Interesting tidbit from Ammoland on Glock

[jmr40]

The original 1911 with the flat mainspring housing was issued during WW-1 and soldiers complained that the gun pointed low. The arched MSH was developed during the 1920's and was issued on military 1911's right to the end. And is actually pretty close to Glocks grip angle. That style it appears is best for combat shooting.

But over the years the 1911 has evolved into more of a target gun than a combat gun. The flat MSH has become the norm and appears to be the best choice for that use.

At any rate I believe the issue is over rated.

How does that compare to others like the 1911, the S&W 2.0, etc.? That would make an interesting chart for folks looking to buy another handgun

I found this a while back and saved it.

 

[Pat Riot]

I have shot lots of 1911s and I find the grip angle to be “okay”. I played around with various mainspring housings to get the desired angle. It’s funny. In my early 20’s I liked the curved back strap but as I aged I found that my hands changed and a flat mainspring housing suited me better but with a front strap wrap, like Pachmayr grips.

I also shoot a variety of revolvers and, to be honest, I never considered grip angles on my revolvers. I was more concerned about grips and grip panels that made the gun fit my hand. I will have to look at these grip angles, more out of curiosity.

Regarding Glocks.
I shot some friend’s Glock 17s and liked them very much so I bought myself a Glock 34. That was the first handgun that I had ever shot that felt almost perfect. I could pick a Target with my eyes open, close my eyes, point my pistol, open my eyes and my sights would be on target. I liked this very much. I did not like the finger grooves though. I eventually sold it.

A few years ago I bought a Glock 19. I couldn’t seem to hit anything with I unless I really took my time when aiming. The grip angle was the same but the hump on the back rested higher in my hand and therefore threw off my aim 10-15 degrees high. Rather than modify the gun I sold it.

I have a Glock 19X now that I like very much. I also like the front strap without the finger grooves.

The Glock 19 purchase did teach me a lesson. Whenever I look at a pistol now I do the “eyes closed” test with the gun in the store. If it doesn’t point naturally for me, back to the salesman’s hands it goes. Many very popular handguns have been handed back to sales staff because of this.

When I buy a gun it must suit me. I refuse to buy a gun that I have to modify to make it work for me.

 

[CapnMac]

The flat MSH has become the norm and appears to be the best choice for that use.

For some, not all.
For me, a flat MSH is only handy if I wish to shoot the tops (or over) targets. But, I've been shooting arched MSH for a bit more than four decades, it's probably a bit ingrained by now.

Life is fuzzy and has a way of nibbling absolutes into gray.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Owned 2 Glocks a model 22 and a 19,sold them both. Just was not my cup of tea.

 

[JohnKSa]

We shouldn't imagine that Gaston was the first to consider this.

I remember reading somewhere that a considerable amount of research was done to select the grip angle for the original Remington 51 pistol.

I've also read various gun writers of Elmer Keith's era (including Keith himself) discussing how the Luger was a "natural pointer" and how the fact that the Ruger .22LR pistol grip angle mimicked that of the Luger, making it a natural pointer as well.

I find it amusing how people's hands and wrists have apparently changed since then...

 

[bannockburn]

JohnKSa

I remember reading somewhere that a considerable amount of research was done to select the grip angle for the original Remington 51 pistol.

I recall reading that too; that John D. Pedersen, the engineer who designed the Remington Model 51, spent months working on getting just the right shape for the grip frame.

 

[JeffG]

I was always a big proponent of the Glock grip angle. to the exclusion of not buying other auto pistol with different angles. The other day I went to the range and shot my Glock 23, Glock 43, 1911, round MSH, Ruger Vaquero plow handle, Ruger Vaquero birdshead. I shot them all interchangeably, at steel targets with 90% hits out to 25 yards. Never thought about it till I read this post. It seems grip angle is not as big a deal as I had imagined.

 

[entropy]

I was always a big proponent of the Glock grip angle. to the exclusion of not buying other auto pistol with different angles. The other day I went to the range and shot my Glock 23, Glock 43, 1911, round MSH, Ruger Vaquero plow handle, Ruger Vaquero birdshead. I shot them all interchangeably, at steel targets with 90% hits out to 25 yards. Never thought about it till I read this post. It seems grip angle is not as big a deal as I had imagined.

To use one of 'those gun phrases we wish would disappear" , It's the Indian, not the arrow."

 

[pblanc]

As others have pointed out, drawing a line down the front strap, or down the center of the magazine well and computing the angle it makes with the bore axis, does not tell the whole story about how the pistol will point. The problem I have with Glocks, as apparently many others do, is the exaggerated palm swell (Glock hump) on the back strap and the fact that this hump hits your palm in differing locations depending on the model of Glock and the length of the grip.

The fingers will allow you to adjust for front strap configurations that differ considerably but you palm cannot really adapt itself to widely varying back strap configurations. This issue combined with the slab-sided, 2x4-like rectangular grip contour makes the Glock a quite un-ergonomic pistol for me.

And I find what works well for one-handed shooting does not necessarily work well for a modern, two-handed, thumbs-forward grip.

 

[JR24]

As others have pointed out, drawing a line down the front strap, or down the center of the magazine well and computing the angle it makes with the bore axis, does not tell the whole story about how the pistol will point. The problem I have with Glocks, as apparently many others do, is the exaggerated palm swell (Glock hump) on the back strap and the fact that this hump hits your palm in differing locations depending on the model of Glock and the length of the grip.

The fingers will allow you to adjust for front strap configurations that differ considerably but you palm cannot really adapt itself to widely varying back strap configurations. This issue combined with the slab-sided, 2x4-like rectangular grip contour makes the Glock a quite un-ergonomic pistol for me.

And I find what works well for one-handed shooting does not necessarily work well for a modern, two-handed, thumbs-forward grip.

I thing you have nailed it. It is not the angle, it's the swell.

Funny thing is the gen 3 Glock was a big issue for me and led me to swear off glocks as a bad fit. Years pass and a gen 4 falls into my lap (glock 21) and somehow the small changes to the contours fit me much better.

It is more exaggerated for me with the 17/22 grip where gen 3 is ... eh, ok. The gen 4 is like it was molded for my hands, better pointer than my 1911s and BHP.

I was always a big proponent of the Glock grip angle. to the exclusion of not buying other auto pistol with different angles. The other day I went to the range and shot my Glock 23, Glock 43, 1911, round MSH, Ruger Vaquero plow handle, Ruger Vaquero birdshead. I shot them all interchangeably, at steel targets with 90% hits out to 25 yards. Never thought about it till I read this post. It seems grip angle is not as big a deal as I had imagined.

Pretty much the same. Practice enough and anything is natural feeling.

The only two that get me are the sig p series and CZ 75 series. I shoot them fine but always try to grip them too high and its u comfortable but, again, I just dont have enough time on each platform.