Snake45
Professional
How do you achieve a one-handed isosceles? That's like talking about a one-sided triangle.
Bad Trigger Alignment = Bad Grip Angle
- Thread starter ACIinventor
- Start date
ACIinventor
Elite
The REAL safety is your mind no matter what gun you use!
ACIinventor
Elite
I've heard that the ergonomics of the CZ 75 are very good. I'll have to take a closer look.
ACIinventor
Elite
Yeah, basically Isosceles from the waist down. Wide stance, forward facing with just the one arm extended presenting the pistol. I'm a bit ambidextrous, so it works for me with either hand. I'll punch the pistol out from the centerline of my chest while the other arm acts injured. Its wise to train for any contingency.
In this instance, not really. I really don't have any other considerations with this choice. It just feels natural to me, so why revert back.
Note. I would suspect that I may be required to employ different stances throughout a self defense engagement based on the situation.
^ There's a counter-point to that.....while "blading" should offer less visible profile to the threat, it increases the chances of a through-shot of the thorax injuring not just one lung, but both.
Unfortunately, as with most things in life, there's no easy definitive.
"Squaring up," either with or without armor, has both its advantages as well as disadvantages.
---
^ I agree, in-isolation, lower bore-axis should help decrease the magnitude of muzzle-flip. Pure physics.
But the problem, as several of the SMEs in this old Pistol-Forum thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1531-Low-Bore-Axis-how-important-is-it) noted, is that we cannot isolate this design parameter completely: the bore-axis is built into the gun itself. To suggest that bore-axis is a major contributor to whether any single handgun propagates more or less muzzle-flip, one would literally have to be able to have that same gun with varying bore-axes. As a result, the comparison of gun-to-gun -where it comes to bore-axis- unfortunately invariably also involves other aspects of both the gun's other physical parameters (i.e. distribution of mass) as well as how that gun may (or may not) "fit" that specific end-user. The short of it is that the bore-axis comparison lacks sufficient control over other variables in order to be self-valid.
That a Glock may "shoot flat" for Robert Vogel may well be the fact that it has a lower bore-axis, but as Vogel notes, he also prefers it due to the gun's grip angle. And as TCinVA noted in the old PF thread, other noted shooters of that caliber -Rob Leatham and Earnest Langdon- have both achieved their championships using guns which are ostensibly of higher bore-axis.
---
-to which ACInventor replied-
^ @Snake45 , I think that what @ACIinventor is saying is that upper body presentation can be divorced from lower-body "stance."
D.R. Middlebrooks' "The Evolution of Technique" is a really informative video:
Now, combine that with the following, from Andrew Blubaugh of Apex Shooting & Tactics -
^ As @David N. noted, in the dynamic fight, the "stance" is something that, more than likely, most of us will "flow through" and may never be able to establish as that foundational base. Should that occur, it will be up to our other fundamentals to compensate for our compromise with this one.
Breaking this one out for separate discussion.
While most modern shooters now favor the rather squared-up Iso/Mod-Iso/Reverse Weaver/Reverse Chapman upper body presentation, lower-body stance is now almost exclusively divided between the more offset (I hesitate to say "bladed," due to the connotations that carries with how the shooter's upper body may be oriented towards the threat) "fighting stance" versus a more parallel "balanced/athletic stance."
The former can be seen in what's taught by instructors/schools with more of a focus on integrated combatives, while the latter is typically favored by those with a more sporting/competition bend. However, these distinctions are by no means exclusive: for example, John "Shrek" McPhee -who has a heavily military background- teaches a more balanced, athletic stance and technique.
Here's an interesting "stance" discussion I participated in on XDTalk - https://www.xdtalk.com/threads/cant-convert-to-isosceles-from-weaver-need-advice.259574/ - I think you'll find it an enjoyable read.
-----
Personally, @Snake45 , I do come from a background of years of martial arts training from when I was much, much younger. Aligning with your observations, I also started off with a more Weaver-like stance, with a more bladed lower body, due I think in no small part to this background.
When I entered the sport/hobby about 10 years ago, "the squared up stance" -aka. Iso/Mod-Iso- was all the rage, and I worked hard to fit into the mold. Only a few years later, the idea that "the gunfight" was a part of a more integrated, physical, "fight" in the combative sense started to take hold in the defensive-shooting industry, and I experienced more and more in training classes instructors who are of that line of thinking encouraging a more "fighting stance."
Personally, given this experience, I don't think that any one stance or another is necessarily superior overall. Instead, I believe that there are isolated instances where one certain stance or another can potentially have the ability to produce superior results specifically in the context of one or another physical activity. My hope would be that I have trained and practiced sufficiently that I would be able to take advantage of what I'd ingrained as the "right" one for that purpose, be it the physical fight or a gunfight, when the time comes.
