[rangerabn]

Mas, I received my pistol training in the Army, 40 years ago (goodness!). Back then, we were trained in the stand-sideways method to present less of a target to our enemy. Of course, this necessitated a one-handed grip. We also were told to put our weak hand on our hip to keep from swaying the body, ruining our aim.
I am aware of the Weaver stance, isosceles triangle, etc. and think they are great, but is there any validity nowadays to what I was taught? After many years of not shooting a pistol, I now have a CHP and my natural inclination is to shoot the way I was taught. It just comes naturally to me.
What are your thoughts?

[Mas Ayoob]

Taking advantage of "what comes naturally" can be a good thing, bro, but not always the best thing.

Today's soldiers learn aggressive forward-facing pistol stances that (A) give the soldier the best speed and accuracy to neutralize his foe, and (B) maximize the protection of his body armor by squaring it up to the identified threat. Even the best armor leaves an "Achilles heel" in the armpit area if that part of the body is turned toward the opposing gunfire.

The argument of how to stand literally goes back centuries. In the time of the duelists, the debate was "do you stand squarely, and take a hit through one lung and perhaps survive, or stand edgewise and be a smaller target, but if you are hit the bullet will go through both lungs and the heart and probably kill you?"

The best answer I ever heard to that came from Bill Jordan almost half a century ago, when he said in essence, "How about you drop the SOB real quick, before he can shoot you anywhere at all?"

Thanks for writing, Rangerabn.

[rangerabn]

Thanks, Mas. Makes sense. Sounds like Bill Jordan has the plan.