The martial arts stances combined with a colt...

[Boris]

Hi, for everybody!

I just want to make you familiar with the interesting combination of a gun with some stances of martial arts ...Please, read it and make your opinion:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35087211@N08/?saved=1

http://arts21.choseit.com

[tallgeese]

This is a less than efficient stance when utilizing a firearm. In fact, given my background, I think it's a really bad idea.

First up, two hands on the weapon. Grip is essintal for accurate and fast fire. It's one of the many factors that make shooting an art and science in and of itself. Two hands should be used to maximize control and aid in bringing the weapon to bear. Single handed shooting should be practiced due to the likelyhood of taking a round in the hand during a gunfight. Injuries to hands are high in these encounters, it's best to practice for this possibilitry, but it's not a primary shooting platform.

Next up, a more natural stance. You need to be able to move, not get stagnent with feet lined up in a row. Shoulder width apart, atheltic bend in the knees. Maybe a lead foot a tad ahead. Natural is key, build off the platform that your body wants to give you.

Now, in cases of people doing this for a living, face frontal. It's a factor of body armor. Don't give the baddies a seam thru plates to shoot thru. Face that big piece of kevlar towards them.

Good cross over training can occur between unarmed and working with a gun, but only if you're training good natural postures in both, not artifical stances. This will also make transition between hands on and presenting a weapon easier. But in the end, it's just that, cross over training.

The gun it it's own art that is highly rewarding and useful. But one has to realize that just like any other art it's going to take time to learn all the considerations that go into it. Stance, grip, presentaion, trigger press, tactical considerations, it's a long list. I'm a big proponanat of making sure bb's are trained to use firearms, even if at only a rudimentary level, but you have to use movments that are viable to the handgun itslef, not just stick a gun at the end off a ma stance.

[bushido_man96]

I could only view one of the sites above, and he had a pretty side-on stance. Unless he's got a steady hand, I prefer to have two on, like tallgeese mentions.

You can opt for a slightly bladed body posititon, but it won't be side on.

[Boris]

This is a less than efficient stance when utilizing a firearm. In fact, given my background, I think it's a really bad idea.

First up, two hands on the weapon. Grip is essintal for accurate and fast fire. It's one of the many factors that make shooting an art and science in and of itself. Two hands should be used to maximize control and aid in bringing the weapon to bear. Single handed shooting should be practiced due to the likelyhood of taking a round in the hand during a gunfight. Injuries to hands are high in these encounters, it's best to practice for this possibilitry, but it's not a primary shooting platform.

Next up, a more natural stance. You need to be able to move, not get stagnent with feet lined up in a row. Shoulder width apart, atheltic bend in the knees. Maybe a lead foot a tad ahead. Natural is key, build off the platform that your body wants to give you.

Now, in cases of people doing this for a living, face frontal. It's a factor of body armor. Don't give the baddies a seam thru plates to shoot thru. Face that big piece of kevlar towards them.

Good cross over training can occur between unarmed and working with a gun, but only if you're training good natural postures in both, not artifical stances. This will also make transition between hands on and presenting a weapon easier. But in the end, it's just that, cross over training.

The gun it it's own art that is highly rewarding and useful. But one has to realize that just like any other art it's going to take time to learn all the considerations that go into it. Stance, grip, presentaion, trigger press, tactical considerations, it's a long list. I'm a big proponanat of making sure bb's are trained to use firearms, even if at only a rudimentary level, but you have to use movments that are viable to the handgun itslef, not just stick a gun at the end off a ma stance.

Thanks for reply...i respect your notion and believe you are very experienced person. I hope you have paid attention to this link http://arts21.choseit.com. If not please to read it. There are not artificialities and unnaturalness in comments of stance because it is like boxing position and that’s position is effective in any way..and as a result such gun stance efficient too. I hope you will think so. In further adding, using left stance is more dangerous for an action of weapon because the weak part of body is closed to opponent.

As you could see there is talking about a one position and it is an article manifested only this stance and nothing else... other stances still without explanation its function and some of its do not seem perspective for a fight (though it depends on situation)

I agree and disagree at the same time with you because as author of an article states his preference this is «the most effective stance with a gun by a one hand"..it means to consider stances used only a one hand although i think it is bad to use

frequently two hands. I will explain my position..

I have some experience and understand that in conflict you have to be ready to use weapon very fast as you can and immediately, to pull out and shoot a target in intercepting enemy's fire with a logical closing your vital points maximum (desirably without special preparation) but when we attempt to keep it by two hand we waste time much more and have least chances to prevent an opponent to damage us (he may kill us! To remember cowboys of western.). Moreover you more opened and it is the next disadvantage of your stance in comparison mentioned one. Also your armed hand shorter and you prolonged distance..it is not essential for the successful shooting, is not it? Even head is not covered better you can check it by mirror.. As for head and shoulder it is ok…unfortunately picture does not demonstrate that it sometimes requires closing head by raising shoulder slightly with lowing head and chin. ( probably, you should read it).

