Can we dispel the whole "Glock Grip Angle" nonsense already?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the world of shotguns and clays, or live birds, serious shooters get their gun stocked by real craftsmen - with a try-gun, which has a fully adjustable stock.

This allows them to have a gun that points perfectly, because the stock is proportioned and angled exactly right.

They spend the time and money, because that's what makes the difference when you're shooting fast moving targets whizzing around on unpredictable trajectories.

You can get used to a poorly fitting stock or grip, yes, but a gun that fits and points naturally will always feel better when you're in a no-time-to-friggin'-think situation, i.e. fast reaction shooting in a dynamic environment.

So yes, ergonomics do matter, and when I'm picking a gun that may see me through heat, I pay a lot of attention to how it fits my grip. Whether it's a handgun or a rifle, if it is carried in tight corners, fit is - for me - as important as reliability and accuracy.
 
I'm always mystified by the seemingly endless efforts of Glock fans to argue and debate in an apparent attempt to get non Glock fans to change their mind. Almost as if they need some kind of validation to feel good about themselves.

I've tried to warm up to Glock, but every time I've had one in my hand it just feels wrong and leaves me feeling "meh" about them.

To each their own.
 
I've owned a glock 19 amd 21 at separate times.
Both were very reliable but also agree they didnt fit my hand well.and didnt care for the trigger. Sold them off and got something better for myself. Much happier now..
 
How about you? You comfortable shooting anything you pick up?
Depends on your definition of comfortable. I enjoy shooting pretty much any gun that strikes my fancy, but I no longer feel compelled to try every single type of pistol or revolver out there "just because." I enjoy shooting, a lot, but because it is a huge part of my job, I don't shoot often enough these days for recreation. I am comfortable shooting unfamiliar handguns, but I am not obsessed with obtaining proficiency with firearms I don't own or plan to own.
By your comments, Im guessing you're more of a narrow choice shooter.
Necessity has narrowed my choices, being driven by my employment, after a cumulative quarter-century on active duty in the military and another sixteen years full-time law enforcement; I have duty weapons and I have a "narrow choice" of weapons on which I instruct and supervise qualifications. As my entire adult life has been spent training to shoot firearms in real life or training others to shoot firearms in real life I feel that I've learned a few things along the way. One is that some firearms, for whatever reasons, are in fact easier and more intuitive for some folks to use and more quickly become proficient with. Another is that in order to become highly proficient, one does need to dedicate most of one's training time and narrow one's choices. While I don't disagree with the notion that for the most part, most shooters can adapt to a particular firearm and attain acceptable proficiency with it, I would rather deal with folks who find what works best for them and then help them with that ... It is excruciating painful having to take 25 people out and in one week trying to train them to shoot only one handgun to a particular standard. We don't, for example, bring a box of widely varying handguns (i.e., DA/SA, SA, DAO, striker-fired, hammer-fired, steel-frame, polymer, revolvers) to the range and then tell our people to blindly take only one out and that's what they're shooting that day, then expect any degree of competency, let along mastery.

Is the grip angle concept real or is it just more bogus internet mythology? I tend to favor the side that believes it's real.

I also happen to favor a Glock for daily carry, regular use and practice, even though I dont shoot it "as well" as some of the others I shoot.
Since I don't train to punch holes in paper or ring steel, rather, training to stop threats and survive lethal-force encounters, I don't (literally) for the life of me understand why someone would willingly choose for their primary carry gun one that is not what they shoot better than all others. I'm not willing to make compromises in this regard, which is why I train primarily with a "narrow choice" of handguns.
 
Last edited:
Grip angle is one of many variables. Are we talking about target shooting? I can line up the sights and pull the trigger on different style guns. Point shooting is where I think some of the smaller differences like grip angle will have more effect.
 
I'm always mystified by the seemingly endless efforts of Glock fans to argue and debate in an apparent attempt to get non Glock fans to change their mind. Almost as if they need some kind of validation to feel good about themselves.

Glock fans seem to believe that the Glock is the begin-all and end-all of firearms development.
Things like:
Since Glock does it this way then obviously all other ways are the wrong way.
Since Glocks have no manual safety, then manual safeties on all guns are wrong (even if they have been there for a century or more).
Since Glocks have a plastic frame, steel and aluminum frames must be less durable.
 
