflemen more squared up, facing the enemy, with the rifle/carbine more centered on their body.

I've see that. It looks (and feels) awkward.

The Chapman, named after Ray Chapman, was more bladed and straightened out the strong arm. His intent was to make the stance more like a rifleman's stance and to have his arm take the place of the rifle stock. This is sometime referred to as being perpendicular to the target, but it really is a bit less than 90 degrees...and is closer to a karate player's T-stance.

I'd come to learn that as the Weaver.

I don't feel that straightening the arms is particularly conducive to accuracy or speed, and definitely not good for weapon retention and acquiring new targets in CQ situations. I bend my elbows more than a little. The stance I've devloped for me does allow a little better than 270* traversing, but only about 100* to the left without repositioning feet. I feel that should be more than enough, though. If the target is behind me, I'll turn around.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I bend my elbows more than a little

Just curious, do you let them bend outward or downward?

 

[Old Guy]

Just pointed my gun, only me in the house (Bullet needs to go through three walls to get outside) we are safety squirrels are we not?

We tend to forget what we actually do! Had to check. My right arm is dead straight, my right cheek is jammed into my upper arm, tight! I am like a rifle, when done under extreme stress, when the pistol fires, at the end of the punch, I am quivering like a dog SXXXXXXX razor blades. RESET/RESET/RESET/ that was 4 shots, right there!

In a fight, we tend to shoot bursts. Hi Capacity has been my way of life since the mid 80s.

 

[TarDevil]

I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, and am learning a good bit. Wish I had more to contribute!

 

[ActionJax]

9mm Epi's grip is correct.
1. Cover all the real estate on the gun. Trigger hand HIGH
2. Support hand does 70%
3. Support thumb pointed at target.
4. no gap (at all) between thumbs.
5.Support wrist extended into full ulnar deviation -- wrist is VERY strong in this position.
6. Forget push/pull -- requires WAY too much "reaiming"
7. If the strong (trigger) thumb hits the slide release, there is too much tension in it. See 9mm's top down view.


Checkout the guys at TDSAtulsa.com

DBJ

 

[MachIVshooter]

Just curious, do you let them bend outward or downward?

Both. Strong arm is about 45* to the vertical axis of the gun, support arm is slightly less outward (just past seven O'clock position, I'd say).

Amount of bend in the elbows is about 50-60* strong arm, close to 90* support arm. It does vary a little though; When shooting big boomers, they get further away from my face. Shooting the Desert Eagle .50 the way I shoot 10mm's is a good way to get brass faced.

I'll get a picture later for ya'll to critique.

 

[Ankeny]

9mm Epi's grip is correct.
1. Cover all the real estate on the gun. Trigger hand HIGH
2. Support hand does 70%
3. Support thumb pointed at target.
4. no gap (at all) between thumbs.
5.Support wrist extended into full ulnar deviation -- wrist is VERY strong in this position.
6. Forget push/pull -- requires WAY too much "reaiming"
7. If the strong (trigger) thumb hits the slide release, there is too much tension in it. See 9mm's top down view.

I'll toss in my two cents worth. Ideally the grip will maximize friction and minimize torque. Maximizing friction between the hand and the pistol is best accomplished if you "cover all of the real estate."

Minimizing torque in terms of muzzle flip allows the sights to travel (track) the least amount and return to the point of origin. A high grip and number five from above go a long way toward minimizing torque. It is nice if the sights track straight up and down, but many right handed folks will track to one o'clock for various reasons and that's OK.

The grip must also allow the shooter to isolate the action of the trigger finger. Arguably, applying 70% of the grip with the support hand will aide in that endeavor.

As far as the difference between managing recoil vs. controlling recoil, some of that is semantics, some is not. Managing recoil is the result of bio-mechanical efficiency where recoil is an integral part of the shooting platform and it (recoil) just "washes" through the shooter. Controlling recoil, in the classic sense, is thought of as trying to fight the gun into submission.

 

[EvilGenius]

Ok, so when you guys say 70% you mean the support hand is doing 70% of the gripping? As in whatever small amount of squeezing you need to do just to keep the gun from going limp in your hand? Or 70% as in 70% of the recoil absorbed through your body will be through the support hand/arm?

I haven't had any formal training yet, just whatever tidbits I pick up. Currently I can keep all shots within a 6-8" circle at 30', but they wander all around that circle. I'm sure more "time in the saddle" will be the biggest help, but I'm still in the process of figuring out just what I need to do to get it to drop back onto target.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I haven't had any formal training yet, just whatever tidbits I pick up. Currently I can keep all shots within a 6-8" circle at 30', but they wander all around that circle. I'm sure more "time in the saddle" will be the biggest help, but I'm still in the process of figuring out just what I need to do to get it to drop back onto target.

Most of the techniques we're describing here are about maximizing speed and accuracy. Accuracy alone without concerns over speed is a little different animal, especially bullseye type shooting that is done one-handed. If just trying to place bullets in the X-ring at a leisurely pace, trigger control is paramount.

This is why you have difference targets slow fire and rapid fire.

Accuracy is never a bad thing, but for practical shooting, it can be comrpomised some to pick up speed. For defensive applications, maximum number of shots on target in the shortest amount of time is the goal. This is why we aim for COM instead of the head.

 

[EvilGenius]

Most of the techniques we're describing here are about maximizing speed and accuracy. Accuracy alone without concerns over speed is a little different animal, especially bullseye type shooting that is done one-handed. If just trying to place bullets in the X-ring at a leisurely pace, trigger control is paramount.

This is why you have difference targets slow fire and rapid fire.

