‪Fundamentals of Double Action Revolver Shooting‬‏ - YouTube

Still very fast for the first shot & being a low profile target seems like a good idea.. IMO. I grew up with this style and wonder why we drifted away from it

Brings back memories.
Fire six rounds and reload from the pocket with loose rounds!
Notice the uniform officer holding two suspects (using a Colt).
I well remember the open top "Fast Draw" holsters. Fine for the range.
and qualifications but useless in "Real Life". In a foot pursuit or fight you lose your weapon at the start.
On duty we carried "Cross Draw".
This method of shooting was still taught in the 1970s.
Also qualification ranges were 3, 7, 15, 25, and 50 yards.
Thank you for posting,
Jimmy

Yup,
That there is shur nuff right...
And we like it!

Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

The whistle blowing by the cop before he shot at the bank robbers - now that's HOT!

__________________
Doug

Who remembers these? Hank Sloan models issued in the early 70s.

__________________
183rd FBINA

I really like the total lack of "recoil" in those old revolvers.

My grandson said the same thing when I brought home a Model 10 heavy barrel a year or so ago.......Where's the recoil???

Great video.

Early Anchorage PD Training

Anyone remember the "Cross Draw" duty holsters?

We were issued full flap cross draws until 1977 when we went to strong side.

__________________
183rd FBINA

I still have one of the old crossdraw rigs the patrol issued for our 6" model 28's. They were a safe rig if you knew how to use them. Fast, too, with the proper draw technique.

Seeing the old Sam Browne Belt and front bullet holder reminded me of the strap and snap holsters. The biggest problem with them was you often lost the gun when rolling around on the ground with a suspect. Does anyone remember the "clam shell" holster? I still have the one I used for duty carry, a Bianchi "Break Front" in basket weave, for the 4" Model 28. Drawing took some getting use to but no-one could pull it out from behind and it never fell out. I later swapped the front (12 round) holder for a Safariland "dump box" (for lack of a better term). Two separate "boxes" held 6 rounds each and, when dropped down, placed the rounds in your hand. I remember the PPC as 3, 7, 15 and 35 yards, loading from the 50 rounds you carried in your front pocket. The folks today, with magazines carried on the belt, have a definite advantage.

Because the shooting techniques we have today are ~far~ superior and we're still developing. For example, the "stand and deliver" method taught in that film will get you, sure enough, shot at close range. And all that fancy swaying the gun around on the draw is a waste of motion.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

We used the old FBI Tactical Revolver Course for our quals back in the 70s and up to the mid 80s. Run 25 yards and then fire eighteen rounds at the fifty yard barricade with six of them weak hand. Eighteen more from the twenty five yard barricade again with six weak hand. Twelve from the fifteen yard and twelve from the seven yard. The time was fairly generous but you still needed to use good marksmanship to get those ten ring hits from the fifty.

I accept that most encounters are very close range but the lack of longer range training results in the modern officers having the mindset that twenty five yards is the maximum effective range for their handgun. Long range training should be included as it requires a good knowledge and use of the basics of marksmanship.

I ran a yearly training with my department with the officers having the opportunity to shoot at ranges up to one hundred yards with their handgun. Many were amazed that they could get decent hits on the target when they concentrated and remembered their basics.

[QUOTE=Steve in Vermont;136057602]Seeing the old Sam Browne Belt and front bullet holder reminded me of the strap and snap holsters. The biggest problem with them was you often lost the gun when rolling around on the ground with a suspect. Does anyone remember the "clam shell" holster? I still have the one I used for duty carry, a Bianchi "Break Front" in basket weave, for the 4" Model 28. Drawing took some getting use to but no-one could pull it out from behind and it never fell out. I later swapped the front (12 round) holder for a Safariland "dump box" (for lack of a better term). Two separate "boxes" held 6 rounds each and, when dropped down, placed the rounds in your hand. I remember the PPC as 3, 7, 15 and 35 yards, loading from the 50 rounds you carried in your front pocket. The folks today, with magazines carried on the belt, have a definite advantage.
Cross Draw, Clam Shell, Border Patrol, and Front Break. I used the all during my career.
My Front Break was a "Berns-Martin" black basketweave holster with Berns-Martin handcuff case, cartridge holder, and gun belt. Great combo. I loaned it to a "newby" and never saw it again. Most of my career was using a "Jorden River Belt and Holster" combo.

