Holding your pistol

B

BJung

New member
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?
 
B

BJung

New member
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)
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
I read that the teacup technique is better than the push-pull technique of holding our pistol.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
This guy?

https://www.amazon.com/Albert-H.-League-III/e/B006Z925K8/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

51Z0tPF5UYL._US230_.jpg


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's_Angels_(1976)

CA_41.jpg


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.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
The "teacup" hold is (IMHO) a very old, outdated technique.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.

JohnKSa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Push-pull isn't limited to an asymmetrical Weaver stance. It works perfectly well with an isosceles stance, as well.
 
T

TunnelRat

New member
burbank_jung said:
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)
Click to expand...


The quote was from your original post on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
S

stephen426

New member
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.
 
B

BJung

New member
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

T. O'Heir

New member
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.
 
B

BJung

New member
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.
 
K

Kevin Rohrer

New member
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.
 
I

idek

New member
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.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
That depends on who's teaching it, I guess.
Click to expand...
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'.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
JohnKSa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
B

BJung

New member
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?
 
S

stephen426

New member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top