There are few people in the annals of gun lore that were more pro-gun/self defense and more opposed to gun control than Jeff Cooper. To that we owe him a depth of gratitude. However, most of us who remember him have an opinion on Cooper that ranges from hero to blowhard. That Cooper was a legend in gun circles is without a doubt, however it remains that he might have been a huge fraud as well. His legend was largely built upon a lot of self promotion, a very thin resume that doesn't survive much scrutiny and a number of unverifiable claims. Your thoughts?
some of his ideas are outdated or obsolete. His denigrations of the nine as a defensive cartridge are obsolete. His idolization of the Weaver Stance was worship of something that does not work the best and 40 years of USPSA have proven that. But his best attribute was getting people to think about defensive pistol craft and for that, he is owed a lot.
Cooper was in many ways much like Peter Capstick, though a whole lot less likable. Capstick and his books were perhaps the single biggest thing that resurrected African hunting. He was a great writer as well as speaker, however most of his stories were either embellished or about other PH's. The industry tolerated it because he was so very good for business. And he was. It's pretty much the same for Cooper. My take on him was that he wasn't much more than gun writer who self promoted himself into being the gun guru of his time. The fact is that his so called "Modern Method" once introduced into law enforcement was associated with an ever increasing number of misses. Cooper also had many unsubstantiated claims beginning with his military record. He had stated that he was involved in "irregular" warfare during the Korean conflict. He even had his defenders claim his activity was "classified." The military history shows virtually no counterinsurgency operations led by Americans and there's no record that Cooper ever left the states.
yeah he was good at shoveling BS. another guy who fits this category was a SOF writer named Chuck Taylor. This was the guy who was reported to have become "Violently angry" when he the late great Peter Kokalis had an AK-47 in the office. He was a "my way or the highway type" and one of my late friends had met the guy several times and said he was pretty much a joke-including Taylor often being seen in magazines with a beret on. (MY late friend was a three tour veteran of Nam in the SF and Taylor was not in the SF). Some of what the guy wrote was good, some was OK and some was BS and his "credentials" had some validity but lots of hype
I know of Chuck Taylor. He and Cooper were actually collaborators of a sort till they had a massive falling out. Taylor, like Cooper had a persona including wearing his cover constantly. He absolutely did not like his military credentials questioned. Some of his writings were pretty decent though but his activity in SF was very questionable is it existed at all. One of my favorite "Cooperisms" was that he was the inventor of the Bren Ten. Dornaus and Dixon were the true inventors. Cooper claimed technical and conceptual input, but he was never a gunsmith or an engineer. He was just a well known name to attach to the weapon so it would sell. It never did. What I see with a lot of these instructors is that now many of them have impressive military credentials, however few/ none of them have really been in a pistol fight.
I generally find that an instructor's worth is inversely proportional to how much he talks about his over hyped credentials. I have been to TDI 30 times or so and the lead instructor-John Benner, well I really don't know much about him coming from him other than he was a MP in Nam and was Captain of the county wide SWAT team. and if you have a different way of doing something than what he does, he will have you show it to his class and have people try both ways. I won't go to a place that tells me you have to shoot "Weaver style" etc, Gunsite is that way and I won't waste my money. Almost every GM in USPSA, limited or open, single stack, or production shoots isosceles and this nonsense Cooper spewed that you cannot control a heavy pistol with that method is BS.
I shoot modified gangsta. I still hold it sideways, but it's firmly held in both hands with thumbs aligned below the slide. Extra points for catching ejected brass in your hoodie.