[QUOTE=akviper;136058131]We used the old FBI Tactical Revolver Course for our quals back in the 70s and up to the mid 80s. Run 25 yards and then fire eighteen rounds at the fifty yard barricade with six of them weak hand. Eighteen more from the twenty five yard barricade again with six weak hand. Twelve from the fifteen yard and twelve from the seven yard. The time was fairly generous but you still needed to use good marksmanship to get those ten ring hits from the fifty.

I accept that most encounters are very close range but the lack of longer range training results in the modern officers having the mindset that twenty five yards is the maximum effective range for their handgun. Long range training should be included as it requires a good knowledge and use of the basics of marksmanship.

I ran a yearly training with my department with the officers having the opportunity to shoot at ranges up to one hundred yards with their handgun. Many were amazed that they could get decent hits on the target when they concentrated and remembered their basics.

I was "Firearms Instructer" for my Agency. In addition to the required qualification course I had my officers fire 50 and 100 yards prone and barricade positions.

Jimmyj Great thread! Thank you

Our only approved holster was the "Border Patrol Style." Thin retention strap and if the stap was unsnapped, it was a very fast draw holster. But one that would not prevent someone from taking your gun. We had single "dump" pouches....a few guys got brave, bucked the system and went to "double dump pouches." then guys like me got brave and we ordered speed loaders and holders and the brass went nuts saying speed loader carrier "looked ridiculous" well ridiculous or not I could load shoot 18 rounds in under thirty seconds and reload as fast as anyone with a semi auto.....the 30 seconds was an eternity....It was no problem getting off all 18...six strong hand prone, six strong hand barricade and six weak hand barricade.....now the guys get 45 seconds to shoot twelve with a mandatory reload...shoot one and reload or shoot 11 but reload once and 45 seconds with a semi auto...heck you can do that by reloading the empty magazine...and yes, cross draw...The Highway Patrol was a big fan of that, because they had no cages and put the bad guy in the front seat for his ride to jail....oh those were the days

I downloaded that video a few weeks ago and have been researching that very question. So far the best answer I've come up with is "because the experts we have now didn't learn about gunfighting from gunfighting".

Actually, I believe the "grandfather" to the techniques that are so widely in practice today was "The Modern Technique of the Pistol" developed originally by Jeff Cooper in the late 1950's. I dare say that Cooper's cadre of shooters had more than cursory experience with actual gunfights.

I'm glad you joined in CS, as I know you are knowledgable about the "The Modern Technique of the Pistol". From what I'd read by Jeff Cooper it sounded as though it was developed soley by what he'd learned on the range and of the people he was shooting with, that I knew of, they were all into competition shooting and none of them had any gunfighting experience. I'm not saying there were none, just none that I know of. You don't have any information about that do you by any chance? I do know that he asked his students to let him know if they were ever in a gunfight to let him know how his system worked so he could make ajustments if needed, and he did get a good deal of information back. However two drawbacks to this are that the ones who had negative feedback might not have been able to give any information and even lousy shooters have won gunfights.

On the other hand, the movie above is a product of the FBIs looking for law enforcement officers that had been in real gunfights, and hopefully more than one, in the 1930s. They introduced the PPC type training because it more closely reflected their experiences to replace the old "bullseye" type training. As these experienced men retired they were replaced by people that again had little knowledge of gunfighting and chose to follow the "new and improved" programs.

I don't recall the actual statistics but the old point and shoot style did not result in very many hits on bad guys. The ratio of rounds fired to rounds hitting the bad guy were appalling. For the Jelly Brices and real gunfighters that practiced frequently those techniques worked. Most cops don't shoot weekly or even monthly even back then. The skills go away if not used regularly.

