Indians For Guns

How do today's shooting techniques differ from the ones shown in this video? Is the revolver still a fighting weapon?

Very interesting, Vikram, thanks for sharing this!

It is an old-fashioned training video, and the primary thing that I saw was the use of the one-handed grip, rather than the more modern two-handed grip, which is widely accepted as the optimal style today.

A second idea is the point shooting, whether from the hip or from the shoulder, where the sights, especially the front sight, is at the shooter's peripheral vision. Modern technique does advocate using the front sight, at least, as an integral part of the shooter's picture of the target.

The revolver is no longer in fashion among many types. We've gone over pistol vs revolver here.

All of these points I've noticed are controversial among handgun shooters for self-defense techniques.

However, the idea presented at the beginning: being willing and able to use the handgun to immediately immobilize the target if drawn, remains unchanged and is one of the key elements of the shooter's discipline. The handgun should not be drawn unless it is to be used, and not to be brandished, used to threaten, or used to attempt to wound, rather than completely immobilize.

While some may object to the new methods, it may be observed that learning even the old techniques is going to increase one's abiilities over someone who never practices.

As far as those who espouse not always drawing to immobilize only, they should be entirely disregarded.

In the early to mid 60s the FBI /police training techniques evolved into a competitive shooting/training program called Precision Pistol Competition (also called Police Pistol Competition or Practical Police Competition etc). These were initially for police personnel only but as popularity grew, they expanded to civilians. The PPC/PP events were shot with 6-shot revolvers and tested various skills including draw and shoot, reloading from a speedloader/single rounds, taking cover, shooting with the left hand from behind a barricade, shooting from prone etc. Some say that the Bianchi cup and IPSC are derivatives of the original PPC - how much of this is true, I've not researched enough to know.

There are various matches like PPC1500, PP1, PP2 etc that all formed part of this training and required shooters to shoot distances from 5mtrs to 50mtrs. Each match has various courses of fire and uses different types of targets. One thing that remains consistent is the popularity of revolvers in these PPC competitions in US, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Canada and Australia.

The reason I go off topic is that the shooting styles and revolvers have undergone a change some of which is evident from the way these competitions are shot. A few things that have evolved:

1. The caliber: the 'shooting from the hip' technique suited well to the more manageable .38spl round and enabled a series of shots to be fired with a single hand. The caliber fell out of favour with law enforcement and the larger .357 mag gained acceptance over the decades and that led to a change to the double handed and front sight technique timmy referred to. I can't imagine a quick double tap with a .357 mag <4 inch revolver with a single hand shot from the hip! The 9mm revolver has also gained popularity during these decades.

2. The stance - the Isosceles stance has gained almost universal acceptance in competitions and the weaver stance is common in defensive shooting. The 'FBI stance' (although stylish!) has fallen completely out of favour. This is also because the speed has taken precedence.

3. Use of revolvers - (defensive vs competitive and military/police use) - fair to say that semi autos rule the SD market and although revolvers are still used their popularity is no where close. The only military revolver (that I know of) still in production is the Manurhin MR73. Semi autos again have become the universally accepted sidearm for defence services. We now see an increasing use of This has meant the revolvers have not seen the same level of R&D, investment and development as the semi autos. The Chiappa Rhino is the only 'new' design that I can think of in recent times.

Personally, I love them the way they are!


Cheers,
SS

SS, I'd like to digress a bit, but only for a moment, from Vikram's theme of defensive shooting technique to comment on one of your points:

AgentDoubleS wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:49 pm

3. Use of revolvers - (defensive vs competitive and military/police use) - fair to say that semi autos rule the SD market and although revolvers are still used their popularity is no where close. The only military revolver (that I know of) still in production is the Manurhin MR73. Semi autos again have become the universally accepted sidearm for defence services. We now see an increasing use of This has meant the revolvers have not seen the same level of R&D, investment and development as the semi autos. The Chiappa Rhino is the only 'new' design that I can think of in recent times.

Personally, I love them the way they are!

Regarding revolvers, the Chiappa Rhino really isn't so groundbreaking, to my eyes. It gets the bore axis down low to the hand (maybe a bit like the style of the Kahr semi-auto) and it optimizes the width by using a hexagonal -- what? Cylinder? (Can it be a "cylinder" if it's hexagonal?) These are two drawbacks that are inherent in conventional revolver design.

The Chiappa Rhino doesn't seem that unconventional, however, when you consider the actual design of the thing:



Both of the high barrel axis and the width of the cylinder are addressed in the Chiappa Rhino (at the cost of, what is to my eyes, an extremely ugly package!), but my primary problem with the revolver isn't addressed. As the youtube video shows, that horribly awkward means of aligning a fresh chamber with the barrel, of "bending" a linear motion around some corners to achieve a rotary motion, is still there.

This problem was addressed by GV Fosbery in his "gun that makes people giggle," the Fosbery automatic revolver:



Yes, the high barrel axis is still there, as is the large width of the cylinder, but Fosbery eliminated the whole awkward mechanism for operating the action. He also gave it a fine single action trigger pull for every round fired.

Emilio Ghisoni (designer of the Chiappa Rhino) figured out how to deal with these shortcomings in his Mateba Unica revolver



Operating similarly to the Webley Fosbery, with an upper frame, cylinder (hexagonal, of course) and barrel sliding over a lower frame, Ghisoni addressed the Fosbery shortcomings in his design.

(Note: I haven't quite yet figured out just how the cylinder is rotated in the Mateba, yet.)

There's a lot of complexity here, while a short recoil autoloader is much simpler, even with modern safety features. But I like Fosbery's and Ghisoni's designs, even though I will never be able to afford either of them.

I echo your final sentiment: "Personally, I love them the way they are!" especially when they have a horse on them.

I agree, Timmy, on the Rhino not being the revolutionary design it is sometimes touted to be - hence the inverted comma 'new'. I do still credit Chiappa for offering an unconventional design while most manufacturers continue to offer tried and time tested models. Having recently got a 686-3 2.5 inch I have been very tempted to look for a 4 inch Rhino that could nicely fit it between the Korth and the S&W and give me a new platform to train on. I've never had the opportunity to shoot one though the research I did and the reviews I read highlighted a heavier 12 pound trigger pull, something I was unsure about. But then again a 686-3 in 4 inch would be a nice addition as well and the wife wouldn't notice a new firearm in the safe!

SS, I did not mean to sound disparaging about the Rhino. It has interesting and new features, for sure, and it's definitely a break from the everyday revolver. Pacing the barrel low is, I think, a real improvement.

A real point of weakness in the revolver design, to my eyes, is the hand. It's tangential action on the cylinder star practically invites wear, which is critical to timing and doesn't take to abuse very well. The Fosbery and later Mateba Unica attacked that problem and were, I think, revolutionary, but that's really a subjective term.

There's certainly no doubt that a 686 could hide inconspicuously in the safe much more readily than a Rhino (of either kind!). Such considerations are an integral and important part of firearms ownership!

And you did not come across as disparaging, Timmy. I hadn’t thought of the star to be a high wear area.

I have a very specific focus on competitive shooting I’m keen to see how a lower bore axis affects recoil management.

Time to go back to shining that 686 for now.

Cheers
SS