Since I don't train to punch holes in paper or ring steel, training to stop threats and survive lethal-force encounters, I don't (literally) for the life of me understand why someone would willingly choose for their primary carry gun one that is not what they shoot better than all others. I'm not willing to make compromises in this regard, which is why I train primarily with a "narrow choice" of handguns.
I dont train to punch holes in paper or ring steel either, but either have to suffice for practice and conformation that youre keeping up on things.

Ive never understood the mentality, that being able to put rounds where they need to go, even if its only paper or something else, is time wasted.

If you cant make it happen on paper, or a tiny piece of clay bird on the berm, or a rock in the field, or anything for that matter, how can you make it happen on demand for real. And if you dont use something that confirms what youre doing, what do you use show where you stand and if youre at least holding steady, if not improving?

As far as the choice of gun, I have a couple of guns that are basically "target" guns, and I wouldnt consider them appropriate as a gun I would trust to carry or use, even if they are more accurate at shooting little groups.

Other than maybe sights, and a refinish, or a reliability package on my 1911's, all my guns are basically box stock. No trigger work, no action work, just the gun as it came from the factory.

I can shoot tight little groups with my Glocks, but I can also trust them to work whenever I need them to, and they shoot quite well to actually. Ive had a number of handguns over the years, that were superbly accurate, and I shot great with them, but they were basically "alibi" guns (if you were of a mind to play that game), and not trustworthy for anything but the bullseye range, and even then they could cost you.

This will give you an idea as to what I consider "shooting well enough"....

This was shot at 10 yards, a little more deliberately (more slowly) than I would normally shoot, but then again, the suppressor does block the sights, and I was shooting through it.

enhance.jpg

The Glocks do alright when Im in more of a hurry too, and theres some movement involved...
enhance.jpg

Same thing here with one of my 92's, and they do alright as well (I did clip her ear though, so Im sure Ill get yelled at for that :))...
enhance.jpg

This was shot at 10 yards as well, at a steady cadence, and DAO....
enhance.jpg

And theres always the gun thats supposed to be the best, and its not really all that bad either. Just a skosh bit slower at getting there. :) .....
enhance.jpg

Other than the sights on a couple of them, all the above guns are box stock too. The only thing I do is add night sights to the Glocks and other guns I use that might take them.

The laser on the Glock in the second pic wasnt working at the time I shot that, as Id just bought the gun and it had a dead battery. I took it to the range when I got home, and that was the first time out with that gun too. Not a fan of the lasers anyway, and I sold it on EBay later. That brought the cost of that gun down to under $300 too.

The only shooting you see there that was done with what I call a more deliberate aim, was the Glock with the suppressor mounted, and the 625. Nothing was from a rest or "slow fire", and if they werent shot from a holster, the one 17 and 1911 were, they started from a SUL, or in the case of the suppressed guns, from a low ready at my side. A number of those were shot one handed as they were presented as well. A number of what you see on a couple of those targets too, were shot "without" sights. Just pointed.

Those are all just a couple of samples of targets Ive shot in practice, using a number of different guns, with different grip angles, sights, triggers, and very often, simply point shooting or shooting over the gun while moving, and not using any sights. Ive got a bunch more around if you think they are flukes.

I still am of the belief, that if you know the guns you are shooting, and you shoot regularly, you should have no troubles "shooting well" with them, or something similar, even switching back and forth at will as you go.

But thats just me. :)
 
Theres nothing wrong with being picky, or liking what you like. We all do it, and its a natural thing.

Whats annoying is, constantly hearing BS and mistruths, by people who usually have little to no actual experience with whats being discussed, spouting crap, thats not true or correct.

If you dont like something, fine. No one is telling you to like something you dont. Just do us all a favor, and just say you dont like it and leave it at that. No need to embellish questionable to flat out wrong things, or continue to push unsubstantiated falsehoods, to try and make your point.

The internet can be a great resource. But, it can also be a great source of aggravation, when it comes to stuff like this.

X2 and very well said.
I'm 6'-2" to describe my build, very long arms and very long legs; think orangutan except I don't swing in the trees. :rofl:

Ditto on the annoying. There is no need for bull malarkey or falsehoods as all it does is raise ire in others.

