Holding your pistol

[BJung]

I read that the teacup technique is better than the push-pull technique of holding our pistol.

Forgetting about the teach cup technique, I was trying the push-pull technique where I'm pushing my fist and front sights at the center of the bullseye and holding it firm in place. I do this with my bow to increase focus.

What's your opinion?

[10-96]

Isometric tension all the way with the push/pull method for me.

[TunnelRat]

He claims training and experience, yet his criteria is exactly opposite what I would expect.

Where did you read this?

[BJung]

Tunnel Rat, where's this quote from? Anyway, the Teacup idea is from the book titled The Perfect Shot by Albert League and the Push-pull method is from Jeff Cooper (I think)

[JohnKSa]

I read that the teacup technique is better than the push-pull technique of holding our pistol.

The push-pull method is still advocated by some although it's not as commonly taught as it once was. A more symmetric stance and grip seems to be the most commonly taught and used technique these days.

The teacup method isn't currently taught or advocated by anyone with any decent credentials/training/experience--at least not that I'm aware of.

Anyway, the Teacup idea is from the book titled The Perfect Shot by Albert League...

This guy?

https://www.amazon.com/Albert-H.-Lea...ntt_dp_epwbk_0



Are you sure he's advocating the Teacup hold? That picture shows him using something that looks a lot like a Weaver/push-pull technique and nothing like a Teacup hold.

Here's what the Teacup hold looks like, taken from this website:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Charlie%27s_Angels_(1976)



The gunhand is basically set down onto the support hand as if the support hand were the 'saucer' for the 'teacup' of the support hand and pistol.

[Aguila Blanca]

The "teacup" hold is (IMHO) a very old, outdated technique. It works okay for shooting light loads out of heavy guns, when there is no time urgency to get back on target for a follow-up shot. The reason is simply that the "teacup" hold does nothing -- and cannot do anything -- to control recoil and/or to get your sights back on target for a follow-up shot.

The "push-pull" hold creates what the old Charles Atlas ads from the comic books of my youth called "isometric tension." You are not just holding the gun up there while waiting for it to go off -- your muscles are tensed, so when the gun goes off you are already resisting muzzle flip. You don't have to think about it because the muscles are already doing it.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The push-pull method is still advocated by some although it's not as commonly taught as it once was. A more symmetric stance and grip seems to be the most commonly taught and used technique these days.

Push-pull isn't limited to an asymmetrical Weaver stance. It works perfectly well with an isosceles stance, as well.

[JohnKSa]

I guess the teacup would too, for that matter--but that's not how the Isosceles is taught.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I guess the teacup would too, for that matter--but that's not how the Isosceles is taught.

That depends on who's teaching it, I guess.

[raimius]

For semi-autos, a strong, high, thumbs forward grip is usually recommended.


Here are some good descriptions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4c7JDXQOB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCJ1HLQNflY

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by burbank_jung

Tunnel Rat, where's this quote from? Anyway, the Teacup idea is from the book titled The Perfect Shot by Albert League and the Push-pull method is from Jeff Cooper (I think)

The quote was from your original post on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stephen426]

The Push/Pull method is much better as your support hand does much more to help you control the weapon. The cup and saucer works by having the other hand steady the gun, but does nothing to help control recoil.

[BJung]

By closing your eyes, how is the force of your hands and arms applied during the aim and shot (s)? From what I understand, the teacup is like the one handed bullseye standing target stance where you allow the recoil to go through its cycle and return to your natural hold. The difference is in the stance and the use of the other hand and arm as a shelf.

The push pull method. To me, you add more resistance. Hopefully, it helps you bring down your sights back to position. My concern is that you over react and bring the sights below your target. Too much resistance is tiring when I was just trying to hold the handgun down using the Weaver stance. But, with the push-pull method mentioned above where I'm mentally projecting my focus, front sight, and forced towards the point of impact, that I'm distracted from worrying about recoil.

Comments please

[T. O'Heir]

Whether you're using the teacup, teach cup or push-pull technique, you should use whatever works for you. Anything else is and has been argued about by everybody and his brother plus all their cousins for eons.
Do not, however, get your training by watching TV or movies.
"...distracted from worrying..." That indicates a lack of concentration. You may be pushing and pulling too hard too.

[BJung]

I was thinking about trying the gangsta method someday. Maybe I could wear a forefinger ring with a front sight blade then aim to the right about an inch.

[Kevin Rohrer]

My opinion is to get dedicated training w/ the handgun you will carry, learn the different methods, and pick the one that works best for you.

[idek]

A couple people mentioned the Albert League book. His method is not the teacup method, but it does encourage a very light grip. By trying his suggestions and doing a lot of dryfire practice, I got to the point that, during live fire, I could place a few shots fairly well... but only a few.

I was maybe doing it wrong, but the gun felt like it was about to fly out of my hands. After just a few shots, I was flinching bad. I'd go back to a bunch of dryfiring to suppress the flinch, but a few live rounds later, I'd be flinching again.

[JohnKSa]

That depends on who's teaching it, I guess.

Of course. As far as I know, there's no organization that oversees trainers to insure that the training they provide adheres to the official definitions of the various stances--or even that enforces official definitions.

That said, the Isosceles is a symmetric stance with both arms forming a triangle of equal sides with the body--thus the name 'Isosceles". I suppose one could try to do a push-pull with a pure Isosceles although as soon as the push-pull is integrated, there's a strong tendency for the support arm to bend which ruins the symmetry that defines and names the Isosceles.

