Revolver Accuracy

[9mmepiphany]

references foot placement as two feet apart, left foot forward and elbows bent

What do you think the Modern Isosceles is?

Keith, in the picture in post #23, is in a classic Isosceles...I'll bet you're thinking of the old PPC shooting position

I've been reading Taffin and Keith for 25yrs and never saw either of them use the isosceles.

When was the last time you shot with John?

If you look through any American Handgunner in the last couple of years, you'll likely see him shooting from an Isosceles

 

[CraigC]

What do you think the Modern Isosceles is?

What do you think the Weaver is? Look at John's shoulders. You can certainly go to SingleActions.com or Gary Reeder's message board and ask him for yourself.

I love it when auto shooters try to tell single action shooters how to shoot, as if they were all the same and/or one size fits all. Banging away at steel plates with a 9mm ain't the same as busting hogs with a .44Mag or thumbing a single action hammer.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The major difference between the Weaver and Isosceles are their principles of dealing with recoil. However they are most easily separated by their application of force vectors.

The Modern Weaver uses a push-pull dynamic to try to pull the gun back down from recoil, with the visual manifestation being the dropped support elbow. Many people who claim to shoot from the Weaver are actually using the Chapman, where the strong arm is locked out (likened to a rifle stock by it's inventor)

The Modern Isosceles extends both arms, but does not lock out the elbows to allow the gun to return to POA after each shot. The force used is dynamic tension (thank you, David E) which hold the gun steady as the trigger is pressed

The earlier admonition to allow the gun to recoil, as the SAA's handle was designed to roll back into the hand, is inline with the principles behind the Isosceles recoil management system

 

[Cosmoline]

You mean like John Taffin?

I'm not taking a hard stance on stances--whatever works is whatever works. But I'd point out that Taffin appears to be shooting a mighty FA that's about to bruise him (thus the very tight grip!), and it looks to me like Elmer is shooting a big double action. I think one of his trademark S&W's.

A Ruger Bisley Hunter is a very large piece of steel and will not be coming out of your hands even with hot .44 Mags. The problem with shooting it isn't so much dealing with the recoil but keeping it held up in the air. Esp. for long shots where you have to aim fine, finding something to rest it on is more important than the usual concerns about very fast followup shots. A sitting or leaning back stance might be the very best for hunting. Or keeping a walking stick with a "Y" top you can rest your wrist on.

 

[BCRider]

Craig, you must be looking at a different video then. If that isn't isosceles shooting then I'll eat my cowboy hat. They are standing square on to the targets and holding their arms at the same or very close to it for height and stretch with their shoulders square across the line of the direction of the shots. It sure as heck ain't Weaver by any stretch.

So can a Bisley be shot using a two handed isosceles hold? Sure it can. It's just about the shooter achieving a comfortable two handed grip around the frame. The Bisley grip and trigger arrangement are not a whole lot off in geometry from the setup that Jerry Miculek uses on his double action revolvers for angle and shape. The only difference would be single vs double action and the need to keep that weak hand thumb flexible and working to keep the firing rate up.

 

[oldfool]

fascinating thread, interesting opinions

that cowboy video, BC.. don't look to me like every shooter is doing it quite the same, some a bit more squared away than others, but if you look at where their feet are, I sure wouldn't call that "isosceles"
most of 'em pretty consistent about where their feet do land, though, and they mostly don't waste time shuffling feet, but they ain't shooting no 44 mag either

me, I wouldn't know what an "IRMS" is, (thanks for spelling it out 9mm), re: Isosceles recoil management system, but I reckon that's what Jarrett is doing in the other video

his trainee, on the other hand, yep, looks mighty triangular to me
that elbow lock + 44 mag SA = orthopedic surgery
(best stick to 9mm pistolas with that stance, trainee, but that's not how Jarrett is doing his thing)

Keith now, looks pretty triangular in posted photo
(but it doesn't look much like what he wrote about)

Taffin, cannot see his feet, but those shoulders don't quite suggest isosceles either
(go ask the man himself I guess)

my stance (I wouldn't know what a "Chapman" is either), is best labeled "Casual",
but, yeah, feet about two feet apart, left foot a little forward, shoulders pretty much squared to target, feet not, weight slightly forward, no locked elbow, and I wouldn't have a clue as how to lock my wrist(s), even if I tried... though I used to triangle a pistola some way-back-when (like me and Euclid call isosceles, you know, pre-Modern, New Math, go figger); don't anymore, but I never could keep pace with a Jarrett or Miculek or Red Cent nohow

but hawgs don't wear steel plates, nor shoot back, so I really don't quite know what splits speed with a 44 mag is about anyway... one round in the kill zone is generally sufficient, even in south Georgia, preferably the 1st round

now... shucks, gotta' go find a Miculek video and figure out what that is proper called (other than gosh awful quick, you know)
but I am leaving 44 mag and bigger for the big boys to figure out, 357 satisfies my meager needs, I will just carry a 30-30 carbine for Boss Hawg Day

great videos though, let's see some more !
keep shootin', keep smilin', always mind your backdrop, and never lock your elbows !