Police departments that adopted the "modern" training had significant increases in the hit to miss ratio in actual gunfights.

The last statistics I had were from the seventys and most departments that I knew of were still using either a PPC type course or a modified version of it. The average number of shots fired at that time in a police gunfight were 2.3. I have been searching for years to find new numbers because the shootings that I've been familiar with have had a lot more than that fired and it has progressively gotten worse as time goes by.

I do recall that with the point shooting during qualifications even "poor" shooters did alright at the 7 yard line but had a hard time as they moved back and had to use their sights. Now officers are using their sights at 20 feet and can't hit a thing.

Just before I retired I had a few officers that were deferred for not passing their requalifications. After a short course on point shooting everyone of them passed. The requal. required 6 shots at 54 ft. and everything else was at 20 ft. or closer, while they were taught to use their sights at everything but the 3 foot line it was not a requirement to pass. I don't know if it's better, but it sure seems easier for them to understand.

I wish I could provide you with some kind of verifiable, tangible piece of information to put your hands on, JB, but I'm not sure it exists. I do know that Cooper, Weaver, and Chapman (the three main contributors in the development of the TMTP), all saw active duty in various branches of the military while serving in various theaters (WWII and The Korean War). In addition, Chapman and Weaver both went on to serve in a Law Enforcement capacity for a number of years. While I would be lying if I said I knew of specific gunfights that these men took part in, I believe it is fair to say that all of them had real life, practical experience from which to draw from.

With all of that said, I believe it is now safe to say that the techniques these men pioneered have been thoroughly tested on the streets and in the battlefields, and even though various aspects of these techniques have evolved through the years, they still form the foundation from which nearly all military, law enforcement, and civilian defensive pistol training is derived.

True, student feedback is always subject to human flaws. That said, it's a big step in the right direction and certainly much better than trying to validate the merits of a system or training program with no feedback at all. As an example, I dare say that Tom Givens would argue that the 56 former students of his who have been involved in defensive shootings, and prevailed, is significant data (BTW - Tom teaches techniques that are based on Cooper's TMTP).

Things change. It's part of human nature to take an idea or concept, analyze it, modify it, verify it's performance, analyze it again, modify it again, verify it's performance again, and on, and on, and on. It's simply what we do. We strive to improve things, make them more efficient, and make them more effective.

With that said, it becomes very difficult to argue with a technique somebody successfully used to defend themselves from a lethal threat. It would be hard, for example, to find fault in the way a women successfully jammed her lipstick tube into the eye-socket of her would-be rapist, sending him running the other way. Likewise, it would be hard to argue with the police officer who shot his little back-up pocket pistol through his overcoat killing the murderous thug who was holding a knife to his throat.

Still, the fact that these techniques were undeniably successful at least once, doesn't mean they are the most efficient and effective techniques to include in a training program (doesn't mean they aren't either). IMO, for a defensive technique to be considered valid enough to include in any "doctrine", it has to stand up to the scrutiny of real life. Can the average person learn to perform the technique with minimal instruction? Can the technique be readily performed under stress? Is the technique safe for the person putting it into action? Does the technique pose an inordinate amount of danger or liability to innocent people that might be nearby? Can the skills needed to perform the technique correctly and efficiently be kept sharp with consistent, but not obsessive, practice? Is the problem that the technique attempts to solve a plausible problem? And finally, if performed correctly, will the technique consistently solve the problem it is attempting to solve?

Based on my experience as a civilian instructor, I don't believe there is any doubt that the one-handed techniques featured in the old FBI video would be problematic for most armed citizens to master to the degree they would need to be mastered in order for them to be safe, consistent, and effective. Not that they COULDN'T be mastered to that degree, but most armed citizens simply will never put in the time and dedication it would take to be able to shoot 4" groups, from the hip, on demand, at 30 feet. And I am forming that opinion only from the standpoint of how much time a person will generally dedicate to training and practice. Additional tactical considerations haven't been weighed in at this point.

