|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 13, 2015 11:03:25 GMT
Ok, I don't know the exact origins of the Tea Cup hold but I think I have a clue. Here goes, in the manual for the Desert Eagle it says to use the Tea Cup hold to ensure proper functioning of the pistol. Sort of makes sense because of the slide mass. If the slide goes too far back as in the gun rotates past it's rotational recoil axis then the gun fails to feed properly as the slide in not flat. For pistols, in general, to feed and cycle they need to work in a specific manner. A semi auto can not be limp wristed or it will FTF. The Deagle is very susceptible to limp wristing because of it strong recoil impluse.
The Deagle manual states that you must have leverage via a stong Tea Cup hold on the bottom of the mag well to prevent limp wristing. The longer the lever, the greater the force possible. Makes sense. Now, back in the day when semi autos were less than reliable I can see them thinking that allowing the slide to rotate too far on it's access would induce malfunctions therefore they recommended holding the bottom of the mag.
Or it could be that the old semi autos were fricking heavy and they recommended holding there to keep the gun up. Meh, not important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 13, 2015 12:19:47 GMT
You get a Deagle?
Or just run across a manual?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 13, 2015 13:50:04 GMT
Just read the manual. I have much better things to do with $1000.
|
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Apr 13, 2015 13:58:39 GMT
Teacup was way popular back in the revolver days, had something to do with increasing the hold for an already low grip for the smaller framed models I think... (what? Why on earth would anyone want to grip a revolver as high as possible, that's just ridiculous)
Nothing to cite for that tidbit, just recall reading it somewhere. I'll do some homework when I get a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 13, 2015 14:32:30 GMT
Just read the manual. I have much better things to do with $1000. Thought so, just making sure. Usually I like most any gun that shoots boolits and I can find some redeeming quality about it, the Deagle is a total exception to that rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 13, 2015 14:58:11 GMT
Yeah, my holy crap that's fun 44 mag is a Rossi 16" lever gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Apr 13, 2015 17:36:46 GMT
Teacup was way popular back in the revolver days, had something to do with increasing the hold for an already low grip for the smaller framed models I think... (what? Why on earth would anyone want to grip a revolver as high as possible, that's just ridiculous) Nothing to cite for that tidbit, just recall reading it somewhere. I'll do some homework when I get a chance. This. Not only is this how I originally learned to shoot (and sometimes still slip up and use), it was in a number fo shooting manuals in the 60's and 70's. Now, this may be heresy, but in all truth I've never found much difference in the results of shooting with the old style teacup grip vs the modern grips.  If memory serves and IIRC, the first reason given for moving to the new/modern two handed non-teacup grip wasn't that it was more conducive to accuracy, it was that you wouldn't loose fingers if a semiautomatic had a kaboom and blew out the floor of a magazine. |
|
|
|
Post by nxp on Apr 13, 2015 17:52:28 GMT
Well, for starters a thumbs forward grip is non-conducive to a flash gap, not to mention trying to get your opposable friends along side a cylinder that rotates. The easy solution was the tea cup, the upgrade once everyone figured out that the 357Mag had a wee bit more snap over the old 38/32 was the thumb over grip that allowed you to choke down on the top strap a bit more. That lasted all the way up until semi's took over and folks got tired of having their thumbs railed by a reciprocating slide (and tada we head back to tea cup).
Lowkey, I'm not sure on the kaboom thing - I know that a lot of the European semi's that came in had the mag release on the bottom of the grip, so a tea cup would get the mag out faster for Euro's. US made semi's followed the 1911 mag release so it wasn't as much an issue.
Tea cup /thumbs over was a construct of the revolver days, perpetuated with Weaver stance. Thumbs forward really came into vogue with the modern Iso.
I much faster back on target thumbs forward than I am teacup. I have to make myself teacup, where I usually use thumb over when shooting revolvers. Thumbs forward is infinitely easier, to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Apr 13, 2015 18:04:44 GMT
I run thumbs high and forward. It allows me to run faster, more agressively, control the gun better and is far more conductive to accuracy for me. Only thing that sucks about it is the slide on my glock get fricking hot during a good session and burns my thumbs as I press them on the slide. I can rip the mags easily and run the gun.
Downsides? The burn, the slide rarely locks back (I don't really care, some do.) and the slide locks back when I run it with one hand. That causes me to have a totally different reload process. Not a big deal, but it's there.