I love the mopes trying to shoot that way. I used to love shows like MIAMI VICE suggesting to the mopes that they should buy TECH NINES and hold them sideways. Makes it easier to waste them when you use proper technique with say real handguns like a Springfield Armory 1911 or a CZ 75
There are things he taught that I agree with and disagree with. Now that Glock's are popular, these can only be carried in Condition 0 or 3 depending on how you define them in the case of a Glock. There is no 1 or 2 since Glock's don't have an accessible hammer you can c o c k or de- c o c k with a safety you can engage. The Glock safety is passive not active. For a non-Glock single or double-and-single action 45ACP I don't consider the Condition 1 as a particularly safe carrying mode. He does. That's where I disagree. Having researched the U.S. Army 1911 pistol manual, it taught that Condition 1 was to be used by the mounted cavalry only in the interval between shooting it on horseback and then dismounting. Once you dismounted you were supposed to return the pistol to another condition besides Condition 1, presumably 2 (hammer down). Looks like he passed away back in 2006. Sorry I missed that. RIP my brother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper
I do like the Weaver stance however. But this is because I don't wear a protective vest. With a vest on it is better to square off, not use the Weaver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaver_stance
the isosceles is much faster, and has no disadvantages. back when shooting 100 rounds a month was the normal, I guess it was hard to control a 45. I was shooting 50,000 rounds a year at one point-the USPSA limited and single stack events plus the old Second Chance Bowling pin shoots proved that you can shoot very fast and more accurately with the triangle over the weaver. Eric Grauffel, Jerry Barnhart, Robbie Vogel etc proved that
The only good thing about the Iso is that your vest protects your chest and heart. I prefer to step back into a Weaver for several reasons. - it protects my pistol better while I draw, - it gives me more interval space by stepping back, - it gives me a more natural shooting stance for more accurate shooting, - it transfers my shooting arm into a makeshift stock for the pistol. If I wore a vest I would probably feel different about it.
well for most people 1) the triangle is more natural and we have seen lots of people who claim to be weaver users revert to the Triangle under stress 2) the push to firing position with a triangle allows you to fire before you get to lock out 3) if you are drawing from the standard FBI position maybe as to protecting your pistol. not as much from an appendix
Most people especially trained fighters turn one side or the other to the opponent naturally. I know I do. It is natural to fend them off with your weaker hand and draw your weapon with your shooting hand. I sure would not want to be squared to my target when I draw. Turning like this almost puts you into a Weaver naturally. It does for me anyway. Since a gunfight is also a fight, a good fighting stance is easier to move from, particularly backwards, to get away from the opponent so you have enough interval space to draw from, and also to give them a harder shot. The only tricky thing for me and the Weaver is that from fighting (MMA, Shotokan, etc.) I naturally keep my weight back not forward. So my Weaver is normally weight-back not weight-forward. So I am one of the few that due to fight training since the age of 14 I naturally turn sideways not square. That non-fighters and neophytes stay square is completely true. I see virtually everyone at the shooting ranges squared to their targets. I don't even try to teach them the Weaver, if they ask. I tell them to stay square.
well my favorite knife defense position is sort of similar to weaver in terms of angle. my goal though is to put rounds on target FIRST and the Triangle is the fastest for doing that.
I have thought through and worked through many scenarios, and I always come back to my standard fighting position in a pinch. In Shotokan they teach you to use both hands and both feet to fight with, so you practice both. And I can do both. But I always mount my primary weapon whether pistol or knife on my right hip. So Weaver works better for me and is instinctive now after all these many decades. My first instinct in a gunfight is to take cover. By moving you/I create a more difficult target. And taking cover is what they teach cops now too. A cop in one of my CFP classes taught me that. In most cases you won't have time to take cover because the perp is going to be right in your face. In that case I want to be able to push him away, and I want to protect my drawing hand, so Weaver works perfect for that. If I can and I have the distance though, I will scramble and take cover first. Not just stand there.
Cooper didn't invent the 1911 condition numbers. His bio states he "promulgated it" meaning he pushed or preached it. Like a lot of things, Cooper would take credit for inventing it especially if his acolytes pushed the idea that he did. There was always plausible deniabiity if caught and called on the carpet. His "color code" of situation awareness is pretty much the same. There were a number of similar systems out there, but Cooper changed a few things then took credit. One of his most foremost apologists stated that Cooper really didn't invent ideas within the gun community, he just codified them. That means he stole the idea without citing the original source. He had a number of large disciples who would and could vicious be if anyone questioned Cooper.
He was definitely a blowhard and a self-promoter, and even possibly a fraud (according to some critics), but he was fun to read.
