TexasCHLforum.com

Improper grip all the way. If your properly indexing you should be "pointing" already????? Then when you get on target you simply move your little digit back and squeeze the trigger. If you are not running around with your finger on the trigger then I guess it would work. Plus as mentioned earlier you loosen your grip big time by using this method. I can point shoot without having to actually point and so can you. I know the old saying. Pick a small object in a room, quickly point at it, and you can draw a straight line to it with your finger. Sound simple. But form a proper two handed grip and do the same thing. You'll still be able to point right at it.

Oh and by the way shooting with your middle finger can also cause a 7 o'clock push (down and to the left).

bdickens wrote:Thirdly, laying your index finger along the slide exposes it to the likelihood of injury, either from lacerations or, in the case of a revolver, from the hot gasses that come out from the gap between the cylinder and the forcing cone.

It's been a while since I first encountered the notion of first-finger indexed, middle-finger on the trigger. I discounted it long ago.

But I did go to the OP's Website in the interest of equanimity, and one of the things I noticed was that he highlighted a Seecamp .32 as an example of a gun that had no sights, as if that were a justification for his theory. Seecamp was even advertised in a "banner."

Now, I respect Larry Seecamp. I carry a Seecamp as a BUG because it's the smallest semi-auto I can get that's built like a tank. But anyone with average-to-large hands who tries to grab and fire that little gun with a middle-finger grip is gonna pay for it, in blood, either on the web of your hand or along your index finger.

The OP, judging from his Website, is fixated and will not give up the ghost. My advice is to browse the Website at will, but understand that much of the advice contained is dated and does not represent the latest current thinking in handgun combatives.

Below is the Wikipedia entry for "Jack Ruby". It had a picture of one of these, but I couldn't snag the pic to post here.
I don't know which barrel length Ruby's pistol was, but his was a .38.
I could not find details as to the type of cartridge he used. Was +P available in 1963?
Since Jack Ruby had to carry money for his stripper club, a Dallas police officer had suggested that he get a handgun.

"Colt Cobra .38 Special. The Colt Cobra is a small, but powerful short-barrelled revolver chambered in .38 Special, .32 Colt New Police, and .22 LR formerly made by Colt's Manufacturing Company.

This revolver is the same overall size and configuration as the famous Colt Detective Special and uses the same size "D" frame. However, the Cobra's frame is lighter weight aluminum-alloy as compared to the all-steel frame of the Detective Special. The Colt Cobra was produced in calibers .38 Special and .22 LR. The Cobra .38 Special was available in 2-inch and 3-inch barrel lengths. The Cobra in .22 LR was available only with the 3-inch barrel.

The Colt Cobra is prized by some for its light weight, smooth trigger action, hand fitting, polished blue finish, and ability to hold six rounds (as opposed to the competing Smith and Wesson Airweight model revolver that only holds five rounds). These Colt revolvers are no longer in production, adding to their allure and collectability.

The Cobra is a double-action snubnosed revolver, a class of handgun known affectionately to gun aficionados as a "snubbie". As the name "Detective Special" suggests, this class of firearm was historically popular for use as a concealed weapon by plainclothes police detectives. Despite the increasing advent of semi-automatic handguns, the snubnosed revolver remains extremely popular among law-enforcement officers and civilians alike for concealed carry, more particularly in the US, due to its small size, light weight, ease of operation and near-total reliability.

Long-term use of higher-pressure +P ammunition in older model Colt Cobra revolvers (i.e., those without a shrouded ejector rod) is not advised. Extensive use of +P ammunition may stretch the revolver's frame, which could result in timing problems or malfunctions. However, post-1972 Cobras were rated for up to 1,000 rounds of +P ammunition before inspection was recommended (as compared with the 2,000 to 3,000 round interval for the post-1972 steel-framed Detective Special revolvers). Even the latest user manual for the Cobra and Detective Special advised against the use of .38 Special +P+ ammunition, recommending purchase of a .357 Magnum caliber revolver for those wishing to shoot +P+ ammunition."

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:I don't know which barrel length Ruby's pistol was, but his was a .38.

Looks like a 2 inch in most of the stills. Of course, the angle's not great, but you can see the barrel pretty easily.

I could not find details as to the type of cartridge he used. Was +P available in 1963?

Probably irrelevant; what 5shot fails to mention, (aside from Ruby's missing finger, which, being missing, wasn't laid alongside the gun as a pointing method) is that the shot was made from almost contact distance. It has been shown that the weaker calibers do pretty well when you're close enough for the propellant gases to enter the wound and do more damage after the bullet has passed.

