From the "For What It's Worth" file...
I shoot competition: Bullseye, International Center Fire, Cowboy and PPC when I can. Bullseye and ICF are fired one handed. Some Cowboy is fired one handed. PPC is fired two handed. I used to shoot in some proto IPSC type matches with less rules and real guns, but haven't been able to do so for some time. (And my knees are bad.)
For pretty much all the deliberate, carefully sighted fire, I use a 'stiff-arm-locked-elbow-locked-wrist-(semi)death-grip' approach. Shooting two handed, this obviously translates to isosceles. When I shoot multiple targets with broad target areas or do the shoot/move/shoot format, I use more of a bent elbow Weaver method. All two handed shooting puts the weak hand over the fingers of the strong hand and at least a mild 'push-pull' effect. I fear I do very little exactly like shown in the school books.
As Brother March said, the harder recoiling handguns are far more controllable - not to mention comfortable - from a bent arm posture.
Ah; the 'square or sideways' question. This has been argued since the days of the formal duel. The 'square' contingent argued "If hit, less damage is done; sideways gets both lungs penetrated". The 'sideways' faction claimed "Sideways is harder to hit; square presents a bigger target". To my knowledge the question has never been fully resolved. (I've never been able to decide, at any rate.)
I'm of the 'shoot them first and remove the threat' school. I'm not above seeking or taking cover, but many times running from a threat will simply give the threat time to shoot one in the back. It depends on how far it is to cover. If one is far from cover, and the adversary is behind cover, one must have remembered prior to settle one's affairs and make peace with God. But I'm getting far afield from the original question.
One must discover what works best in the immediate situation.
I shoot competition: Bullseye, International Center Fire, Cowboy and PPC when I can. Bullseye and ICF are fired one handed. Some Cowboy is fired one handed. PPC is fired two handed. I used to shoot in some proto IPSC type matches with less rules and real guns, but haven't been able to do so for some time. (And my knees are bad.)
For pretty much all the deliberate, carefully sighted fire, I use a 'stiff-arm-locked-elbow-locked-wrist-(semi)death-grip' approach. Shooting two handed, this obviously translates to isosceles. When I shoot multiple targets with broad target areas or do the shoot/move/shoot format, I use more of a bent elbow Weaver method. All two handed shooting puts the weak hand over the fingers of the strong hand and at least a mild 'push-pull' effect. I fear I do very little exactly like shown in the school books.
As Brother March said, the harder recoiling handguns are far more controllable - not to mention comfortable - from a bent arm posture.
Ah; the 'square or sideways' question. This has been argued since the days of the formal duel. The 'square' contingent argued "If hit, less damage is done; sideways gets both lungs penetrated". The 'sideways' faction claimed "Sideways is harder to hit; square presents a bigger target". To my knowledge the question has never been fully resolved. (I've never been able to decide, at any rate.)
I'm of the 'shoot them first and remove the threat' school. I'm not above seeking or taking cover, but many times running from a threat will simply give the threat time to shoot one in the back. It depends on how far it is to cover. If one is far from cover, and the adversary is behind cover, one must have remembered prior to settle one's affairs and make peace with God. But I'm getting far afield from the original question.
One must discover what works best in the immediate situation.
Somewhere I've got a picture of myself with a .500S&W in full recoil. The muzzle is vertical but the gun is nowhere near hitting my head.
.