Hello Everyone,
First, we are in complete agreement in regards to the importance of trigger control! That has never been the issue. My objection on this one point has always been the dismissal of the role the basics (stance, grip, aim) play or can play in regards to accuracy.
I am going to state in a very concise fashion exactly what my objections were. I essentially had two major objections and one minor (surprise break). I also disagreed with some terminology but that was trivial. I will then address two more inaccuracies directed at myself as well as Jeff Cooper/Jack Weaver. I’m done after that. I will say this thread has been excellent though and I appreciate all of the opinions that has been shared.
1) The OP stated
“The first principle of accuracy is trigger control” and then went on to completely dismiss the importance that the basics (stance, grip, aim) play or can play in regards to accuracy. I objected for essentially two reasons.
a. I simply objected to the sentence itself because if you are going to say there is a first principle then you would have to say it is platform(stance, grip) immediately followed by aim(sight alignment/picture). That is where it all begins when accuracy is the goal. The trigger press and aim is then used last to deliver the shot. I have always looked at things from the foundation upward from having always been involved with sports which would briefly include an interest in boxing and martial arts as a teenager. If anyone could relate to that mentality it would be Jeff Cooper himself who stated the
“program begins at the feet….” and
“The Weaver stance is a function of the entire body, from your feet to the top of your head”. The ISSF states the
“shooting position” to be one of the most important aspects when speaking of Olympic Precision Pistol Shooting (post #34). Doug Koenig states that the
“stance/footwork” to be one of the most important aspects when speaking about Precision Pistol Shooting (00:45) as well. It is the foundation by which everything is built upon which Brian Zins and the NRA espouse as well. That in no way, shape or form diminishes the significant importance of trigger control.
b. My major objection wasn’t in overly stressing the importance of trigger control but in utterly dismissing the importance that the stance, grip and aim can play in regards to accuracy. That is a mistake and I can tell you everyone I have spoken with does not agree with that approach.
I have spoken with Christian Avara (NRA Instruction Director) and he does not agree with that method and such doesn’t seem in line with NRA standards. Now consider these quotes from the NRA Basics of Pistol Shooting.
“A proper and consistent grip is essential to accurate shooting. Together, grip and position (stance in this case) are the foundations that allow proper execution of the shooting fundamentals”
“Proper sight alignment is the key to accurate shooting.”
“Emphasize that the two most important fundamentals in pistol shooting are aiming and trigger control. The other fundamentals all contribute to achieving these”
I have conversed with a gentleman on another forum who’s resume includes
“training Tactical Operators within the Coast Guards Deployable Specialized Forces, also working for the Department of State Training Crisis Response Teams”. He most assuredly doesn’t agree with diminishing the importance of the fundamentals. He understands why many Instructors overly emphasize trigger control but he states
“….I don’t think trigger control should be taught as the superior fundamental. I think it’s the hardest to master for new shooters…”. The reason he doesn’t think it should be taught as the superior fundamental is because different fundamentals take precedence over other fundamentals (vice versa) depending on the type of shooting you are doing (precision vs combat). He goes on to say
“That doesn’t mean any fundamental is less important than the other, always remember good, better, best techniques for the style of shooting you’re doing.”
I have conversed with Brain Zins via several emails as well as an extended phone conversation, in regards. He stated
“anyone who would teach such should go back to the drawing board and reconsider their teaching method”. He noted that while he doesn’t agree with everything the NRA teaches, specifically mentioning
“hold control”, that this sentimentality didn’t seem in line with NRA teaching standards. Brian also noted that anyone who would use a video to somehow suggest that he only considers trigger control to be important or that the other basics are somehow significantly less important is
“a complete misrepresentation of me”. Which he noted occurs quite often. Whether that occurred here or not is irrelevant but that is his sentiment.
In the above video Brian explains the great importance of the grip and how it significantly improved his accuracy (2:15---)….
“one thing a lot of people don’t consider is that the trigger finger is part of your grip....Zins you’re good and all but you do not know grip….Grip is key, think about it. It’s the only thing touching your gun. It’s gotta be firm, it’s gotta be consistent, it’s gotta be repeatable….” This mirrors exactly what I have argued.
In this video on precision shooting Brian notes (1:50) that
“stance, position, grip, everything is very very important” but of course he stresses the significance of aim and trigger control. That is the proper way to teach. The OP stressed that the basics including aim were significantly less important and indeed
“insignificant”. One is a proper teaching method and one is not. You don’t tear something down just to build something up. That is the wrong approach.
(strike one)
2) My next two objections go hand in hand so I will lump them together. I personally agree with the surprise trigger break (with one caveat) but I disagreed with how Frank was presenting it. He was emphasizing it as if it was a requirement for accuracy instead of stressing what truly is, which is to always execute a smooth trigger pull. When I have time to make a methodical trigger pull then the surprise break is easily achieved, for me. However, when I have limited time or I must make a trigger break then there is no such thing as a surprise trigger break, for me. There is a difference in letting the trigger break and making the trigger break. Irrespective, the goal is to always execute a smooth trigger press. Ya’ll have to be proud I am using the word “press”, yes? BTW, do not mention the surprise trigger break to Brian Zins because he doesn’t believe in that concept what-so-ever especially given the following.
