Weaver: Well Entrenched, but Perhaps Detrimental?

[Vern Humphrey]

That is a pretty strong implication. OK you said, flatout, that the Weaver "is the method", the bold face type was in your original post.

No. You have mis-edited my remarks. I said:

The Weaver method is the method that imparts skills that do not deteriorate as quickly as other methods.

The meaning of that sentence is that training with the Weaver technique does not deteriorate as fast as most other techniques. It says nothing at all about having to use the "pure" Weaver technique -- and I think if you check my first post, I said I use a modified Weaver.

 

[Trebor]

Nice thought Trebor but if you think about it there is no other athletic, or even intellectual, human skill that does not deteriorate without practice.

True, very true. I'm just wondering if some techniques require less practice to maintain good results with then others. I'm not claiming to know the answer to that, btw, and have no real emotional stake in the "Weaver vs. Iso" arguments or "sighted fire vs. point shooting" arguments. I just want to know what works, what doesn't, and if what does work can be improved in any way.

One thing I *have* learned as an instructor, is that some newbies will perform better with Isocoles or modified Isoceles while other newbies will perform better with Weaver. I think that shows me that there is not a "one size fits all" technique that works for everyone.

 

[Jeff White]

Having been in combat is not a reason to choose an instructor. There are plenty of combat veterans out there who's advice on how to safely cross the street might be highly suspect.

There are plenty of people who served in Combat Support and Combat Service Support units who are technically combat vets because they served in theater. And there are plenty of people who survived a firefight through no fault of their own, but through dumb luck. A shootout is one of the few things in the world where you can do everything right and still die, or you can do everything wrong and somehow prevail.

We've had an all volunteer military since 1973. During that time our nation hasn't seen all that much direct ground combat. Even the Global War on Terror hasn't exposed a significant portion of the population to a firefight.

There are very few things on someone's resume you could look at and actually make any type of judgement as to that person's ability to perform under fire.

The Army that won WWII had few WWI combat vets. What it did have was the institutional knowledge of the lessons learned in WWI. Some lessons unfortunately had to be relearned. Only the Korean conflict was fought with enough combat veterans still in the units to pass on those important lessons. By the time we had a large committment to Vietnam, most of the WWII and Korean vets were out. The last ground combat troops left Vietnam in 1973. There were some special operations units still working and some of the units involved with the evacuation of Southeast Asia and the Marine Bn that took back the Mayaguez off Cambodia in the Summer of 1975. We didn't see any significant ground combat until December of 1989 during Operation Just Cause. Funny thing is that the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who performed so well, were for the most part trained by young NCOs who were too young to have seen combat. Yet those forces that were untested performed to a very high standard.

By the time the GWOT rolled around, most of the soldiers who saw action in Just Cause or the first Gulf war who remained in the force were too senior to be directly involved in training youg soldiers. But despite the fact that they were trained by NCOs who were facing combat for the first time, once again the military turned in a stellar performance.

So if combat experience is so necessary, how do you explain our success?

Skyguy,
I never heard of Ralph Mroz or the Police Officers Safety Association before you posted his work here. A quick google search reveals that he's selling books and videos and uses this research to make people believe in his program. I will withold judgement on the applicability of this research until I see some numbers.

But I will say I'm skeptical. The premise that everyone will panic in a situation they had no control over goes against my personal experience and hundreds of historical examples.

Jeff

 

[shooter503]

Trebor,

I appreciate your concern on behalf of your students and the effort you are making to improve your effectiveness as an instructor.

One problem you face with your idea is assessing it's results in the long term. Unless your students return for periodic training you will never know whether you have been sucessful or not. You can only judge by your own experience and that might not truly relate to your students. However, I think that if you can discover a system that works for you then impart that to your students effectively you will have something of value. After all, that is all that the big name training organisations do with the techniques they develop.

You pose an interesting question. First thought would suggest that you should let the student, by their natural stance with a firearm, tell you what stance you should develop for them. If they naturally prefer something close to ISO then go ISO etc. You will probably have to fine tune their natural choice so that their skeleton structure does what you want it to do. You could well find yourself actually converting them to one of the classic stances but that's not bad because you found the best stance for them, you did not force them into one that does not suit them.

