Talk:Modern technique

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern technique article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Errors

RE: Cleaned erroneous tagging

Peacock terms

"May be compromised by peacock terms" - If there are peacock terms then point them out on the page

"Self Published" then point out what was self-published. All the references are to books or magazines which have been published by publishers.

Next Step of the Modern Technique

Jeff Cooper did not mention a 'Next Step' in the Modern Technique, and since he is only recently deceased and had some fifty years to work on the Modern Technique, we can assume that if there was a next step in the Modern Technique, then he would have taken it. Ergo, there is no 'Next Step' in the Modern Technique.

Ken Gunari' as a 'Combat Master

If you read the footnote to the paragraph you will see that Jeff Cooper lists the Combat Masters and does not mention Ken Gunari. Therefore, he's not a Combat Master. Sigi-Meyer (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

November 2007:

Readers, this page has been vandalized from the one I constructed

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Technique_of_the_Pistol&oldid=155627028

to something like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Technique_of_the_Pistol&oldid=163373659

I am preparing a much longer edition of the Modern Technique with more detail as well as photographs with the help of some other contributers. We will be up on the page as soon as we can. Horst.Bender 18:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Horst.Bender[reply]

Redid most of this page

Spent 3 hours redoing this page so it was readable. I got down to the last 25% of the page or so and pretty much ran out of stamina. I mostly reused the information that was up there, got rid of all the crap and irrelevant stuff, got rid of all the rambling, tried to cut out some of the stuff that was repeated over and over, and corrected spelling and grammar. I made things much more clear, added in some more specifics about the technique itself.

Like I said, though, I ran out of gas in the last 25% of the page or so. I might come back and finish it later, unless it's being totally replaced as is suggested above. Thjothvitnir (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the unsourced (and rather partisan) comparison of MT to Point Shooting with a sourced one. I question whether the obsessive detail about the history of who owned a gun range at any given date is appropriate to a wikipedia article. Umptious 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section needed

The article describes the evolution and status of the technique but never actually described what the modern technique is, or looks like. I've read it, I know who and when it was developed, but I still am none the wiser what exactly the Modern Technique of the Pistol looks like, or information about using it!

-- I've attempted to remedy this with "the technique used by actors pretending to be cops on TV". Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With a good section on that (and some Wikipedian-submitted photos?) this might get a rating as GA/FA. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-0-

Paragraphs added by umptious removed for following reasons:

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "Today the term"modern technique" is often used simply to mean any use of a pistol using both hands and the sights, as opposed to Point Shooting and most two-handed shooters use the Isosceles Stance rather than the Weaver Stance Cooper defined as part of his technique. [3]"

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "Today the term "modern technique" is often used simply to mean any use of a pistol using both hands and the sights"

Factual error. This is called "shooting with both hands holding the pistol" , not "the modern technique".

-- Obviously not, as one can point shoot using a two handed gripped... Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "and most two-handed shooters use the Isosceles Stance rather than the Weaver Stance Cooper defined as part of his technique."

Could be they do but of no consequence to the modern technique. "Most shooters" do not have any training and "most shooters" will be like "most drivers". By far the largest balance of shooters will have no training in either use of the pistol, or in self-defense, the same as, for example, most policemen.

-- You're claiming that most police officers - in the US, presumably - are ***untrained*** in the US of firearms??? Source? Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, what "most people do" has no bearing on the merits of modern technique.

Basic familiarity with the modern technique and all associated texts would be useful before are contributions attempted.

Definition of the Modern Technique

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "The Modern Technique as defined by the creator of the term, Jeff Cooper consists of the use of the Weaver Stance, a large-caliber handgun, the use of the pistol sights for aiming, the compressed breath, and the surprise break. "

The original author of the page did not seem to get around to parsing the modern technique but repeating training materials does not make an encyclopedia entry: What is a "surprise break" ? This is does not explain anything to the non-shooter.

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "Modern Technique can be most simply understood as the technique usually seen used by police officers on TV and films - i.e. with the handgun held outstretch in a double handed grip at eye level [1]"

This is in error. The modern technique cannot be seen as used "by police officers on TV and films". These fictional accounts almost universally contain crass errors in both gunhandling and in self-defense. The exception to this being the single episode of "Miami Vice" in which a SWCPL champion was an actor, the link to which you have deleted.

-- Note the use of "simply". And the request on this page above for some idea as to what MT is and looks like, which the previous, partisan, unsourced (or using biased sources) version totally failed to provide. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine innovation or branding?

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "It has been questioned that Modern Technique was really a true innovation "

Use of passive voice: It has been questioned by whom ?

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "rather than clever branding to sell the training services that Cooper provided."

Col. Cooper invented the technique in the Fifties. He built Gunsite training school in the late Seventies.

The history of the modern technique was on the page you have deleted.

