Glock grip angle

[SharpsDressedMan]

Being Ignint is all in one's head, too. It matters not what angle the Glock's handle has. People exercise MORE resources modifiying other gun handles to "fit" themselves: 1911's (probably outnumbering Glocks 20-1 on grip mods), Browning HP's, countless revolvers of all makes, etc. Glocks are just another machine. Explain to me WHY a guy can manage the grip on a semi auto and then pick up a revolver and shoot it. If there IS some "more perfect" grip for the masses, wouldn't a revolver grip follow suit and need to be the same to "fit the masses:"? It's all arbitrary; exercises in futility based on too many "experts" telling us we need this or that. I will STILL say it is all what we have let into our heads, what we choose to believe, rather than any truth of any univerally advantageous grip angle or shape. PS: I've trained a few in my days, so let's leave the "I know more than you because I've trained the masses" cards on the table.

 

[amd6547]

dripping with thinly veiled condescencion and not so thinly veiled insult...not so high road, but what I have come to expect from David.
When I bought my first Glock in 20 years, I also owned two full size 1911's....one with flat MSH, one with arched MSH...Though I prefer the flat MSH in the 1911, I could pick either of them, or the glock, and they would point shoot for me like they were part of my hand.
"...If someone has a lot of trigger time on a Glock then must (for whatever reason) learn to shoot a 1911 with a flat MSH, (to borrow from another tangental post about 1911's being imperfect ) it'd be irresponsible to not suggest they swap out the flat MSH for an arched one...."-DavidE

It would be even more irresponsible to ASSUME the long time Glock shooter could not simply shoot the flat MSH 1911 to their full capability without changing anything at all.
Of course, some will always apply gear solutions to what are really technique/attitude deficiencies.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I give little credibility to people who too quickly cry "ignint, limited experience, ill formed conclusions, only perception, low skill standards", etc, when the topic is obviously so subjective, and you really don't know the person you're insulting. Simply holding the gun differently utilizes a grip angle advantage, or makes it arbitrary to successful function. Overriding one's PERCEPTION (that's the "in the head" thing I speak of) allows one to adapt and utilize something a little different than what one might be accustomed to. It IS that simple. As a trainer, it benefits the student to offer some insight into adaptation, rather than condemning tools that obviously work for others.

 

[Mr.Blue]

I can adapt to any gun. That said, I much prefer the 1911's grip angle. I have gravitated to guns that felt comfortable like the CZ's, XD, and M&P. Most of the time these guns have the same grip angle as the 1911.

I did not grow up on 1911's, as I didn't start shooting handguns until 4 years ago, when I was 35. The Glock ergonomics were not for me, although I could force myself to get used to it if I had to. Since I don't have to get used to it, I choose the more comfortable grip. I compete in Action Pistol, using my CZ's.

Guys, let's stop being bitchy. It is a waste of time. Some people will never agree with each other. No reason to be condescending.

 

[Autolycus]

I find the Glock 19 to be rather attractive as it seems to be just the right size. That is just my opinion. But truth is I would rather have a 17 on my hip but it is not always an option.

 

[David E]

I'm glad some here have trained others, as that should've exposed them to a wider range of experience than any one person can possess.

If they were a good instructor, they kept their eyes and ears open and they learned something from the students, as well.

But that doesn't appear to be the case.

This whole exchange revolves around the Glock grip angle.

I simply said, for some, it's a problem.

Suddenly, 2-3 posters arrogantly say it's "all in your head," that those people are just "stubborn complainers," or because they claim to not have a problem pointing a Glock, no one should. (but no skill standard was mentioned, if any exist for that person, so its moot)

In an effort to clarify, since these posters seemed to think I was only talking about me, I specified that the grip angle isn't a problem slowfire, but for me, at speed, the grip angle/hump added a 1/4 second to my draw and to the first shot after a reload. To me, that's significant.

This is because I have decades behind a 1911, nothing more.

I mentioned winning a major match with one not to brag, but to show that anyone who initially has a Glock pointing issue can overcome it and do quite well.

AMD's response was name calling and insults.

The Glock grip angle/hump is a problem for many people. To deny that exposes your stubborn, willful ignorance to the fact. Google "Glock grip reduction" and see how many pages of hits you get. Click on a few offering the service and see that they're getting $135+ for the job. Call a few to see what their backlog is, how many they've done, etc. Robar was the first well known company to offer the service, call them and ask those questions.

If YOU don't have a problem with the grip angle, and many do not, great! But that doesn't mean the next guy doesn't.

And if you're "the next guy," don't listen to some of these posters. It is not "all in your head," and you're not a "complainer" if you mention that it points high. It IS a real problem for some but it can be overcome if you're willing to put in the effort.

 

[jackpinesavages]

These guns are "ugly" in much the same way the A-10 Thunderbolt II ("Warthog") attack airplane or a Mika pocket holster are "ugly" - not attractive, but 100% functional, among the best in the world at what they do.

This. The warthog makes my heart go pitter-patter everytime I just HEAR one.

If you want to fashionably dress a Glock the aftermarket supports that idea. Glockworx.com is pretty cool.

 

[Wanderling]

I've considered a Glock grip reduction myself so I have read many, many threads on the subject, looked at the photos, talked to people who did it or had it done, and of course held a couple of guns I could get my hands on.

In practically all the cases that I know of - several dozen probably - the main reason for grip reduction is to have a full size slide with a compact size frame. Sort of a G17 / G26 hybrid. Long sight radius coupled with ease of concealment. A few people did mention having less of a hump as an added bonus, but this was an after the fact observation. Not the reason for a chop job. There are many threads about this mod on Glocktalk complete with photos, it's really obvious why people do it and it has nothing to do with ergonomics and everything with concealment.

