Don't call me Dirty Harry.

April 24, 2007 3:02 AM

When Jack Bauer unholsters his sidearm, he invariably cups his left hand and uses it to support the right. Have movie heroes from Gary Cooper through Dirty Harry been fooling us all along?

You'd think the two-handed approach would be used to improve aiming, but that's not always the case -- last night, in a repeat of an episode on DVD, he knocked Tony Almeida to the ground and pointed his gun at him with both hands. From point blank range.

I'm no gun nut, but the grip on pistols seems designed for one-handed holding and aiming. What's the deal here? Is the two-handed technique a passing fad? Has it been used since way-back-when, despite movie characterizations?

What's the purpose? Aiming at a target, or stabilizing the gun against recoil -- or a kick from an enemy? Is the two-handed technique part of a specific special ops technique in Bauer's arsenal?

posted by Gordion Knott to Media & Arts (20 answers total)

The two-handed, front-forward stance is called the Weaver Stance. The primary criticisms of it are that it exposes too much of your body to a potential shooter, which is why a side-axis stance came into a kind of vogue. These days, however, modern body armor will cover your chest more than your sides, so it's actually safer to expose your chest than your sides. Two hands are generally used for recoil control and stability, like a tripod. I don't know what the consensus is on where the second hand is supposed to grip, though I'm sure a lot of it will depend what works for the shooter.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:19 AM on April 24, 2007

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a real officer of the law put a weapon to someone at point-blank range. One, because you're theoretically supposed to have your advesary properly restrained if you're that close to them, because of reason two: the closer your adversary is to your weapon, the greater the chance they can take it from you. The whole advantage of a firearm is the distance factor. Take that away, and it becomes a reflex game: who's faster? And sure, if your finger is already on the trigger, you could probably blow someone away as soon as you felt them twitch, but then, you might get it wrong and mistake normal movement for "he's going for my weapon" and accidentally kill your suspect. Which tends to make interrogation not-so-fruitful.

When you watch real takedowns, the very first thing that law enforcement will do is have a suspect put their arms in a position where they can't quickly disarm you without you seeing that they're up to something. If you're on your knees with your hands on your head and your back facing the officer, it's pretty darned unlikely that you'll be able to spin around quickly enough or have the reach to get a gun away from someone that's not holding their weapon directly on you.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:26 AM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

...he knocked Tony Almeida to the ground and pointed his gun at him with both hands. From point blank range.

The director or the DP probably thought it 'looked cool'.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:52 AM on April 24, 2007

I helped run a pistol range for the British Territorial Army, and the two-hand thing is the preferred method of holding the weapon, as it damps down the effects of recoil. But the posters above are right, that's when you're drawing a bead on something 10 to 20 metres away. You shouldn't really be using a pistol if you're right beside someone.

That said, it never hurts to have two hands on the weapon. Pistols can actually be quite heavy, and the kick can be a surprise to novice shooters. If there's no particular reason not to hold the weapon in a two-handed grip, it's always a good idea - a one-handed grip is inherently less stable, unless you have arms like Popeye.
posted by Happy Dave at 5:04 AM on April 24, 2007

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m11_pistol_studyguide/grip-techniques-used-with-2.shtml
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:25 AM on April 24, 2007

I was actually in a course last night where the grip and stance they were pushing - and 'they' included former law enforcement and FBI folk - was feet shoulder width apart. weight on the balls of your feet, primary hand gripping high on the pistol, second hand gripping and providing matching counter-pressure on the other -side- of the hand.

Make a fist with your dominant hand in front of you. Now match the other hand to it, gripping around it, with the ball of your thumb in the groove between your dominant hand fingertips and thumb. That's it - except, ya know, with a pistol.

When target shooting in the past I've always had my secondary hand cupping my dominant hand, more like what you saw Bauer doing, but they made a compelling case in this class for offsetting the forces from your dominant hand, as well as making sure the secondary hand is locked (hold your arm out in front of you, palm to the side. Now tilt your hand so your fingers aim towards the ground ) so as to provide more stability.
posted by phearlez at 5:45 AM on April 24, 2007

What about the one-handed grip where you hold the pistol on its side - is that an effective technique?
posted by Flashman at 5:51 AM on April 24, 2007

Pistols can actually be quite heavy, and the kick can be a surprise to novice shooters.

You can say that again. First gun I ever shot was a .45 pistol, and I damn near punched myself in the face from the recoil. Totally unprepared for it.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:58 AM on April 24, 2007

What about the one-handed grip where you hold the pistol on its side - is that an effective technique?


Only if you're shooting at German Army recruits.
posted by felix betachat at 6:05 AM on April 24, 2007

What about the one-handed grip where you hold the pistol on its side - is that an effective technique?


