Glock Pointability
- Thread starter CombatArmsUSAF
- Start date
- Status
CombatArmsUSAF
Member
I am proficient in hand guns, pretty much anything I pick up I can keep in reasonable grouping at 15-20 meters. Being proficient isn't the problem. I was just merely commenting on the fact that Glock grip angles aren't right for me. WHy sould I retrain myself to shoot a glock when there is a plethra of guns that shoot and point well for me already?
PAX
From my original post:
PAX
This is not a hate thread for glocks, last time I checked this was a gun forum, a place to discuss your experiences with firearms.
From my original post:
Try actually reading the post you are commenting on next time.
CombatArmsUSAF ~
My post was a general comment, not directed at you personally nor at any one particular poster, which was why it had no header and no quote to begin it, and which was why it was carefully marked off with [rant] at the outset.
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it.
pax
My post was a general comment, not directed at you personally nor at any one particular poster, which was why it had no header and no quote to begin it, and which was why it was carefully marked off with [rant] at the outset.
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it.
pax
Ok. We'll assume you left a word or two out and really do agree with pax on this.1911 guy said:
Myself ... I agree with pax also. Maybe with the exception that I think if a Glock feels natural to you, that you might be a mutant.
NOTE:
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
I do not mind the grip angle, I shoot both my g19 and 1911 equally bad. My biggest beef with a Glock is the stinkin' finger grooves. They hit my ring finger weird. I would like to find a nice inexpensive G17 1st or 2nd gen someday, but after I get my BHP.
You are not proficient with it nor do you want to be. You stated earlier:
If you can't bring the gun to bear with sight alignment naturally, you are not proficient with that particular platform. The summary of this paragraph is that Glocks have a different grip angle that throws you off and that you don't want to take the time to learn it. So you are obviously not proficient with pretty much anything you pick up. Which is fine, because nobody is good with everything out there. But let's not kid ourselves that it is somehow the gun's fault or that we're good with everything we pick up within the first five minutes.
CombatArmsUSAF
Member
I meant that after adjustment I can shoot them fairly well, not that I am an all around gun guru. Obviously no one can be 100 percent proficient with every gun on the market. I should have been more detailed in my definition.
Island Beretta
Member
lets not quarrel it is not necessarily a training issue, my G19 points on target but I have to remember to keep that wrist locked up otherwise it points high..prolong firing with my G19 pains my hand, unlike with the Beretta...
cant (wont) change my hand, so change the gun..
it is not necessarily a training issue, my G19 points on target but I have to remember to keep that wrist locked up otherwise it points high..prolong firing with my G19 pains my hand, unlike with the Beretta...cant (wont) change my hand, so change the gun..
Inner Monkey
Member
Thank God there are so many choices. Glocks work great for me but not for others.
gunfan
Member
Why is it...
so many people are having "issues" with their Glocks and my Model 20 (10mm) ticks right along as if it were a Timex watch?!
It doesn't make any sense! :banghead:
Scott
so many people are having "issues" with their Glocks and my Model 20 (10mm) ticks right along as if it were a Timex watch?!
It doesn't make any sense! :banghead:
Scott
I have shot about 50K rounds through Glocks, 9mm and 40. I have many hundreds of thousands of rounds through 1911's in 45. I have a couple hundred thousand rounds through many other platforms when combined. I just don't have a problem switching platforms, not even ripping off a couple shots with one and picking up another to shoot another quick pair. Somehow my hand knows what it picks up, tells my brain and together they do what needs to be done. The front sight is in place in about the same time regardless of what I am shooting. One thing I cannot do is point shoot or hip shoot as well when switching. The platform I am most familiar with, namely the 1911, is what I hip shoot the best. Hip shooting isn't a promising technique, so I don't put much stock in it.
One thing I have noticed, switching between my S&W revolvers and Glocks is absolutely seamless. From closer examination it seems the grip index and angle is identical between them.
I think it really is a familiarity issue, and that given a couple thousand rounds anything will feel 'natural' and work well.
One thing I have noticed, switching between my S&W revolvers and Glocks is absolutely seamless. From closer examination it seems the grip index and angle is identical between them.
I think it really is a familiarity issue, and that given a couple thousand rounds anything will feel 'natural' and work well.
ChuckB
Member
(so many people are having "issues" with their Glocks)..........
And so many people have no issues with their Glocks. As has been stated, ad nauseum, if it works for you, it's good; if another gun works better for you, that's also good. I shoot pretty well with a 1911, a G19, and a S&W 66. I'm happy.
Chuck
And so many people have no issues with their Glocks. As has been stated, ad nauseum, if it works for you, it's good; if another gun works better for you, that's also good. I shoot pretty well with a 1911, a G19, and a S&W 66. I'm happy.