It will use more of your time. Good Luck.

 

[SkyGuy]

First off, I never said train for panic. Other people here said "panic".
Panic results in running, screaming, begging, crying, the fetal position, freezing, defecating, urinating....etc.

I said and quoted many other experts (even Ayoob) who know that there is a continuum of SNS stress up to the total loss of control.

Some stress can be mitigated by training and/or job repetition, especially if one is in control of the situation. When one is not in control of the situation one's stress level can rise to dangerous levels and bring on the sympathetic nervous system overload and 'all' of its debilitating symptoms.

Nowadays, some know this to be true and train for that. Some deny the truth and some are just plain clueless.
It is counter-intuitive to refuse to learn the reality of fighting and of modern self-defense training;....training not only for controlled situations, but training for those situations that are out of one's control and survival is the only goal.

Anyone who has been competently trained is very capable of fighting certain fights. Those same people caught in a deadly, withering ambush revert to basic survival reactions.

No one is bulletproof and believe it......no one is stressproof.
.

 

[shooter503]

Panic results in running, screaming, begging, crying, the fetal position, freezing, defecating, urinating....etc.

What, all at the same time?

 

[Trebor]

Shooter503,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm nowhere near having the ability and experience to develop any new shooting techniques myself. I'm just very interested in watching what the "general consensus" is among the firearms trainng community and seeing what improvements might be made over time.

Cooper's "Modern Technique" was revolutionary for it's time. Yes, two-handed sighted shooting was known before Cooper, but it was not the standard of what was taught and what was believed to be most effective. Since the Modern Technique was developed, firearms training has undergone some evolution and the "prevailing beliefs" have been tweeked some. I'm just curious to know if the future will see just minor adjustments to techniques and training methodology, or if there might be some revolutionary technique out there that will have as much impact as the Modern Techique had.

For me, I know that I don't know the answers. I'm not even sure if I'm asking the right questions. I don't even know if there is a "better way." All I know for sure is that I'm going to keep asking questions, keep learning as much as I can, and see where that takes me.

There is a line between between being overly dogmatic in one school of thought and constantly changing your mind because of efforts to find the "next big thing."

None of this stuff is rocket science, and I think some people do make efforts to make it seem more complicated then it really is, for whatever reason. It is an important subject though and needs to be treated as such, and that includes questioning assumptions and testing hypothesis.

 

[LanEvo`]

I must once again disagree with the premise that we are such emotional creatures that we will panic and forget all our training under stress. The experience of thousands of soldiers and cops and my own personal experience tells me that it's not true. You train on proven, effective TTPs in a realistic manner so that when you default to your training you will be effective.

I have to agree with Jeff here. The whole idea of training is to "reprogram" people so that they do the right thing at the right time under intense pressure. Like pilots, doctors, and Marines, an LEO is a professional who is trained to deal with stressful situations. I would expect an LEO to have enough training, discipline, and professionalism to keep their cool under pressure.

I'm a medical doctor and I trained in one of the busiest trauma centers on the east coast. Before med school and residency, I surely would have panicked when faced with a serious injury/illness. I might have freaked out and not known what to do. But that's why I went through all that training: so that I can act calmly and make good decisions when the SHTF.

For me, my training, discipline, and professionalism mean that I might have to perform an emergency surgical procedure under suboptimal conditions. For an LEO, those same principles might mean that the officer must draw a weapon and engage a violent criminal while minimizing harm to innocents. In neither case should we expact a trained professional to come undone.

So, I really can't agree with the premise that all your training goes out the window the second the SHTF.

 

[SkyGuy]

So, I really can't agree with the premise that all your training goes out the window the second the SHTF.

Who said "all your training goes out the window the second the SHTF"?

There is a 'continuum' of SNS stress up to the total loss of control.

Some stress can be mitigated by training and/or job repetition, especially if one is in control of the situation.
When one is 'not' in control of the situation one's stress level can rise to dangerous levels and bring on the sympathetic nervous system overload and 'all' of its debilitating symptoms.

