Old Dog
Member
Sheez. I could care less about "grip angles" and measurements. I just know what feels good in my hands and points naturally.
Hint: ain't Glocks.
Hint: ain't Glocks.
Can we dispel the whole "Glock Grip Angle" nonsense already?
- Thread starter Trey Veston
- Start date
- Status
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
If a gun doesn’t work for you, don’t buy it.
If you didn’t buy it why spend time talking about the gun you didn’t like if didn’t work for you?
Maybe I need to take a break from this forum. I don’t like whine after dinner.
If you didn’t buy it why spend time talking about the gun you didn’t like if didn’t work for you?
Maybe I need to take a break from this forum. I don’t like whine after dinner.
OP
OP
Trey Veston
Member
I like to hear other people's thoughts on why a particular gun didn't work for them. What I don't like is built-in prejudice against a certain brand that is utter nonsense. There are dozens of various Glock models with various grip configurations and sizes. Someone saying that they hate Glocks based on fondling a Gen 3 in the 90's is just stupid, IMO.
It's like me saying I hate S&W pistols because a 4006, circa 1995, didn't fit my hand. It's just ridiculous.
But someone saying they passed on a Sig 320 because the polymer scratched easily and felt cheap is relevant to me.
That's a good question. First you have to define what the grip angle even is. Is it defined by the angle of the front strap? The back strap? What if the front strap or back strap is curved or has a hump? Maybe use some sort of combination of the two? Maybe by a line drawn down what appears to be the middle of the grip?
mljdeckard
Member
I have carried them. I can shoot them. But I haven't owned one for years and I don't miss them. (I might build a 10mm Glock someday soon.) It absolutely matters. Most of us can train around it. If i was training a new soldier or cop who has no choice, I would tell them they need to figure it out.
But the rest of us have a choice.
When I was a teenager, an old Marine I grew up with showed me something that surprised me. He handed me a full-size S&W auto, and a 1911A1. Told me to close my eyes, and hold one in front of me in each hand. I opened my eyes, and the 1911 was naturally aimed correctly in front of me. The S&W was slightly high. Then he handed me a 686 and a 4" Python. I opened my eyes, the Python was dead-on, the S&W was slightly high.
Can it be trained around? Of course. But it still matters.
I am thinking about getting Polymer 80 frames for each of my boys, they have a slightly different grip angle.
But the rest of us have a choice.
When I was a teenager, an old Marine I grew up with showed me something that surprised me. He handed me a full-size S&W auto, and a 1911A1. Told me to close my eyes, and hold one in front of me in each hand. I opened my eyes, and the 1911 was naturally aimed correctly in front of me. The S&W was slightly high. Then he handed me a 686 and a 4" Python. I opened my eyes, the Python was dead-on, the S&W was slightly high.
Can it be trained around? Of course. But it still matters.
I am thinking about getting Polymer 80 frames for each of my boys, they have a slightly different grip angle.
HPCadm17
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 331
During WW-1 the original 1911's came with flat mainspring housings and soldiers complained that the gun naturally pointed low. The MSH was changed to an arched one during the 1920's which changed the grip angle to almost exactly the same as current Glock pistols. Soldiers were happy with the changes to the 1911 and it stayed in that form until the military moved to the Beretta in the 1980's
But in the civilian market shooters moved back to the flat MSH because they found it worked better as a target gun with that grip. Short version, if you're punching holes in paper the civilian version of the 1911 works best. If you're wanting a naturally pointing combat pistol the Glock, arched MSH 1911, or similar style is the better option.
Your hand will conform to whatever you place in it. How it feels in your hands is a non-factor within extreme size limitations. I can understand that some guns are simply too big for many people and the big frame Glocks in 45 and 10mm are simply too big for some people. But if anyone can't learn to shoot a Glock in 9mm or 40 S&W well they aren't trying very hard.
This has been proven over and over again. The only people who have trouble with Glocks are older shooters trying to change from something else. Every LE agency who has changed to Glocks has seen the scores go up during training. Newer, less experienced shooters learn to shoot them much faster than with previous guns. And while the older, more experienced officers take longer to re-train their scores improve after they master the guns.
But in the civilian market shooters moved back to the flat MSH because they found it worked better as a target gun with that grip. Short version, if you're punching holes in paper the civilian version of the 1911 works best. If you're wanting a naturally pointing combat pistol the Glock, arched MSH 1911, or similar style is the better option.
