Contents

Why You Should Buy This Book vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Development of Shooting Systems 10
3. The Reactive Shooting Model 22
4. Building a Shooting System 35
5. Firing The Shot 38
6. The Reactive Shooting Cycle 49
7. Fire Control 63
8. The Shooting Platform and Stances 104
9. Trigger Control and Manipulation 130
10. Sight Alignment, Sight Picture, Use of the Visual
Field 149
11. Traditional Sight Alignment and Sight Picture 159
12. The Focal Continuum 165
13. Target Acquisition and Drawing Skills 174
14. Target Acquisition and the Strong Hand Draw 177
15. The Strong Side Draw 182
16. Conventional Execution of the Draw 185
17. S.A.F.E. Exercises 189
18. Reloading – Speed and Tactical 201
19. Strong Hand, Support Hand and Position Shooting 225
20. Prone Positions 241
21. Multiple Targets 249
22. Add a Vertical Component 260
23. Inverted V 263
24. Transitions and Shooting on the Move 270
25. The Triangle Drill – Classic 276
26. Other Footwork Techniques 279
27. Shooting and Moving with a Purpose 286
28. Movement Concepts 293
About the Author 303
Also by Ron Avery  305
Index 307
.

 

Development of Shooting Systems

When I speak of the history of the evolution of modern shooting philosophies and techniques, I will speak to that history from my perspective and the subjects, people, and literature I have a personal connection with, or that I think are relevant to the content of this book.

Shooting System Development

 When I first started shooting handguns with a revolver, I was using a two-handed, thumb-over-thumb grip, in a roughly Isosceles position that I had figured out on my own. It was actually similar in many ways to what I am currently using. I won’t say it was “instinctive,” but I will say that it was a natural progression of figuring out what felt right without having any formal instruction.

I bought my first handgun when I was in college, but it wasn’t until I moved to Craig, CO, and became a deputy sheriff in January, 1980, that I really began my relationship with handguns.

At that time, I had the good fortune to learn from—and be mentored by—Sgt. Dalton Carr of the Moffat County Sheriff’s Dept., in Craig,

Through Dalton Carr, I was also exposed to the relatively new sport of IPSC and, by extension, to Gunsite and Jeff Cooper.

Gunsite was founded by Colonel Jeff Cooper to systematize the training of the defensive handgun, and to use the knowledge gained from IPSC competition as well as real-world gunfights and real world-thinkers. Col. Cooper took the best parts of the winning tech- niques from IPSC, along with gunfight-related techniques, and systematized them into what became known as the “Modern Tech- nique of the Pistol.” This technique was based on the isometric tension stance best known as the “Weaver Stance,” named after LA Sheriff’s Deputy Jack Weaver.

The stance was a version of Jack Weaver’s position, and it was modi- fied by bending the supporting arm and elbow downward, then pulling down and holding tension on the shooting hand. This helped control muzzle flip during rapid shooting.

While we did have visionaries like Ed McGivern back in the 1930’s who were promoting more realistic firearms training—along with Sykes and Fairbairn, Bill Jordan, and other gunfight-oriented individ- uals, who wrote and taught about the subject—Col. Cooper was among the first to open the door to modern firearms training for the common man.

His systematic approach to firearms training went far beyond just teaching the Weaver stance, and was designed to take a person—in the course of a week of instruction—to where they felt they could effectively control their immediate environment, and bring effective fire on any opponent, as well as have a basic understanding of tactics and mindset. I think the principles of mindset were among the greatest things that came from Gunsite, along with a superior way of organizing and teaching firearms skills that could be assimilated fairly rapidly.

Under Dalton Carr’s instruction, I became a student of the isometric tension platform known as the “Weaver Stance,” along with the tenets of Gunsite. I also became an assistant firearms instructor for my department.

I spent an enormous amount of time studying and perfecting my firearms shooting skills, along with other skills in the martial arts and law enforcement. I read everything I could lay my hands on, and I sought out people to talk to who had any credible knowledge of firearms and gunfighting.

I can remember long conversations with other law enforcement offi- cers and firearms enthusiasts. I also remember training 3 to 4 hours a day dry firing, in addition to live-fire training during the week, and generally thinking about shooting and gunfighting for hours a day.

In 1983, I attended Rampart Training Center with Gunsite instructors Dan Predovich and Ron Phillips. Here, I received more training in gunfighting and the Modern Technique of the Pistol.

