One or Two Hands?

[CoyoteJoe]

People are assuming two hands are much more accurate than one. It seems that way to beginners but for an accomplished bullseye shooter there is very little difference in accuracy. Likewise shoulder stocks on pistols seem like a great idea to the beginner but with practice he'll soon find it not worth the bother.

 

[NevJohn]

In the movies it takes two hands.
One to hold the pistol and one to fan the hammer.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

Unless you have one in each hand and practice using both :shocked2: by slip-cocking the hammers .

Depends upon the circumstance I'd say.

Dave

 

[Padraic]

The way I see it is, that a handgun is called a handgun not a handsgun. Just a thought!

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

Capper, I didn't miss your one hand, two hand comment. But to answer your last question, yes I have, more than I care to remember.

Sometimes I look at things from a practical, personal standpoint. For me, I like practical. :hatsoff:

 

[shovelhead]

Well, since there doesn't seem to be much that's documented I guess mostly we have to guess. My gut feeling is that a one handed hold was standard. I agree with a lot of what others have said about today's two hand hold- if you make it a habit and get in a close range gun fight- the other guy will likely shoot first- if using a one hand hold.
I would think that years ago, if you got into a long range type fight- I think Cody used a pair of Colt Armys to hold off some Indians when he was very young- he was in a creek ditch so he had cover- I'd think a two hand hold and maybe resting the barrel over a support would have been done.

 

[mtmshieldshotmail.com]

The way I see it is, that a handgun is called a handgun not a handsgun. Just a thought!

hah, but your toothbrush ain't a teethbrush, either! :rotf:

 

The modern modifications came about for a couple o' reasons related to body armor. If you stand in such a manner as to minimize body cross-section, you're exposing the only part of your abdomen that's not protected; your sides. Class 4 armor also restricts arm movement enough that the Weaver is not practical, and thus the isosceles was born.
Cheers,
from Afghanistan
and yes, when i'm at home and looking for minute of hare's head accuracy from my handgun, I hold it with two hands. guess I'm a girl!

I have no problem with accuracy using a one handed hold.

The discussion here revolves around what was, not what is.

But, since you opened the door. Back in the early eighties, using that one handed hold with a 8 3/8" barreled S&W 686 L-Frame with Federal .357 match ammo at an IHMSA match, I out shot a local police shooting team member so well, he slammed a $1,200.00 Witchata pistol on the concrete apron.

Accuracy is not so much the gun, as it is the shooter knowing the gun. Know your gun, and you know where its going to land.

BTW, I was taught how to pistol shoot in the hills of North Carolina from a my first step father's dad, who learn from his father who learned to shoot as a Confederate cavalry soldier.

I thank you for your dedication and your service. And I am sorry that you are ill equipped for the terrain you must fight in.

CP

 

In the movies it takes two hands.
One to hold the pistol and one to fan the hammer.

Damn waste of ammunition.

I can't remember the exact quote, but Willie Nelson said it best in the movie "Barbarosa."


CP

 

[Pete Gaimari]

The way I see it is, that a handgun is called a handgun not a handsgun. Just a thought!

hah, but your toothbrush ain't a teethbrush, either! :rotf:

I brush one at a time. :grin:

 

[1911nutjob]

Sir,

What my grandfather once said to me comes to mind 'the only reason to fight fair is if you are fighting naked with you feet nailed to the floor. any other time, cheat to survive.' If in a gunfight, the goal is to survive, and many of the tactics used for such are not approved by the CAS rulemakers. For those that have not been in gunfights, there is no good reason to train as if your opponent will follow a set of rules. Training specifically for CAS events would dictate training to their rules and safety standards, but the safety standards in any gunfight I have the misfortune to be in will be along the lines of 'last man standing is in the right.'

Loki

Gotta agree with this-if you're shooting to survive, do whatever it takes, there is no such thing as cheating or "being a man". There are techniques out there these days that allow you to do things with a pistol that are damn near impossible one-handed (unless your last name is miculek). If fighting for my life, I will employ a two handed hold with a handgun regardless of whether it's cap n' ball or something made of plastic. Just as weapons tech improves, so does effective technique and strategy.

As for historical correctness, I remember seeing footage from the history channel series "tales of the gun", dating back to circa 1920. The stock footage was of U.S. army soldiers training with the new fangled 1911. They were all shooting one handed even then, so I would surmise that this was the standard technique even further "back in the day". That being said, I'm sure there was an occassion or two where a cowpoke had an opportunity for a long, deliberate aim at some distance, where he might of taken advantage of a two handed hold, and a nature provided artificial rest of some sort.

 

[pab1]

IMO, two hands gives more stability, especially during trigger pull (when most shots are pulled off target), which increases accuracy. In my own experience through personal shooting, handgun hunting and LE training, two hands increases accuracy. If I can kneel using two hands with one elbow rested on my knee/inner thigh, even better. Look through a scoped hunting handgun and you'll see a huge difference in stability between one hand and two hand holds with the magnified sight picture. I can consistantly break clay pigeons at 100 yards with a Ruger MkIII .22lr with a two hand hold. At the same distance one handed, I have more misses and it takes much more "focus" to make consistant hits. None of this really matters if you are limited by competition rules though. :wink:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Yet, when you're good. One hand works fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vl9FniemlE

 

[pab1]

I've watched him before and he has some serious skill! Lets see that at 100 yards now. :grin:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I saw him at 50 yds. Still impressive.

The deal is though. He's so fast he'd have 5 shots coming your way before you could fire. One of them has to hit you.

 

[Claude Mathis]

[youtube]Ym3PiN29VB0[/youtube]

 

[mtmshieldshotmail.com]

And I am sorry that you are ill equipped for the terrain you must fight in.

CP

I'm sorry you got that impression.

But it's been a fun conversation...We all knew the original question was about "what was". I answered a question about the origin of a particular stance. And tried to throw in some humor along the way (I'm still waiting for someone to suggest the inventor of Pyrodex must've been a two-handed pistolero).
Regards to all,
Mike

 

[shovelhead]

I'm going to just throw out some thoughts. I think Bat Masterson was in a barroom shoot out at point blank range. Mark Twain in "Roughing It" talked about a Slade- at a stage coach stop- a point blank shoot out. I've been to a couple of fast draw events and the old thumb buster- in competent hands is really fast. NOW most of the period shoot outs were not the fast draw nature but still a fast one handed shot was likely the norm- or that's my guess. AND, if you were securely holed up in a safe spot and wanted to keep someone at bay- then two hands and resting the barrel against a tree or rock- would seem a natural thing- at least that's what I'd do.