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "For instance, Cooper's followers have claimed "

Some of Col. Cooper's followers have claimed Elvis is still alive. So what ? Unless it is either a demonstration, like the old SWCPL competitions, or material by Col. Cooper or those others who worked on the modern technique, then it is inconsequential whether Col. Cooper's followers believe Elvis is alive or dead.

-- If Cooper's followers who teach the technique today have made claims on MT, they are relevant to a discussion of the subject. Because the subject is MT, ***not*** Cooper. To further aid you, if Cooper had made claims regarding Elvis, they would probably be irrelevant here also, relevancy being dictated by ***the subject of the article***., hmm? Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "that literally no one was using the sights fitted to handguns before Cooper convinced invented Modern Technique - leading to the question of why sights were fitted to all but special models, if not for use [2].

What was (a) used in combat, (b) taught as a technique, is a matter of record. This was on the page you have deleted.

-- No, it wasn't: there was a partisan claim that sights weren't used, repeated without discussion or verification - that's a different thing. And further, when I checked the history of PS I found that Fairbairn created it in 1920(?) to replace a previous style ***in which the sights had been used.*** I preferred not to use this, because Cooper is dead, and presumably has a family who might be upset if an instance of being a little over-enthusiastic in promoting himself was too prominently featured. But having checked, I can't find any non-Cooper deirved evidence by the sights-not-used-claim, and much to deride it. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jordan stated on, seeing the modern technique used in competition, that if he had known that one could shoot so fast using the sights then he would have not have spent so much time working on his point shooting technique.

-- Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Credible, non-partisan source? Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "Today the term"modern technique" is often used simply to mean any use of a pistol using both hands and the sights,"

Factual error. The term "modern technique" is used to refer to the modern technique.

-- The usage has clearly become less specific than you imagine. For instance I've seen people refer to using modern technique with relatively small calibre weapons, while Cooper specified large calibre as one of the principles of the technique. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as opposed to Point Shooting and most two-handed shooters use the Isosceles Stance rather than the Weaver Stance Cooper defined as part of his technique. [3]

Modern Technique versus Point Shooting

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "Modern technique has been criticized as being relatively ineffective in real combat:"

Passive voice. "The modern technique has been criticized" by whom ?

-- Passive voice is a sin in writing horror novels, but not in academic articles. The "who" follows in detail and is *sourced*. Also: don't be petty. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The effectiveness of the modern technique in real combat has been proven many times. You would know this if you knew anything about the modern technique. Col. Cooper has all of his students report engagements so that training may be altered in the light of experience. Some of his students had forty gunfights to their credit. All using the modern technique.

-- This is your opinion. Wikipedia does not exist as a speaking trumpet for your personal, unqualified views. If you can find a credible source for the view you are claiming, use it in the article. Don't expect your personal opinion to outweigh a statistical study of actual incidents by a competent authority. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: -- "A study of police officers trained in the technique showed that their proficiency dropped from 87% on the range to 17% in combat - a figure not much better than the relatively untrained criminals they were facing, with even the class of "undetermined" criminals attempting largely unaimed fire, often delivered over the shoulder while running, achieving a 10% hit rate [4]. "

See above paragraph.

-- Again: "This is your opinion. Wikipedia does not exist as a speaking trumpet for your personal, unqualified views. If you can find a credible source for the view you are claiming, use it in the article. Don't expect your personal opinion to outweigh a statistical study of actual incidents by a competent authority." Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provide does not mention Col. Cooper, nor the modern technique and talks about the FBI PPC course.

-- No, but so what? The article was on the effectiveness of the shooting techniques that Cooper taught. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the author has no idea what a flash sight picture is. His description is 100% incorrect.

-- I suspect that it is more likely that you're wrong/reading wrongly, given the source of the article. But do provide a detailed argument here - with A SOURCE - if you wish. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE:-- "Advocates of Point Shooting claim that there is a fundamental conflict between the stress response of the human body and the Modern Technique which Point Shooting avoids, "

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "while being less effective under range conditions and requiring much more extensive training [5]. "

Above paragraphs are confused.

-- I think by "confused" you mean "I disagree". Once again: "This is your opinion. Wikipedia does not exist as a speaking trumpet for your personal, unqualified views. If you can find a credible source for the view you are claiming, use it in the article. Don't expect your personal opinion to outweigh a statistical study of actual incidents by a competent authority." Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If in a situation where the bad guy is very close or under arms length then the gun will hardly clear the holster before you shoot. If the bad guy further away. You will have to hit him with either the modern technique or point shooting. Point shooting to any distance takes

-- Ok: you did mean "I disagree". Once again: that doesn't matter. This is not a newsgroup. Wikipedia is based on credible, verifiable sources. Your personal opinion means nothing. This is not a newsgroup. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point shooting versus modern technique at the SWCPL (in the page you deleted) demonstrated that the modern technique beat point shooting every time. All this was explained in detail on those pages.

