The grip

[TarDevil]

I know there's been countless threads, but haven't found one that specifically addresses my question.

I recently inherited a HUGE stack of books from a deceased friend, and found section on one about handgun grips where the shooter wrapped the index finger of his around the front of the trigger guard. The book states many shooters find this grip style more stable than finger under the trigger guard, though all the threads and related websites in THR say this is a no-no.

I guess it was the first time I realized that's how I shoot. I experimented a bit today with finger under the trigger guard and it just doesn't feel as strong to me.

Anyone else shoot this way? Opinions?

 

[NOLAEMT]

it used to be a popular way to shoot, but as time has gone on, most people find that they get more leverage with the whole support hand wrapped around the firing hand, finger over finger.

But whatever works for you is what you should use, I would just give the finger over finger grip another try, I bet you'll like it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think it would be a safe bet that this book is rather old. The grip was popular at one time and this is evidenced by the number of pistols which have squared off trigger guards...but it's heyday was back in the 60s and early 70s. As the understanding of recoil management evolved, that grip was exposed for it's short comings.

If your goal isn't placing accurate (3"x5" card) shots quickly (5 shots/sec) on target (@5-7 yards), it really doesn't make much difference which grip you use. But if you want to optimize your shooting to the above criteria, there are better grip choices.

 

[Al Thompson]

The piece of equipment that changed old ideas about proper grip (among other things) was the shot timer. Having an accurate and measured data set of the whole shooting process showed trainers what worked and what did not.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The thing about shooting is this...everyone is different.
When training folks I have to remind myself to tell the trainee that what I am showing them as the "standard grip" is a starting point from which they can figure out the precise grip that works best for them. Often very small differences in grip can make huge differences in results.

I know a guy who holds 1911 pistols in what I consider to be the worst grip but he scores at least even with me every time so I'm certainly in no position to tell him he is "wrong" since it works for him.

As for me I habitually have a finger on the trigger guard guy in part because I have been training that way for a very long time and also because holding it the currently accepted way I repeatedly scratch my other hand with the nail of my index finger creating a distraction that is more than enough to impact my shooting with respect to target groups.

 

[TarDevil]

As the understanding of recoil management evolved, that grip was exposed for it's short comings.

Please don't take this as argumentative because I really want to understand what those shortcomings are and why finger-over-finger is better, so some specific explanation would be appreciated. If that's what I need to relearn, I'm off to the range with several hundred rounds of 9mm...

BTW, the book is 2004. I have quite a few more that are, indeed, very old.

 

[NOLAEMT]

Basically, finger over finger allows you to apply more rearward force with the support hand. (approx. 70% of your recoil control should come from the support hand). Having your finger on the trigger guard removes 1 of the 4 fingers that are applying that rearward force. In addition, having your finger on the trigger guard makes it more likely that you will apply pressure sideways, throwing your shots off toward your strong side.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Please don't take this as argumentative because I really want to understand what those shortcomings are

Not at all. I don't always go into detail because many time folks figure it out for themselves, already understand or just don't want to hear it.

There are two areas where the finger forward grip falls short physical and philosophical

Physical - Reaching for the front of the trigger guard compromises your hands contact with the grip panels...it pulls the hand forward and often pulls the meaty part of the thumb off the grip and unto the fingertips of the shooting hand so that the lateral pressure is now on the shooting hand rather than the frame of the gun.

Leaving that section of the frame out of contact with lateral pressure will cause the gun to recoil in that direction...in the path of least resistance...making returning the gun, after a shot, slower as it will not already be in-line.

Placing the support index finger on the front of the trigger guard will also place it parallel with the index finger of the other hand. This increases the likelihood that the the support hand will interfere with the trigger finger as it presses the trigger to the rear.

The finger placement also causes the support hand's placement to be more vertical...straight wrist...which does not allow a full thumbs forward grip with the wrist rotated downward to form a straight line through the thumb, wrist and forearm.

Philosophical - It is an attempt to control recoil.