Dalton continued to help me with my shooting, as well as many other aspects of law enforcement and gunfighting for many years until his death. Along with being one of my best friends, he was a great coach and mentor and a serious student of firearms and gunfighting. I miss him greatly and will always remember his smiling face and refined sense of humor.

While I have been to many great instructors since then, he was a true mentor. I would always bring back what I learned, and we would discuss the new ideas together. In this way, I continued to evolve in my learning and thinking over the years, while having a true friend and mentor to reflect with so that I stayed on the proper course.

The Influence of IPSC

 IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) was founded by Col. Jeff Cooper.

The term “practical shooting,” and its underlying philosophy, became synonymous with IPSC, although it was actually coined and conceptualized by Ed McGivern in his 1938 classic book, “Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting.”

Ed said, in reference to target shooting:

“Shooting in competition with crooks and other enemies of the law requires entirely different methods of procedure and different technique, but still requires almost equal accuracy with a very active time limit— the more accuracy the better, and the less time required to secure said accuracy makes it still better.

Another difference between target shooting and the— as I call it—practical use of a revolver, is, that much of practical shooting must be done in the dark, or very poor light at best, where sights are generally hard to see, consequently at times almost useless, therefore only thorough familiarity with your revolver will count for anything, and the fact must be recognized that there is never other place where hits are quite so necessary, or really so desirable, as under such conditions.

Therefore, we may be pardoned for creating a distinction and calling this branch of revolver shooting ‘practical shooting’ to identify it and the training outlined, ‘for practical conditions’ and for ‘practical purposes.’

In this way we can keep it separate from the regular, more careful high class target shooting. The farthest thing from the intention of the writer would be to make light of any angle, branch, or field of revolver shooting.”

— ED MCGIVERN, FAST AND FANCY REVOLVER SHOOTING, 1938, PPS. 34-35.

Ed McGivern was truly ahead of his time. He was a serious student of firearms as well as a gifted shooter, who was world famous for his

exhibition shooting. He was also a scientist who actually studied shooting and used electronic devices and photography as part of his studies. His aerial target work, fast draw work, shooting on the move, shooting with either hand, and other shooting techniques, as well as his methods of training and experimentation back then, are what we are using today, although we have the benefit of much more accurate timers and faster cameras.

Any serious student of the handgun needs to include Ed McGivern in his study of the use of the handgun for reactive or action pistol shooting.

Colonel Jeff Cooper had a vision of a “gentleman’s sport,” where prac- titioners would compete without handicap with their defensive handgun of choice, in a sport where accuracy, power, and speed were balanced in scoring. Only defensive handguns and holsters designed for carry were encouraged at that time.

One of the major themes of IPSC was that the courses of fire were always changing. While there were classic exercises like the El Presi- dente and others, participants were free to design their own courses of fire.

The philosophies of the time were clearly in favor of exploring what the best handguns, holsters, shooting techniques, and mindset worked toward the defensive use of the handgun. IPSC was not so much a sport as it was a living laboratory.

Another unique theme was that every course of fire involved a possible defensive scenario or test of defensive skill at arms. There was a written description of the scenario so the participant under- stood what they were theoretically facing in the courses of fire.

This was heady stuff! If you were a serious gunfighting lawman or aficionado of the handgun, there was nothing like it at the time. IPSC at that time was head and shoulders above any other type of firearms competition for directly training, testing, and measuring gunfight- related shooting skills.

Further, the mindset of the time encouraged the participant to see themselves in a gunfight-type situation and to prevail, unlike modern competition which looks on it as a game. And, while some may wish to put IPSC in a category as being nothing but a game, I can assure you that I and others did not look upon it as a game, then or now. Regardless of the many changes in the mindset and the equipment over the years, for me it was and remains a laboratory to experiment, test, perfect, and to hone gunfighting-related skills that can be readily adapted to a two-way range. The fact that it is also fun is a bonus!

Back then, there really was no other readily organized type of activity that could easily be used for training purposes. We had no force-on- force training, unless you wanted to use wax bullets fired out of revolvers. Firearms simulators did not exist. And, while we did role play, there really was no way to simulate the adrenaline and pressure of a gunfight situation.

IPSC became part of our training. We designed courses of fire at local matches that simulated hypothetical defensive scenarios, and we took them very seriously. The fact that you were being scored made it count and, if you took it seriously, put pressure on you to perform well and to try to win, or at least do your best.

However, winning, while still a goal, was actually secondary to the goal of developing the skill to perform under pressure in a real situa- tion where it counted. Using the rules to create an artificial advantage that wouldn’t pass muster in a real world contest was looked down on.

