Since people are also able to develop the ability to draw the pistol rapidly from a holster, acquire the sights and fire using a two-hand hold while achieving solid hits on paper, plastic or metal targets, the two-hand hold is generally considered to be superior.

While there are handgun techniques that permit the use of a flashlight in a two-handed hold, gripping the pistol with one hand allows more options for using a light that's not mounted on the gun.

As far as shooting at targets that present no actual immediate threat is concerned, I could not agree more. However, over the years, the differences between engaging non-threatening targets and actual combat have been forgotten or confused on many levels.

The entire concept of the Modern Technique was based on the belief that the core components of the system were as universally applicable for actual combat situations as they were for target shooting on the range. This concept was validated by anecdotes from Modern Technique adherents who had been involved in some type of violent person-on-person incident, stories that were often reported in magazines and books.

For the past couple of decades, though, law enforcement has documented a less-than stellar performance record during documented, real-world gunfights. In fact, studies conducted by the FBI and other police organizations have consistently indicated that in actual gunfights, on average the police miss the threat suspect they are shooting at with as many as 85 percent of the rounds they fire--this despite years of documented training using primarily the two-hand hold and other Modern Technique-based practices.

Whenever this disparity between training methods and standards and actual real-world performance is brought up, proponents of the Modern Technique are quick to blame the individual officer for failing to adhere to his training or to condemn the members of the law enforcement profession as a whole for failing to adequately train their officers "enough" in the Modern Technique.

After having studied this matter in some detail over the past 20 or so years, I've come to the conclusion that it's time for us to rethink our dependence upon the two-hand hold, sight-focused school of pistol training because it apparently does not adequately prepare the average, armed individual--police officer or law-abiding private citizen--for the realities of violent, close-quarter spontaneous events.

It is critical to remember that while these two-hand techniques may reign supreme on the target range or when hunting, they were not developed for use against armed and dangerous human beings presenting an immediate threat at near to touching distances. For those who desire specifics, let's say distances from seven yards to breath-in-the face close, since statistics also indicate that more than 80 percent of police-involved shootings occur in this zone, most of these within five feet.

In one of my "In the Line of Fire" columns, I reported on some research which indicated that one of the primary reasons sights were not used during actual or simulated close-quarter spontaneous events was because the operators reported that they had an overwhelming feeling there was "not enough time" to access and use them.