The premise is that one should train in the basic skills that are useable in very high stress encounters and train in the physiological and mental responses to the fear of dying. Such as quick movement, face the threat, the combat crouch, binocular sighting/focus on the threat, arm/s extended, one handed shooting, etc. because that's how most people will fight.

This stuff is simple, necessary and effective, yet it's still ignored by the old school trainers.
.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

While the NYPD does have a dismal hit rate, they do win all of their gunfights and very very rarely hit an innocent bystander.
I once asked Applegate if Camp Ritchie kept track of hit rates during WW2 and his answer was that while they did examine what was working or not working, hit rates were never an issue.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Arriving late at the party, permit me to toss a random thought into the mix:

I've perused this entire thread, and I saw several mentions of the Weaver "stance" (and "modified Weaver"), but I don't believe anyone actually mention good old isosceles (sp?). I think it was Jeff White who said his combat stance is almost frontal, but then he intimated that he nonetheless consideres it to be "Weaver."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't true Weaver involve not only putting your upper body at an angle to the target, but also sharply bending the support arm while keeping the strong arm extended almost straight, and -- most importantly -- pushing the gun forward with the strong hand while pulling back with the support hand. What old Charles Atlas usd to call "dynamic tension."

And, given that dynamic tension is part and parcel of a true Weaver technique, I can't accept that this won't degrade over time, or that it won't simply disappear under stress. Once I departed from the one-handed duelist stance I shot in competition when in the Army, I gravitated to isosceles. But I guess it could be called "modified" isosceles, because I do advance my left foot about 6 to 8 inches ahead of the right. What I do NOT do, though, is attempt the Weaver-esque dynamic tension, push-pull thing.

Out of curiosity, a few months back I spent some time at the range and made a conscious effort to shoot from a true Weaver stance, including the dynamic tension part. I found two things. Even though visually I was aiming the gun the same, my point of impact dropped several inches at 10 yards using the Weaver technique. I reckon that dynamic tension is more effective at resisting muzzle flip, and muzzle flip does affect point of impact. That, by itself, isn't a big deal -- as long as you always shoot that way so your point of aim is (or your sights are) adjusted accordingly.

The other thing I found shooting Weaver was that I tired much more rapidly. I usually shoot .45 ACP, standard power loads out of a 1911. In my normal shooting position/stance/technique, I'm not especially tired after several hundred rounds. Using the Weaver, my arms were shaking after about 50 rounds. Any semblance of accuracy went down the tubes from there on.

I went back to what I know and what has worked well for me for many years. Can't teach an old dog new tricks, I guess.

The summary point to this novelette, I guess, is simply that there's more to what separates Weaver from Isosceles than the position of the feet or the angle of the arms. If you're talking about true Weaver, you're also talking about dynamic tension. And that, to me, seems UNnatural. That which is unnatural is likely to go away under extreme stress.

 

[Jeff White]

Aguila Blanca,
I still use the weaver push pull with my arms. The only thing that's really changed from what I was taught as modified weaver a very long time ago is squaring up to the target in more of a boxer's stance.

Jeff

 

[Mad Magyar]

In my view, the question of why there seems to be a dismal “hit-rate” borders on what many of you have said about stress and reliance on your training methods. Law enforcement personnel are not firing to miss or to wound. I hope not! We know that most Leo’s do not come from an environment where firearms were prevalent. With the absence of the draft, even military training, however limited, is not a factor. The instruction they receive at the Academy is far less than the time they spent as youngsters playing with their own toy guns playing “cops & robbers” or shooting at make-believe space aliens (point shooting, no doubt). Most notable instructors will attest to the fact that officers will not spend extra time for training. Of course, some notable exceptions like M. Ayoob or a John Pride (ret-LAPD) come to my mind as exceeding in this regard. Why do I mention this? I actually think that under combat street conditions, the “firefight from Hell” with dim streetlights or alleyways we revert back to what was natural as perhaps, children. Grasping the pistol with one-hand and pointing is instinctive shooting.
I don’t remember using the Weaver (grip or stance) as a youngster…Here are a few areas that the LEO will face where the Weaver might not be conducive.
a. Engaging the “perps” at close range, sudden violent conditions.
b. Poor visibility.
c. Effect fire on a moving target, maneuvering from an awkward position.
d. Lateral movement, keeping balance and firing “controlled pairs”.
I am only asking questions and giving my own perspective. To repeat my original post, the Weaver stance/grip will invariably win in pistol matches, knocking down more bowling pins and in all events where distance shooting is done or where you have established good cover. However, with my life at stake at close quarters while in CCW, point shooting is ingrained in my mindset….. I was reminded “that more than half of the officers killed by gunshots were within 5 feet of their assailants at the time of the attack”. If this be the case, it brings up a lot more questions than answers…