The last study I'd seen from the modern techniques had the miss rate at over 80%, that seemed a little high until I looked at some of the recent shootings we've had locally. I do think the switch to automatics have a lot to do with that too, based again on local experience.

It also seems to me that the point shooting was much easier for the average officer to understand and learn.

CS, thanks for the feedback.
This has always been my main goal. As you may know police officers aren't always gunmen, and more and more have never fired a handgun until they got into the academy. When I talk about point shooting vs the modern methods, I'm speaking soley about the basic training of police officers. I know it works for SWAT and military personnel who train constantly with the techniques, but since they do rely so heavily on repetition it seems to be lost on the average police officer who only shoots when he has too. Point shooting that is based on hand/eye co-ordination is easy to learn, although everyone will be different as to how well they can do it. Most people have no problem at the close distances of the average police gunfight and that is what their basic training is trying to accomplish. Once they get the basics it should be their inititive to learn other techniques of shooting to see which is best for them. Officers such as Delf Bryce that have good to exceptional hand/eye co-ordination may choose to continue their practice in that type of point shooting, while those that don't may want to look for something that is more suitable to their talents.

I do lean toward point shooting because it was always naturally easy for me, although I have learned that there are many that find it nearly impossible beyond a few feet.

The low profile draw that you see was developed by a Kansas City Cop named "Jelly" Bryce. Bryce was hired by the FBI because they needed some guys who could gunfight. Bryce "took out " 18 bad guys with his S&W 357 during his law enforcement career. Google Jelly Bryce there is quite a lot written about him.

Jeff Cooper was the "generation" after Bryce. He fathered the "Modern Pistolcraft" movement in Bearlake Calif.

Experience is why.

I entered police work on the heels of the Newhall massacre in S. California. In those days we were using .38 revolvers in the open top holsters, with belt loops, or dump pouches for reloading. Wooden batons, no body armor or walkie talkies. Flashlights were thin aluminum bought from the local hardware store and were little more usefully than a candle. We taped them up to keep them from falling apart if we should hit someone with them.

I actually walked a foot beat in S. Calif. When we noticed the light flashing on top of a certain pole, we ran to the nearest "call box" and called in to see what was happening. To communicate with other officers we had a code of whistle blasts using our brass whistle on a lanyard. If you came across something you dealt with it. Alone. That was the job then.

About one year into the job, I bought a set of Safariland speed loaders, first generation. They were a direct result of Newhall (one of many). I still have them and they still work great. We were encouraged to upgrade (all of this at our own expense) to .357 magnums with (gasp) hollow point bullets. Soon after that, we were able to buy "break front" holsters, which were sold as "snatch proof" until some stupid TV show showed everyone how to defeat them. My first walkie talkie was carried on a shoulder strap and weighed about 5 pounds. The range was about 1/2 mile, line-of-sight with telescoping antenna. Pretty cutting edge stuff.

By the time I retired in 2001, we were using much of what officers use today, but the newer versions are a bit more refined. Tactics and training are modernized and made more realistic. Nostalgia aside, I have no desire to return to the golden days of yester year, but thanks for the video & memories.

Me with speed loaders, breakfront holster, Mod. 19, .357 magnum and new and improved walkie talkie. No body armor yet. Circa 1972.

__________________
Retired Police, Life NRA

Wrong City. Bryce was an Oklahoma City LEO prior to being hired by the FBI.

__________________
183rd FBINA

I know that Delf Bryce (aka "Jelly") used a much lower crouch than most people did, I'm not sure if he is the one that introduced it to the FBI though. From my readings, which there isn't a whole lot on the subject unfortunately, many gunfighters fired from a crouched position. I do believe I read somewhere that Delf did introduce the part of raising up on the balls of the feet for the "FBI crouch" so if you are hit, you will fall forward and still return fire.

I have looked all over the house for the statistics that I had from the seventys, it might be out in the garage, which is a scary thought.

