The grip angle myth

[Geronimo45]

For me, the 1911 had a pathetic angle (or I was just a pathetic shooter. Equally likely). I aimed the thing, expecting to see a nice hole in the board. Instead, there's a hole in the dirt. Fire again. Dirt flies up.
Yes, this is the first pistol I'd ever owned (aside from a single-shot bb gun that's a little tough to point shoot... did point shoot a nice hole in a window with it once by accident). The 1911 w/arched whatchamacallit messed me up. Now, several months after getting a set of lasergrips and wearing out batteries by point-shooting dust bunnies, I've gotten close to spot-on, and compensating for the arch is second-nature. After you've gripped-and-aimed a gun about twenty thousand times, it becomes more natural.
Then my kid brother got some airsoft guns. The USP was similar to the 1911... I felt I had to compensate for the grip a bit. But the Walther P99... maybe there's less room for movement on that grip. The thing fit perfectly the first time, and aimed up just right. May get one this Christmas... despite the fact that I don't care for polymer pistols.

 

[Boats]

I have shot many a Glock, and after some fam-fire, shoot them pretty acceptably whenever I try.

That said, the entire time I felt as if I were "wrestling" with the pistols, as they didn't feel natural at all.

Did I grow up biased against the "Glock angle?" Perhaps. My point is that in a country where many shooters are going to build preferences for grip feel with Mom's or Dad's handguns long before they can legally possess or own their own handgun, the "Glock angle" as "natural" is going to be a minority position for a good long while.

I like the XD for grip angle, but not for trigger reach. I like the Glock Gen 1 for trigger reach, but not for grip angle, or now for the finger bumpers only seen on the Gen 3 abominations.

I shoot a 1911 because ALL of its most important ergonomic factors are easily modified by the enthusiast.

The 1911A1 had interchangeable backstraps way before it was a cool idea in polymer.

It has long reach or short reach triggers. It has thick or narrow grips. If one has to have finger grooves, one can get wraparounds to that effect.

To each his, or her, own. I like shooting pistols that adapt to me, not force me to adapt to it.

On that front, Glocks will never win my money until they quit being one ergonomic solution must suit all.

 

[ArmedBear]

That said, the entire time I felt as if I were "wrestling" with the pistols, as they didn't feel natural at all.

See my post above.

Note that each individual is different. While a 1911 might be perfect for one shooter, a Luger might fit another and a Glock yet another.

I'm partial to the 1911 grip angle, and even bought a 22/45 target pistol for that reason. I also like the old Walthers, and XD's.

But someone else might like Glocks.

 

[TestPilot]

I disagree with Owen.

Owen's opinion that "natural" grip angle does not exist assumes that a person feels equal comfort,or equal required effort to make precision movement in hand,within the wrist joint's whole motion range which is not true. There is a angle where minimum effort is needed to maintain the angle,and more the wrist comes close to it's limit angle more the effort is needed to maintain it.

There are certain advantages to more leaning angle in a pistol grip. And,I do agree that stability might be gained in aim by putting the joint close to an angle close to lock such as the Olympic sport competition pistol does. Let's call this type of grip angle which intentionally puts the wrist closer to a lock in certain direction,"biased" grip.

However,for a combat pistol,this comes at a risk of limiting range of motion and flexibility. Olympic shooter does not have to move or crouch. Imagine you wish to use a shooting posture that bends the arm at the elbow to absorb recoil or achieve some flexibility. As the forearm's angle pointing upwards rises,the wrist has to tilt more downwards for the pistol in hand to point at the same aim point. Which would be very awkward to do if the shooter's wrist was already near lock when shooter's arm was straight.

Regardless of whether if you prefer Weaver,modified Weaver,isosceles,etc. situation developing during an armed encounter may not always allow a posture with arms extending straight forward. Even with a "natural pointing" pistol,the shooter may be forced into a shooting posture that has the shooter's wrist close to a lock. It would not be hard to imagine the shooter would be in more of a disadvantage if the pistol's grip is "biased" if the shooter has to tilt the wrist in the direction the grip is already "biased" towards for whatever reason.
So this lack of flexibility and fatigue,if more effort is needed to maintain a "biased" grip angle,can be a disadvantage and a risk for "biased" grip angle.
Also,some people,such as myself,does not like shooting posture with elbows locked straight. I don't think it is a coincidence that I see a lot of Glock speed shooters adopting Isosceles with aggressive forward lean.