Chuck
wanderinwalker
Member
When I was shooting lots with my father's 1911, going back to my Glock 17 seemed strange. Now that I mostly shoot a S&W 629 .44 Magnum, the Glock actually points just fine, every time, and continues to amaze me at how well I can use it. Last week was the first time I had taken the Glock to the range in months, and it just felt natural (and ran like a top if you'll allow me to discount one reload that somehow snuck by the eyeball check while being stuffed into a mag). 200 rounds, only the one hiccup, and I was center-punching things better than I do with the revolver, which I had been shooting considerably more this year.
Rob96
Member
I have no problem switching between my G19 and my Colt 1911. But when you compare the grip of the G19 to the G17, it is different. The G17 doesn't point right for me.
Island Beretta
Member
Rob96:
In what way does the G17 fits you less than the G19?? for me the biggest problem with the G19 is that the grip hump pushes hard on the bottom of my hand; I dont have that problem with the G17 as the hump is lower so the G17 points better..
In what way does the G17 fits you less than the G19?? for me the biggest problem with the G19 is that the grip hump pushes hard on the bottom of my hand; I dont have that problem with the G17 as the hump is lower so the G17 points better..
Rob96
Member
See I actually like how the grip hump of the G19 sits into my hand. The grip hump of the 17, gives the gun an unnatural point for me. Just like I like my full sized 1911's with a flat mainspring housing versus the arched housing.
Pistol Toter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 657
I have none of the problems listed here. I draw my gen. 3 - G21 looking at the target bring the gun up and I have three dots in perfect alignment sitting on the target. Weaver stance, two hand grip, no muss, no fuss, no recoil (very little), quick follow ups, drills the center right out of the target. No hickups, no burps, no collic. She's a great baby.
This has to be one of the silliest threads I've read here in a while. If you prefer the 1911 grip angle no one is suggesting that you retrain yourself to like the Glock grip angle if you don't want to. But since you posted it in a public forum we thought you wanted to shoot the Glock better and wanted some input on the subject. Now we realize that you just wanted to rant and whine. No problem, go ahead. I'll just move on to a different thread.
Ruger MkII Pointability
I have shot several Ruger MkIIs over the years. Since I just got seriously involved in shooting over the past two years I never really knew what I was looking for in a gun until recently. Now the other day my boss brought his Ruger MkII into work, which gave me the opportunity to do a serious review of Ruger MkII firearms and if I would be buying one in the future. One of things that concerns me about the Ruger MkII is the fact that when I bring the weapon up to the target I am looking at about 1"-1.5" gap in between the rear sight and the front sight. Now I understand that I can train myself to bring it on target naturally, but when I have firearms available to me like any number of my berettas or xds that naturally, due to a more ergonomically suitable grip, can be easily brought onto target I don't see the point. The pointability of the Ruger MkII is similar to that of a revolver which is why I don't shoot wheel guns. Having to train for this, in my mind, is a unnecassary step, and one that unless practiced a whole hell of a lot could be forgotten in stressful situation causing you to take a half a second longer coming on target. We all know what that can end up meaning.
Disclaimer I am not bashing Ruger MkII firearms, I am simply stating that the grip angle is not for everyone, especially not me.
I have shot several Ruger MkIIs over the years. Since I just got seriously involved in shooting over the past two years I never really knew what I was looking for in a gun until recently. Now the other day my boss brought his Ruger MkII into work, which gave me the opportunity to do a serious review of Ruger MkII firearms and if I would be buying one in the future. One of things that concerns me about the Ruger MkII is the fact that when I bring the weapon up to the target I am looking at about 1"-1.5" gap in between the rear sight and the front sight. Now I understand that I can train myself to bring it on target naturally, but when I have firearms available to me like any number of my berettas or xds that naturally, due to a more ergonomically suitable grip, can be easily brought onto target I don't see the point. The pointability of the Ruger MkII is similar to that of a revolver which is why I don't shoot wheel guns. Having to train for this, in my mind, is a unnecassary step, and one that unless practiced a whole hell of a lot could be forgotten in stressful situation causing you to take a half a second longer coming on target. We all know what that can end up meaning.
Disclaimer I am not bashing Ruger MkII firearms, I am simply stating that the grip angle is not for everyone, especially not me.
markinho
Member
I happen to think that this is an interesting thread, but I think that the "pointability" term is a little too broad and think that what's at stake here is more the subjective, personal opinion of the typical Glock model's overall grip and backstrap angle compared to other autoloaders.
It seems as if the Glock's grip/backstrap angle is more aggressively (steeply) raked than the tried-and-true (shallower and more familiar) 1911 angle. It is human nature to feel more comfortable and confident with tools that familiar in shape and function. That's why initial period driving a rental car--even one nicer than the vehicle you may own--is so disconcerting.
Incidentally, I happen to have a Ruger Mark III and am very happy with it. It is my only pistol and I bought it with the intent of using it to hone my shooting skills while I decide which larger caliber handgun to purchase. I am very comfortable with the Ruger Mark III's "pointability." The grip angle is comfortable and when I bring it up to the target I don't find myself under- or over-compensating. Shooting is a fine motor skill and involves lots of muscle memory--much like golf or martial arts does.