In contrast to IPSC, police firearms training at the time centered on PPC (Practical Pistol Combat)-style courses that emphasized accu- racy, albeit with extremely generous time limits. However, the generous time limits were designed for shooting an x-ring in the target, which was frequently small—usually just a few inches in width. As the sport matured, the scoring area became more generous, but the time limits stayed the same.

PPC training focused on accuracy, but it lacked the focus on time as a component of the scoring system, and did not put pressure on the participant to balance speed with accuracy.

The Paradigm Shift

 I started competing in local IPSC and combat style matches in 1980, and took to it like a duck to water. I went to a regional steel shooting match in 1982 called the Colorado “Go For It”. That was a pretty comical thing to watch, as I brought .357 Magnum, full-house, Federal 125 grain, 1450 fps loads to a match where everyone else was shooting light steel loads. Needless to say, when I started shooting everyone took notice.

I saw some amazing shooting by folks that were definitely not shooting the same style as I was. However, I managed to win my law enforcement division for aggregate score with revolver and auto pistol; that whetted my appetite for a higher level of competition. I remember setting my sights on certain individuals to beat, and saying to myself: “they have two arms, two legs and a head like me. If they can do it, so can I.”

In 1984, I competed in my first IPSC National Championship. There I got to watch Rob Leatham, Brian Enos, and others shoot and compete at a level previously unheard of in my world. They were also using a completely different style of shooting than the Weaver Stance I was indoctrinated in. I had read all the magazine articles about the Modern Isosceles and other things related to IPSC and shooting doctrine, so I was familiar with what they were doing. However, being there and seeing them actually do it was another level of reality entirely.

This was an eye opener to me because I was forced to examine the reality of my system. Was it really the best, as I had been told? On the one hand, I had mentors and other influencers that I respected touting the Weaver Stance as the “gunfighting stance,” and denigrating Modern Isosceles as the “gamesman” stance. On the other hand, I could readily see—and experience through competition— that these guys were using the Modern Isoceles stance and shooting faster and more accurately than me.

I was told that the “gamesmen” were using light loads and could not control true gunfighting cartridges with an isosceles stance. This was said in spite of the fact that Col. Jeff Cooper had set the power factor bar at 175 which was deemed the level that a 230 grain bullet fired out of a .45 ACP in a Colt Commander would be able to reach with modern loads at the time.

This situation was further complicated by the rules set out at the time. Due to the freestyle nature and rules of competition during the early days of IPSC competition, all guns competed together without handicap. This led to experimental gun modifications by those who were trying to win.

The rise of weighted barrels, and then compensated pistols, in IPSC in the early 1980s quickly became a trend. A weighted barrel or “bowling pin gun” was simply a weight attached to the end of the barrel for the purpose of dampening recoil and making the gun easier to shoot. A compensator resulted from the boring out of this piece of metal and providing an upward vent to direct the gases of recoil out the top and further reduce both felt recoil and muzzle rise.

To the best of my knowledge, J. Michael Plaxco came up with the first compensator for a semi auto, followed closely by Bill Wilson. Wilson’s LE (Leatham/Enos) single port compensator became the first widely used compensator and was first made in .45 ACP.

These devices worked and made the pistols easier to control, but were regarded as “gamey” by the martial artist types and were put down for various reasons. The Modern Isosceles position was dismissed as “gamey,” and various experts who did not like the way things were going in IPSC—or who had no knowledge of IPSC— would opine about how the Modern Isosceles position couldn’t possibly control full-power combat loads as well as the Weaver Stance.

Then these same “experts” would demonstrate a much older version of the Isosceles stance that was nothing like what was being used in IPSC competition, and then proceed to criticize the Isosceles stance.

The Isosceles stance—facing more squarely to the target—was also criticized for exposing more of the body as a target. These arguments continue to the present day.

Unfortunately, until 1987, I fell in with those who advocated for shooting the Weaver Stance. As I gained more experience and listened to both sides of the controversy, I found myself torn between what I was seeing and experiencing versus what I was being told by people I truly respected.

And then one day I decided that what really needed to do was to stay completely objective and perform my own research and testing on what worked and why. I was determined to keep it as free from bias as I possibly could. Here, I used my science background to experiment, test, and refine the techniques as well as to understand them in terms of physics, biomechanics, motor learning and behavior, psychology, as well as “common sense,” and to figure out how and why they actu- ally worked.