Your hand will conform to whatever you place in it. How it feels in your hands is a non-factor within extreme size limitations. I can understand that some guns are simply too big for many people and the big frame Glocks in 45 and 10mm are simply too big for some people. But if anyone can't learn to shoot a Glock in 9mm or 40 S&W well they aren't trying very hard.
This has been proven over and over again. The only people who have trouble with Glocks are older shooters trying to change from something else. Every LE agency who has changed to Glocks has seen the scores go up during training. Newer, less experienced shooters learn to shoot them much faster than with previous guns. And while the older, more experienced officers take longer to re-train their scores improve after they master the guns.
barnetmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,264
You should not for sure close your eyes, but you may be fighting in the dark.
Self defense shooting scenarios often occur under less than optimal lighting conditions. Essentially after sun down. Also under close range conditions when moving (yes you better moving if you do not have cover) people often use meat on the metal. You sight over the slide of the gun putting the mass of your target just on top of it. The correct Grip angle for you is definitely your friend because you are pointing the gun. In a close range gun fight you will be focusing on your opponent and not just your front sight.
Buzznrose
Member
so are you saying you shoot at things you can’t see?
I certainly understand the whole “many/most gunfights occur at night/in low light”, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to see your sights and target. And if you get into a gunfight, you BETTER be focused on your front sight...
Did you read the article on a post a few back? The one about the Glocks, and the story about the cop and the bad guy exchanging 30 rounds at each other, all misses, from opposite sides of a bed? Think they were focused on each other and not their sights? I sure do
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,254
I have a AO 1911 that always shot high and right (until I had the sights replaced recently). I always knew that when I wanted to hit something I'd have to aim at 7 o'clock and it was very consistent . If you know the Glock always shoots high for you, aim a bit low
I don't own any Glocks (I think I'm allergic to plastic guns), but I also don't carry. If I did I'd probably get one
I don't own any Glocks (I think I'm allergic to plastic guns), but I also don't carry. If I did I'd probably get one
barnetmill
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,264
I say do what you need to survive and use common sense. So if someone is attacking you and you can not clearly see your front sight, using you logic, you do nothing and maybe get killed. This is America and do what you want of course. If I know where it is at and it is a threat to me, but I can still hit it- think out what you are saying. The rules of good sportsmanship of hunting do not apply here. If I can only see a toe or ankle extending from cover, I will shoot it. Buy the way When appropriate I do believe in precisely aimed fire and do use RMRs and the equivalent on my pistols with co-witness. Do you? I could go on, but no point in printing another paragraph or two. I suggest people get some training from ex-street cops, not soldiers, that have a lot kills during one on one fights under street conditions. Stay physically fit, train getting off the X and also learn the use of fists and the knife as part of your training.
I use the glock, not because it is the best, but because of the universal availability of parts, armory knowledge, and that it will fulfill most defensive tasks. The same basic system is available in calibers from .380 to 10 mm so that means one pistol system will do just about anything I need from a defensive pistol killing snakes, 4-legged predators like canines, people to bears. For hunting and target purposes I tend to use other guns. Also if I have choice I favor the shotgun and for longer ranges the semi-auto versions of military carbines.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I think the biggest issue is, lack of experience with anything other than what someone has, or is accustomed to, is what brings on the complaints.
If people actually bothered to learn the guns they complain about, they would find there is really no difference, other than that of a lack of knowledge and experience on their part.
I have to wonder how many who go on about grip angle, ever really even shoot in a manner that it "might" be an issue.
If youre using/tracking the sights, the "theoretical" differences in grip angle are purely moot, as youre using/aligning the sights to direct the gun and ultimately, the round. "Grip" angle really has nothing to do with it.
Point or instinctive shooting is "slightly" different, and takes a little (and I do mean only "a little") effort and work to get the hang of it, and it matters not, what gun you use, as long as youve used it before in practice, and your brain knows it, and the "indexes" it needs, to make the shot.
The sights arent the only thing your brain sees when you shoot, there are other things you arent consciously looking at, that it still records in its memory, and sees when needed, that allows you to shoot without looking at the sights, and still make good hits.