 

[Jeff White]

I actually think that under combat street conditions, the “firefight from Hell” with dim streetlights or alleyways we revert back to what was natural as perhaps, children. Grasping the pistol with one-hand and pointing is instinctive shooting.

And this is precisely why they miss. They revert back to instinctive, natural techniques that they haven't trained on either and they miss. The problem is not technique. It is training or more correctly the lack of it. Someone who fires once a year for qualification and that's the limit of his training for the year will likely do poorly with any technique.

LAPD Metro has a hit rate in the 90 + percent range. They shoot weaver. Why are they so good and NYPD so bad? It's because they train.

A person with minimal training in any technique will most likely perform poorly under stress. Please explain to me how someone who trains in instinctive shooting once a year for a total of 30-100 rounds is going to perform any better in gunfight then the person who has the same training in weaver?

Jeff

 

[shooter503]

MM.

Grasping the pistol with one-hand and pointing is instinctive shooting.

Not a bad technique if that is what you practice and you are good at it. I was at an institutional range recently and had talked myself into shooting with the trainees. After the rangemaster had chewed up a couple of trainees for what I thought were fairly small technique errors I decided not to play. If he had seen my technique his blood pressure would have come out of his ears. But I get my fair share of hits.

 

[Mad Magyar]

Jeff, it seems that no one has challenged the assertion that most gun fights occur at close quarters...If that be the case, certainly you can see that at close-range where the use of pistol sights cannot and should not be used....Raising to eye level, a fixed two-hand grip: lost time is crucial and will leave the shooter in dire straits...
BTW, no one is suggesting that point shooters can take short-cuts on firing practice...I shoot Weaver also, but not at close range....All I'm suggesting is being flexible in one's practice regimen. In my case, this also includes dry-firing, and mirror training to polish the direct, straight-line lock-on that the pointing technique demands...

Aguila B., I experienced similar reactions with the Weaver.
Shooter 503, I know the feeling.....

 

[JMusic]

I think we all get caught up in the point shooting vs sight shooting argument, modern technique vs older techniques, 9mm vs 45, what have you. The most important issues in my opinion are draw speed and bullets in target. I happen to use a modified weaver stance and push pull method. I also will shoot one handed at full extension. Recently I learned a technique that gave me reliable hits from the hip. My speed for bullets in target increased about 35%. You need to be quick, accurate, and deadly. However you can achieve that you should then practice it over and over. Only then will you be prepared when the unexpected happen. Take care

Jim

 

[Sam]

I think a good many posters are fixated on particular points of view.

OUT

Sam

 

[SkyGuy]

Please explain to me how someone who trains in instinctive shooting once a year for a total of 30-100 rounds is going to perform any better in gunfight then the person who has the same training in weaver?

There are a lot of ways to shoot or get shot. None are foolproof.

BUT.......In a CQ "gunfight" odds are one will instinctively move, face the threat, assume a combat crouch, focus with both eyes on the threat and not the sights, extend arm/s, tightly grip the handgun and squeeze off multiples.
Instinctive shooting draws on the predictable reactions to a life-threat and is much easier to master than any learned technique such as Weaver.
Little to no muscle memory needs to be ingrained, no sights method needs to be practiced. The crouch, movement, arm/s extension, grip are automatic.

