[HTML1]
I see this on YouTube cop videos all the time. Police officers who are drilled and drilled and drilled again in two-handed shooting reverting to a one-handed grip when the metaphorical fur starts to fly. And why the hell not? It’s a handgun not a handsgun . . .
Firing a pistol with one-hand in a SHTF scenario is not only the most practical option—freeing a hand to perform other life-saving tasks—it’s also the most natural way to shoot. And you’re far more likely to move when you shoot one-handed than two. So why don’t armed self-defenders practice shooting one-handed?
I think it has something to do with increased accuracy. On the range. In a sterile environment, when both the target and the shooter are static, firing a handgun with a two-handed grip via a Weaver or modified Weaver stance is the way to go. More people will get more bullets in a tighter group more of the time shooting two-handed than one. And don’t it feel good?
In a real world defensive gun use, ideal marksmanship goes out the window (ipso facto). As an armchair warrior (who hopes to stay that way), I reckon distance is more important for combat accuracy than stance. In other words, an armed defender should pay more attention to their position relative to the target than how they’re launching lead.
Hollywood also bears responsibility for the predominant culture of two-handed shooting. While real world law enforcement officers do it one-handed, fictional “professionals” do it the “professional” way: two-handed. Bad guys shoot one-handed (with a not-entirely-indefensible cant). To paraphrase Fernando, it is better to shoot good than to look good.
Whatever the reason, the more videos like this we see (thank you TASER Axon) the clearer it becomes that self-defense shooters should practice one-handed shooting a lot more than they do. In fact, I’d say that it should be their primary stance. To quote the world’s biggest regularly televised egomaniac, what say you?