I practice shooting this way, 50-100 rounds or so, every time Im out, and with whatever it is Im shooting, and thats with a number of different autos (with all sorts of dreaded grip angles
) and revolvers, and have no troubles making good hits, simply focusing on the target and allowing my brain to take care of the alignment and directing the gun.And to kick it up a notch, just add movement while you shoot, and try and maintain a sight picture and shoot as you go. I shoot faster, and a good bit more accurately this way, when I shoot over top of the gun and focus on the target as I go, than I do trying to use the sights.
Just out of curiosity here, how many who are so worried about the grip angle thing, actually shoot their guns in a manner where it "possibly" could be an issue?
When you do see/hear all the bickering over this kind of silliness, its pretty obvious, that the people spouting it, are limited in their skills and experiences, or at least to only the things they have/know.
Picking up something youre unfamiliar with, no matter what it is, is going to feel off to you, until you get to know it and learn to work it. Doesnt matter what it is. This same type thing goes on endlessly between AR and AK shooters on the rifle side, and thats all BS too.
Picking something up and trying to make an honest assessment on a couple of minutes of feeling it up, or maybe shooting a few rounds out of it, is nothing, and teaches you nothing. Make a good, honest effort to actually learn the gun, and Ill guarantee you, in short order, youll have a whole different outlook on it. Youll also never worry about grip angle or trigger types, ect, again.
Drawing a line down the center of the magazine well of a Glock, and comparing the angle that makes to the bore axis compared to that of other pistols does not tell the entire story. It isn't just that angle difference that makes Glocks tend to point high for many who have become accustomed to shooting other pistols. I own a Glock 19 so I have more than just a passing acquaintance with the design.
There is also the palm swell on the back strap that tends to push the nose of the pistol up. And the exact location of that palm swell varies with the model. On larger Glocks the palm swell hits the hand further down than on smaller ones. If one has a good, high, firm grip on the pistol, the position of this palm swell can not be adjusted, and the hand cannot be reconfigured to accommodate for it.
There is also the vertical offset between the horizontal plane of the trigger, and the location of the tang, or beavertail on the back strap. With Glocks, if one has a good, high grip with the web of the hand up against the tang, the trigger itself is on a lower plane so that the trigger finger actually has to point downward to press the trigger, rather than horizontally. Since people are used to pointing at things they are visually focusing on with their index finger, this can throw some people off.
Other pistols might share some of these Glock traits, but with the Glock design, they all come together (grip angle, palm swell, trigger axis) in such a way as to make for a pistol that tends to point low for shooters who have become accustomed to other hand guns. I can certainly shoot my Glock, but it does require more ulnar deviation of the wrist of the shooting hand than is required for shooting my other pistols.
Can one adopt to these differences? Of course, over time they can do so. Whether they should or not is up to the individual.
There is also the palm swell on the back strap that tends to push the nose of the pistol up. And the exact location of that palm swell varies with the model. On larger Glocks the palm swell hits the hand further down than on smaller ones. If one has a good, high, firm grip on the pistol, the position of this palm swell can not be adjusted, and the hand cannot be reconfigured to accommodate for it.
There is also the vertical offset between the horizontal plane of the trigger, and the location of the tang, or beavertail on the back strap. With Glocks, if one has a good, high grip with the web of the hand up against the tang, the trigger itself is on a lower plane so that the trigger finger actually has to point downward to press the trigger, rather than horizontally. Since people are used to pointing at things they are visually focusing on with their index finger, this can throw some people off.
Other pistols might share some of these Glock traits, but with the Glock design, they all come together (grip angle, palm swell, trigger axis) in such a way as to make for a pistol that tends to point low for shooters who have become accustomed to other hand guns. I can certainly shoot my Glock, but it does require more ulnar deviation of the wrist of the shooting hand than is required for shooting my other pistols.
Can one adopt to these differences? Of course, over time they can do so. Whether they should or not is up to the individual.
we have a winner!!! the glock grip "bump" at the back is what kicks the bore axis up when the gun is in the hand. also, my g30 has less of a bump than my g19. for me, the g30 is a more natural grip and the g19 points a bit higher when I throw it up to shoot (I just checked this out).
luck,
murf
I dont believe it is nonsense.
For example. Nike shoes insole is just a tad too forward for my feet. So I dont wear them. Doesn't matter that they are one of the best sneaker makers. What works for me may not work for you as all our body's are different.