So I began what has become a lifelong study into the science of Reac- tive Shooting for gunfighting and competition, and what makes possible great performance.

The Modern Isosceles Stance

 We can see the early origin of the Modern Isosceles grip in the book “Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun,” by W.E. Fairbairn and E.A. Sykes, published in 1942. It has an illustration of the “thumbs forward”-style grip and the arm and hand positions.

I do know that John Shaw is the one who really used this style of grip to his advantage and became a dominant shooter in the early days of IPSC and multi-gun competition.

The Modern Isosceles stance, and other high-performance shooting concepts, were really brought to prominence through the shooting prowess of Rob Leatham and Brian Enos in the early 1980s.

I resisted the Modern Isosceles for a number of years. When I went to my first US National event in 1984, I watched the performance of Rob Leatham and Brian Enos, and they upended everything I was ever taught or thought I knew about shooting a handgun up to that time. There was no denying that what they were doing was fundamentally superior to what I was doing.

I spent a great deal of time researching, testing, and comparing the Weaver Stance and Modern Isoceles. I went to Gunsite, where I studied under Jeff Cooper and his senior instructors. I also received direct instruction from Rob Leatham. This occurred over the course of several years.

Ultimately, I was convinced that the Modern Isosceles stance was the superior to any other system in use at that time.

Many still try to argue this point, speaking at length about biome- chanics or about how the Weaver Stance allows more strength to be exerted on the gun to hold it down.

What they don’t understand is a term that I will use here: that term is “Bioefficiency.”

Economy of Effort is the fundamental law we are following when it comes to technique and mastery. What we are looking for is how to exert the greatest amount of control with the least amount of effort.

The Modern Isosceles, when executed correctly at a high level of expertise, will simply outperform any other system in terms of bioef- ficiency.

It allows the shooter to use both sides of the body symmetrically, relax more of the body, isolate tension more effectively, and control the firearm more efficiently. It works for ANY modern handgun, not just competition guns.

By late 1988, I was firmly convinced that Modern Isosceles was the direction I wanted to go in terms of a shooting system. However, competition is only a part of training, and there is much more to learn about gunfighting that competition cannot teach. Here I fell back on my martial arts background, as well as learning from those who were serious students of gunfighting and not just competition shooters.

By 1989, I had established the founding principles and tenets of my personal system. I had developed myself sufficiently in competitive shooting to become a National Law Enforcement Champion, and a top ten shooter nationally. Prior to that, I did not feel that I was quali- fied to open a shooting school, and that I needed to prove these prin- ciples and demonstrate that they worked not only for competition but also for gunfighting.

My entire premise at that time—and now—was to identify and use the best techniques, guns, and equipment, as well as the best mental, physical, and technical training available, and to teach it to the good guys. I was not so much obsessed with winning as I was with learn- ing. I would try out all sorts of things, some in world-class events, to determine if they would actually work when the pressure was at its peak.

This experience was invaluable in shaping my training and philoso- phies. As a police officer, I was familiar with being in deadly force situations. As a martial artist, I had been involved in plenty of fights in and out of the dojo. As a competitive shooter, I was able to test my will and my skill against the best in the world in contests that were apples against apples.

Competition is brutal. Your shooting system either works or it falls behind. Your beliefs either empower you or limit you. Your equip- ment either stands the test of reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics, or it breaks down. There are no excuses. Everyone is trying to win. No one will give you a free pass. You have to perform in a pressure cooker. The higher the skill of the competitors, the greater the pres- sure you feel if you are truly engaged and believe you have a good chance of winning.

A true world championship, where there are hundreds of competitors from all over the world, is one of the toughest tests on earth. I always felt more nervous and pressure getting ready for high-level competitions than I ever felt getting ready to fight for real on the street, either with hands or feet or in lethal force encounters, where I was getting ready to shoot people.

I believe it is the anticipation factor that really creates the pressure. You have set your goals and you have expectations. You have been training and preparing for a long time and, finally, your moment is here. Make it or fail. And, you are contending with great competitors who are just as good or better than you are.

As time went on, I really homed in on creating a scientific shooting system that was well organized and based on principles instead of techniques and hand-me-down clichés and recipes. I wanted a system that could grow with the shooter and be individualized to fit their unique requirements.

I have spent many years learning and applying the science behind high performance Reactive Shooting. I believe that using science to explain it is the best way to truly understand what it takes to do true high performance Reactive Shooting, whether for sport or for lethal force situations.