Whats up with 55 degree grips? Luger, MK I-III, Nambu, also Glock (whatever angle)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dubious

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
442
What is the design philosophy and evolution of the Luger (and Nambu?) handgun grip? Why did Bill Ruger find this design superior and replicate it in his Mk I? Also, whats the thinking behind the glock grip angle? It seems to me that the 1911 grip angle reigns supreme (nachos supreme), but maybe that's just what I'm used to. There must be some nuggets of history here for you to illucidate me. Armedbear, RCModel, Illuminaughty, Cosmoline... don't pass this question by.
 
Last edited:
For many shooters, it is a more natural angle.
I've heard the two common grip angles contrasted as "the Luger-style rake makes the gun an extension of your arm" and "the 1911 angle makes the gun part of your hand" a few times.

Barring injuries or extremely oddly shaped hands, a shooter should be able to get acclimated to either, and many don't show much preference. Personallly, I find the Luger rake more suitable for target work, but the difference in comfort and natural point-of-aim is slight.
 
The Luger grip angle was/is considered to be nearly perfect for natural pointing and many compare it to pointing your finger. In addition to the pistols you've mentioned, there have been others that duplicate or very closely approximate the Luger grip angle..... including the Swedish Lahti and the John Browning designed Colt Woodsman.

One of the improvements to the 1911 was the arched main spring housing that raised the muzzle higher than the flat MSH when pointing the pistol.
 
Of the current pistols, it's what the company decides is the best for the largest number of people. Sometimes (*cough*Glock*cough*) they're wrong. ;)

In the case of the Luger, it was built to the trained shooting style of the day.

Turn your body so your strong shoulder, not your chest, points at the target. Extend that arm, and hold your gun one-handed. The Luger points well, then, and I've heard that the Nambu fits that position like it's just an extra finger.

But with today's shooting styles, it really does feel awkward.

Take a look at competition 'olympic style' pistols. IME, a lot of the ones for shooters that shoot that way, or competitions that require it, have angles that range from 'Glock' to 'Luger' and even further.
 
Probably more than the angle detrmines just how well a gun points "naturally" (given all the human variables). I have a Remington Model 51 that DOES point almost like pointing my finger. The old Remington ads said it was "self-aiming". I almost believe it! As I stated in another thread, getting used to the gun, without shooting other guns for distractions, is the better road to point shooting.
 
The luger grip does tend to force you line up you hand with the rest of your arm thus locking your wrist and preventing the limp wrist.
 
I must be an oddball, I can shoot a 1911 (with flat MSH or arched MSH), BHP, and GLOCK all about the same without any noticeable adjustment on my part.
 
Take a look at competition 'olympic style' pistols.
Click to expand...

this pretty much defines which is the most natural pointing/extension of your arm.

the goal is to produce a gun which points without adding stress/contortions to your arm/hand...a relaxed hold/point contributes to making an accurate shot

you'll hear folks say that the 1911 grip angle is the most comfortable. you hear just as many laud the grip of the Colt SAA.

it has to with what you were introduced/trained to.

if you lift your arm to point, extend your index finger and then rotate your thumb to the top, you'll find your natural angle...and find that it is close to that of the Luger or Glock

this angle would cause the 1911 to point low. if you tighten/straighten your wrist...as in a punch...you level the 1911

so do you point with your finger or your fist?
which is more precise?

it's a lot like the difference between pointing an rapier and a broadsword...or a Sykes/Fairbairn and a Ka-bar
 
I must be an oddball, I can shoot a 1911 (with flat MSH or arched MSH), BHP, and GLOCK all about the same without any noticeable adjustment on my part.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're not odd. I can shoot them equally well (or rather, poorly) without thinking about it.
 
Of the current pistols, it's what the company decides is the best for the largest number of people. Sometimes (*cough*Glock*cough*) they're wrong
Click to expand...

You should call gaston and tell him that he has been making all of those guns wrong for all these years. For some reason, I think he may disagree.
 
the John Browning designed Colt Woodsman.
Click to expand...
The first series Woodsman that JB designed had less grip sweep then the later Second & Third series re-designed after his death.
The really swept-back .22 grip design didn't hit full stride until post WWII. Then came the second series Woodsman, which was a grip angle copy of the newest High-Standard match pistols. Ruger copied both of them.

I believe a lot of .22RF guns use the swept back grip to prevent rim lock in the magazine with the rim-fire cartridges. A straighter grip would allow rims to get hooked behind the one below it and cause feed problems.

However, the Luger, Glock and other guns has a more natural point when fired without the sights being used.
Why Gaston did it is anyones guess, but he must have been influenced by holding a Luger. We have to remember he designed a "machine", not a gun. He had basically no firearms experience, and didn't know any better except to go with what felt good when play-pointing at things in his office.

That it is an unnatural grip angle for many when using the sights seems to have been lost in translation in Europe.

rc
 
I have a Ruger Mark II Target and a 22/45, both with 6 7/8" slabside bull barrels, so I can compare the same gun with both the Luger-style and the 1911-style grip angles.

I've used both for competitive shooting, too.

