Home Forums Classifieds GT Store Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups


Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-29-2010, 19:59   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 124
combat stance - Old Army method?

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?
rangerabn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2010, 20:42   #2
Mas Ayoob
Mas Ayoob's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,414
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.
Mas Ayoob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2010, 06:50   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 124
Thanks, Mas. Makes sense. Sounds like Bill Jordan has the plan.
rangerabn is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:01.

GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
GT Store

Users Currently Online: 893
248 Members
645 Guests

Most users ever online: 4,634
Apr 18, 2015 at 3:37