The martial arts stances combined with a colt...

[Boris]

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.

Thank you for your attention and discussing:) i hold better that's is good for offensive and at the same time for defending and surviving purposes (it is important too)...My friend, i afraid our statements will not change our ideas...i think we’ve explained all important reasons why our preferences have superiority and i think there is no sense to describe it once again (may be I will add some comments later)

[Boris]

Edited February 11, 2009 by Boris

[Boris]

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.

If you can accept using a pistol as a bludgeoning implement you automatically accept an opportunity to apply it as a projectile weapon. Why? Because if you may use it to strike by pistol an opponent it means ability and feeling that it is effective to shoot a target too, for example, by reason it has same comfort... the special organization of legs, and hands influence to the effectiveness of any attack.

[bushido_man96]

[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...

The two-handed grip/stance is very good to "survive" from. It has been used for years and years, and is still trained that way, from LEOs up through the military for firearms training. Even military guys who retired and now train RBSD systems advocate the use of the two-handed grip.

[tallgeese]

I guess I still don't understand your argument, Boris, that this posture offers more survivability.

In fact, if you're wearing body armor, it (along with a traditional weaver) will give you less due to the fact that you're presenting the lighter aspects of your vest. In the case of lighter (II's and lower) it's even an open area between the plates. In either case, you're removing the heavy trauma plate from the equation of taking a round for you if hit.

Granted, this is a specialized example. Still, even without armor, gunfights are won by accurate, fast fire. A two handed grip makes this easier by a huge margin. Do this test, go fire 50 rounds from the 15 yard line two handed. Now do the same with a single hand, see which scores are higher. Now consider that this drop is prior to the adrenal dump of actual combat. If you don't live someplace that you have acess to this capability, you'll have to take the word of others who've done this sort of things and have see the results of examples just like this.

As to why JusticeZero would automatically assume that you'll apply a firearm as a projectile weapon I wuld guess it'sbecause that's what it's designed to do. Everything else is secondary and quickly approaching a "worst case" situation.

bushido man also makes a good point about who uses this method. It's been distilled over the years for efficiency. There has been a drastic upswing in LE officer survial during gun battles since the 70's. Part of the reason is body armor. The other part, is tactics. This includes the development of shooting stances like I talked about. It's a culmination of experimetation and hard lessions.

I'd rather base my survival skill set off that than, again, a ma stance with a gun at the end.

[Kuma]

http://www.hojutsu.com/

The martial art of shooting, for those who might be interested. I know I would be keen to check out a seminar or two.

[tallgeese]

Interesting.

Persoanlly, I'm not a weaver stace guy, as you can see by my above post. Again, if you're in body armor and taking a side facing stance, you're presenting the gap in your armor and I don't want to rememver one stace for work and one for off duty.

Jeff Coopers work remains seminal for sure. And, even all this time later very relevent. But advances have been made. What is still invaluable in his writings is his attitute towards mindset of winning gunfights. His stuff should be required reading for anyone serious about firearms for sure. But the state of the art didn't stop with Cooper.

I'm not saying I wouldn't check it out, but personally, I'd check out Gunsite, Sig Acadamy, Thunder Ranch, ect. They've been working toward cutting edge for quite some time and have continued to strive to stay ahead of the curve. Also, on a more affordable note, several NRA schools have really seen an upswing in tactical level concepts of late. Again, giving you a more accessable option to training.

Just my thoughts. I'm sure these guys are qualified, but certain other options will cut straight to the source material without the traditional ma elements apparent here.