I was initially interested in getting a Glock 17 as my 9mm jack-of-all trades home defense/range and potential IPSC pistol. Why? Because the Glock 17 is to duty pistols what the Ruger Mark I-II-II line is to .22LR target pistols. Are there better options? Yes, but that's not the question. The question is, "What are you most familiar shooting and what are you willing to do to refamiliarize yourself with a gun (tool) that may require an inital adjustment period (taking a step back) before you can use it to its potential (take a step forward)."
Then I heard about the Springfield XD line and handled one in my local shop. It was very comfortable in my hand PLUS it seemed to offer a number of functional upgrades over the rather spartan Glock. Previously, I had not marked much range time with any Glocks--maybe just 50 rounds with a G19--younger sibling of the Glock 17. So, in other words, it's not like I was used to the "unusual" Glock ergonomics. But when I did some dry-fire, practice aiming with the XD, I felt like the grip was too upright and shallow, almost like I was aiming with the grip and stock at a right angle. I didn't like the three-dot sights either, but I felt disoriented just aiming the XD at objects against the wall.
Next when I did some practice with an XD-9 my shots were all over the place, big time.
I double-checked on a G19 right after the XD-9 using the same box of range ammunition (and I am an mediocre to average shot, at best) and my accuracy and grouping was WAY better. Ironically, I felt a little sad because I really thought that the XD-9 was going to be a better shot FOR ME.
Now, I'm not knocking the XD-9. I really like the XD line and think that it gives Glock a run for its money at a lower price with more features. I don't know much--but here's what I do know: I could care less what a gun looks like, I may not be a very good shot compared to some out there, and I don't have much money to spend, bit I sure-as-hell know that the most important factor in buying a quality tool (handgun) is getting one that you feel comfortable and confident using. For some its the Glock and for some its another handgun.
I am going to give the XD and others another chance. But for me, I happen to be one of those dudes who thinks that Glock did something right with their designs "pointability."
Now, if someone can quantify "pointability" a little bit better, they can't do any worse than I did!
It seems as if the Glock's grip/backstrap angle is more aggressively (steeply) raked than the tried-and-true (shallower and more familiar) 1911 angle. It is human nature to feel more comfortable and confident with tools that familiar in shape and function. That's why initial period driving a rental car--even one nicer than the vehicle you may own--is so disconcerting.
Incidentally, I happen to have a Ruger Mark III and am very happy with it. It is my only pistol and I bought it with the intent of using it to hone my shooting skills while I decide which larger caliber handgun to purchase. I am very comfortable with the Ruger Mark III's "pointability." The grip angle is comfortable and when I bring it up to the target I don't find myself under- or over-compensating. Shooting is a fine motor skill and involves lots of muscle memory--much like golf or martial arts does.
I was initially interested in getting a Glock 17 as my 9mm jack-of-all trades home defense/range and potential IPSC pistol. Why? Because the Glock 17 is to duty pistols what the Ruger Mark I-II-II line is to .22LR target pistols. Are there better options? Yes, but that's not the question. The question is, "What are you most familiar shooting and what are you willing to do to refamiliarize yourself with a gun (tool) that may require an inital adjustment period (taking a step back) before you can use it to its potential (take a step forward)."
Then I heard about the Springfield XD line and handled one in my local shop. It was very comfortable in my hand PLUS it seemed to offer a number of functional upgrades over the rather spartan Glock. Previously, I had not marked much range time with any Glocks--maybe just 50 rounds with a G19--younger sibling of the Glock 17. So, in other words, it's not like I was used to the "unusual" Glock ergonomics. But when I did some dry-fire, practice aiming with the XD, I felt like the grip was too upright and shallow, almost like I was aiming with the grip and stock at a right angle. I didn't like the three-dot sights either, but I felt disoriented just aiming the XD at objects against the wall.
Next when I did some practice with an XD-9 my shots were all over the place, big time.
I double-checked on a G19 right after the XD-9 using the same box of range ammunition (and I am an mediocre to average shot, at best) and my accuracy and grouping was WAY better. Ironically, I felt a little sad because I really thought that the XD-9 was going to be a better shot FOR ME. Now, I'm not knocking the XD-9. I really like the XD line and think that it gives Glock a run for its money at a lower price with more features. I don't know much--but here's what I do know: I could care less what a gun looks like, I may not be a very good shot compared to some out there, and I don't have much money to spend, bit I sure-as-hell know that the most important factor in buying a quality tool (handgun) is getting one that you feel comfortable and confident using. For some its the Glock and for some its another handgun.
I am going to give the XD and others another chance. But for me, I happen to be one of those dudes who thinks that Glock did something right with their designs "pointability."
Now, if someone can quantify "pointability" a little bit better, they can't do any worse than I did!
- Status
Similar threads