Accuracy is never a bad thing, but for practical shooting, it can be comrpomised some to pick up speed. For defensive applications, maximum number of shots on target in the shortest amount of time is the goal. This is why we aim for COM instead of the head.

Ah. I guess I should've explained that most of my shots are made with about 1-3 sec between them (not allowed to shoot any faster) and I try my best to stay in a modified weaver as it feels best for me, but I haven't had enough time to know if that stance works best for me.

I maybe be chasing an unrealistic goal for someone who's only been shooting for a year. My GF (LEO+IDPA) will shoot faster and have them in a 3" circle at 30'.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Ok, so when you guys say 70% you mean the support hand is doing 70% of the gripping?

This. The strong hand, the one pulling the trigger, drives (aligns/aims) the gun. The lower three fingers pull the gun into the pocket of your palm. All the trigger finger does is press the trigger straight to the rear...the thumb is just along for the ride until you need it to activate the magazine release. You should apply about the same amount of force as you would a in firm (friendly, not competitive) hand shake.

The support hand applies pressure to the sides of the grip, with the four fingers pushing the gun into the palm of the support hand...this thumb is also just along for the ride. You have now surrounded the grip in all 360 degrees. The support hand will exert 2-3 times (66-75%...that is how they arrived at 70%) the pressure that the shooting hand does. The pistol will recoil straight up and come back down. You limit the vertical displacement with the high grip and torquing the wrist forward.

Currently I can keep all shots within a 6-8" circle at 30', but they wander all around that circle. I'm sure more "time in the saddle" will be the biggest help, but I'm still in the process of figuring out just what I need to do to get it to drop back onto target.

...my shots are made with about 1-3 sec between them

Formal training is the best use of your money. Otherwise, that time in the saddle is just going to ingrain bad habits...which take a long time (and lots of ammo) to break.

I would expect a client to be able to place all their shots onto a 2"x3" post-it at that range after 2-3 hours of 1:1 instruction or after a day in a group class. When shooting at speed, 4-5 shots a second, the 6-8" circle was the norm after a couple of days...there are additional trigger management techniques used for this

We used to have clients splitting playing cards edgewise, from about 5 yards, at the end of a weekend class...it wasn't always on the first shot

 

[conw]

I don't disagree with you on anything but grip tension 9mmE. I have figured out I probably just grip a hammer much more loosely than everyone else

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't describe how I shoot...I'm playing with some internal strength techniques...I just provide a fundamental baseline to build from so clients have someplace to start

I understand what you mean about the hammer...you're letting it work for you, rather than powering it with muscle

 

[MachIVshooter]

Evilgenius-

Pay close attention to your trigger manipulation. There are but a few (junk) guns that cannot print the types of groups 9mmepiphany speaks of if the shooter does his part. Assume a steady position with a firm grip somewhere along the lines of what we've all talked about, line up your sights and then focus on squeezing the trigger with constant pressure intil it breaks. Poor trigger manipulation is the biggest cause of lowsy accuracy with handguns.

What are you shooting? Even the heaviest, grittiest triggers can be mastered, but a nice trigger makes everything much easier.

 

[Old Guy]

The Message

One of the main reasons we Instructors come on this site, is to give our ideas and beliefs out to every one.

And of course, not all of us agree on all points.

I as a recent American Citizen, last April I became a Citizen, have a different back ground, and being now 76 YOA, different views, for instance, spending the war years (Second World War) just outside of Liverpool UK, I have a most decidedly better appreciation of your average Yank, than most foreigners!

Because without those thousands of young GI's who died in Europe, I would most likely not be sitting at this Lap Top.

Working as a Bouncer (Part time, 3 nights a week) in Liverpool Clubs, most of my history of violence, was from those years. Taking the fight or flight with fists/boots, and what was in your hand, into guns, was an easy transition.

And as others on this board have stated, 1 on 1, instruction, when you are new, might be the best $100.00 you ever spent.

Soap box back in the Garage.

 

[EvilGenius]

Evilgenius-

Pay close attention to your trigger manipulation. There are but a few (junk) guns that cannot print the types of groups 9mmepiphany speaks of if the shooter does his part. Assume a steady position with a firm grip somewhere along the lines of what we've all talked about, line up your sights and then focus on squeezing the trigger with constant pressure intil it breaks. Poor trigger manipulation is the biggest cause of lowsy accuracy with handguns.

What are you shooting? Even the heaviest, grittiest triggers can be mastered, but a nice trigger makes everything much easier.

Right now I have an RIA 1911A1 Tactical. I definitely shoot it much better than anything else so far. The trigger doesn't creep at all and when I dry fire practice at home the sights really don't move much if at all right after the break point. So I assume my accuracy issues have less to do with trigger work and more to do with how I'm "controlling" the recoil. The follow through I guess.

 

[9mmepiphany]

So I assume my accuracy issues have less to do with trigger work and more to do with how I'm "controlling" the recoil. The follow through I guess.

I'm not sure if you are mis-understanding or if you are mixing terms

What do you mean by trigger work?
Is that referring to tuning the trigger or your pressing the trigger?

What do you mean by controlling the recoil?
Are you talking about your grip, the force vectors you are applying or your stance?

What do you mean by follow through?

I had an answer in mind, but realized that your terms might not mean what I thought they did.

I think it would be safe to say that shooting 6"-8" groups at 10 yards is caused by multiple issues. The main issue will always be trigger control...pressing the trigger smoothly and continuously straight to the rear.

In my experience, the 1911 platform's short trigger press, has contributed to more jerked shots than most other actions

 

[Mauser lover]

Thanks for the picture, 9mm...