Of course, the OP also fails to explain why, given this supposedly wonderful shooting technique, Ruby could only manage a single shot and a marginally useful hit to the abdomen from hand-to-hand combat range. (The fact that Oswald died from it is more an indicator of medical techniques of the day than of the effectiveness of the shot.)

KD5NRH wrote: The fact that Oswald died from it is more an indicator of medical techniques of the day than of the effectiveness of the shot.)

Maybe it was due to the fact that no doctor wanted credit for saving Kennedy's life.
don't know, wasn't there. Just thinking

KD5:
IMHO - Maybe Jack Ruby could only get off 1 shot because he was surrounded
by a large number of LEO's and others who jumped him right away?

I doubt Jack Ruby spent any "family" time with his .38 at the range in order to
maximize his speed shooting.

And although his crime was murder, and his technique has been criticized
here, his ultimate performance consisted of "one shot, one kill".

As with many other aspects of the JFK assassination story, perhaps the doctors
could have saved Oswald, but the "fix was in" to let him die.

Just my 1/50 of a dollar.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:IMHO - Maybe Jack Ruby could only get off 1 shot because he was surrounded
by a large number of LEO's and others who jumped him right away?

They were on him pretty quick, but it's hardly fast enough to preclude a second shot, unless the weak grip caused the revolver to shift in his hand such that he couldn't easily pull the trigger again. Even someone with no shooting experience could easily make three or four shots from that range in the time before the LE response would have forced the attack to stop. In fact, from the video, it appears he is following Oswald to the ground intentionally, rather than being pushed down, as if he's intending to finish the job by whatever means necessary.

AndyC wrote:Not this again.

...Both sighted and unsighted shooting have their merits when applied properly at the right time. I guarantee you that, all else being equal, a point-shooter will lose to a sight-shooter over a longer distance - and a sight-shooter will crater to a point-shooter at halitosis-range...

I've heard the arguments too many times as well, but not so much the middle finger, except in "bird" shooting.

I'd advise folks to do whichever is best for them, (both, if you can) and to practice above all.

The benefit we have over the bad guys is that most of the bad guys don't do a lot of practice. He who has trained the most is most likely to win.

This is the first time I have come across this concept, so I read some of the articles and tried the "middle finger on the trigger" technique. I have taken a few shooting classes and have spent a good amount of time at the range, but I don't consider myself "indoctrinated" to any specific school. With this in mind here are some of my thoughts and observations:

1) "natural " grip: As far as I can tell, the author was suggesting that the middle finger on the trigger was a more natural grip than the standard index finger. I don't see how this can be. I found it not only uncomfortable, but clumsy and unstable. There doesn't seem to be anything natural about it. I feel significant practice would be required to be even moderately proficient.

2) Two hand versus one hand grip: this technique might be ok for a 2 hand grip, but it feels highly suspect for strong hand only (or weak for that matter). The weapon does not feel very stable and recoil control would seem even more difficult.

3) Index finger on the slide: I suppose if you have some vendetta against your index finger, this shooting position seems an effective way to exact revenge. I don't see how anyone would willingly put their finger in this position on a 1911.

The underlying concept is interesting...you shoot where ever you point your finger. The problem is the execution seems flawed. The author made numerous references to how the traditional shooting style can cost you you life. IMO, the proposed solution will definitely cost you your life, or at the very least, your index finger.

Dave

Has anyone heard of the new Glock model, the Glock HB?

This handgun does not have the sights on the top of the gun
in the usual, boring, so-predictable place.

The sights are mounted on the right side of the gun, so that when
you use your handgun "gangsta" style, like in the movies, you now
have sights.

Oh, by the way, the full name of the Glock HB is the Glock HomeBoy!

Gotcha!! Bada boom, bada bing!!

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:The sights are mounted on the right side of the gun, so that when
you use your handgun "gangsta" style, like in the movies, you now
have sights.

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again.

Boomerang:

You rock for bringing that ad. I had heard the gun
described, but I didn't know the graphic existed.

5shot wrote:Looks like I stepped on the toes of some 1911'ers. Sorry.

I just provided the info about a known and effective method of close quarters shooting that our armed forces members were cautioned against using with the 1911 when the gun was adopted, due to the design of the 1911's slide stop.

The result was to take away a CQ shooting option from our military forces to use in combat. You may not consider that a flaw. I do.