As far as the Tea Cup, I'm still looking for the roots. Revolver, allowing early semi autos to run right, or helping weaker shooter support the gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Apr 13, 2015 19:15:34 GMT
Well, for starters a thumbs forward grip is non-conducive to a flash gap, not to mention trying to get your opposable friends along side a cylinder that rotates. The easy solution was the tea cup, the upgrade once everyone figured out that the 357Mag had a wee bit more snap over the old 38/32 was the thumb over grip that allowed you to choke down on the top strap a bit more. That lasted all the way up until semi's took over and folks got tired of having their thumbs railed by a reciprocating slide (and tada we head back to tea cup). Lowkey, I'm not sure on the kaboom thing - I know that a lot of the European semi's that came in had the mag release on the bottom of the grip, so a tea cup would get the mag out faster for Euro's. US made semi's followed the 1911 mag release so it wasn't as much an issue. Tea cup /thumbs over was a construct of the revolver days, perpetuated with Weaver stance. Thumbs forward really came into vogue with the modern Iso. I much faster back on target thumbs forward than I am teacup. I have to make myself teacup, where I usually use thumb over when shooting revolvers. Thumbs forward is infinitely easier, to me. I think you're probably on target (no pun intended). IMHO, it doesn't really matter as long as you consistently get good hits....results matter. Dogma...not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Apr 24, 2015 20:00:01 GMT
I'm rather late to this party, but...
I don't know the origin of the various grips, but I do know that thumbs forward or crossed have been the primary grips taught for semi-autos for some time - - not sure exactly, but maybe since the 90's? Accordingly, it bugs the piss out of me when younger actors portraying LE or .mil are using a tea cup hold. I generally don't crucify actors for not being tactical gurus, but something as basic as how to properly hold the gun should have been taught to these guys and gals, methinks.
That's all. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 24, 2015 21:23:33 GMT
I could be mistaken, but I think the tea-cup hold originated between the time of the one handed dueling pistol hold that was nearing the end up it's use by WWII . .  . . .and the book (and two handed hold) suggested by Fairbairn and Sykes in Shooting to Live (1942).  By the end of World War II that was a pretty standard hold. Police were doing a little better in pistol training at the time (it's their primary arm) and they started using two hands instead of one in the interwar period between WWI and WWII. The tea-cup hold was a stopgap technique used by police for a narrow window of time. If you notice the US troops started WWII using the one handed hold in training and by the middle and end of the war were using a two handed hold.   The tea-cup hold periodically gets revived by people schooled in pistol shooting techniques from that generation teaching someone else. I'm going off of memory from one of my dads gun fighting books from the 60's, but that's basically what I remember it saying with some pics from a net search thrown in. |
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 24, 2015 21:27:56 GMT
(Jeeze, between this and my post about B-Patrone ammo in the other thread it's like WWII day up in this bitch)
|
|
|
|
Post by as556 on Apr 24, 2015 22:06:06 GMT
Im a big time WW2 buff, keep it comin!
Interesting that second photo is basically a modern iso stance. Looks a lot like my stance, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Apr 25, 2015 14:41:36 GMT
Im a big time WW2 buff, keep it comin! Interesting that second photo is basically a modern iso stance. Looks a lot like my stance, actually. That's pretty much it. There were still some cops and soldiers who used a one handed firing stance after WWII (Bill Jordan, Ed McGivern and Jelly Bryce come to mind), but they were really practiced, had way better hand and eye coordination than is average and a two handed shooting stance is easier to hit from for most shooters.  Guys like Jeff Cooper and Jack Weaver adapted the way they shot off the earlier work of others and then others adapted off of theirs and it all kept going up until today.  www.thegunzone.com/people/cooper3.htmlThe cop and the exhibition shooter gave way to the spec-ops warrior and the competition shooter. Probably a simplistic way of looking at it and I'm sure I'm missing a metric fuck-ton of history and not giving some pioneers their due, but that's kinda the way it went from one handed pistol shooting to most using a two-handed hold of some type. By the 60's a two handed hold was pretty well entrenched. www.guns.com/2013/09/06/60s-fbi-training-film-win-gunfight-video/I don't see many people using a single hand to shoot unless they're training in case they're wounded or bullseye shooters. |
|