Placing the support index finger on the front of the trigger guard was born of the belief that if you had enough muscle and enough leverage, you could hold the pistol down in/during recoil. By pulling and placing downward pressure on a point forward of the center of balance of the pistol, the attempt was to increase the length of the lever arm.

Testing and experimentation in the 70s and 80s demonstrated that recovery between shots was faster if the shooter's intent was the manage rather than control the recoil. By applying even pressure surrounding the grip, the gun would recoil straight up/back and return to the original POA without having to be pulled back onto target. This experimentation gave birth to the modern Isosceles technique which is used by almost all the current top flight shooters

Besides allowing faster repeat shots, it also reduced the wear and tear on wrist, elbows and shoulders

 

[TarDevil]

Thanks, makes sense. Ok, of to the range tomorrow!

 

[Ankeny]

I used to see (and use) the support hand finger on the front of the trigger guard back in the 70's and 80's. As others have pointed out, the grip is old school and has gone by the way side. Still, there are some rather youthful shooters on the IPSC competition circuit using the grip and doing very well (such as World IPSC champion), but none of them promote that style.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Anyone else shoot this way? Opinions?

I do. I have large, hollow-palm hands with long fingers and very good strength (mechanic). I find I can control a handgun better with this grip. However, I do not teach it; It doesn't seem to work as well for the majority of shooters.

The S&W 1006 is certainly not a small pistol, so one can see where using the more common grip would cause a significant portion of my support hand to hang off the bottom:

 

[9mmepiphany]

What initially strikes me is that that grip leave a lot of the left grip panel out of contact with your hand, while crossing the thumbs in that manner lifts it even further.

Does your pstol normally jump to the left in recoil?

 

[MachIVshooter]

What initially strikes me is that that grip leave a lot of the left grip panel out of contact with your hand, while crossing the thumbs in that manner lifts it even further.

With either grip, my support hand doesn't really touch the gun other than the trigger gaurd. The shooting hand pretty well envelops them, even the large 1006 with bulky hogue grips:

Does your pstol normally jump to the left in recoil?

No. Slightly right and upward. I push/pull just like you would with any other grip. Using the finger on the trigger guard method keeps more of my support hand in contact with the gun using my shooting hand as a medium.

Like I said, I don't teach it. I'm a bit of a physical oddity, with limbs that belong to a man some 6" taller than I. 5'10" with a 34" inseam and 6'5" armspan. Yes, a bit of an ape.

 

[9mmepiphany]

With either grip, my support hand doesn't really touch the gun other than the trigger gaurd. The shooting hand pretty well envelops them...

...I push/pull just like you would with any other grip.

If it your grip is working for you, I wouldn't try to change it, but...

If you lift your strong thumb off the grip panel and float it upward,

...you'd have plenty of room on the left grip panel for your left hand...behind the fingertips of your right hand...then you could use the current thumbs forward grip

(see the first link in my signature)

I haven't used the push-pull technique in years since it was demonstrated to me that it was slower to get back on target for repeat shots...see Philosophical discussion on recoil management above in post #8

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'd be concerned of accidentally engaging the slide stop with my support thumb there.

As for controlling rather than managing recoil, I guess I don't really see a difference besides semantics. How much one can control/manage recoil is dependent on the gun and their physical strength. Regardless, the less the gun moves, the quicker the follow-up shot. Whatever grip allows one to best do this is what they should use.

When I teach, I instruct people to wrap their shooting hand with support hand (as you demonstrate), but with both thumbs aligned, support over shooting, with the target and use a push-pull with elbows bent. I do not teach isoscelese; I use and teach Modified Weaver.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'd be concerned of accidentally engaging the slide stop with my support thumb there.

The slide stop should fall under your thumb between the first two joints of that thumb...where you don't have leverage...as you shouldn't be applying pressure to the gun with either thumb

As for controlling rather than managing recoil, I guess I don't really see a difference besides semantics.

