I hear alot about ergonomics lately. I understand the meaning but just don't see the reason for even worrying too much about it. Every mfg. says their guns have the best ergonomics but I can't see that either. People say their gun has great ergonomics while mine has poor. Maybe it is just the opposite. Alot of us started shooting before we ever heard this term. What did we do? We bought a gun and used one of the greatest tools we had. An adjustable hand. And we shot the heck out of these ergonomically inferrior guns until we got to the point that we could pick up most any accurate gun and hit what we were aiming at. I have never owned one of these magically gifted firearms that was a perfect extension on my hand/arm. Thank God my hand is adjustable!!!
Ahhh, Ergonomics
- Thread starter k4swb
- Start date
It's just one of those pop buzz words that people throw around for consumer products that means that the thing is designed with comfort in mind.
It's like "user friendly" for software and tech stuff. Ergonomic means the focus has shifted from purely functional to functional and comfortable to use.
I remember when people only drank water when there was nothing else to drink or they were very very thirsty... and it was tap water. Now everyone runs around with little bottles of Evian or Smart Water or Aquafina all the time. When did we start to realize we were all getting dehydrated? I think it happened around the same time the bottle water companies started marketing their product.
It's like "user friendly" for software and tech stuff. Ergonomic means the focus has shifted from purely functional to functional and comfortable to use.
I remember when people only drank water when there was nothing else to drink or they were very very thirsty... and it was tap water. Now everyone runs around with little bottles of Evian or Smart Water or Aquafina all the time. When did we start to realize we were all getting dehydrated? I think it happened around the same time the bottle water companies started marketing their product.
I am sorry but I will have to disagree with your assessment that ergonomics is just a buzz word. I will grant you that a lot of gun manufactures are using it to the extreme but a properly designed gun is better than a poorly designed gun, and I’m not talking about reliability I am talking about fit.
It can be as simple as point ability. Where the gun, when it’s in your hand the barrel aligns with the index finger and is an easy pointing gun VS guns that point high or low.
Proper placement of controls can make a gun better also. I personally feel that John Browning's design of the 1911, for the safety and slide release is a perfect ergonomic design where as the Luger is a poor second because of the ergonomic design.
You say that others say your gun has poor ergonomics. Does it?
Do you have to move the gun out of position in your hand to work any of the controls?
Does it fit your hand well?
Does it point well?
Just because you don’t like buzz words doesn’t make them wrong. Design ergonomics is a study to improving what ever the tool is, and that's a good thing because without it we would all still be caring cap and ball revolvers, or worse single shots with a match.
It can be as simple as point ability. Where the gun, when it’s in your hand the barrel aligns with the index finger and is an easy pointing gun VS guns that point high or low.
Proper placement of controls can make a gun better also. I personally feel that John Browning's design of the 1911, for the safety and slide release is a perfect ergonomic design where as the Luger is a poor second because of the ergonomic design.
You say that others say your gun has poor ergonomics. Does it?
Do you have to move the gun out of position in your hand to work any of the controls?
Does it fit your hand well?
Does it point well?
Just because you don’t like buzz words doesn’t make them wrong. Design ergonomics is a study to improving what ever the tool is, and that's a good thing because without it we would all still be caring cap and ball revolvers, or worse single shots with a match.
Last edited:
It is just an opinion, and we all know about those.
What fits me really well may not fit you at all, and another might fit you perfectly and not me. Does this mean that one is ergonomically superior to the other. No. It is an individual concept that cannot be applied across the board. The term is meaningless.
My hands are adjustable and can fit a wide variety of shapes. For someone to say the ergonomics on a particular gun are bad or good is no help at all.
What fits me really well may not fit you at all, and another might fit you perfectly and not me. Does this mean that one is ergonomically superior to the other. No. It is an individual concept that cannot be applied across the board. The term is meaningless.
My hands are adjustable and can fit a wide variety of shapes. For someone to say the ergonomics on a particular gun are bad or good is no help at all.
lee n. field
New member
I suspect because there are few guns out there now with really bad ergonomics.