The OP then made the following statement
“... if you try to make the shot break at that one instant in time when everything seem steady and aligned, you usually wind up jerking the trigger”
I emphatically disagreed with this statement because any proficient marksman who knows his weapon can make it break precisely when he needs it to break without jerking the trigger. Brian Zins agreed with my sentiment in it’s entirety and when I read that sentence to him he stated
“That is complete bullsh_t”. Jeff Cooper himself states that a good marksman can make his gun break when needed (40:00)
“...so you must be able to compress the thumb against the forefinger, so at the time you choose, you can make the hammer fall”. The OP’s statement is just inaccurate as I correctly pointed out.
(strike two)
3) Lastlly. In vehemently challenging the notion that the fundamentals (stance, grip, aim) are
“insignificant” as Frank quoted Col Charles Askins, Frank then replied to my objection
“Actually, you simply don't understand Jeff Cooper or the Modern Technique of the pistol” and that
“The Weaver Stance is about recoil control”.
These are a couple of whoppers because they couldn’t be further from the truth. I realize Frank was irritated with me so I will set the record straight now.
First, I’ve always known that a larger caliber weapon had more stopping power then a lower caliber weapon, one of Coopers principles of modern technique, btw. At the age of seven, I challenged our fathers who started us boys out hunting with bb guns whilst they were using high powered rifles. Without going into personal details this was one of my Dads fondest memories, but I digress.
Secondly, I’ve been using the Weaver Stance for nearly 50 yrs now. I use the Weaver stance for the following reasons.
* It is a very strong stance that is natural to me. It is a fighters stance that offers me a great amount of stability and balance.
* It allows me to be accurate whether slow fire or rapid fire due to the above. It incorporates a two handed grip and sight alignment which was unique for the time. Because of such it became the
“basis of the modern technique” as Jeff Cooper stated. In regards to it being conducive for accuracy Jack Weaver himself stated that
“a pretty quick hit was better than a lightning-fast miss.”
* It is a natural transition from a long gun to a pistol. I’ve tried shooting the Isosceles just to see what it is about and I immediately switched back. It is completely unnatural for me and I found the stance to be weak and unbalanced. It’s fine for others but not for me.
I had a lengthy conversation with Ken Campbell at Gunsite and he absolutely agreed with every one of those sentiments and even expounded further. He trained under Cooper and is now the Chief Operations Officer at Gunsite. That gentleman has a passion for the sport and Gunsite and truly loves talking about it. I really enjoyed speaking with him. Anyhow, he stated and then forwarded an email to me as follows
“I was taught the Weaver by Jeff Cooper and do not recall him espousing it as only for recoil control. Cooper and the Modern Technique is all about the proper balance of accuracy, power and speed. (Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas.)” He said folks were simply cherry picking quotes if coming to the conclusion that it was only good for recoil control.
You can visit swatmag.com for an excellent article on the Weaver stance with relevant quotes by Campbell and others from Gunsite...
https://www.swatmag.com/article/weaver-stance-combating-misinformation/
He then read and forwarded me one of his favorite quotes by Cooper.
“There is a great deal of foolish discussion bouncing around concerning the proper arm position for serious pistol work. Jack Weaver’s classic contribution consists in power control. If you crank the left elbow down and pull positive count-pressure, you dampen recoil very considerably. If you use mechanical means of reducing recoil, and if you lay great importance upon very rapid bursts of succeeding shots this may matter, but in the overall picture, I do not believe it does.
It hardly matters whether you use the Weaver Stance or the Isosceles with both arms straight as long as you get hits and those hits should be delivered with a major-powered sidearm under controlled conditions. The argument is silly, and I wish it would go away.”
– Jeff Cooper
“Cooper’s Corner”, Guns & Ammo November 2005
Yes, Cooper thought the Weaver stance was good for recoil control but it was significantly more than just that. It was a very versatile stance that used the whole body to accomplish the goal of accuracy, power and speed. Frank people forget things but to suggest the Weaver stance is somehow only good for recoil management is disingenuous. Cooper himself states at (21:45) that the effects of recoil are
“much exaggerated” and that they are in fact
“illusions” created by WWI service men attempting to impress their girlfriends. He then demonstrates that
“if you hold the gun properly it moves almost none at all...so there is no need to worry about that”.
At 22:50 Cooper names the four fundamentals of
“marksmanship” {emphasis added}. He names them
“Grip, Stance, Sight Picture and Trigger Control”. It’s ironic that I have been defending three of the four fundamentals in promoting all of them, while others have been diminishing the three in order to propagate trigger control alone. Cooper goes on to explain the fundamentals and it is not simply about recoil control but it is all in regards to the stability it affords for “
Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas”.
(Strike three)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank. I did not attack your original post only parts of it. It just has some major errors in it or some things which need to be addressed, IMHO. I’ve been as cordial as I can by offering some constructive criticism. If you would consider changing or tweaking some things then it could go from being a good post to an excellent post that is relevant for everyone. If you think I have been harsh then I apologize but my objections are mild in comparison to what some others stated in regards. I have conversed and quoted some of the most prominent people who have ever been in the industry and those who are still within the industry. My points have been vindicated at this time. If you are not careful, some day someone is going to give you some really good advice and you’re simply going to ignore it out of some ignorant notion you don’t think they know what they are talking about. All you have to do is tweak it.
Good luck and God Bless,
Ralph III