The Target gun has a thumbrest, and when held out at arm's length with the thumb on the rest, the grip angle balances out the long bull barrel pretty well.

The 22/45 feels more muzzle-heavy, but also comes up more naturally when not using a full-on target-style stance. It's a tad harder to hold in position with the bull barrel, but it comes up very naturally.

I really don't like the Glock angle. I do, however, like the P38/M9 grip style and its plastic imitator, the XD, especially for "practical" shooting as opposed to true target shooting.

IMO there are several ways for a gun to fit a given person, and several ways for it not to. The overall weight and balance of the gun matter, too.

I think the 55 degree angle really works on a target gun, but I really can't see using it for a gun that lives in a holster. Different purpose, different design to match the application.

You can see that in Beretta's handguns. The strictly-recreational .22LR Neos has the weird target angle, whereas the M9 is a lot more vertical.

See these pictures:

55 degree grip can work well for this...
standingoffhand_000.jpg

1911 grip angle seems more comfortable for this and other stances/grips...
twohanded.jpg
 
Last edited:
What is the design philosophy and evolution of the Luger (and Nambu?) handgun grip?
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a Borchardt C-93? The Luger was a huge refinement on the Borchardt, particularly by compacting the toggle mechanism and mainspring, but the Luger still needed a raked grip angle as part of the solution.

300px-Pistol_Borchardt_C93_Adams_1.jpg
luger.jpg
 
I really don't like the Glock angle. I do, however, like the P38/M9 grip style and its plastic imitator, the XD, especially for "practical" shooting as opposed to true target shooting.
Click to expand...
Same here, in fact Glock and Beretta grips are a seriously bad fit. I love my Rugers with the traditional angle, and the few times I've had a Luger in hand it was a natural fit.
 
Glock and Beretta grips are a seriously bad fit. I love my Rugers with the traditional angle, and the few times I've had a Luger in hand it was a natural fit.
Click to expand...

the Glock, Ruger .22 and Luger all have similar grip angles. the Beretta grip is more vertical
 
I'm also a fan of the Luger grip. At one time it was my favorite though now I like the more conventional angled Hi-Power and 1911 better. Still, a Luger drops in my hand and shoots where I point it. Same with my Ruger Target 22s - Mark I, II and III. It's easy to move from one angle to another if the pistol itself is fine.
 
Before the 1911 became king in the U.S. and even today in other countries where it is not so revered, it was and is commonly accepted that a more raked grip angle than the 1911's is more ergonomic and makes for a better pointing pistol.

In fact, Elmer Keith even wrote that the 1911 grip angle wasn't raked enough and therefore the pistol didn't point well.
 
the Glock, Ruger .22 and Luger all have similar grip angles. the Beretta grip is more vertical
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know that ... I've had a pile of guns on the table to compare. I can't figure out why Pistols from Glock and Beretta (duty-size) are so unhappy in my hand. It made qualifying for pistol in my seafaring days a pain, as the M-9 is one of the worst fits to my hand. Nothing from Glock has ever been comfortable, either.
 
I can't figure out why Pistols from Glock and Beretta (duty-size) are so unhappy in my hand
Click to expand...

i would venture a guess that it has to do more with the width than the angle.

i can't seem to get a Glock 17/22 to "sit right" in the palm of my hand...the Glock 19 fits better, but i can't explain that either.

a Beretta 92/96 feels like a 4x4 when i pick it up, but for some reason it was very accurate during qualifacations
 
This makes about the 827th post I've read on grip angle issues. I usually don't comment on such. Me thinks this grip angle stuff is way over rated on modern pistols.

Would place a much higher priority on hand fitment myself. I grew up shooting a large variety of pistols Colt woodsman, Ruger Mark I, 1911s, and many different revolvers such as S&W, Colt, Ruger. Found I gained more ability with practicing than worrying about voodoo magic stuff like grip angles. In fact I don't worry about grip angle at all.

If you can only shoot a pistol with a certain grip angle, I feel for you. But you do need to get out and practice shooting more often instead of worrying about this near meaningless grip angle stuff.
 
You know, I used to really agree with you guys about the grip angle thing. CZ was the answer for me. Shot CZs for several years. Several months ago, I acquired a G19 in trade. Darn if you couldn't send some bullets down range on target in a hurry. Picked up a G34, and have been shooting the heck out of it. I don't notice a difference anymore.

I have noted that the grip of the new SF Glocks seem to bring the muzzle down just tad.
 
With a formal sight picture and head straight up, I find the 1911 works pretty well. But I like the front sight to stand well proud of the rear sights when I bring a gun on target; hence, I prefer more rake. If I have to cock my head down a bit to get a "bullseye quality" sight picture, then so be it. If I have the time and inclination, I'll settle into a formal sight picture once I know the location of the front sight. And I'll also get the benefit of a flatter wrist and lower bore axis while I'm at it. But on a moving target or during speed shooting, I don't use a formal sight picture, anyway.

The last thing I want to see when I deploy a gun in SD are the rear sights perfectly centered on target, and JUST the rear sights (obscuring the front sight, half the target, and being totally useless all at the same time!).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top