ACIinventor
Elite
^ @Snake45 , I think that what @ACIinventor is saying is that upper body presentation can be divorced from lower-body "stance."^ There's a counter-point to that.....while "blading" should offer less visible profile to the threat, it increases the chances of a through-shot of the thorax injuring not just one lung, but both.
Unfortunately, as with most things in life, there's no easy definitive.
"Squaring up," either with or without armor, has both its advantages as well as disadvantages.
---
^ I agree, in-isolation, lower bore-axis should help decrease the magnitude of muzzle-flip. Pure physics.
But the problem, as several of the SMEs in this old Pistol-Forum thread (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1531-Low-Bore-Axis-how-important-is-it) noted, is that we cannot isolate this design parameter completely: the bore-axis is built into the gun itself. To suggest that bore-axis is a major contributor to whether any single handgun propagates more or less muzzle-flip, one would literally have to be able to have that same gun with varying bore-axes. As a result, the comparison of gun-to-gun -where it comes to bore-axis- unfortunately invariably also involves other aspects of both the gun's other physical parameters (i.e. distribution of mass) as well as how that gun may (or may not) "fit" that specific end-user. The short of it is that the bore-axis comparison lacks sufficient control over other variables in order to be self-valid.
That a Glock may "shoot flat" for Robert Vogel may well be the fact that it has a lower bore-axis, but as Vogel notes, he also prefers it due to the gun's grip angle. And as TCinVA noted in the old PF thread, other noted shooters of that caliber -Rob Leatham and Earnest Langdon- have both achieved their championships using guns which are ostensibly of higher bore-axis.
---
-to which ACInventor replied-
^ @Snake45 , I think that what @ACIinventor is saying is that upper body presentation can be divorced from lower-body "stance."
D.R. Middlebrooks' "The Evolution of Technique" is a really informative video:
Now, combine that with the following, from Andrew Blubaugh of Apex Shooting & Tactics -
^ As @David N. noted, in the dynamic fight, the "stance" is something that, more than likely, most of us will "flow through" and may never be able to establish as that foundational base. Should that occur, it will be up to our other fundamentals to compensate for our compromise with this one.
Kind of like when Massad Ayoob suggests using the Sabrina position while the lower body maneuvers up steps in a stairwell.
Good information.
ACIinventor
Elite
When Gaston Glock wants to solve his bad trigger alignment problem, tell him to give me a call. I'm amenable to granting licensing rights for the right price.
Your diagram is comically wrong. if you place a glock in your hand such as is demonstrated in the graphic the trigger is directly in line with the index finger. The beaver tail is filled by the meat above your index knuckle and below the thumb. Your diagram is biomechanically incorrect.
As you can see below the index finger stays perfectly aligned with the index and forearm.
Attachments
Snake45
Professional
Good to see this thread brought back from the dead. There's a LOT of good information and discussion here, and I enjoyed reading it all again.
Special shout out to Wolfpack076, who apparently just discovered this thread this morning and has been liking all the right stuff. Stay thirsty, my friend!
Special shout out to Wolfpack076, who apparently just discovered this thread this morning and has been liking all the right stuff.
Stay thirsty, my friend!
Snake45
Professional
I'm a man who likes to keep an open mind, so I'm willing to entertain the possibility that you're actually serious, and might even actually be right. I've never handled one of these things, and most likely never will, so I can't speak with any authority one way or the other.The perfect grip angle.
OTOH, I also speak fluent satire/humor, and I've come to know from your posts that you're a serious and competent "gun guy," and thus must also entertain the possibility that this is a joke from you. If so, it's a pretty clever one, and I "got it," and chuckled at it. Well played, and much Respect, old friend!
I'd just hate to see this very interesting and thought-provoking thread go off the tracks and degenerate into yet another joke thread about HPs and Yeet Cannons and suchlike.
Y'all unnerstan' what I'm sayin', here? That's all.
SimonRL
Hellcat
My experience is that low bore axis - unless we’re talking something like a Laugo Alien - is overrated. I own an Archon Type B whose USP is its non-Browning action and low bore axis. It is a great shooting gun and I love it, but does it shoot better than my high bore axis Sig P226 or most of my 1911s? No. IMHO, good trigger placement is the key to everything.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Oh, he’s serious.I'm a man who likes to keep an open mind, so I'm willing to entertain the possibility that you're actually serious, and might even actually be right. I've never handled one of these things, and most likely never will, so I can't speak with any authority one way or the other.
OTOH, I also speak fluent satire/humor, and I've come to know from your posts that you're a serious and competent "gun guy," and thus must also entertain the possibility that this is a joke from you. If so, it's a pretty clever one, and I "got it," and chuckled at it. Well played, and much Respect, old friend!
I'd just hate to see this very interesting and thought-provoking thread go off the tracks and degenerate into yet another joke thread about HPs and Yeet Cannons and suchlike.
Y'all unnerstan' what I'm sayin', here? That's all.
Never saw anyone shoot a Yeet cannon as much as him. All the while to and fro in a Buick