I dislike striker fire. No, there isn't anything wrong with it except I personally don't like it. That boils down to my likes, dislikes and most importantly my money. Guess what, the same applies to everyone.
If someone dislikes hammers, it's cool and I'll respect their opinion. There is no need to qualify their opinion, nor mine.

What people need to accept is it is perfectly fine for them to like or dislike whatever and the same applies to everyone else.
 
I dislike striker fire. No, there isn't anything wrong with it except I personally don't like it.

What? But it's the best and most modern and up-to-date firing mechanism, ever.

Like this Roth Steyr 1907..... (Nice grip angle though :D )


1287652871.jpg
 
What? But it's the best and most modern and up-to-date firing mechanism, ever.

Like this Roth Steyr 1907..... (Nice grip angle though :D

LOL, point taken and that is a mighty neat pistol.

BTW, I'm also a history addict and the Roth Steyr is a wonderful piece of history.

Gotta stand in awe and admire!! Many thanks for sharing such an admirable beauty of historical importance.
 
The correct grip on any handgun should be achieved during presentation (draw) before the handgun even starts to leave the holster. The Glock angle is different than most handguns, but can be overcome with perfect practice, since "practice makes perfect". There are also add-on gizmos out there that change the angle to that of more common firearms. I know several professionals who use these add-on thingamajigs and like them.
 
Glock fans seem to believe that the Glock is the begin-all and end-all of firearms development.
Things like:
Since Glock does it this way then obviously all other ways are the wrong way.
Since Glocks have no manual safety, then manual safeties on all guns are wrong (even if they have been there for a century or more).
Since Glocks have a plastic frame, steel and aluminum frames must be less durable.

I'm a Glock fan and never stated that or anything close to it.

Furthermore, I don't recall anyone in any thread here ever stating that.

My main carry pistol is an M&P40c that I specifically ordered with a safety. I like metal-framed pistols though the only ones I currently own are revolvers. I think polymer revolvers are an abomination.

Perhaps your stereotype of Glock fans is as bad as my stereotype of 1911 fans. It involves driving a Buick and having voted for Nixon...
 
Glock fans seem to believe that the Glock is the begin-all and end-all of firearms development.
Things like:
Since Glock does it this way then obviously all other ways are the wrong way.
Since Glocks have no manual safety, then manual safeties on all guns are wrong (even if they have been there for a century or more).
Since Glocks have a plastic frame, steel and aluminum frames must be less durable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a Glock fan and never stated that or anything close to it.

Furthermore, I don't recall anyone in any thread here ever stating that.

My main carry pistol is an M&P40c that I specifically ordered with a safety. I like metal-framed pistols though the only ones I currently own are revolvers. I think polymer revolvers are an abomination.

Perhaps your stereotype of Glock fans is as bad as my stereotype of 1911 fans. It involves driving a Buick and having voted for Nixon...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never claimed that you said any of these things or that anyone in this particular threads made these claims.
However, I have read them in other threads in other forums where all of these claims were expressed.
Glock "perfection" is a widespread bias among many Glock fans.
And so, if another maker uses another system (like sub-frames) many Glock fans automatically dislike them.
I have often read where Glock fans have expressed the belief that manual safeties are redundant and slow, and that the shooter himself is the only manual safety required. But if you disagree, then present company is excepted.
Certainly these are not "sterotypical" beliefs".

They are the beliefs actually expressed by many.
However, if you claim that they are not, then I will concede that Glocks:
1) are far from perfect,
2) use design features that are simply one way of doing things, but not the best way,
3) need manual safeties to avoid the negligent discharges that their owners seem to have,
4) use frames that are not more durable than aluminum or steel.
 
It’s so funny how one single advertisers slogan has bunched up more pairs of underwear than anything else in the history of firearms. If wadded together the pile o’ panties so affected would fill a Kansas grain silo three times over.

It’s not “The Riflemans Rifle” or “An American Legend”, it’s not “This is Remington Country,” it’s not “Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens” it’s not “Protect Hunt Compete”.. or even the hopeful “America’s Favorite Gunmaker”...it’s “Glock Perfection.”

Whoever cooked it up should be enshrined in the advertising hall of fame, because even after all these years it’s constantly in the minds of both Glock lovers and Glock haters. That is the Ad Mans holy grail, pure and simple.