I actually met and corresponded with Jeff Cooper, and studied his methodology for several years. On one hand, I would say he deserves a lot of credit for being the first man to believe there was merit to training private citizens in what he liked to call the "art" of firearms for defense and to build a facility dedicated to instructing people in it. He studied different training ideas, tried to find ways to test them for their feasibility in improving combat effectiveness under stress, and then created a viable doctrine of training that heavily influenced everything that came after. It was said by someone else that Cooper "stole the idea without citing the original source", but he did give others credit for much of what he taught. He was the first to actively teach the "Weaver stance" and named it such after Jack Weaver, who used it in the old Big Bear Leatherslap competitions to great effect. He was an eloquent writer and very effective at communicating his ideas to others. He also was infamous for his prickly demeanor and his impatience with anyone who dared question him.... but only if they questioned him without being able to elaborate upon their reasons for questioning him. He did not suffer fools lightly and he could be overly terse and dismissive to those with perfectly valid questions. On the other hand, I once had a conversation with him about the merits of the "speed rock" tactic - leaning far back to draw the pistol and fire from the hip at an assailant at arm's length. I noted it put a defender off balance, and that once an assailant was close enough it ceased to be a gun problem and became a combatives problem. As I began to explain my position, Cooper's body language was impatient, but as I elaborated he became thoughtful and much more receptive. We ended up having a very rewarding conversation; Cooper could be arrogant, but he loved a hearty debate so long as the person he was talking to could express themselves eloquently and effectively. Cooper himself had friendships and professional collaborations with several people with different philosophies than he espoused, but he respected them nonetheless. Questions about his qualifications certainly abound, but I know he spent some time instructing in South America and in a couple of African nations and "saw the elephant" as the old saw goes. Whether his adventures were as free-ranging as they have sometimes been qualified are certainly "open to interpretation". Unfortunately, some of those who embraced Cooper and became disciples of his vision became so completely dedicated to his doctrine it became dogma. They would accept no challenge to "The Guru's" assertions. They tend to be unpleasant and inflexible folks, and will brook no challenge whatsoever to what Cooper liked to call the "Modern Technique", even when presented with unassailable evidence of its flaws. Now that he's passed they tend to be even worse, as any question of Cooper somehow becomes a smearing of the man. As I said, Cooper himself would be perfectly willing to discuss such things, while his disciples tend to be far more antagonistic and recalcitrant in their positions. I actually corresponded with Cooper a couple of times, and he was always gracious. Now that he has passed I mourn his loss. I recognize he was far from a perfect man, but I respect him nonetheless. For myself, after several years of embracing the Weaver stance and training extensively in it, I realized that it was - to me - a very limited stance. It's not good for tactical movement, and it's not as effective for transitioning between multiple targets as others. It is very good for precision shooting on a square range, but not as effective for 360 degree real world applications. I don't tend to believe in rigid adherence to any one stance; everyone's physiology is different and one stance might work better than another. I ended up creating my own stance which works very well for me; kind of an amalgamation between Weaver and what some call the "Combat Isosceles", but I always am evaluating and experimenting and keep my mind open to alternative views.
Are you basing your views on someone's "street credibility" or the sum of what they did for shooter over the years? The absolute best gunfighters in history, Wild Bill and Jelly Bryce would in a gunfight probably take out people like Jeff Cooper, or most of their modern counterparts, 8 times out of 10. Both used now basically obsolete firearms. Someone who has been in over a dozen fatal shootings and could draw and fire under stress in 2/5ths of second would have a huge advantage over almost any expert with modern firearms.
Depending upon what historical source you read, J.B. "Wild Bill" Hickok's reputation might have been overblown or not; but there's no arguing the skill level of someone like "Jelly" Bryce. For cryin' out loud, the man could break clay pigeons shooting from the hip with a 3.5 inch barrel S&W Registered Magnum .357, and he did it repeatedly, on demand, with witnesses! Occasionally, throughout history, there have been those who simply were otherworldly in their ability to handle their weapons. There was a gentleman my grandfather introduced me to, who was an old "lawdog" from Northern New Mexico. He could draw his Colt single action from the holster and fire two rounds, perfectly centering two targets six feet apart and seven yards away, and it sounded like a single smash of sound... and he did this when he was getting pretty deep into his eighties! I've gotten pretty good if I do say so myself, but that's after 25 years of training and dedicated practice.
Reread the OP. Cooper was never in a verified gunfight. With him it's about the influence that he had. Virtually no one has ever heard of Bryce and most people think Wild Bill was a movie that starred Kurt Russell.
