There are times when it may actually be necessary to tilt a handgun at various angles so that the sights are not straight up and down. The most likely reasons involve the use of cover when the shooter is constrained to shooting from an unusual position.

One of my drills is to lay a board on a couple of cinder blocks to simulate the bottom of a motor vehicle and to place reactive (knock-down) targets several yards away to simulate a bad guy’s legs. The shooter is required to lie down and engage the targets under the board. Some shooters are able to achieve and shoot from a position with their bodies in line with the targets and both elbows on the ground, similar to shooting a rifle from the prone. Most, however, do better lying on their sides with their bodies parallel to the simulated vehicle; that’s how I do it. (The former position also requires holding the gun higher from the ground, and could be unusable if the barrier is low enough.)

Depending on the shooter’s body characteristics and the height of the barrier, it can be possible to hold a handgun to achieve a normal sight picture on the targets, but it is often faster and more comfortable to rotate the gun at some angle away from vertical. In this drill I have often seen shooters miss 4.5 inch diameter plastic pipes from a distance of 4 yards, so the question then becomes, “Does rotating the gun require a different point of aim?”

In addition to using the sights normally, it has been suggested that when rotating the gun at an intermediate angle of about 45 degrees, the shooter could sight along the edge of the corner between the top and side of the slide which would then be at the top of the sight picture. I decided to conduct a little experiment to see which method would be best.

I set up two series of three targets each and fired five shots at each from 5 and 10 yards. Because of its pronounced flattop slide design and distinct corner between top and side of the slide, I used my long-neglected P250 chambered for 9mm. I also prefer a double action trigger, and there is none better than the P250’s. Note, however, that this was not intended to be a test of firearm accuracy or shooter skill.

I fired at the top row from 10 yards and the bottom from 5. Despite what may be written on the paper, the left target was engaged with the pistol tilted about 45° to the left and sighting along the corner between the top and side of the slide. The middle targets were fired with a normal upright sight picture. The right targets were fired with the gun rotated a full 90° to the left, but with the sights aligned normally and the top of the front sight blade placed in the center of each target diamond. (A few shots were papered over and fired again when I knew they were far out of the group due to shooter error; my excuse was the strong, gusty wind that was buffeting me around.)



The groups fired using the corner of the slide are obviously the largest and least consistent. I blame that on the imprecise nature of the “sight,” but they were also significant distances from the points of aim. The groups fired with the gun rotated 90° (which is how I normally shoot the drill) were lower than the normal sight picture shots, but their left/right windage was reasonably good.

Based on this informal experiment, I won’t be changing my practice of using and aligning the sights normally when shooting from a position that requires rotating the handgun from its usual position.

As a final comment, the results a shooter will achieve when shooting with the gun rotated will depend on the gun, ammunition, sights, and the degree of rotation. This should serve only to encourage everyone to conduct their own experiments.

Interesting results...I would have thought that the 45 degree hold would have been easier to produce tighter groups at POA than the 90 degree, but that seems to not be the case. I do wonder, though, how much the POI is affected by muscle mechanics in the canted and sideways positions, rather than purely sight picture.

I like the idea of the board on cinderblocks drill to simulate shooting under a car, too...I may have to give that a try.

Your commitment to your craft never ceases to amaze (and enlighten) me. Thanks for sharing this.

I'm going to guess that you were laying on your support side with the pistol in your strong hand and that arm off the ground...since you refer to rotating the sights to the left.

Have you ever tried it the other way...with your dominate arm on the ground?

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:
I'm going to guess that you were laying on your support side with the pistol in your strong hand and that arm off the ground...since you refer to rotating the sights to the left.

When I have a choice, I prefer to lie on my right (dominant) side and that puts my dominant arm fully extended and flat on the ground. That position offers a few advantages over lying on my nondominant side.

The back of my dominant hand is actually flat on the ground, giving me a more stable shooting platform, rather than its resting on my left hand.
The gun is closer to the ground, and although it’s not an issue with the way I normally configure the board and supports, it could conceivably be important if the barrier was lower.
I’m right eye dominant, so it’s easier to align my eye with the sights if my right hand and arm are flat on the ground.

For this test I shot standing and rotating the gun left was easier, but when lying on my right side, it’s easier to rotate right. In fact, when lying on my right side it’s easiest to rotate the pistol fully 90° right and lay my head on the ground to achieve a good sight picture rather than rotating it 45° which requires raising my head some.

I do, however, sometimes shoot lying on my left side just for the practice. What is about impossible for me is to shoot a handgun lying on my belly with both arms extended equally and both elbows on the ground. One of our deputies, though, shoots that way and very well.

Interesting experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
There are times when it may actually be necessary to tilt a handgun at various angles so that the sights are not straight up and down.

Regarding holding a pistol at an angle...

When I shoot two-handed in my typical isosceles stance, I hold the pistol perfectly vertical in both hands in a thumbs-forward grip.