Glocks are my poly gun of choice is because of the grip angle allowing my wrists to lock out instinctively. Most of the guns built today are extremely reliable. So then we move onto other quirks that separate them. You have people who hate grip safeties, require thumb safeties, etc. etc. etc. Its best not to denigrate anyone who has a differentiating opinion.
I dont know about that. Here is a 2011/1911 mag vs. Glock. They both feed from JMB's tilting barrel action.
Because of my unique little hands, I suppose, I can shoot a Glock or a 1911 Commander pretty well. I can come in about 5 points down on a good day in an IDPA match with either.
The subtle nuances of this debate for me is that some folks say they just cannot shoot a Glock. It's like some big 6 foot guy who told me a 1911 damn near tore his arm offo.
That's virtue signalling. Any competent shooter unless with some true physical problems should be able to shoot either acceptably. Now, if you get into higher levels of performance and/or you don't put in the work, the grip configurations will make a difference in higher level markmanship.
My kid, she is 5'4 - could shoot a Glock 19 acceptably. When I showed her how to rack the slide and said some find it difficult, she picked it up and zap. Said - so what. It's technique and some practice.
So if you don't like the grip, I get it. If you say - YOU JUST CAN'T SHOOT IT - BS.
The subtle nuances of this debate for me is that some folks say they just cannot shoot a Glock. It's like some big 6 foot guy who told me a 1911 damn near tore his arm offo.
That's virtue signalling. Any competent shooter unless with some true physical problems should be able to shoot either acceptably. Now, if you get into higher levels of performance and/or you don't put in the work, the grip configurations will make a difference in higher level markmanship.
My kid, she is 5'4 - could shoot a Glock 19 acceptably. When I showed her how to rack the slide and said some find it difficult, she picked it up and zap. Said - so what. It's technique and some practice.
So if you don't like the grip, I get it. If you say - YOU JUST CAN'T SHOOT IT - BS.
i'm confused. how does different mag base angles affect sight alignment of a gun? I would think grip angle and grip shape would be the major factors here.
murf
Zendude
Member
This is funny- the only gun with the “ideal 18 degree 1911 grip angle” that S&W advertises for their M&P is a CZ.
Old Dog
Member
Just can't let these statements go without challenging them. "Proven over and over again?" How? Where's the data? Who did the research? Every LE agency?
No, older shooters trying to change from something else are most definitely NOT the "only people who have trouble with Glocks." And the primary driver behind qualification scores going up is not Glocks. It does have something to do with transitioning from heavy, DA/SA semi-autos to lightweight striker-fired pistols with less to master as far as operating controls, but mostly, training methods and courses have improved substantially across the board over the past 25 years. Please don't insult us by giving Glock credit where little to none is due.
I was a military small-arms instructor when everybody was crowing about how qual scores went up after the transition to the M9; now I'm hearing the same type of hyperbole about the M17. And I've been a law enforcement instructor for many years now as well. I'm not gonna give credit to our plastic pistol du jour for the vastly improved qual scores since our transition, but I'll point to our improved instructor education and the myriad of changes in our training methodology and course design.
Old Stumpy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,451
I agree. Glocks aren't pistols. They are just appliances with all of the appeal of a Walmart toaster.
The main difference is that this toaster has a 100% civilian markup, because they can.
Police departments like them because they get them cheap and Glock replaces them if they break.
No baseplates just for you..
As stated previously, both guns use Brownings tilting barrel action so are fed the same. One is definitely more angled than the other no matter how you slice it or deny it.
There is no empirical data for LEO, MIL, etc.
That said, If you look at the competition world. the fastest shooters in the world are not shooting Glocks.
Light weight while great for EDC, etc. Is not conducive to fast splits, etc.
Everything comes with a tradeoff.
Old Dog
Member
Exactly ... which is why we have to constantly challenge these "everybody knows" statements that posters attempt to pass off as constructive discourse and debate.
amd6547
Member
Such sensitive hands you people have.
I can shoot 50 rounds through my G17, pick up my Tokarev, and it point shoots perfectly, just like the Glock.
Same with my Model 10.
I can shoot 50 rounds through my G17, pick up my Tokarev, and it point shoots perfectly, just like the Glock.
Same with my Model 10.
- Status
Similar threads