I understand the the Chinese used that method when shooting the C96: Here is the URL to an article about that and a quote from the article.

http://www.iar-arms.com/mausereview1.htm

"Special commando units were armed entirely with the C-96, and later the selective fire variants, as well as a large beheading sword carried in a leather scabbard on their back. Recognizing the Mauser's weak and strong points, the Chinese developed the following technique for using the C-96 and later the 712. They would hold it sideways (what we would today refer to as "Gangbanger style"), with the index finger lying on the magazine well pointing at the target, and pull the trigger with the middle finger. In doing so they found that they could throw the weapon up very quickly and be instinctively pointing it at the target."

Nice to be able to do that when you can't see the sights or their is no time to use them.

In the US Army's combat pistol manual of 2003 we find:

"Everyone has the ability to point at an object.

"When a soldier points, he instinctively points at the feature on the object on which his eyes are focused. An impulse from the brain causes the arm and hand to stop when the finger reaches the proper position.

"When the eyes are shifted to a new object or feature, the finger, hand, and arm also shift to this point.

"It is this inherent trait that can be used by a soldier to rapidly and accurately engage targets."

. . . .

But then, the US Army doesn't instruct the soldier to use this inherent trait to rapidly and accurately engage targets??? Doing that wouldn't negate the use of the sights if you could see them and there was time to use them to make the shot more precise.

Makes me for one, wonder some, about just what's going on?
.....................

Thanks for your comments.

I don't feel as though you have stepped on my toes as much as you have overstepped your bounds by embellishing questionable fact to support your theorum, and presenting it as proven.

Have you ever fired a C-96? I have, and I can assure you it's one of the most difficult handguns to grip ever made. If you grip where it's comfortable to use a natural shooting grip it tends to point your index finger down at an acute angle, so it's not much of a surprise that the Chinese, with their generally smaller stature and hands would "develop" a technique that would make it more comfortable for some to grip the gun. Of course laying it on its side "gangbanger style" is just asking for jams as the gun will not eject spent cases properly that way, but after all, the Chinese didn't care much about second shots, they also taught their troops to go into combat unarmed and to pick up the gun of the fallen comerade in front of them fr the next shot.

Coming from a long line of military, and with FMs and TMs and all sorts of documentation from the era you metion, I can't find any mention of the caution you are citing, nor for that matter, can I find any record of our soldiers being trained to use the middle finger with the revolvers they were issued up until then. I do have records of my great grandfather Col John Sylvanus Loud, then an instructor at West Point, being quite an able marksman, and my father, taught to shoot by him, taught me in the same manner, and it never involved laying the index finger anywhere except on the trigger.

It was my great grandfather's C-96 that I fired many times as a child, engraved and presented to him by his troop ad he retired, and like I said, that was a cumbersome beast at best.

Yes, pointing is ingrained in us from earliest infancy, and we do index from target to target quite naturally, but that has little or nothing to do with being able to point shoot, if you raise two fingers and point them, do they not also point in the same direction? Of course they do, and my grandson has pointed with his middle finger since infancy, which raised some eyebrows when he was a kid, but natural point shooting has been taught for decades and with practice can be accomplished with any soldier except the most uncoordinated (and I taught a couple of them whan I was training.)

All the training I ever gave, except with the machine gun (not really a hand held weapon) involved developing the natural tendency for point shooting and with few exceptions my students did well with many of them qualifying expert despite not having grown up around guns.

I will admit that I never though of trying to use an index finger point on an M1919A4, but with the trigger mounted way down there, maybe pulling it with a pinky would work best.

And lastly there's this statement "When a soldier points, he instinctively points at the feature on the object on which his eyes are focused. An impulse from the brain causes the arm and hand to stop when the finger reaches the proper position."

Actually the arm and hand never really stop, and although the first stop will be within a couple of degrees of on target, the eye/brain/hand interface continually corrects, and corrects, and corrects, it's a feedback loop infinitely superior to any so far designed by man, but it's not absolutely on target any time every time.

Here's a little experiment to try, attach a boresighting laser to your finger and collimate it to point where your finger is pointing at some decent range, and then try pointing at things. Watch that little red or green dot dance as you try to get, and keep, your finger on target. I have done that in my classes and do it myself just to entertain the dogs, but try as I may, that dot rarely rests exactly on whatever I'm pointing at the first try, and it never stays still. Pick one target and try it over and over and see what you get.

John M. Browning designed his gun to be fired with the index finger, if the current Army wisdom of the era said to fire it with the middle finger, he would have designed it that way, after all, he was trying to sell the gun to the Army and he catered to them through several design modifications, why would he have balked at that?

VERY nicely stated response...