Only if you're shooting at German Army recruits.

I once spoke to a police officer here in South London (long story, I found a 9mm round on the pavement outside my house), and he said that films like Pulp Fiction and the like were actually a major reason there weren't more firearms deaths in gang fights - kids who take their stance, aiming and grip cues from 'gangsta' movies can't hit a damn thing most of the time.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:57 AM on April 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

It helps you steady your aim.
posted by jeblis at 7:29 AM on April 24, 2007

Shooting one-handed is not an easy task. Anyone who carries a gun for work surely practices at the range with frequency, and running 200 rounds through a large caliber pistol one-handed with any accuracy is extremely difficult. After a while, my hand shakes like a leaf when I do it, even with my 9mm. Accuracy is dodgy at best, even at 7 yards. If I do it with my .45, I can feel the bones in my arm slamming against each other. In fact, if I don't maintain a very postive grip on the .45, it may not even be able to reload itself, as the reload mechanism is recoil-powered.

Also, if you plan on pulling the trigger more than once, using two hands is critical for maintaining your sight picture well enough to maintain a decent rate of fire.

If you want to see how much recoil there can be, go to a gun range and rent a .44 magnum revolver and see if you can fire it one-handed. Wear a helmet.
posted by popechunk at 7:50 AM on April 24, 2007

gordion knott - i'm not a gun-nut or anything either, but i highly recommend going to a shooting range and firing some live rounds just to see what shooting a gun is really like.

a few years ago i fired some live rounds for the first time, and i immediately learned that movies will almost never give you an accurate representation of what shooting a gun is really like.

first of all, the sound. wow. i fired some basic handguns like a glock and a baretta, and the sound was simply mind-blowing. it's a huge explosion in your hands. it's not like a simple, mixed down bang like you hear in movies and tv.

secondly, it becomes immediately apparent when you are firing that you need to use both hands with a great grip and stance if you plan on hitting your target. i'm sure there are shooting experts that can hit targets accurately with one hand, but the average person really needs both hands and arms to hit a target.

to answer your question, yes, movies have been fooling us for a long time. the reason actors make the one-handed shooting style look so easy is because they are firing blanks, which means there is NO recoil. this is key. if they were firing live rounds, you can believe there would be a massive recoil.

also, while i'm on the topic, the hollywood cliche sound of a silcenced gun is pretty inaccurate. movies usually play the "metal kiss" sound effect, if you will. the real sound of a silenced gun sounds to me like a BB gun.
posted by fac21 at 8:56 AM on April 24, 2007

the reason actors make the one-handed shooting style look so easy is because they are firing blanks, which means there is NO recoil

Nitpick - not exactly true. A blank is more or less like any other round but without the bullet to be propelled by the ignition. The gunpowder load is likely smaller but there's still explosive gas bring propelled out of the barrel and even a projectile of sorts - that powder is kept in the round with a wad, which can cause harm.

The gas may exit without propelling a more formed bullet through the barrel and therefor have less focused reaction but the basic principle of every action having an equal and opposite reaction still applies.
posted by phearlez at 9:45 AM on April 24, 2007

The gas may exit without propelling a more formed bullet through the barrel and therefor have less focused reaction but the basic principle of every action having an equal and opposite reaction still applies.

You do get a minor kick from a blank, but it's really very minor compared to a live round. It's enough to make the muzzle kick up a fraction of an inch if you're firing one-handed, which *looks* realistic to the unschooled eye in the movies.

We used to use blanks in room-clearing exercises, and with a two-handed grip the thing barely moves. Firing live, even two-handed the muzzle is going to lift an inch or so with every shot, unless, again, you have incredibly strong forearm muscles.
posted by Happy Dave at 10:04 AM on April 24, 2007

In the movies and TV, I believe it to be a carry-over from the Cowboy aesthetic. A cowboy, riding his horse, firing away with his 6-shooter. (How exactly did they fire 20-30 shots out of those things without reloading?)

Matt Dillon would have never shot 2 handed, even though he used a mammoth .45 caliber.

Dirty Harry holding a 44 mag. and shooting one handed is pretty much absurd. It makes him larger than life. A tall tale. Plus consider Eastwood's heavy background in the westerns.

Also, I think of images of gangsters and G-men exchanging long volleys of gunfire with little snub-nose .38's. Holding the gun up above a trash can and firing. Good times.

My first memory of the two-handed grip on TV was on Miami Vice, with Crockett. I remember a bad guy specifically mentioning Crockett shot "military style".

No, I take that back. I just had an image shoot across my head of Police Woman, and I remember her using two hands.

But, maybe Crockett was the first male TV cop to shoot two-handed? Maybe?

