One handed point shooting vs weaver stance

[Michigander]

I had the chance recently to shoot with some other people from here, and we had a lot of fun. Dougwg specifically worked with me on a proper 2 handed grip for the best speed and accuracy, which is something I've never put much thought in to.

I'm something of an Applegate point shooting enthusiast, because it's so dirt simple, fast, and reasonably accurate out to common defensive shooting distances with minimal practice. Here is a good point shooting demo for anyone who might not be familiar.

I have also been trained by former students of Rex Applegate, and that went a long way towards convincing me this method is right for me, especially until such a time as I have large quantities of extra money and time to devote to becoming good and fast with a 2 handed shooting technique.

Practicing with Dougwg and the others there didn't do much to change my mind about believing in practicing this way for defensive shooting as of this point, but it did peak my curiosity enough to want to ask everyone here how they normally practice as an ideal defensive shooting posture. Obviously practicing from sitting positions and with one hand for situations where the other might be injured are important, but my main point of curiosity is for typical stand up combat practice shooting. I am not asking about regular target shooting, because clearly a 2 handed grip is best for putting holes in the 10 ring. I just want to know how you practice for self defense, and why.

[Bronson]

At the range this week I had my girlfriend practice one handed point shooting out to about 10 feet.  She did much better than with two hands.  I agree with Conti's assertion in the article that is excerpted below.  When the SHTF we will fall back to instinct.  We will crouch, squarely face the threat, focus our vision on the threat, and take whatever is in our hand (firearm) and place it between us and the threat...usually one handed.  Better to practice in a way that utilizes your natural responses.  Target shooting and hunting techniques don't necessarily apply during a life threatening struggle.

Mike Conti says it better than I can.

Excerpted from "Play A Winning Hand" by Mike Conti, pg. 13 & 14 Guns & Ammo, Handguns 2009 Annual

The entire concept of the Modern Technique was based on the belief that the core components of the system were as universally applicable for actual combat situations as they were for target shooting on the range.  This concept was validated by anecdotes from Modern Technique adherents who had been involved in some type of violent person-on-person incident, stories that were often reported in magazines and books.

For the past couple of decades, though, law enforcement has documented a less-than stellar performance record during documented, real-world gunfights.  In fact, studies conducted by the FBI and other police organizations have consistentely indicated that in actual gunfights, on average the police miss the threat suspect they are shooting at with as many as 85 percent of the rounds they fire--this despite years of documented training using primarily the two-hand hold and other Modern Technique-based practices.

Whenever this disparity between training methods and standards and actual real-world performance is brought up, proponents of the Modern Technique are quick to blame the individual officer for failing to adhere to his training or to condemn the members of the law enforcement profession as a whole for failing to adequately train their officers "enough" in the Modern Techinque.

After having studied this matter in some detail over the past 20 or so years, I've come to the conclusion that it's time for us to rethink our dependence upon the two-hand hold, sight-focused school of pistol training becasue it apparently does not adequately prepare the average, armed individual--police officer or law-abiding private citizen--for the realites of violent close-quarters spontaneous events.

It is critical to remember that while these two-hand techniques may reign supreme on the target range or when hunting, they were not developed for use against armed and dangerous human beings presenting an immediate threat at near to touching distances.  For those who desire specifics, let's say distances from seven yards to breath-in-the face close, since statistcs also indicate that more than 80 percent of police-involved shootings occur in this zone, most of these within five feet.

Several years ago, I reported on some research which indicated that one of the primary reasons sights were not used during actual or simulated close-quarter spontaneous events was becasue the operators reported that they had an overwhelming feeling there was "not enough time" to access and use them.

It wasn't that the interviewed officers didn't actually have enough time to access the sights.  They did have the time, but in their minds they were convinced they did not--despite long, documented histories of being successfully trained to use the sights on the target range.

It's the difference between training for the range and training for the real world.  In the real world, we operate in what Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz described as the "element of danger."  And in this element of danger, the vast majority of humang beings facing an armed and dangerous opponent at close quarters will be naturally and forcefully compelled to stare at that threatening human being during those few fleeting and terryifying moments.  More than 13,000 years of evolution--during which human beings often squared off against one another with sharp, pointy sticks--pretty much ensures it.

We will also tend to crouch, and if we have something small and dangerous in our hand--whether a sharp, pointy stick or a handgun loaded with sharp, pointy bullets--we will more than likely stare open-eyed at that threat while we try to drive our weapon straight toward and into him, usually with one hand.

Bronson

[stainless1911]

Id like to add this. Havent been able to practice it yet, but its on the list.