Hog Hunter
New member
Well, I consider my glock as an extension of my arm. Just draw and shoot!! I understand where your coming from though. I can pick up any pistol or even a south paw rifle and improvise like you say. I have also herd people talk about the ergonomics of handguns, and some better than others to you but maybe not to me or the next guy. If there's too many buttons and switches on guns these days and u cant reach them without moving ur wrist or hand just pick up a rock and throw it at the BG
It's all in the mind of the beholder. When I say, for example, that the ergonomics of my CZ are fantastic I mean that the gun fits my hand extremely well, that I can point it without putting my wrist at an odd angle, and that the shape and angle of the grip are not an impediment to my shooting accurately. I've sound some guns to be ergonomically more suitable for me than others. I do well with most semis and with revolvers with rubber grips. I do less well with wooden revolver grips. And, I do terribly with the plowhandle grips on a Ruger single action or any Colt SAA or clone. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that these grip shapes are bad for everyone, they're just not right for me. So, for me, "ergonomics" means the way that the gun fits MY hand, not yours.
"I understand the meaning but just don't see the reason for even worrying too much about it."
Many people see the reason. Some people buy their suits off the rack and discover they fit. Most people don't get the mass produced suit to fit because most people aren't average. Same for guns, so they make do.
Ever looked at the Nills Grips site?
John
Many people see the reason. Some people buy their suits off the rack and discover they fit. Most people don't get the mass produced suit to fit because most people aren't average. Same for guns, so they make do.
Ever looked at the Nills Grips site?
John
What got me started on this was, in another thread someone told someone else not to buy a certain style of gun without handling it because that model had bad ergonomics. If he had qualified that with "to me" I could have understood it but to just say those guns have bad ergonomics makes no sense.
k4swb...
... in general, I agree with you. "Ergonomics" are typically very subjective.
I can think of a design or two, though, that I would generally consider to possess poor ergonomics.
Beretta's first polymer .40 leaps to mind. I don't know anybody who could engage or disengage its safety (stiff, with very small levers) without using both hands. I had been hot to buy one, but was warned about the problem by the owner of the gun shop I used to frequent. Lost a bet that I could take it off safe using only my shooting hand. I did not buy that pistol, based solely on its safety's design.
Its ergonomics might have been fine for somebody with Herculean strength but a short thumb; for most people, not such a good design. (One sign that ergonomics may not be so good is when the manufacturer comes up with a different design for a component on subsequent versions of a model.)
Other guns have reputations for easy inadvertent release of magazines, or a tendency to hammer-bite a large percentage of shooters, etc. They may be good guns otherwise, but their designs have some issues that could probably have been avoided.
... in general, I agree with you. "Ergonomics" are typically very subjective.
I can think of a design or two, though, that I would generally consider to possess poor ergonomics.
Beretta's first polymer .40 leaps to mind. I don't know anybody who could engage or disengage its safety (stiff, with very small levers) without using both hands. I had been hot to buy one, but was warned about the problem by the owner of the gun shop I used to frequent. Lost a bet that I could take it off safe using only my shooting hand. I did not buy that pistol, based solely on its safety's design.
Its ergonomics might have been fine for somebody with Herculean strength but a short thumb; for most people, not such a good design. (One sign that ergonomics may not be so good is when the manufacturer comes up with a different design for a component on subsequent versions of a model.)
Other guns have reputations for easy inadvertent release of magazines, or a tendency to hammer-bite a large percentage of shooters, etc. They may be good guns otherwise, but their designs have some issues that could probably have been avoided.
cougar gt-e
New member
"Ergonomic" to me means capable of intuitive operation without lots of instruction. If you want to drop a mag, it should just fall because your thumb naturally found that perfect spot to press. Etc etc etc.
Mustangpalmer91
Moderator
Ergonomics is different for EVERYONE S&W SIGMAS, M&P and all 1911s are the most comfortable to me. FNP is a very comfortable pistol to me to alot like S&W is feel. Now the Glock and XD/XDM feel like junk to me.