DNS, I made an exemption for any disability. The normal hand can and will EASILY adjust to ANY angle. That is a fact. If I was wrong then no 1911 or revolver shooter would be able to adapt to a Glock or any other firearms with differing grip angles. It simple logic and really indisputable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GRIP ANGLE real problem or individual choice?
- Thread starter threegun
- Start date
"Natural point of aim" is real. And very much an individual thing.
How we point naturally is real. If you can find a gun that follows that exact line you are both lucky and going to save some time. My whole point however is that it isn't a problem to adjust to any line. Never argued otherwise.
When I carried a 1911 I would draw, fire, and hit what I was pointing at. Same is true for my Glock today.
True. But if you now just pick up the 1911, its probably going to hit low when you point it. At least until you get the muscle memory reprogrammed.
Also true. I work with handguns all day long and can attest to the slab side pointing low these days. Still fits well and the triggers are to die for.
Whats funny is I have never said otherwise yet folks just can't understand what I'm saying. I just got reamed by the a mod for being hard headed yet most agree with me go figure.
I think I understand what youre saying, its just that while its fairly easy to adjust, its not quite as easy to jump back and forth, especially when you work with or use one more than the other.
Once youre brain gets one type or the other locked in, it needs a little time to reprogram for the other when you switch back.
All that has to do with pointing too. Its really not an issue if you track the front sight as you present the gun.
Once youre brain gets one type or the other locked in, it needs a little time to reprogram for the other when you switch back.
All that has to do with pointing too. Its really not an issue if you track the front sight as you present the gun.
The brain and pertinent muscles involved, when tired or stressed, begin to loose their ability to manage the fine motor adjustments that are needed, and subsequently NPOA comes back into play.
Wonder why my Glock has been perfect even though it pointed high in 1992? My stress has only been under competitive conditions thankfully but it seemed to point the same as it did before the stress. Never shot while super tired though. Maybe its my natural pointer? I thought it was the 1911 in the late 80's. Go figure.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
johnbt said:So where the gun is pointed when you draw and fire is secondary to being able to reach the trigger? Remind me to stand well behind you when you shoot.
Hopefully you are pulling my leg. I said, "Grip angle doesn't affect anything. When you assume the proper grip on a pistol whether or not the correct part of your trigger finger is able to easily reach the trigger is what matters most."
So I'm assuming that you think that "assume the proper grip" means, "point at anything besides the target." If you draw a gun and it isn't pointing at the target then it is your fault not the gun's fault. You see if YOU are incapable of assuming the proper grip on a pistol it does not mean that the pistol is incapable of being gripped correctly.
Follow me closely on this one. Step one: Assume the proper grip on the pistol. If you are incapable of doing this, curse your hands, not the gun. It isn't the manufacturer's fault that the gun wasn't mass produced with grips customized for your hands. If you were successful with step one proceed to Step two: Ensure the portion of your trigger finger opposite of your fingernail naturally contacts the middle of the trigger. If your first knuckle is on the middle of the trigger then the trigger reach is too short for your hand. If you struggle to get the tip of your finger on the middle of the trigger then the trigger reach is too long for your hand.
But all of this is neither here nor there. None of this is affected by the grip angle of the pistol. Which is why I said, "Grip angle doesn't affect anything."
If you are holding the pistol correctly then the gun will be pointing at the target when your hand points at the target. I use the EXACT same grip on all of my firearms. My first gun was a Glock 22 and I use the EXACT same grip on all of my semi-autos. I shoot with all of them better or worse based on the trigger pull weight and the trigger reach not the grip angle.
Follow me closely on this one. Step one: Assume the proper grip on the pistol. If you are incapable of doing this, curse your hands, not the gun. It isn't the manufacturer's fault that the gun wasn't mass produced with grips customized for your hands. If you were successful with step one proceed to Step two: Ensure the portion of your trigger finger opposite of your fingernail naturally contacts the middle of the trigger. If your first knuckle is on the middle of the trigger then the trigger reach is too short for your hand. If you struggle to get the tip of your finger on the middle of the trigger then the trigger reach is too long for your hand
Well said. This is what I call gun "FIT".
If you are holding the pistol correctly then the gun will be pointing at the target when your hand points at the target. I use the EXACT same grip on all of my firearms. My first gun was a Glock 22 and I use the EXACT same grip on all of my semi-autos. I shoot with all of them better or worse based on the trigger pull weight and the trigger reach not the grip angle.
This I don't agree with though. One can assume the same grip however if the grip angle is different between guns it will point high or low according to each guns angle. Unless the gun in question happens to have the perfect angle for your hand.
Thats said IMO and the opinion of many others who have easily gone from polar opposite platform angles the adjustment happens easily.
Yesterday I toyed with a 1911 with flat mainspring housing. Within minutes it was pointing properly even on the draw. Now I won't argue that I might revert back to the Glock angle under pressure since I have been with Glock so long now and with such little time on the 1911. How long would it take for me to fully change over? During my heavy competition days, the most pressured shooting I did, the change happened very fast. I went through 1911, beretta 92, and Glock platforms in like 5 years with equal competency.