It is more a philosophical difference than one of semantics. Controlling recoil is fighting it; Managing recoil is letting it work for you

How much one can control/manage recoil is dependent on the gun and their physical strength. Regardless, the less the gun moves, the quicker the follow-up shot.

That is what they disproved back in the 80s. It is faster to allow a semi-automatic to recoil and return to the same POA, than to fight the muzzle flip through muscle/leverage and have to bring the sights back onto target. All the top shooters were using the Weaver and trying to pull their sights back onto target, but when they started losing to folks shooting the Isosceles...because they were getting faster followup shots...they switched over.

I still teach the Weaver to folks when I have them for a limited time and they need something that they can learn quickly with little expectation of further practice. I teach the Isosceles to folks who want to optimize their accuracy and speed...and are willing to put in some practice.

It was my understanding that the original Weaver had both elbows bent and the Modified Weaver straightened the strong side elbow...at least that is how Gunsite teaches it

 

[Old Guy]

It seems that the Glock pistol (original design team) leaned into using the front of the trigger guard to grip, hence the shape? Or was it to give more strength to that part of the receiver? Polymer construction and all.

I teach the thumbs crossed grip, more for shooting that deteriorates to close up fighting, the thumbs open grip? You have not much of a hold on your pistol if an assailant gets his hands on it. Especially with a Revolver, and you are going to get burned with gases from the cylinder/barrel gap, when you fire.

The practical aspect of grip, on any thing, more skin on the surface you are gripping, more control of that object.

Thumbs crossed is quicker, on the "Punch" draw. A fighting stance lends itself to cross training, Rifle/Shotgun/Sub Gun/ Pistol. Less is more, in teaching.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It was my understanding that the original Weaver had both elbows bent and the Modified Weaver straightened the strong side elbow...at least that is how Gunsite teaches it

I understood it as more about positioning of the body and feet; Bending elbows being a "tactical" adaptation to either (and to Isocseles).

The reason I prefer Weaver is stability, and especially in teaching females, who, in my experience, have an almost universal tendency to lean backward when shooting. Weaver is less conducive to this.

A fighting stance lends itself to cross training, Rifle/Shotgun/Sub Gun/ Pistol. Less is more, in teaching.

That's the other advantage. The bent ellbows modified weaver I like to instruct basically causes one to shoot a pistol as though is were a stockless rifle.

I'm not a competitive shooter, either. Though I can shoot a pistol quite well, I'd probably score poorly at an IPSC match. The two types of handgun shooting I do are close, rapid, dynamic shooting (especially while moving) and long range slow fire for hunting. Since being able to consistently nail a 2 litre bottle at 100 yards with a very powerful handgun shooting unsupported is of little use to anyone not hunting, the former is what I aim to teach. While strongarming the gun a bit may not be as conducive to putting bullets in the X-ring rapidly on a square range, it seems to work better for putting all the bullets into a silhouette at 5-7 yards as quickly as one can pull the trigger. And when shooting on the move, having your front sight "fall back into place" is of little benefit; Since you have moved in relation to the target, you'll have to reacquire it anyway. I also emphasize one-handed shooting and firing from unstable postitions, and incorporate drawing from concealment with all of it.

Ultimately, I always tell people to adapt what works best for them. I just try to supply some building blocks.

 

[ATLDave]

Read Brian Enos's book (http://brianenos.com/store/books.html) if you are interested in how the straight-thumbs grip came to be and why. But 9mmepiphany's comments are consistent with it.

FWIW, I used to shoot with my index finger around the trigger guard, curled thumbs, weaver stance with push/pull, and changed a little over a year ago to straight thumbs, iso; my shooting has improved. Among other things, the sights lift and return in a more predictable way. For me, trying to muscle the gun into not recoiling just makes for a bunch of pushed shots. I do better when I just let the sights lift and return.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I understood it as more about positioning of the body and feet; Bending elbows being a "tactical" adaptation to either (and to Isocseles).