 

[9mmepiphany]

me, I wouldn't know what an "IRMS" is, (thanks for spelling it out 9mm), re: Isosceles recoil management system, but I reckon that's what Jarrett is doing in the other video

I try not to fall into training jargon, but I try to not get so simple as to talk down to people. To be an effective instructor, one has to be familiar with all stances and grips...both for evaluation and to explain the pro and cons of each.

Jarrett is shooting from the Isosceles, as do all the top shooters, because it allows them to shoot faster with better accuracy while not beating up themselves.

It is often a false trail to watch the stance of top flight shooters, as noted they don't take the time to adjust, they make up for it with proper trigger control and recoil management through structure(form) rather than musculature(strength)

 

[oldfool]

no disrespect intended, 9mm
I do not doubt the legitimacy, nor disrespect the techniques developed and refined for speed shooting competition
same can be said for the subtle but important nuances in hardware improvements
competition does filter out less effective techniques and "new & improved" hardware over time, and we can all learn from that, we all ultimately benefit from those on the leading edge

on the other hand, I think the revolver guys (big bore SA guys in particular) have made good points as well, one shoe does not fit all, Bisley SAs are quite different from auto-loaders, nines are not 44s, etc.

most of us have experimented with our techniques at one time or another, but it ultimately comes down to the 4 Cs (comfort, competence, confidence and consistency), otherwise known as "whatever works for you", a lot of which is closely connected to he specifics of what you are most focused on doing most often

This thread - mostly just enjoying the debate from the safety zone in the peanut gallery, and the videos in support of, since I am neither a speed comp steel shooter, nor a big bore SA shooter (I don't even use 'best" grips on what I shoot most often, just the grips I best like to shoot with)

more videos of big bore SA shooting arguably being more germane though; every discipline does have it nuances
(but trigger control is always the trump card in any, acknowledged... which maybe brings us back to the OP question)

 

[SAA]

Nobody runs a single action worth a damn from the isosceles stance.

You mean like... Elmer Keith?

...and it looks to me like Elmer is shooting a big double action.

LOL! That's what I was noticing as well. (As long as you're all having so much fun with this, I thought I'd join in)

Anyone watching "Top Shot"? I'm tired of everyone touting a certain stance as "the best", the latest and the greatest, whoopie. That Jay fellow is a brand new shooter, and he's shooting neck and neck with top shooters, and even outshooting most of them. He refuses to change the stance he knows he has done well with for the short time he has been shooting, and is doing quite well with his "tea cup" hold that everyone laughs at these days. It just reinforces to me that it doesn't mean a hill of beans what anyone thinks about a stance if it works for the person doing the shooting. The isosceles fad of today will become like the tea cup hold of yesteryear. Something new and "better" will come into fashion eventually. Who cares?

JMO (who cares?)

Carry on.

 

[CraigC]

You can talk all day long about how well the isosceles or modern isosceles works for speed shooting with pistols but you're barking up the wrong tree. Seriously, how many folks touting this stuff ever gave it more than a minute's thought, in reference to shooting a heavy recoiling single action revolver, before this thread??? Versus how many simply think that the way they shoot their Glock is the best way to shoot everything? I really don't give a damn how Todd Jarrett does it. Apples and oranges.

Have the folks using Keith as an example even owned or read his books? Because every depiction I see in "Sixguns" shows a Weaver style stance.

I think folks are incorrectly assuming that the Weaver requires a deeply bent support elbow. Here's a better depiction of Jack Weaver and his famous shooting stance.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=61205

 

[9mmepiphany]

I must admit to having read about Weaver saying that Cooper was teaching his stance incorrectly.

I think that most of us, when referring to the Weaver, are actually talking about the stance and grip that Cooper formalized in his Modern Technique of the Pistol. If you are referring to the original stance as developed by Jack Weaver, you do have a point.

The Modern Isosceles is much closer to the original Weaver, with the major difference being the grip vectors

 

[CraigC]

I agree and must say that the modern isosceles would be much better suited to the purpose than the original version. It hurts my elbows just thinking about it. One of the biggest gripes with the modern version being not having enough of your support hand in front of the gun to properly manipulate the hammer while still maintaining a proper grip. Important when you're trying to run one fast.

 

[murf]

if you want to see how to shoot a big sa one handed go to customsixguns.com and watch john linebaugh's technique. he makes it look easy.

 

[TxAg]

I could quote a lot of your replies as far as stuff I will keep in mind and try out, but this clicked with me when I read it, it is from the link that CraigC posted;

"Control the recoil and improve shooting accuracy by remembering the push/pull action when firing in the Weaver stance. Straighten out your gun arm fully to employ the modified Weaver shooting stance that is becoming more popular today. Shooting accuracy may be lost when using the Weaver stance because the gun arm may overpower the support arm; thus, a right-handed shooter may pull shots to the right, and vice versa for a left-handed shooter."

Im pretty sure I wasn't keeping consistent pressure with my support arm.

Appreciate all the replies
J

 

[Ruger4Life]

Ya'll all forgot the classic "limp wrist" hold and "lean back" stance. It's a hoot when you see a newbie shooter at the range doing it while touching off a large caliber revolver or semi.