-- The new (sourced!) article makes it clear that MT does have a better shooting range performance that PS. However, it also includes the fact that this *might* well not be the same as the improved combat performance claimed for MT. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "-- Modern Technique concentrates on achieving accuracy at relatively long ranges with considered fire, "

Factual error. Anyone familiar with modern technique could have told you this.

-- Again: credible sources. Not your opinion, or that of someone selling MT courses. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "solely using a two handed grip, but a large proportion of real world pistol fights take place at very short range, often so short that one had has be used for physically blocking an opponent while the other works the pistol [6], [7]."

This paragraph is confused.

-- Again you appear to mean "I disgree"... Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the bad guy is within arms length then the gun will only just clear the holster. So technique is irrelevant. You do not need to aim the gun if the muzzle is touching the bad guy. Trust me on this one.

-- The wikipedia does not work on the basis of "trust me". Sources are required. Wikipedia is not based on your personal rambo fantasies. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMPTIOUS WROTE: "In fact, it is not clear that Cooper, who spent his WW2 career on a US battleship, ever took part in a real world combat using a pistol."

What is this orphaned statement doing here at the end of the paragraph. "It is not clear that Cooper ever fried an egg". So what ?

-- If the subject of the article was a method of egg cookery promoted as a commercial endeavour by a man who had never fried an egg - or who perhaps had never even seen or tasted an egg - most people would find that fact highly significant. Umptious 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you had any familiarity with the modern technique or any reference works by those who taught the modern technique you would know that this unsupported statement is factually incorrect (and irrelevant, partly because of subsequent work on the modern technique in the field by Cooper's students).//

- Thanks! You've contributed something important: I had forgotten to source Cooper's career. Umptious 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-0-

-8-8-8-8-8-

Where is the source that claimed the SAS adopted the MT in the 1980s? It seems like that statement is as unsunstantiated as the rest of the argument.

Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) writes: You can see the technique in use by the SAS from published photographs, even though they do not discuss or publish any tactics. Various SAS members have trained at training establishments and verbal interaction tells us what they used and when. Their sensible decision not to discuss tactics also obscures the fact that they were not very highly developed when it came to technique - but then they do have a lot of other training to prepare in addition to pistol. We are short of help in researching and sourcing information on the pistol techniques used by different military and police units the world over so please feel free to lend a hand. Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question which is why the criticism section also includes a counter-claim which is actually longer? That's not how a balanced article should be structured. A decision should be reached by the reader alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.110.135 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC) writes: That is because actual testing of the Modern Technique against other techniques demonstrated that the Modern Technique was superior. No-one set out to invent the Modern Technique and then to try and promote it. There was no Modern Technique: People just kept trying things (some old, some new) until they found out what worked better. If you know of any techniques which have been run against the Modern Technique and proved superior then please add all the data. There is plenty missing from this field: For instance, there is nothing on Isoseles, or some of the Israeli techniques. Viz Modern Technique versus Point Shooting as a technique: Bob Munden and Thell Reid were both accomplished point shooters. Bob Munden is probably the world's most accomplished point shooter. They had to compete in the SWCPL using the Modern Technique - or lose. I spoke to Bob Munden about this at Jeff Cooper's funeral (Thell couldn't come). Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Vice

Does the article really need four links to the Miami Vice clip? —Tamfang (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC) writes: Readers of WIki articles tend to 'drill' at different points, depending on how much they know about what they are reading. When I am reading, sometimes I have to hunt back up the page for a link which takes me to a subordinate concept. So the link to the Miami vice clip (which is a very useful clip in my opinion) is at the points where a non-gun reader might well wish to drill down. The links do not cost us anything, like readability, or similar. Zubenia is ex SWCPL remember. Mudawarra-HJ (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article stinks

As noted before, the semi iliterates that created this rubbish need bringing to book. The whole point of the article should be about the drill, it's history and it's application.

However the article is just examples of what the drill does, using boorish phrases like 'the student'. There are phrases like 'critics say' - well who? It's just an excuse for personal opinion masquerading as facts.

Needs work, lots of work. I have tagged accordingly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.30 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a SINGLE diagram/image?

Rather counter-productive for an article about weapon stance, hold, etc... If anyone is able to add an image/diagram illustrating the technique in question, please put/up, or suggest possible ones to put up. Armuk (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harries technique

Shouldn't we mention the Harries technique? It's the one where you hold the pistol with the right hand, and the left arm is under the right, at a perpendicular angle, holding a flashlight forward. Echo Two-Three (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Point Shooting"

Who is that Walt who described Fast Draw (where shooting from the hip is the main way) as Point Shooting (which usually include rising a handgun to the target)? And could anyone give a reference to a BA Manual, which note that SAS troopers use this in CQB?

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]