Both sides in this decades old shouting match should grab a seat in the easy chair, take a muscle relaxer and sip some good whiskey before they stroke out.

Stay safe.
 
They are the beliefs actually expressed by many.
However, if you claim that they are not, then I will concede that Glocks:
1) are far from perfect,
2) use design features that are simply one way of doing things, but not the best way,
3) need manual safeties to avoid the negligent discharges that their owners seem to have,
4) use frames that are not more durable than aluminum or steel.
1) All of them are far from perfect.

2)Same goes for all of them.

3)Manual safeties are sort of a double-edged sword. Safeties or not, people still seem to find a way to screw up.

I think a lot of times, people put too much faith and trust in them, and to the point of being dangerous. Were right back to people wanting mechanical things, to make up for their lack of skill.

One thing that always makes wonder too about some who get their panties in such a twist over them is, with any gun that has one, as soon as its drawn and in your hand, the safety should be "off", so hows it any different than a gun that has none?

And if youve used a gun that has one long enough, you know that a manual safety can easily be missed or forgotten under stress (in both directions too), so now maybe youre not getting a bang when you were expecting a bang, or maybe you get one when you werent expecting it. If you think about it, its just one more thing you need to worry about, and at a time you really dont need extra things to worry about. So, there is that.

4)I have quite a few Glocks, and I have literally shot one to failure. Wasnt the plastic that failed though, and the gun was still functioning with the rail broken. It was just technically broken I guess.

My honest to Todd biggest fear with my Glocks, is that I might lay one down, and one of my Rotties might get a hold of it, and then that would be that.

Already saw what happened to an M1 Carbine pouch with two mags in it, that got laid down where it shouldnt, and someone was mad at me cause I wasnt paying her enough attention. Scratch a mag pouch, two perfectly good mags, and a couple of rounds of ammo. The ammo actually made out the best. What they can do to pretty much "anything", is pretty scary. :)

On the other hand, plastic is easily modified to suit your needs, if you want, its pretty much impervious to most things that tend to cause steel and aluminum issues, and its just shrugs off neglect.

I have guns with all three frame materials, and truthfully, they all are fine, if you maintain them, and keep them away from the dogs. :)
 
One thing that always makes wonder too about some who get their panties in such a twist over them is, with any gun that has one, as soon as its drawn and in your hand, the safety should be "off", so hows it any different than a gun that has none?

Panties in a twist? Tsk, tsk, we are getting perturbed. You do seem to believe that anyone who has an opposing opinion should just keep silent, because by disagreeing with you, they must automatically be wrong.

Many negligent discharges occur when the pistol is being holstered and the trigger is inadvertently pressed.
The Glock fingertip "device" deactivates all of the actual automatic safety devices in the pistol.
In other words, the miniscule amount of pressure on this little tab is all it takes to fire the gun by the user or by anything that projects into the trigger guard.
Pistols with manual safeties do not have this problem.
 
Last edited:
Panties in a twist? Tsk, tsk, we are getting perturbed.

Many negligent discharges occur when the pistol is being holstered and the trigger is inadvertently pressed.
The Glock fingertip "device" deactivates all of the actual automatic safety devices in the pistol.
In other words, the miniscule amount of pressure on this little tab is all it takes to fire the gun by the user or by anything that projects into the trigger guard.
Pistols with manual safeties do not have this problem.

Can we dispense with blaming Glock for these when now every major manufacturer makes a striker fired gun with a similar trigger and almost none of them come standard with a thumb safety?

Two recent Sig 320 stories come to mind.

It's no longer a Glock alone deal, it's the entire category, and it is fully avoidable by treating loaded guns with the respect they deserve.
 
Can we dispense with blaming Glock for these when now every major manufacturer makes a striker fired gun with a similar trigger and almost none of them come standard with a thumb safety?

Two recent Sig 320 stories come to mind.

It's no longer a Glock alone deal, it's the entire category, and it is fully avoidable by treating loaded guns with the respect they deserve.

We can indeed dispense with blaming Glock alone. However, the fact that the copycats have perpetuated the lack of a manual safety does not validate the practice. It only indicates that they are capitulating to public demand, whether bad or good.