There is a Modified Weaver or Chapman Stance which is sometimes also referred to as the Modified Isosceles. It is not as bladed as the Weaver or as symmetric as the Isosceles. That asymmetry means it can more easily incorporate the push-pull than the Isosceles since the stance allows for the body to be angled to the target instead of square to it which, in turn allows one arm to be bent to provide the 'pull'.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

That said, the Isosceles is a symmetric stance with both arms forming a triangle of equal sides with the body--thus the name 'Isosceles". I suppose one could try to do a push-pull with a pure Isosceles although as soon as the push-pull is integrated, there's a strong tendency for the support arm to bend which ruins the symmetry that defines and names the Isosceles.

Since I've been shooting that way pretty much since I went from a one-hand hold (which is what we used in the Army in the 1960s) to using both hands, I feel qualified to address this. I respectfully disagree. I have been using an isosceles stance with a push-pull hold for a couple of decades. I have not noticed any tendency for the support arm to bend. It is, after all, an "isosceles" hold --it's equilateral. If one arm bends, the other arm has to bend by a commensurate amount.

The intent of push-pull is not to move either hand, it's merely to tense the muscles without moving the hands.

[BJung]

Aguila. Decades ago I read Brian Enos' book titled Practical shooting what little I remember from it is that he was a proponent of the isosceles hold. Am I correct to say that just as you fire your handgun one handed and allow the recoil to rise up by itself and settle back down to your nature point of aim which was at the target? The handgun tends to rise up to the right and back down for me. For the isosceles hold, there is enough pressure by the support hand to support the handgun weight so it's evenly proportioned. The path of the handgun is now vertical or close to it. The same might be said of Albert League's weaver stance but the force is not balanced.

Most of what we do comes from our minds. What can you add?

[stephen426]

I tend to shoot in a fairly bladed stance (modified weaver). Having one leg further back helps me control recoil better and makes me a smaller target. My dominant hand is straight and my support hand is bent. I place my head inline with my shooting arm and move my arm and head together. It gives me more consistency as the sights my eyes line up automatically.

[BJung]

Maybe you can try a few rounds for me since I don't go to the range often. Even though I can't go, it doesn't stop me from thinking about shooting.

I shoot my bow more often. I've found that finding the natural point of aim helps. For traditional archers this means placing your feet so when relaxed, your body points your aim at the target and the point of impact. This is done mostly by lifting your bow hand and pointing your arrow. But, I've discovered that it also works if I stand in a fighting position - the same as in a fight or surprised and ready to defend yourself - and extending your striking hand like a fist at the target. I've found my arrow's point of impact was better where my forefinger knuckle was pointed than my index finger knuckle. So, the setup would be to look away at the target, throw a punch without twisting your body and then see where your hand and knuckle is positioned. Change your footing. Then pickup your handgun and shoot. To me, the knife is a tool to increase the effect of our fist and the handgun is a machine that increase the lethality of the knife. The platform is the same. Our bodies platform is the same. That's what I'm theorizing now.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by burbank_jung

Aguila. Decades ago I read Brian Enos' book titled Practical shooting what little I remember from it is that he was a proponent of the isosceles hold. Am I correct to say that just as you fire your handgun one handed and allow the recoil to rise up by itself and settle back down to your nature point of aim which was at the target?

I have no idea what you just said there.

The handgun tends to rise up to the right and back down for me. For the isosceles hold, there is enough pressure by the support hand to support the handgun weight so it's evenly proportioned. The path of the handgun is now vertical or close to it.

I think that's a fair description of the isosceles hold as described by JohnKSa. My isosceles hold adds a push-pull component, which acts to reduce muzzle flip and recoil firearm rise, and contributes to getting back on target faster.

The same might be said of Albert League's weaver stance but the force is not balanced.

I don't think they are at all the same.

Most of what we do comes from our minds. What can you add?

It doesn't come from our minds. It comes primarily from muscle memory. That's why "Practice makes perfect" is lousy advice, because if you practice bad habits, you are perfecting bad habits. The more correct saying, IMHO, is, "Perfect practice makes perfect."

[pwc]

Have the student point at something on the distance with their off hand, arm semi-straight out. They will use their "pointy " finger. Then have them do the same thing with the thumb of their off hand. They can feel the forearm muscles tighten as the thumb goes straight out. Have them open their hand while still pointing, and with their gun hand, have them make a fist like they are holding a gun.

Put the gun hand fist in the curved palm of their off hand and then grip the gun hand with the off hand, all the while keeping the off thumb pointed at the distant object (target).

Keeping the offhand thumb pointed toward the target, pretensions the off hand to support the gun arn thru isometeric tension.

And no one kicked sand in Charles Atlas's face again.

[BJung]

Charles Atlas! pwc, you're giving away your age.

[JohnKSa]

I have been using an isosceles stance with a push-pull hold for a couple of decades. I have not noticed any tendency for the support arm to bend.

Interesting. Part of the point of the blading of the Weaver and the Modified Weaver is to allow the support arm to bend more than the strong hand arm to set up the tension between the strong hand pushing and the support hand pulling.

In the Weaver, the strong side arm is bent, but not as much as the support arm, and in the Modified Weaver, the strong-side arm is straight, or nearly so and the support arm is bent slightly to accommodate the slight blading and to better create the push-pull tension.

I've never heard the true Isosceles taught with a push-pull integrated--maybe you should give it a name and call it your own invention.

Have you tried timed trials with your "Push-Pull Isosceles" vs. the Weaver, Modified Weaver and True Iscosceles to see what kind of differences you encounter?