I think that it's best to train in the manner one will default to in a sudden CQ gunfight....not in complicated, counter-intuitive, old school methods meant for the range or competitions.
.

 

[redneckrepairs]

just now got back to the thread and read thro it again .. still good discussion going lol oh and shooter503 my place is in southeast colorado .

 

[Grump]

Point shooting, on the other hand, seems to advocate missing beyond ten feet.

NOT from my discussions. The PS I've spoken (and argued!) with all advocate teaching a continuum of using more and more visual input as the shot gets more difficult, ending with use of the sights when the combination of time and distance available gets beyond the indivdual shooter's abilty to get hits.

Most of the techniques I've seen/heard described are more like coarse aiming of your whole hand, aiming with the slide (this is true even if it's offset a wide degree from the eye/threat focus line), or even putting the whole pistol up in front of your face but looking past the slide to the threat.

VERY FEW actually train or use or even mention the truly "blind" point shooting from the hip when you cannot see the handgun. Trust me, that's the hardest. I've tried it and it wasn't pretty.

For low light, if the distance is 'nuff to avoid losing the gun to the target grabbing it, I've had fantastic results with putting my fists out and looking pas the nearly-invsible gun towards the almost-invisible target and squeezing them off. Think mostly A-Zone hits at 10 yards. This is still a type of sighting, but backed up with what B. Enos & the IPSC crowd call the "index." Developing a hipshooting index that works without visual input of where the gun is, is so difficult I think it's not worth trying.

But inside 5 yards, PS is fine and can/should be refined with one-hand, two-hand, and weak-hand training. The individual shooter should try it out to 15 and get a good idea of his or her limit, then transition appropriately to the formal sights as the distance reaches and exceeds that limit.

Edited purely for typo in a parenthetical...oops!

 

[Mad Magyar]

"Developing a hipshooting index that works without visual input of where the gun is, is so difficult I think it's not worth trying."

Grump, enjoyed your post...The only exception to your quote I can recall were Bill Jordan and Thell Reed...Hipshooting is certainly not for most of us and is probably a lost art.
I was particularly interested in your references to the index finger...Having witnessed my own children and others playing with their toy guns, aiming and shooting the plastic darts, or whatever; it's amazing how accurate & quick they can be by following the extension of their arm & finger at close range.... Kids are natural point shooters.....
PS aficionados talk about having a strong "convulsive" grip to manage the recoil of the larger calibers as well aiding in other areas...If one has a debility of the shooting hand, like arthritis, this practice would be counter-productive.
In my day-to-day pursuits, I feel confident that any attack I might incur will be at close-quarters and I train accordingly....

 

[Brian Williams]

You can practice this in front of a mirror. With an empty holstered pistol, close your eyes and draw to a firing position. Open your eyes. Where are your sights?

Practice makes perfect.

Pilgrim

I agree with Vern, Training has to start somewhere. One of the best stances to start with is a weaver stance. It gives you a foundation if you do not have lots of time or facilities to do your training, but if you have the time to train and train in various situations, you have to work at training to hit consistently. The quote above is soooo wrong, PRACTICE DOES NOT MAKE PERFECT. Perfect practice makes perfect. If what you are doing is flawed as you practice, you are going to be flawed, you might do it exactly the way you were training and be very fast, but it will still be flawed.

 

[Raptor5191]

I haven't posted here in a while, but this is a good discussion. Maybe if I throw in a couple of real life experiences of mine I can back up what Jeff is saying...

I have been in close in (5-15ft) firefights, and I reverted directly to training.

That includes presenting the weapon from one to two hands while acquiring my target and moving towards cover. The guy had the drop on me and my partner. He shot first, but hit the parked car that we had purposely put between us. We then hit him. As I was trained, I moved and I maintained a boxer-type modified weaver stance.

Another instance was as we breached a door, an armed bad guy presented himself in it. I pulled our breachers grab-strap and transitioned to my handgun as I had trained and drilled, giving us cover fire (which hit the threat in the leg, the head, and the third round hit the cieling). Again, my actions were along the lines of the countless drills and range time that we had.