There is a distinctive advantage to a more leaning angled grip. It allows the web of the hand which contacts the top of the back of the grip to be higher than the trigger finger,effectively lowering the bore's relative hight from where the back of the grip contacts the hand which is where the recoil is transfered.

 

[DJL2]

I might as well post a reply to get lost in the shuffle

It is certainly true that you can adapt yourself to almost anything, including grip angle, I would argue that a good many people mold their own grip angle preference naturally and probably long before they pick up a weapon. From the very first time I ever handled a pistol I realized that different pistols pointed differently for me when I made no attempt to align the sights, but just gripped it in a manner that felt most comfortable and pointed it a target about 5-7 yards away. I would be most curious to determine how much shooting one must do to adapt to a new wrist/grip angle and if that necessarily means using guns with that angle to the exclusion of others. Currently I am adapted to SIG/1911 (flat mainspring) pretty well. My Glock 17C points high, my HK P7 points low. My CZ 75 compact is also about right. My best shooting occurs when I relax. I just let the gun recoil and come back on target by itself, more or less. I simply do not shoot as well trying to muscle the gun through recoil. Sure, I take a firm grip and an athletic stance, but I don't try to resist the recoil or wrench the gun back on target when I am shooting my best splits. This is much more difficult for me to do when I must actively cock my wrist up or down to align a pistol's sights on the target. That makes grip angle important to me, even if I am only deciding which I am adapting to. Grip shape might be more important though. I have noticed that though the Glock points high with a natural grip, when I "death grip" the pistol it actually changes where the pistols points due the relation of the grip in my hand. Really, the most important thing about grip to me is that it feels good in the hand and is easy to gain a consistent purchase on. This lends a pistol to extended shooting sessions and that can only be a good thing, right?

Old S&W .38's seem to feel pretty good, if all together different, in my hand as well.

 

[RyanM]

One thing I forgot to mention, is grip angle really doesn't affect pointing chararcteristics much. It's the height the backstrap goes to vs. the height of the trigger. The 1911 puts the web of your hand a tiny fraction of an inch below the center of the trigger. A Glock puts the web 1/4", maybe 3/8", above the center of the trigger. A revolver will allow you to put your hand web anydangplace you want.

 

[WarMachine]

I have to disagree with you there. The Ruger MKII Standard and the MKII 22/45 put the web of your hand in generally the same position in reference to the centerline of the trigger; but, the more radical grip angle of the standard MKII gives it different pointing characteristics.

 

[RyanM]

I have to disagree too. Just a couple days ago, I handled a 22/45 Mk.III and a Mk.II standard model side by side. They pointed almost exactly the same for me. The 22/45 pointed only about 1 degree lower, not a very significant difference.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree that there is no universally correct grip angle, but I disagree that there is no "natural feeling neutral position for the wrist". That might be false in the most general sense, but we're not talking about flopping the wrist around, we're talking about holding it in a shooting position.

When I put my arm in a shooting position, my wrist goes to a "natural feeling neutral position"--I suspect that everyone's does. For the record, that position is slightly different than the "natural feeling neutral position" of my wrist when I'm gripping something while my arm is in a shooting position. The slight tension exerted on my wrist by the tendons that flex my fingers changes the wrist position slightly.

I think that ugaarguy has come closest to the mark so far with this statement:

"While there may not be any one angle on a pistol grip that points naturally for all people, there will be a grip angle or very short range of angles that point naturally for each person. To me, natural (for the individual) pointability is just another element of grip fit. "​

However, I DO agree with you 100% that it is possible for a person to become acclimatized to nearly any grip angle. I believe that can become so strongly acclimatized to a particular grip angle that it becomes their "natural feeling neutral position"--in effect, they've retrained their body to the point that what they've learned becomes their "natural grip angle".

 

[brownie0486]

http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=506&highlight=incredible+wrist

Wrote that awhile ago after some observations while training others

Brownie