But when I shoot one-handed, I curl my thumb down, and I find that I cant the pistol slightly towards my centerline. For whatever reason, I find this to be better than holding the pistol perfectly vertical in one hand. And it naturally aligns the sights to my eye.

Holding the pistol perfectly vertical in one hand feels awkward, unless I have my arm directly out to my side, like the old bullseye stance:


It's similar to pointing a finger. If you just square your body to an object and then point an index finger at that object without thinking about it, notice how your thumb/palm side of your fist is rotated slightly towards your centerline. Works with either hand. Your fist isn't perfectly straight up and down. (Or at least mine isn't.)

I don't do a full-on 90 degree sideways gangster hold. It's not even 45 degrees. More like 10-20 degrees.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
But when I shoot one-handed, I find that I cant the pistol slightly towards my centerline.

Yes, I do the same. What I find interesting, though, is that I always mention that method to new shooters, but very few adopt it. It seems more natural to me, but not to many others.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Interesting experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
There are times when it may actually be necessary to tilt a handgun at various angles so that the sights are not straight up and down.

Regarding holding a pistol at an angle...

When I shoot two-handed in my typical isosceles stance, I hold the pistol perfectly vertical in both hands in a thumbs-forward grip.

But when I shoot one-handed, I curl my thumb down, and I find that I cant the pistol slightly towards my centerline. For whatever reason, I find this to be better than holding the pistol perfectly vertical in one hand. And it naturally aligns the sights to my eye.

It's similar to pointing a finger. If you just point an index finger at something without thinking about it, notice how your thumb/palm side of your fist is rotated slightly towards your centerline. Works with either hand. Your fist isn't perfectly straight up and down. (Or at least mine isn't.)

I don't do a full-on 90 degree sideways gangster hold. It's not even 45 degrees. More like 10-20 degrees.

I've been told to do this, I am less accurate with the tilt, especially weak handed. It does work for most people though.

Following a precision rifle match at Ft. Carson earlier this year, a few of us practiced pistol drills and had some friendly competition for speed and accuracy at distance on steel plates. The accuracy at distance started at maybe 7 yards, then increased to 25-ish yards IIRC. We shot two handed, one-handed strong side, and one-handed weak side. The steel plates were likely 8", 10", and 12".

Possibly from the caffeine and sugar effects of a Mountain Dew, I decided to shoot one-handed (strong and weak sides) full gansta. Glock 17 rotated 90 degrees (but aiming with the normal Glock sights on the top of the slide), non shooting hand cupping my junk. Didn't throw the gun forward with each shot, however, as I haven't practiced that movement. Anyway, I tied for the win.

IMO at normal defensive engagement distances, on reasonably-sized targets, using supersonic 9mm loads, our sights work just fine regardless of pistol orientation. This was first shown to me by an Ohio SWAT team leader who was instructing a carbine/pistol course for Rifles Only. We students were struggling with shooting targets from various positions, with many of the positions from and around barriers.

To prove the point, the instructor demonstrated accuracy with his Glock 19 -- shooting full gansta, shooting while laying on the ground, shooting while leaning around barrier corners -- all the while dinging steel like crazy. The final demo was holding the G19 upside down, using the bottom part of the upside-down sights to aim, and pulling the trigger with his pinkie finger. And still hitting the target.

*****
Warning -- any attempts to hold a weapon upside down and shoot it are your choice, and only your choice. I don't recommend it. In such manner, recoil is uber had to control, and any follow-up shots may go anywhere. Yer on yer own, dudes, and don't contact me if you throw a shot in a bad, bad direction. <<legal rant>>

BTW, I've heard some Glocks tend to stovepipe when shot upside down.

I shot a USPSA match a last month that I wasn't enjoying. Lots of pain causing lot's of disinterest. Rather than leave early I decided to have fun with it. One stage, rather than move and shoot from 4 or 5 places, I decided to hang way out past the walls and shoot from just two. Strong side was easy one handed stuff. The other side required a crazy cross over reach. One target shot sideway, the last shot holding the gun upside down (on a target with only the head available.) I really enjoyed it, and it sort of "saved" the match for me. Made it fun.

Someone commented about that being hard to do. I remarked that it was... but it shouldn't have been. That was the strangest part, I've been shooting pistols upside down for years!
We used to have sort of an informal "match" doing it. But it had always been revolvers, fired slow at small distant targets. (with the gun actually held upside down) This was just holding it rolled over, which kind of made it harder. Trying to do that quickly and accurately was harder than I'd expected.

We practiced gangsta style aiming wiith sim guns when doing training in apartment building hallways.

When I am clearing rooms and shooting from certain types of cover I hold my pistol with a slight cant to the left being that I am right handed.
From a defensive shooting standpoint I am still on target as one would want to be. Never measured my groups or compared to see the difference like you did.
Your little test has me wanting to.

There is validity to the cant. Point your index finger at a nearby object, and notice that your hand is not vertical, it is canted.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
But when I shoot one-handed, I find that I cant the pistol slightly towards my centerline.