Actually the original Weaver, as developed by Jack Weaver, has both elbows bent. Interestingly, the Weaver and the Modern Isosceles share the same foot positioning.

And when shooting on the move, having your front sight "fall back into place" is of little benefit; Since you have moved in relation to the target, you'll have to reacquire it anyway.

Actually you don't, since the relationship of your head and arms are constant while tracking your target and the sights started in front of your eyes, the sights return to whereever you are looking. My previous explanation was applied to a square range example to simplify the visual for readers.

One of the advantages of the Modern Isosceles has over the Modified Weaver, if you are teaching it as a more bladed stance, is quicker movement...as it is more balance and does not require coiling before movement

 

[9mmepiphany]

It seems that the Glock pistol (original design team) leaned into using the front of the trigger guard to grip, hence the shape? Or was it to give more strength to that part of the receiver? Polymer construction and all.

Since Glock (the man) had no prior experience with designing handguns and traveled throughout Europe to research the subject for his first design, I think a more likely explanation was that the shape was popular at the time...if you look at the European pistols in production for that market prior to the introduction of the Glock, you'll see it was pretty universal

I teach the thumbs crossed grip, more for shooting that deteriorates to close up fighting, the thumbs open grip? You have not much of a hold on your pistol if an assailant gets his hands on it.

As much as many folks want to believe otherwise, your griping strength comes from the lower three fingers pulling the frame into the palm of your hand. You can always drop/close your thumb to secure that side in a struggle...but that will always be the side of the grip that fails first

The practical aspect of grip, on any thing, more skin on the surface you are gripping, more control of that object.

...and yet crossing the thumbs compromises the contact the support hand has with the gun

 

[Old Guy]

...and yet crossing the thumbs compromises the contact the support hand has with the gun

Not really, the support fingers jam into the fingers of the strong hand, below the knuckles, the support hand thumb pad, rests firmly on the grip, between the finger tips and thumb pad of the strong hand, completes the circle if you would.

My gripping of the Glock 19, the only pistol I shoot. Comes from the quickest acquired grip possible, from the "Punch" draw, which draw has the pistol fire, as the hands stop moving, the front sight tells you where the shot went, not where it is going.

Having just said all of the above, I taught "Do this" Unless you want to do something else, still think that way.

 

[ATLDave]

My gripping of the Glock 19, the only pistol I shoot. Comes from the quickest acquired grip possible, from the "Punch" draw, which draw has the pistol fire, as the hands stop moving, the front sight tells you where the shot went, not where it is going.

Whatever your views of IPSC/IDPA-type shooting, you'd think it would be a pretty good laboratory for experimentation as to the grip that allows the fastest, relatively accurate shooting from the draw, and then from motion. And the top (non-revolver) competitors in those disciplines (almost?) universally have adopted the straight-thumbs approach. If there were a tenth of a second to be gained on the draw and first shot with a different grip, you can bet that Leatham or Sevigny or Tilley or Wallgren or any/all of those guys would have lept on it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the "Punch" draw, which draw has the pistol fire, as the hands stop moving,

I wondered, thanks for the description, what that meant...as I usually hear that term used in Point Shooting.

I teach that technique as the Push Out drill...it is step 5 in a five step draw that I am teaching. It is surprisingly hard to teach...harder than a static DA trigger stroke...as everyone seems to want to save trigger travel for the end (usually causing a jerked shot). I usually teach the DA trigger stroke combined with the Push Out and it seems to be easier for clients

 

[MachIVshooter]

Actually the original Weaver, as developed by Jack Weaver, has both elbows bent.

OK, I'll stand corrected. I had been under the impression that modified casued the body to be less bladed, more of a 45* angle to the target than almost perpendicular.

And that is also one of the advantages I see with the Weaver; Blading the torso makes your opponent's target area smaller.

I was personally never comfortable with Isoscelese, no matter what I did with my feet. I don't like to square up with the target. Maybe it's because I'm first and foremost a rifle shooter, maybe it's because I'm not extremely flexible. Whatever it is, it's just not for me.