Anyway, it was part of a class that the Ohio police officers training adacademy gave in early 1980 named "Advanced Patrol Tactics and Techniques". The report was supposed to have been the first of it's kind in scope, (and seems to be the last), and as I recall it was because of the questions raised after the Newhall Incedent that Pioneer461 mentioned. Ohio used it for the blueprint for them to completly redo the standard training and qualifications for the states basic police officer training.

In addition to the 2.3 avg rounds fired per police gunfight, the report also showed that most gunfights were very close and personal with the vast majority being within 7 feet. The other outstanding number was the number of shootings that happened at night where there wasn't enough light to see the sights. The changes made from the previous training were that instead of most of the firing being done at the 25 yard line, only six rounds were fired at that distance to teach the student how to use the sights. And since most gunfights occured at very close range in the dark, various point shooting techniques were taught at closer ranges. As I recall, the training was similar to what Bill Jordan wrote about in his book, "No Second Place Winner".

Took my newly acquired Model 10 out for a while last night. Thought about the video and tried something.

This was from 10 feet, drawing from the hip, squatting and pivoting like the guy in the old film. Maybe there is something to this old school stuff after all. Old school revolver/old school technique.....synchronicity!



Perhaps you can teach an old dog old tricks.

august, that's your first try? Not bad, especially if the only instruction was from the video.

Were you trying to hit the little circle or shooting at center mass?

By the way, that model 10 should point just like pointing your finger.

I was shooting at center mass. I am (somewhat) experienced with handguns, just not with the Model 10. I have eye dominance issues, so I usually shoot high and to one of the sides.

Generally, I am a mediocre shot at best. This grouping I attribute to a huge fluke.

It might not be as much of a fluke as you think. Since you aren't using your sights your eye dominance issues shouldn't really be an issue. You are basically focusing on an object and pointing your gun so it hits where are looking. If you were to practice focusing intently on the little circle through the whole draw and fire you might even be able to get a smaller grouping.

S&W revolvers were great for point shooting because they pointed naturally. If you get into your crouch position and go through the motion of the draw without drawing your gun, then point your finger at the little circle as if you were pointing it out to someone, then do the same thing with the gun in your hand, it should be very close to where you are pointing. Keep in mind to focus on the circle through the whole motion, that is important.

Excellent advice. Thank you!

I think this has really evolved into an interesting ( and mature ) discussion.

In the years past, on other Forums, any talk of the old "point shooting" generated real hysteria, as the " Front Sights Only new pistol craft" guys promised sudden death from the BG, and the end of civilization as we know it if anyone spoke in favor of Point Shooting. God Forbid anyone still use the old "FBI Crouch" ( even without the support arm over the heart ) with point shooting

Anyway, I still practice variations of it, abit with a 1911 and for an old man do good enough at 5-7 yards.

Thought you all might enjoy this page, especially the pic of the great Bill Jordan with Mr. Bryce.

Point Shooting - Colonel Rex Applegate - Sykes - Fairbairn - bobtuley.com Real World Gunfights Happen At Close Range

We had a discussion here about that photo of Delf Bryce and Bill Jordan, it's not Delf Bryce at all. That photo is from Bill Jordans book "No Second Place Winner" and the second gentleman isn't identified. Bill Jordan stated in the book that his upright stance was much better than the "gunmans crouch".

The off hand over the heart was changed years ago too. As I heard it they found that it wouldn't stop a bullet and the bones coming out of the arm/wrist/hand only acted as secondary projectiles to cause more damage to the torso. I don't know if this was supposed to have happened or just supposed.

Oops, forgot to mention the main reason they stopped using the arm in front of the chest...

Since many officers and agents started wearing ballistic vests, putting your arm in front of it would do nothing but make you crippled. Some instructors went as far as teaching to put the other arm behind you to protect it in case your shooting hand became disabled.