If manual safeties are a bad thing, should we then remove them from our pump shotguns, auto-loading rifles, and a whole slew of other firearms?
 
Panties in a twist? Tsk, tsk, we are getting perturbed.

Many negligent discharges occur when the pistol is being holstered and the trigger is inadvertently pressed.
The Glock fingertip "device" deactivates all of the actual automatic safety devices in the pistol.
In other words, the miniscule amount of pressure on this little tab is all it takes to fire the gun by the user or by anything that projects into the trigger guard.
Pistols with manual safeties do not have this problem.
Over the years, Ive seen all sorts of guns with safeties, decockers, etc, reholstered in a condition that wasnt "safe".

As long as the user is safe with the gun, reholstering is no more or less safe with any of them. If anything, its people who rely on that safety, to make up for their lack of skills, that are the ones you really need to worry the most about. And that goes for any kind of gun they may carry.

It doesnt matter what gun you carry, you need to be at "your" best, at any given moment its with you. The gun will only do what the gun was intended to do, in the condition its in, if "you" cause it to happen. It doesn't act on its own. Well, unless maybe its a SIG 320. :)

Something tells me there, we're not getting the whole story too. You know how its never the users fault when things go wrong. Has to be the gun. :thumbup:
 
We can indeed dispense with blaming Glock alone. However, the fact that the copycats have perpetuated the lack of a manual safety does not validate the practice. It only indicates that they are capitulating to public demand, whether bad or good.

I guess I wouldn't consider giving their customers what they want, that being a consistent 5-6 lb trigger with some travel and no extraneous safeties to worry about, as a capitulation to public demand.

More of simply listening to the market demand.

Potatoe potato I suppose.
 
Over the years, Ive seen all sorts of guns with safeties, decockers, etc, reholstered in a condition that wasnt "safe".

As long as the user is safe with the gun, reholstering is no more or less safe with any of them. If anything, its people who rely on that safety, to make up for their lack of skills, that are the ones you really need to worry the most about. And that goes for any kind of gun they may carry.

It doesnt matter what gun you carry, you need to be at "your" best, at any given moment its with you. The gun will only do what the gun was intended to do, in the condition its in, if "you" cause it to happen. It doesn't act on its own. Well, unless maybe its a SIG 320. :)

Something tells me there, we're not getting the whole story too. You know how its never the users fault when things go wrong. Has to be the gun. :thumbup:

So the use of manual safeties on firearms for well over a century has been a horrible mistake?
 
So the use of manual safeties on firearms for well over a century has been a horrible mistake?
Never said that. Simply that a safety (of any kind) isnt a guarantee that you will be safe because its there.

What got me to laughing here a second ago too, is your handle. "Old Stumpy". It would be an appropriate name around here. I live in rural farm country, and a lot of people here fit that bill. Literally. Quite a few are missing parts, fingers, hands, arms, etc. , and all of it is due to a lack of attention, and lack of respect of the equipment used. Im sure all of them felt perfectly safe around that equipment, right up to that point they werent.

Nothing different here, or there, and the machines, of any sort, were just doing what they were supposed to be doing. :thumbup:
 
Never said that. Simply that a safety (of any kind) isnt a guarantee that you will be safe because its there.

What got me to laughing here a second ago too, is your handle. "Old Stumpy". It would be an appropriate name around here. I live in rural farm country, and a lot of people here fit that bill. Literally. Quite a few are missing parts, fingers, hands, arms, etc. , and all of it is due to a lack of attention, and lack of respect of the equipment used. Im sure all of them felt perfectly safe around that equipment, right up to that point they werent.

Nothing different here, or there, and the machines, of any sort, were just doing what they were supposed to be doing. :thumbup:

So now even my name is offensive to you? o_O

Your claim that all farm accidents are as a result of lack of respect for their equipment,
and due to a lack of paying attention seems very much a generalization.
Based on this premise, the guards and safety devices on machinery don't need to be there, because they don't accomplish anything.
It would be perfectly fine to have no chain guards, belt guards, and gear shields.
OSHA will be pleased to know this.
 
Last edited:
Seemed more like a humerous aside to me.

Got quite a number of Stumpy's in my circle too, snowblowers being the main source. Those things apparently just love fingers.

You're not supposed to place any of your protruding organs into a running snowblower... tell your circle :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top