Regarding blanks... I've shot several handguns, including .22, .38, .357 mag, and 9mm, and all had recoil from slight to pronounced (I couldn't hit shit with the .357). I have fired blanks before, and I do not recall them having any recoil at all, but I admit it was several years ago, and the recoil was not something I was really thinking about at the time. I never had the chance to fire a .45, which I've always wanted to do.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:15 AM on April 24, 2007

The stance used by Jack Bauer (at least most of the time), is a Weaver or modified weaver, also sometimes called "cup and saucer" or a bunch of other names. (There are a lot of Weaver variations.) Basically, you hold the pistol in your dominant hand, cup your non-dominant hand below it, and depending on the variation of the stance either have both elbows slightly bent, or just the non-dominant elbow slightly bent. You stand with feet shoulder-width apart and turned about 45deg off-angle to the target. In the classic Weaver, you push out slightly with your dominant hand, and pull in slightly with your cupped hand; this aids in recoil management and lets you get a second shot out faster. (The oh-so-popular "double tap.")

The other popular stance for law-enforcement personnel, in my experience, is the Isosceles, which is simpler: you stand, feet shoulder-width apart, facing the target; dominant hand holds the pistol, non-dominant hand wraps around it from the opposite side with the first finger of the non-dominant hand usually just below the trigger guard. Both arms are straight out and locked at the elbows, head is bent slightly. (I've seen this taught in self-defense classes and people cite certain advantages when "point shooting.")

The one-handed position is usually called "offhand," and was actually taught as the 'right way to shoot' to military personnel prior to and possibly during WWII (I can't find it right now but there's an old Army PR photo that comes up a lot, with a bunch of guys at the firing line on a range, all holding their 1911s offhand). It's generally only used in competition and target shooting; I don't think anyone seriously advocates it for self-defense or police shooting anymore.
The proper offhand stance (IMO), is to stand, feet shoulder-width apart, turned approximately 75deg or so away from the target (not entirely perpendicular, that strains your neck too much) with your arm outstretched and locked, holding the weapon. The non-dominant hand is kept relaxed or in a pocket.

You can start a serious argument in many gun clubs over the relative merits of these stances and their myriad variations. But to answer your question, the two-handed Weaver stance was developed by Jeff Weaver in the 1950s, but really popularized (see the linked article above) by a guy named Jeff Cooper, in the 60s and 70s, and was adopted by the FBI in the early 80s. I suspect they were using the Isosceles prior to that.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:51 AM on April 24, 2007

My Springfield XD .45 doesn't have a tremendous amount of recoil. In fact I started my girlfriend off on that (this is not a slight against women, but most women are more comfortable with a smaller weapon to start). Most people hype up their first shot then realize hey it's not so bad. I can shoot it single handed without any problems. However I would never do that in a real situation or normal target practice...it's just not as accurate. Maybe with a .22 which has basically zero kick.

My friends 44 mag single action revolver - now that mother KICKS and yes the recoil sends that one skyward! I never shot that with one hand but I could imagine the results!

Like was stated by several people here, go to a range and rent a few guns/get some lessons. Throw out all the TV/movie garbage and you'll be surprised - yes there is more powder and the gun gets hot, and you quickly realize how silly movie/TV gun battles are.
posted by evilelvis at 11:03 AM on April 24, 2007

Using both hands not only helps stabilize, but also helps bring your aim back to center quickly. One other note: if you have small hands and a big gun, firing with one hand is next to impossible. I had to shop around a lot just to find a gun that fit my hands comfortably (finally settled on the springfield xd .40) and can't imagine holding it any other way than a two handed grip.

Also, as a counterpoint to elvis' experience, I do find mine to have a fairly powerful recoil. I've gotten used to it (and it's not nearly as strong as some other guns I've shot) but I took a friend to the range the other day with it and she could barely hit the target (but giver her a .22 and she's golden.)
posted by nerdcore at 12:20 PM on April 24, 2007

The one-handed position is usually called "offhand," and was actually taught as the 'right way to shoot' to military personnel prior to and possibly during WWII (I can't find it right now but there's an old Army PR photo that comes up a lot, with a bunch of guys at the firing line on a range, all holding their 1911s offhand).

That's how my dad was taught and he was in the Army in the mid-late 60s. He went shooting with me one time and saw my stance, apparently a modified Weaver, and he realized it's a more accurate way to shoot than offhand, though he is pretty accurate offhand anyway.

When I go shooting I mix it up but I'm way more accurate shooting two-handed. Sometimes it's fun to shoot 357 offhand but with the recoil follow-up shots are really slow if I want any kind of accuracy, especially with a single action revolver that rolls up a lot with each shot. And the common movie trope of blasting away with a gun in each hand? A good way to make a lot of noise and throw a lot of lead around without hitting a damn thing.
posted by 6550 at 1:18 PM on April 24, 2007