I was taught the FBI method by extended family and my dads HS classmate who were in the FBI. I also was taught pistol training by my Sgt Major in ROTC in college on the side. He had been with the Marksman Unit at Ft Benning GA. Read, practice and see what works for you. We are all different and no single cookie cutter approach will work for everyone.

__________________
Protected by Sigma 40VE

Not to hijack the thread, but the "Shooting for Survival" video that shows on the sidebar when you click on the link in the o/p is pretty interesting also. It was part of the program at OPOTA in '80 but seems to have been forgotten now. Anyway, it talks about how bullets bounce off of hard objects like cement/asphalt roads or brick walls and everyone that carries a firearm should be aware of it.

Since someone mentioned Applegate, and since we have some experienced people here, I'd like to ask if there's any consensus regarding the effectiveness of the type of point shooting that he demonstrated, where the arm is brought up higher and the firearm is just under your line of sight to the target. It seems quite different than the hipshooting or low crouch style, and I would think it might really suit a longer barrelled K frame or the like (unfortunately, I don't have a revolver at this time). I ask, because now that I wear bifocals (the small front sight on my Browning is right at the awkward point for my glasses), and don't get to shoot very often, I suspect that I would have little luck using the sights in a defensive situation. It's mostly academic: I live in a very low crime area, and in an old building with very thin walls between the flats, so I don't even keep the pistol loaded (I'd reach for the Ka-Bar!), but I imagine a lot of people are in the same boat eye-wise.

Ok, the "real" question is: How many of us went out and tried it???? I know I did. My grandfather was an ARMY lifer and that is how he taught me to shoot when I first started. It is still so ingrained in my training that even though I have learned "modern" techniques, it still creeps in once in a while.

I always practice shooting from the "interview stance" (body slightly turned, strong side away, weak leg forward about shoulder width), which in most cases if the SHTF is where you are shooting from anyway. All that you need to do from here is simply present your weapon and bend your knees. I find bending my knees makes presentation faster for me. I had an instructor at the academy who taught (he was old school SWAT) us this and it has been exceptional. First, it keeps your weapon away from the potential threat (remember contact distance). Second, even at grappling range it allows you to present and fire. Third, you are already in a power stance by simply bending you knees a little. Fourth, it is a non-threatening position for today's PC world. I can go on and on but it works for me. Fifth, your bladed body is a smaller target. For those of us with martial arts backgrounds, you know how powerful the position is. Now, I am not saying it's right or wrong for you but it sure like a charm for me.

__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin

"And all that fancy swaying the gun around on the draw is a waste of motion." I may be wrong. But it appears that the swaying noted in the drawing of the revolver was to deal with the presence of a sport coat. Note the way the detectives/FBI agents are dressed when they enter the bar. Their sport coats are buttoned. When they turn toward the man at the booth, they unbutton their sport coats. In the era when this film was made, I don't know if a sport coat was the norm of wear for such officers. Drawing with a sport coat on would certainly require thought to prevent hindrance. Just thinking out loud.

Point shooting is effective. I have made good hits on inanimate targets out to 75 yds. drawing and firing using a 6" 28-2 with standard ammunition. That was in a time when I probably only fired 1,000 rd. a year at the most. Nowadays when time allows I will fire about 500 rds. a month, since my trips to the range are 80 mile affairs. I do practice dry-firing at home. I don't do the crouch part of the draw as I am not law-enforcement. But I can routinely hit right about the middle of a harrow-blade out to 15 yds., inspite of not getting to spend a great deal of time at the range. For me I have found a Glock 22 points very very well. I am not as accurate with it at long range... 25-50 yds., but then I am not as accurate with any revolver at longer distances as when I fire the weapon single-action. I would imagine that regardless of the particular school thought/practice one follows, the key is to actually practice with what one will be using and to practice in real-life situations, i.e., not simply the classic dueling style. JMHO. Sincerely. brucev.

__________________
<><

The first time I qualified on a range in LE was 1971. We shot a Standard NRA 1500. And most Federal Agencies shot that qualification until the 80s when we started transisitioning to Semi Autos.

Rule 303