I agree with a statement that the very good position to use both of hands but it is very good only in attack and weak in defense by opening a big part of your body where a lot of weaknesses. By the object which we are discussing now you are all right in defense and offense.

In conclude I would like to tell that as you know all people are individuals and think, feel in different ways, thus there is no meaning like «good» or «bad» stance and something else…

[JusticeZero]

Most bullets fired in a gunfight miss, even from absurdly short ranges. Take the 0.03 second to flow into a stable weapon using stance. There is no similarity in lines of force between martial art attacks and a gun; the gun generates it's own power and cannot effectively gain any from anything the user does, making the time spent grounding force lines into a solid base pointless when one could say, be dropping into a Weaver stance and sighting in. About the only reason to use a martial art stance for a pistol rather than a pistol stance is if you intend to use the pistol as a bludgeoning implement rather than a projectile weapon.

[tallgeese]

One can certainly quickly present the weapon quickly to a two handed grip. It has to do with practice and the movments to clear the holster. And again, it's a better platform.

The side stance shown in the article is a bit unnatural and limits mobility, one of your best friends in a shootout. Mobility will get you to cover, your very best friend in a shootout.

Strong v. weak side isn't a factor. We're talking about a firearm, it will handle things if you can establish a platform, target with it (eitehr sited or point depending on proximity and time), and hone your trigger control. Your individual physical capabilities on either side aren't a factor.

As to defense in a gun fight...there isn't any, in the sense your talking about when facing a strong arm forward. There is cover (which will stop bullets) and there is returning fire that is accurate. That's it. If a firearm is presnted on your end, your best bet is to focus on killing the other guy first not worrying about defending if he gets too close. If he does close, keep shooting. That's your defense.

As to the distancing aspect, the difference between your muzzle and the target changes so miinimally between the pictured stance and a two handed grip that it's unimportant. Modern weapons are accurate to distances that most very competant shooters can't capatalize on it due to "user error" that any change here is non-important in the hands of a trained shooter. In fact, control of the weapon will go up so considerably with a two handed grip that it will greatly outpace the distance created.

Shooting science will continue to evolve, it's inevatable. However, I've seen enough scores drop in ranges when single handed firing is practiced to have a pretty good idea that this isn't the future of combat marksmanship. No offense, intented, I just disagree to the theory of this stance and the practicality of it. When it comes to handgunning, you have to apprach it as a different animal that ma's and work on integrating them into a complet sd package in another way. Usualy in transition work.

[Boris]

One can certainly quickly present the weapon quickly to a two handed grip. It has to do with practice and the movments to clear the holster. And again, it's a better platform.

The side stance shown in the article is a bit unnatural and limits mobility, one of your best friends in a shootout. Mobility will get you to cover, your very best friend in a shootout.

Strong v. weak side isn't a factor. We're talking about a firearm, it will handle things if you can establish a platform, target with it (eitehr sited or point depending on proximity and time), and hone your trigger control. Your individual physical capabilities on either side aren't a factor.

As to defense in a gun fight...there isn't any, in the sense your talking about when facing a strong arm forward. There is cover (which will stop bullets) and there is returning fire that is accurate. That's it. If a firearm is presnted on your end, your best bet is to focus on killing the other guy first not worrying about defending if he gets too close. If he does close, keep shooting. That's your defense.

As to the distancing aspect, the difference between your muzzle and the target changes so miinimally between the pictured stance and a two handed grip that it's unimportant. Modern weapons are accurate to distances that most very competant shooters can't capatalize on it due to "user error" that any change here is non-important in the hands of a trained shooter. In fact, control of the weapon will go up so considerably with a two handed grip that it will greatly outpace the distance created.

Shooting science will continue to evolve, it's inevatable. However, I've seen enough scores drop in ranges when single handed firing is practiced to have a pretty good idea that this isn't the future of combat marksmanship. No offense, intented, I just disagree to the theory of this stance and the practicality of it. When it comes to handgunning, you have to apprach it as a different animal that ma's and work on integrating them into a complet sd package in another way. Usualy in transition work.

