So how come there are so many people in the shooting community that still cling to techniques from 50 years ago?Um - I dunno. 'Cause they work?
I learned to shoot handguns defensively in the late '70's, which is somewhat after one-hand point shooting from the hip and somewhat before anyone had ever heard of a Picatinny rail. Yeah, Jeff Cooper was the king but I never met him, my instructor was a former Marine lifer and (then) current VIP security - um, these days they like to be called "contractors." He went on to get killed in Mozambique, which vindicated his bona fides if not his combat techniques. He claimed to have killed people with everything from hand grenades to helmets, and never gave me a serious reason to doubt it - look up PTSD in your dictionary and you may see his picture, 'cause he was a little out there. With a handgun, he was frickin' awesome. No call signs and macho jargon, no bullshit, just solid, simple stuff and lots and lots of reps. And a certain amount of drinking, but that's a different matter - I did see a guy injured in knife training because they were using actual knives, but nobody ever brought up "trust shooting." There wasn't a balaclava in sight.
I say all that because when I got interested in competition shooting, I found myself compelled to unlearn a bunch of stuff in order to make points. Since I was most interested in shooting as a martial art rather than a sport, it gave me the strong impression I was moving backward. The equipment was all different, and that was just a symptom of the fact that the techniques were, too. I distrusted them. I remember learning the difference between cover and concealment painfully by getting killed on his jungle lanes again and again. And again. Looking at competition shooting lanes, there appears to be no difference. That's just the one example that comes to mind.
I guess what I'm saying is that I was taught techniques that assumed the target would also have a gun. In competition they always stressed speed and accuracy, which are certainly good things. But you can't get "killed," so there's no effort to avoid it.
Now of course in the intervening decades I've never fired a shot in anger, or in fear. So I really don't know whether what Caleb extolls as improvements in techniques are actually improvements, or just improvements in how to score in competition. Which is not the same thing at all.
So I'm not saying Caleb's wrong - maybe my techniques are as obsolete as horse cavalry. I'm quite certain he could outshoot the hell out of me, because I don't practice enough. But if these "improved" techniques were developed in competition, I don't trust them for actual gunfighting more than the ones I already learned. So why change?