 

[Alberforth]

Wanderling I think there is a confusion about the term 'grip reduction'.

In the vast majority of threads and vendor websites I have seen, the term "grip reduction" refers to getting rid of the hump. The grip chop usually has another name.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

If they were a good instructor, they kept their eyes and ears open and they learned something from the students, as well.

But that doesn't appear to be the case. One might say if one kept one's eyes and ears open here, something new might be learned, also. But, that doesn't appear to be the case, etc, etc.

 

[JTQ]

Wanderling wrote,
In practically all the cases that I know of - several dozen probably - the main reason for grip reduction is to have a full size slide with a compact size frame. Sort of a G17 / G26 hybrid. Long sight radius coupled with ease of concealment. A few people did mention having less of a hump as an added bonus, but this was an after the fact observation. Not the reason for a chop job. There are many threads about this mod on Glocktalk complete with photos, it's really obvious why people do it and it has nothing to do with ergonomics and everything with concealment.

I agree with Alberforth and DavidE the most common "grip reduction" on a Glock is to change the grip so it fits the hand better rather than to give it compact grip with a full size slide.

These are just two of an industry full of companies "fixing" the Glock grip.

Bowie Tactical
http://www.bowietacticalconcepts.com/pictures.html

Robar
http://www.robarguns.com/glock.htm

 

[Hangingrock]

In reference to “Grip Reduction”: On regional forum an individual place a Glock (9G17? or G19?) up for sale with a grip reduction by Cold Bore Custom. The price was reasonable. There was no takers period. I sent that individual a PM that said they should consider a consignment sale at a firearms dealer as that would allow prospective buyer an opportunity to handle the pistol.

 

[Wanderling]

OK, I must admit, I thought "grip reduction" and "grip chop" were the same. I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

David E: I don't believe I was arrogant at all. I was trying to be clear that I don't mean people complaining about Glock grip angle are imagining things. Merely that it's not a physical / ergonomics issue, but more of a design interfering with a learned habit.

A handgun with no grip, just a straight tube with a barrel on one end and a trigger on another, would be ergonomically wrong. In order to take an aim with it the shooter would have to twist his wrist at an unnatural angle.

Any handgun with a grip in the "normal" range is ergonomically fine. Here's three guns used by millions in WW2 and since:

There's really not that much difference in grip angle between the Luger, 1911 and TT33. If anything, Luger and 1911 look more similar than 1911 and TT.

Do you really think that one of them is somehow ergonomically superior to another, as far as grip angle is concerned ? I bet you that if you took any one design, made it with three different grip angles, gave it to people who's never handled a handgun before, had them use it for a few years, and then gave them the same exact gun with a different grip angle, they would complain that the new gun's grip angle was unnatural. Because by then, they would be used to bringing the gun up to a certain level to line up the sights, and any gun that needs to be brought up to the different level would feel wrong. So it is all in the head - as any learned muscle memory.

Objectively, TT grip angle is probably the least ergonomically correct since it would require the shooter to raise the gun to the highest level to have a straight line from eye through the sights to the target. It would probably also be the hardest gun to shoot well from the hip. But - having never handled a TT myself - I bet you that the real life difference between the three, for a person with no prior gun shooting habits, is minimal.

I never felt that Glock (same as Luger's) grip angle was unnatural. From the start I was accurate with it, for a beginner anyway. However after shooting Glock for a couple of months, I went to the gun store to check out an XD, and when I raised it in my hand to look through the sights, it pointed low - I had to raise it some more to see the target. My muscle memory was telling me that the gun was pointing where I'd expect my Glock to point. I can perfectly well see how someone used to the grip angle of 1911 (which is probably more common among the different guns on the market) would feel that a Glock "pointed high". But it would only point high for someone with a prior experience shooting other guns. For a complete novice, it would point just right. Pretty much any gun would.

Now, as far as the "hump" on the back, I can see how this could pose a problem for many - I wouldn't call Glock grip feel perfect. But it doesn't bug me, and I am much more comfortable shooting it, and shooting it accurately, than I am with some other equally popular guns. It works for me, may not work for you, but there's really nothing wrong with it. There are indeed guns that are problematic either by design or poor workmanship, but Glock isn't one of them.

The bottom line is, there's nothing wrong with Glock grip angle. It's just different. The beauty is, if you don't like it, there's many other great guns on the market with a different grip.

 

[GLOOB]

I can adapt to any gun. That said, I much prefer the 1911's grip angle.

I'm the same way, except I lean towards steeper grip angles, just because I seem to get a steadier sight picture.

It doesn't matter how the gun "points" because I aim a gun. Whether hip shooting or using the sights, aiming takes care of all that. Anyone who can hip shoot purely on instinct, easy as "pointing a finger"* (lol), stick with what works. Most of us need to practice.

*If our fingers actually shot bullets, I think we'd be in for a rude awakening. Then maybe we would complain that God gave our fingers the wrong angle. It's not the pointing part that's easy. It's the seeing and recognizing what someone else is pointing at that's easy. Afterall, our field of view is a heck of a lot bigger than a shotgun pattern. If someone pointed out something by waving the muzzle of a gun, I don't think it would matter if it was a Glock or a 1911. Or if it was off by a couple hundred MOA. You'd still get the gist. Pointing a finger amounts to "hey, turn your head in that general direction and open your eyes." If only shooting were that easy.