Define "ergonomics"

S

shredder4286

New member
I've heard in many different occasions the term "ergonomics" used when talking about a handgun. I've seen people talk on TFL about how this term is just a sales scheme to make a gun sound more appealing. So, what are they referring to, in your opinion, when they talk about ergonomics. (i've read the "text book" definition) thanks in advance
 
Broadly speaking, ergonomics is the science of adapting things to the human form & function.

So, to provide a few examples...

An ergonomic handgun would not put the trigger so far from the backstrap that the average person couldn't reach the trigger comfortably with a proper grip on the firearm.

The grip angle would be set up so that the average person's hand/arm/wrist is comfortable when holding the handgun with the sights aligned.

The sights should be easy to see and should be set up so that they can be aligned rapidly and precisely. (Not too small, glare free, etc.)

The surfaces of the gun should be textured so that they provide a good gripping surface but not so aggressively that they cause pain or damage.

Controls should be located where they can be reached but not where they will be accidentally activated.

That's a good start, but isn't the whole story by any means.

Alternatively, an ergonomic handgun would provide the means to tailor the above features to a particular user.
 
The text book definition is exactly what they are talking about, as it refers to guns. It means that the angles, shapes, positions the hand must use to operate the gun are the best possible to reduce strain and fatigue.

A gun with a safety you can reach and work without having to shift your grip is more ergonomic than one where you cannot. It is all about the fine details, really.

And since shooter's hands vary so much, what works very well for one, may not be so good for another. Gunmakers try to select the best median approach, today.

And yes, when used in advertising, its usually more hype than fact. Still, not as overused as "tactical", though!
 
ok that makes alot of sense. especially now, with all the interchangeable backstraps that manufacturers are adding to their polymer framed semi-autos, they can claim "ergonomics" for anyone. in a way, i suppose this is true, but that doesn't mean that the magazine release(etc) is in a good place.
 
Good ergonomics means that it feels good in your hand. Everything fits good. Naturally whats good for one won't be good for another.
 
i suppose this is true, but that doesn't mean that the magazine release(etc) is in a good place.
Click to expand...
There are other factors in this case that must be considered. Not just easy access but also resistance to accidental activation with a normal shooting grip. It must also be easy enough to depress the release so that most people can do it easily but not so easily that it gets activated by mistake. So the designer has to compromise on location (reachable but not where it will get bumped) and also on spring tension (enough to prevent accidental activation but not too much).

And, to some extent these two factors (placement and control tension) must also be balanced against each other. One designer might be able to place the control where it can't get bumped and then make it very easy to activate if he valued ease of activation more highly while another might make it very easy to reach (with an accompanying chance of accidental bumping) but make the spring tension much harder to compensate for the positioning.

People often focus on a single aspect of ergonomic design without realizing that there may be others that are also important.
 
A piece of man made "STUFF" THAT FITSL THE BODY WELL, I.E. THE bROWNING hIGH pOWER IN 9MM/40s&w. There.
 
Ergonomics take the measurements of Average size people. Not the smaller or larger size people.

Now that product fits within the tolerances of All Average size people.

If your not within those measurements, tolerances +/- of Average sizes............tuff luck. It will kind of fit but not really.


Yes , people are thought of as a machined parts within tolerances +/-. If you as the part are within the tolerances fit will be good.
 
Last edited:
Right, and ergonomic fit is as much a science as a perception to the end user. FM12 suggests the Browning Hi Power in .40 caliber as an example. I don't care how much measuring and fitting the noodle boys did to determine what should be right because if it doesn't fit me the way I think is right, then I won't like it. That would be the case for the Browning HP.

Have you ever sat in a proper ergonomic chair that didn't fit you properly or was not comfortable?

Good ergonomics for a man may not be good ergonomics for a woman and vice versa. Every tried wearing your wife's pants or blouse?
 
There's a scholarly book on such:

Human Factors Issues in Handgun Safety and Forensics - Hardcover (Nov. 26, 2007) by Hal W. Hendrick, Paul Paradis, and Richard J. Hornick
 
I prefer tactical ergonomics personally... :D Just kiddin'

I find that since most revolvers can have all sorts of styled grips they can be the most ergonomic, I like 1911's after that.
 
My long definition is that proper ergonomics allow me to manipulate all the functions of the weapon without changing my grip. If I can press the magazine release, the slide release, de-cocking switch, activate and deactivate the safety, etc by moving only a my thumb and not changing my grip then the gun is "ergonomic".

My short answer is FNP-40 :D

How it feels in my hand to me defines comfort.
 
Ergonomics to me are how well a gun fits my hand. Take for example the Beretta PX4. I was excited to finally hold the thing at a gun show, but was deeply disappointed when I discovered the grips were perfectly flat on the sides and didn't have an indentation for your thumb to rest.

Counter that with my CZ 75. It has a nice palm swell both on the sides and backstrap, and the magazine lip lets my little finger have it's own shelf to prevent it from slipping off. The plastic grip also has a place for my thumb.

Just my take.
 
"ergonomics" is fine and dandy

IF

Everyone is built the same, and has the same size paws.

THEY DON"T

So I pay about as much attention to "ergonomics" as I do tactical..........

Which is none as all. I dont want ergonomics I want something that fits my hand.
 
Fit, "feel" and location of controls (specifically speaking of weapons).

Simple enough to define, but a bit harder to "truly" experience.
 
Hols a Glock. Then hold a 1911. Grip angle, size of grip, controls, and pointing are different. Thats why some guns work for some people and some don't.
 
Definition of Ergonomics: Minor cosmetic, non-functional change to a firearm to re-brand it as something "new and better" by gun manufacturer to attempt to re-ignite interest in an older-common firearm design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top