Hi,

I’m enjoying to discuss with you…thank you…sure I cannot change your position concerned with these stances,,,but I would like to make it clear once again. I would like to explain why it is more faster to use a one hand..for example if you will taste to move your right participant rightly in a direction where opponent stands and listen to this movie you can notice it is simple and therefore more efficient. In contradiction, applying two handed grip sounds like using two hand while someone pulls out nunchaku for example and gripped it by two hand before striking an enemy…you see it wastes the time and a little funny! Ok, it is a question of exercising and developing too…You know that we may win a championship of MMA by a one of inefficient system of the World on condition we are very skilled fighters..ultimately it is not important how good your technique but how good you are...today we have talked about only technique and this technique by scientific approach is all right.

As for unnatural position there is only a one position with legs are too much wide and I agree with you... other stances are pretty enough because there are springiness, balance, simplicity, comfort, mobility is ok. It looks like kickboxing guards…who says kickboxing stances have no mobility? It is efficient for many people.

Why it is unimportant if you can touch an opponent, for instance, by leading hand faster than by reverse participant and it occurs by reason that the leading hand rather near the opponent than I the case of gripping it as you suggest…we have almost same situation with weapon… Yes, there are target changes so miinimally between the pictured stance and a two handed grip but this minimum should be a reason of defeat…in the fight everything is important.

By right stance you have more comfort to make a shot precisely( in adding the leading hand facing forward improves precision ) than using to much natural stance or as copes teach you to stay…prolonged hand it is essential not only in the martial arts also in a gun fight because principles are practically same…

Sorry, I have not talked about only firearm… position to me not just firearm..i sure you do not want to freeze a progress or limit a fight…thus why we have to pay attention only for firearm? Probably, we need to think also about defense our weak points and choose optimal position which give us at the same time to lead effective firearm and to save some significant human body targets…this stance satisfied these requirements... it is good in defense and offence.

For example, you certainly would be rather damaged with your opened position and two hands in the situation raised surprisingly by means of description above in the previous post or link(you will win a fight when you are faster than your enemy..or he’ll make a shot first and that’s all…be faster possible when you use a single hand, prolonged maximum in a direction of opponent ).

The strong or weak side is a factor…the strong side faced to an opponent better by motivation it gives him to shoot only this part and you can accept it better...in the other words it should save your life in a good way than using weak side or standing like copes usually do when catch crime person.

This version of stance is not a question of marksmanship and first of all the question of who is the faster will shoot an opponent in any situation (if you late you killed)..it is most essential part of gun fighting for people and how practiced it... that’s why such stance is preferably to take…your preference is all right too but only in the special situations. In the case of duel you have fewer chances to leave to live because of disadvantages which we discussed. You all right in words that the west tradition never dies and martial art stances have no future (May be in China or Japan these positions will popular) …although who knows what will be happened tomorrow? Thank you and sorry for my disagreement...

[KarateEd]

First up, two hands on the weapon.

This first link didn't work for me, but when I viewed the second link the first thing that came to my mind was "two hands on the weapon," just like tallgeese states. It is a more stable grip from which to fire a weapon.

[tallgeese]

If it is a quick movement to a fireing posture you're looking for, the two handed grip is still the way to go. COnsider how the weapon should be presented:

Your strong hand goes to the grip and defeats any retention devices you might have. Not a concern with conceiled carry usually, but you'll h ave to practice getting around the clothes you have covering it.

Now you begin an upward movement of the weapon with enough forward pressure on the front sight that it scrapes the interior of the holser. This will give you the energy on the presention you will need in a second to bring the muzzle to bear.

The weapon now clears the holster. With the forward pressure (slight) on the front sight, the barrel will now automatically "pop" in the direction of your frontal target. This allows you to immediatly engage from a close quarters situation IF THE SITUATION WARRANTS.

Now you strong hand (holding the gun) punches the pistol out to a firing posture.

As it's extending, the off hand meets the grip and a final platform is established. With time and distacne on your side, this is when you'd get your flash sight picuture and engage. Or, if the situation is rapidly closing to CQC distance, you'd point shoot if you've practiced. Both have their place.

Notice that while a good presentaion address a single handed fire in chest to chest contact, and allows for it, it's still not the primary form of engagment. Still, the actaul draw and punch to extension are conducted with the strong hand and are very fast with some training and practice. This method, which is currently largly accepted by by many weapon carrying insitutions, give you both rapidity of the presentation and capability of early deployment, while still retianining the more stable two-handed shooting platform.

I'm probilby not going to change your mind either, that's ok. I'm just trying to explain why things are accepted in firearms training and the reasons behind them and why they serve the intended purpose of armed confrontation better in this instance than a side facing, single handed stance.

[Boris]

[first thing that came to my mind was "two hands on the weapon," just like tallgeese states. It is a more stable grip from which to fire a weapon.

Ok. ... more stable to grip and not stable to survive...