Gripping and firing technique

[PhotonGuy]

How is this for a gripping and firing technique?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

First horrifying moment: he did not clear the weapon and make it safe.

Other than that, I can't really say. I don't shoot like that, presenting my body to the target. I use a modified Weaver stance, and turn sideways.

I don't lean forward to the extent he does. I keep a slight bend in my knees.

My grip is modified based on the weapon itself.

Maybe his way works. It's not how I was trained.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.

Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.

Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.

Well, you asked for opinions, that's mine. At the very least, I don't draw a weapon and point it without clearing it.

 

[Tgace]

What about it? It's fairly common.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

Well, you asked for opinions, that's mine. At the very least, I don't draw a weapon and point it without clearing it.

I'm assuming it was cleared prior to filming.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm assuming it was cleared prior to filming.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I make no such assumptions. But that's just me.

 

[Tgace]

Since you are watching a video and not in the room with him I wouldn't worry.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Since you are watching a video and not in the room with him I wouldn't worry.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Obviously I am not worried about being shot. I am less willing to take it on faith that a person demonstrating weapons technique knows what the hell he is talking about if he is unable or unwilling to demonstrate that he knows how to safely handle the weapon before beginning the video. It's not like air time is expensive on Youtube; it takes two seconds to clear and make safe a weapon before beginning a video demonstration.

Amateurs abound. We have examples of idiots on Youtube shooting holes in their ceilings with 'unloaded' weapons, shooting their hats off their own heads peering down shotgun barrels, etc. If you can't demonstrate your professionalism going in, I have less reason to believe you know dick about dick.

 

[Tgace]

Eh. I watch professional training videos all of the time. Most of them don't show a clear and make safe. I think you are being pedantic.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Eh. I watch professional training videos all of the time. Most of them don't show a clear and make safe. I think you are being pedantic.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

You are entitled to your opinion. This is mine.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Obviously I am not worried about being shot. I am less willing to take it on faith that a person demonstrating weapons technique knows what the hell he is talking about if he is unable or unwilling to demonstrate that he knows how to safely handle the weapon before beginning the video. It's not like air time is expensive on Youtube; it takes two seconds to clear and make safe a weapon before beginning a video demonstration.

I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?

Because it demonstrates he's not a complete moron. Because some morons who watch videos that neither make a safe weapon nor even speak of it might not realize how important it is. Act like a professional at all times if you wish to be seen as one.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Because it demonstrates he's not a complete moron. Because some morons who watch videos that neither make a safe weapon nor even speak of it might not realize how important it is. Act like a professional at all times if you wish to be seen as one.

While there's some truth to what you say, I personally do not need to see weapons safety checked on video. If they kill themselves, it let's me know that their advice is likely questionable. There's way too much fluff and BS in most YouTube reviews anyway.
I can decide if I think someone is knowledgeable and professional without wasting my time watching them safety check a gun on camera.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Again, my opinion. I was raised a particular way. Can't take ten seconds to make a safe weapon, I have zero interest in your so-called expertise with firearms. How bout them apples.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages. With the weaver or modified weaver stance you're presenting a smaller target since you're sideways but in doing so you're organ stacking. You're lining your vital organs up so that its easier for a single bullet to penetrate more organs. Also its not as natural as the isosceles stance. The isosceles stance where you face your opponent front on is a more natural way to stand and I believe its what most police departments use. With the isosceles stance you're not organ stacking as you are with the weaver but you're presenting a larger target.

Also, the weaver or modified weaver is good for transitioning into a rifle or shotgun shooting stance.

There are other consideration as well. For L.E. some have wrap-around vests and some have a gap along the side. Using any stance that puts your side to the attacker does limit your horizontal profile, but it also exposes the weakness of not having total coverage if the vest isn't wrap-around or under the armpit even if it does.

A frontal position such as what he's using would theoretically have a round hit you square in the front of the vest. However, your outstretched limbs become a factor in that stance.

Israeli doctrine is full frontal, however the knees are deeply bent so that you're almost in an ATG squat. The theory, which has statistical credence, is that the majority of rounds are high up on a standing target so that rounds are going over your head. Lower rounds contend with a full frontal vest, again with limbs as a possible factor.

The best possible stance is the prone stance using a .308, shooting at a target at 1000 yards that is armed with a stick.

 

[Tgace]

While there's some truth to what you say, I personally do not need to see weapons safety checked on video. If they kill themselves, it let's me know that their advice is likely questionable. There's way too much fluff and BS in most YouTube reviews anyway.
I can decide if I think someone is knowledgeable and professional without wasting my time watching them safety check a gun on camera.

Not to mention the "how many times factor". If this guy safe and made clear in the first seconds of his video, does he have to clear his weapon again and again after every cut and edit?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I like DD and Tgace do not need to see a firearm safety check on a solo video with a person. In person training with the individual is a whole different ballgame though.

 

[jks9199]

I agree that weapons should be cleared before doing any drills or demonstrations and that's what Ive been taught in the shooting classes I've been to but why would it be necessary to show that as part of the video? As other posters have said, he probably cleared it before starting the video. If he did clear it prior to starting the video, why would you want that part included in the video?

Why not simply use a red gun or blue gun? The focus was on grip, not the actual shot. Then you can use a live gun when you actually shoot... without having to point a live gun at your buddy with the camera -- even if the gun is supposedly unloaded and safed?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Why not simply use a red gun or blue gun? The focus was on grip, not the actual shot. Then you can use a live gun when you actually shoot... without having to point a live gun at your buddy with the camera -- even if the gun is supposedly unloaded and safed?

I do not own any fake guns. I would use a tripod, not a friend.