Yes, I do the same. What I find interesting, though, is that I always mention that method to new shooters, but very few adopt it. It seems more natural to me, but not to many others.

It is more natural and also brings more muscles into play to help manage recoil...especially is you slightly break (bow it outward) the elbow.

The main reason many won't try it is because "it doesn't look right"

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881
I've been told to do this, I am less accurate with the tilt, especially weak handed. It does work for most people though.

It isn't meant to improve accuracy, but to increase recoil management.

However, there is another technique, from around the Victorian era, which has been somewhat lost with the passage of time.

Rather than cant the gun, hold it vertically, but drop your elbow downward and an relax your wrist

For those of us who are still building precision at speed..... (sometimes I can shoot fairly decent groups at speed; other times I lose focus and start stringing my shots low and/or left. I know what I'm doing wrong, I just lose focus and am not consistently doing the right thing).

In these cases, under duress and taking multiple shots, would you recommend the shooter to keep the handgun as vertical as possible, especially as distance to target increases?

Seems like this would be the most accurate as well as a better accommodation for hitting a thin vertical target like a leg?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
In these cases, under duress and taking multiple shots, would you recommend the shooter to keep the handgun as vertical as possible, especially as distance to target increases?

Seems like this would be the most accurate as well as a better accommodation for hitting a thin vertical target like a leg?

I'd be interested in sigfreund's input on this a well.

From a practical standpoint, keeping the gun vertical isn't always in option when shooting under something

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
In these cases, under duress and taking multiple shots, would you recommend the shooter to keep the handgun as vertical as possible, especially as distance to target increases?

Seems like this would be the most accurate as well as a better accommodation for hitting a thin vertical target like a leg?

Good question. I can’t imagine that keeping the gun as close to vertical as possible wouldn’t be the best practice whenever possible. Bull’s-eye shooters strive for maximum precision at various distances (the 50 yard X-ring is less than 1.7 inches in diameter) and I’m sure they do everything possible to minimize variables. I’ve never seen any indication that they do anything other than hold the pistols as straight up and down as they can. My precision rifles are all equipped with scope levels to help avoid any tilt when shooting for the same reason.

With combat-style handgun shooting, though, the question must also consider the supposed Russian proverb of “perfection is the enemy of good enough,” and in this I’m referring to good enough accuracy balanced against the benefits of shooting with the gun tilted at an angle from the vertical.

When shooting one-handed, my natural tilt is about 15° from the vertical. That’s enough to be noticeable, but not really all that much in terms of its effect on bullet point of impact versus point of aim. I regularly fire a course that involves one-handed shooting at 7 yards and whenever I miss the ~6×10" critical zone in the center it’s due to my failure to control the gun and trigger properly, not due to any obvious sighting misalignment.

On the other hand, that small tilt when I’m shooting with one hand avoids my having to consciously turn the gun to the (unnatural) vertical position. That, I believe, makes the gun position more consistent and it seems to reduce muscle tension just a bit. As for the full 90° rotation when I’m lying on the ground shooting under a simulated vehicle, aligning the sights allows me to deliver very accurate fire. As the photo above demonstrates, the POI is displaced only a small amount, and mostly downward. It works just fine for engaging thin vertical targets like simulated legs.

More to the point, and as 9mmepiphany points out, sometimes keeping the gun vertical isn’t always practicable or even possible. I can turn and shoot with a handgun in its normal vertical position while lying on the ground, but it’s slower, more difficult, requires raising my head and the gun higher off the ground, and my practical accuracy is not as good.

Ultimately, though, this is something that each shooter can, and should, determine for herself. Admiral Grace Hopper is credited with observing that one accurate measurement is worth 1000 expert opinions, and the accurate measurement in this case is shooting to see what works best. But you’ve piqued my interest in exploring the question further, so I’ll be checking the effect of a 15° tilt on POI the next chance I have.

Thanks SF.

What you say makes sense. And I understand the practical aspects.

I guess I'm wondering if it's generally better to keep the gun vertical not just for accuracy but rather when coupled with the possibility of stringing shots under duress.

In my experience, the typical stringing behavior is mostly vertical (perhaps as a result of gripping tighter with your pinky, or because of increased anticipation, or because one might try to look over the sights to see if you're hitting).

If this is true, then perhaps vertical with some reasonable cant is the ideal shooting position when coupling accuracy and rapid shooting together?

Again, this is the idealized case and it sounds like this would be recommended based on your response. This is not necessarily the best practical method - proverbs, real situations and all.

Your topic gave me pause as I hadn't thought about the situation much. I assumed that generally I'd be standing when firing which is not a good assumption. The reality is that I've more likely already been attacked first (I carry for defensive purposes, not offensive) so one can not choose their situation.

I know that I don't practice enough to have fully eliminated my tendency to string (although it has improved dramatically over the past year).

So, I just wanted to confirm an ideal case for something like this to address both accuracy and follow-up shot speed. This is not something I can easily test on the line (actually, can't test on the line). So, it's all thought experiments.