Still my point was and is that the issue of "grip angle" is not a problem but rather a convenience for the normal human.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I think people make too much over the grip angle problem. Granted a certain style of gun may not work as well for one person as the next, but it is to each his own.
"Grip angle doesn't affect anything.
Uh yes it does... Grip angle affects everything including how much you may or may not have to adjust to the particular weapon being fired.
Would you say reclining the seat in your car more or less or doesnt affect your comfort or the safety of your driving?? Its the same idea.
Right.This I don't agree with though. One can assume the same grip however if the grip angle is different between guns it will point high or low according to each guns angle. Unless the gun in question happens to have the perfect angle for your hand.
Thats said IMO and the opinion of many others who have easily gone from polar opposite platform angles the adjustment happens easily.
Its not that the adjustments arent easy, its that until they are reprogrammed for the gun youre not accustomed to, they will require "thought" in some respect to get them into the right position. An easy change, yes, but not "natural".
Maybe the right word here is "point" (wrist angle) and not "grip", as its really not the grip on the gun thats causing the problem, its just behind that.
threegun said:When did grip angle become a talking point?
I assume when Glock hit the market.
I have been shooting 60 plus years. I own and shoot most all platforms, including Glock. It has always been my opinion that the grip angle debate is meaningless. I pick up my Glock and target and shoot just fine. I pick up my 1911 and target and shoot just fine.....etc.
Grip angle....It's just one of those perceived rather than real problems. The more you convince yourself it's a problem the more it seems to be a problem.
Grip angle....It's just one of those perceived rather than real problems. The more you convince yourself it's a problem the more it seems to be a problem.
Perfectly said. Thanks.
I think it started when the XD came out though.
Uh yes it does... Grip angle affects everything including how much you may or may not have to adjust to the particular weapon being fired.
Would you say reclining the seat in your car more or less or doesnt affect your comfort or the safety of your driving?? Its the same idea.
This is the notion that the OP has steadfastly refused to "get," so much so that this entire topic is set upon the horns of a false dilemma.
"Real problem or individual choice?" There's no compelling reason offered as to why it cannot be BOTH.
He then goes on trying to continually divorce the Glock's grip angle from its overall feeling of "fit," merely because he wants to adapt to it. The Glock's built in back strap hump which he'd attribute to the "fit" column is in fact a facet of what creates the overall grip angle. The fit and the angle are only capable of divorce through a grip burning to make the Glock hump go away.
For those who don't want to adapt to the Glock's rakish angle, the "problem" minor though it may be, helps to trigger an individual rejection of the weapon as less suitable to one's preferences than another.
Frankly, his position in this "debate" is ridiculous. Perhaps because I am left handed I have a better understanding of rejecting firearms for forcing me to adapt to them rather than having the firearm being adaptable to me.
For instance, one of my faves is the 1911, In its standard configuration, the safety is only on the left side of the weapon, forcing me to swing my left thumb over the back end of the pistol to disengage it. According to the OP, this is not a "fit" issue, as the pistol fits just fine and is totally usable, it's an adaptability/laziness issue. What is actually going on is a "REAL" problem, that of inconvenience in use, that is remedied by picking a 1911 that has an ambidextrous safety as standard or by "changing the weapon" to suit my desires to have a more usable safety lever, "an individual choice," since some southpaws don't even bother. If a 1911 were not able to be safely fitted with a safety lever on the "wrong" side, I wouldn't own one for love or money.
Somehow, the OP refuses to understand that choice can be built off of a perceived problem that is very real to the individual. I am a more efficient and better shooter with a 1911 that is adapted to my handedness, though I have in the past readily adapted to one that was not.
Given the choice to shoot a Glock, which has both a grip angle and a bunch of other ergonomic choices I do not like, nor want to adapt to, and a similar pistol, say a M&P, which gives me the choice to have things my way, the OP assumes that I am just being lazy in not wanting to warm up to the Glock rather than to reject it as unsuitable to my personal criteria for a worthwhile sidearm should be.
I had a department try to shove a Glock into my holster twice on the cheap, so the "problem" of not wanting to adapt to a whole bag of suck was very real and concrete to me. Oddly enough, I wasn't alone in that we managed to get a list of approved sidearms created that provided alternatives. I can only guess that about 35 percent of the deputies were just being petulant and lazy for holding out for something that worked better for them individually?
I think it started when the XD came out though.
And you are still objectively wrong about this too. Grip angle debates in earnest go at least as far back as the American shooting public gaining more experience with the Luger, which became less than rare in this country following WW2. In the other thread in autoloaders, you had a guy tell you that he recalled reading articles about the debate in the 1960s, but you still want to blame Springfield for bringing it up solely in the context of Glock following 2002?
To put it politely, you are certainly persistent in the face of contrary factual information.