Does anyone use the Center Axis Relock position?

Register to hide this ad
That is just soooo coooool I can't wait to show the gang down at the range my new improved cool shooting technique...with my plastic wonder nine .

I'm sure Jeff Cooper would approve .

The above post is not real...it's Irony...(look it up)
Gary
 
It’s interesting that most defensive firearms instructors will teach the students whatever grip, stance, or style makes the instructor happy. I’ve taken classes where isosceles is the only acceptable method. Only my old arthritic shoulders told me that isn’t my most comfortable position. Most guys my age learned the Weaver Stance. And then the “modified Weaver” was the new way. To me, the center axis relock is just another modification of the tried and true. Interesting that none of them work in every situation. That is why Massad Ayoob uses all the above in his class to include the qualification shoot. It made sense to me that some perp inside my 38 inch sleeve length probably wouldn’t back up to allow my full extension isosceles stance.
 
Ive never seen anyone use this in real life.....TV thats another story.

However if you find that you can hit your target using this stance.......Go for it.

Im a strong believer in "shoot however you are comfortable so long as you hit your target". Your stance may not be the most "tacti-cool" or used by Special Forces.....but if you hit your target.....that is the goal after all right?
 
I see where it could be useful. The article points out that it’s just another method that could be helpful in certain circumstances.
 
gwpercle said:
That is just soooo coooool I can't wait to show the gang down at the range my new improved cool shooting technique...with my plastic wonder nine .

I'm sure Jeff Cooper would approve .

The above post is not real...it's Irony...(look it up)
Gary
Click to expand...



Which post isn't real? I looked the technique up and it appears to be serious training method.

To the OP I am not sure i could adjust after all this time without some retraining. It does seem to have its applications.
 
About shooting stances......back in the last century, the Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy videotaped their students in their fiendish shoot house. At that time they taught strictly Weaver.

After some time (we're talking thousands of students), a review of the videotape showed several interesting things. First off under 4 yards EVERYONE shot one handed. Over 4 yards, the vast majority shot isosceles, even though it had never been taught and many students had no previous experience. As a result, they changed their training to include formal training in one hand shooting and changed to their basic stance.

There are advantages under certain circumstances to various shooting stances. Shooting from cover being one. In the end, it's just one more tool in the toolbox. Come to think of it, it closely resembles a shooting stance used 25 or so years ago by a guy who won back to back IPSC World Championships. The name escapes me (Ross Seyfried-there still are a couple functional brain cells), but we all wondered how many times his slide smacked him in the nose before he perfected his stance.

Bear in mind several things: John Wick has screen writers to make sure he survives with only minor dings and may/may not walk off into the sunset with some stone honey. Also, he-and his opposition-are shooting blanks. Finally, while the Central Axis Relock seems to offer certain advantages in close encounters, it also seems to compromise the full protection of body armor.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I play with a timer and I have found that it takes time to bring a gun up to chest level or put two hands on the gun. If a threat is within arms reach I believe time is of the essence so why not shoot one handed from the hip. Larry
 
I think the stance has some useful applications, but in a typical close-range self defense scenario consciously forcing the gun up to upper chest level before being ready to fire (instead of aimed fire from the waist level) may be the difference between being the shooter and shootee.

I suppose it is a good stance for advancing against multiple attackers (like in the movies), but I hope to not be in that situation.
 
murphydog said:
I think the stance has some useful applications, but in a typical close-range self defense scenario consciously forcing the gun up to upper chest level before being ready to fire (instead of aimed fire from the waist level) may be the difference between being the shooter and shootee.

I suppose it is a good stance for advancing against multiple attackers (like in the movies), but I hope to not be in that situation.
Click to expand...

I’ve been practicing shooting from the hip for a few years and I’ve found it effective. Particularly with two guns simultaneously.
 

Attachments

  • FE48E90B-61FB-447C-B961-4512408F5FE9.jpg
    FE48E90B-61FB-447C-B961-4512408F5FE9.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 75
When I attended the state police 'active shooter training' the instructors taught this style....

All I found with it.....rocking the handgun/slide/muzzle on an
angle didn't cover as much of the target when using the front sight.

But, I can 'instinctive' shoot at close ranges with either hand from the high ready or high
tucked position...I don't think to awful much about it. I just do it.

At distance where I used the front sight, I use a somewhat modified
Weaver...Just to focus on the front sight without my glasses.

.
 
Jessie said:
I see where it could be useful. The article points out that it’s just another method that could be helpful in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have used a version in competition in tight, close fast shooting. As a general shooting style, no.
 
tops said:
Sometimes I play with a timer and I have found that it takes time to bring a gun up to chest level or put two hands on the gun. If a threat is within arms reach I believe time is of the essence so why not shoot one handed from the hip. Larry
Click to expand...

Because your gun shouldn't be at your hip, but in your hands?? So from high combat ready or Sul, getting the gun to eye level is very fast, faster still if I do not punch out, which is basically what CAR is.
 
Last edited:
LPD256 said:
It’s interesting that most defensive firearms instructors will teach the students whatever grip, stance, or style makes the instructor happy. I’ve taken classes where isosceles is the only acceptable method. Only my old arthritic shoulders told me that isn’t my most comfortable position. Most guys my age learned the Weaver Stance. And then the “modified Weaver” was the new way. To me, the center axis relock is just another modification of the tried and true. Interesting that none of them work in every situation. That is why Massad Ayoob uses all the above in his class to include the qualification shoot. It made sense to me that some perp inside my 38 inch sleeve length probably wouldn’t back up to allow my full extension isosceles stance.
Click to expand...

Heh.

Iso to Weaver
Have been an isosceles guy for the longest time. Then my near-vision started to go bad and I ended up with trifocals. To get a sharp front sight post I must look through the middle/intermediate lens. To do this without discomfort and rolling my head WAY back, I must drop my head to the side on my trap muscle and go into a mostly-weaver stance. I plan on getting shooting glasses with the intermediate lens up top in the future so I can shoot iso for gun games.

CAR
Not getting much out of it that I can't get with more old-school point-shooting technique that is not burdened with a clunky tacticool name. High/ready position not too different from old point shooting technique. Extended position not as useful, as having one hand free to deal with an assailant's weapon is, uh, handy. Two hands on gun is better for retention, though. Frankly, I can point shoot out a ways such that a front sight index is not needed in bad breath ranges. Also, i am not to thrilled by a reciprocating slide so near my face. Get it in a bit too much and the results will make "scope eye" seem trivial.
 
Last edited:
murphydog said:
I think the stance has some useful applications, but in a typical close-range self defense scenario consciously forcing the gun up to upper chest level before being ready to fire (instead of aimed fire from the waist level) may be the difference between being the shooter and shootee.

I suppose it is a good stance for advancing against multiple attackers (like in the movies), but I hope to not be in that situation.
Click to expand...

Just what does "aimed fire from the waist" look like? If you are hip shooting you aren't aiming anything.
 
fredj338 said:
Just what does "aimed fire from the waist" look like? If you are hip shooting you aren't aiming anything.
Click to expand...

If you assume an upright stance, with your shooting arm locked as far back as possible and the gun against your side, rapid close up shots (near-contact distance) are easy. If you had asked me before doing training in this 3 years ago I'd have told you it was crazy...it is aiming with body positioning but without the sights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top