Gun Gripes: IV8888 and John Lovell on gun comfort/grip

[GunnyUSMC]

3 out of 7. Top to bottom, L to R; CZ 75, M&P, G17L ,

LCPII, G26, G43, Sig320. I watched it twice. Badkarmamib beat me to it. But he got two wrong.

WE HAVE A WINNER!! Where should I send the free box of chewed bubblegum?


I was finding it funny how all the Glock hatter were chiming in. I think the saw a Glock and stopped watching the video. I don’t know which ones are worse, the fanboys or the hatters.

A lot of people think I’m a big fan of Glocks, but not really. I do like them, but they were a forced welcomed. After having to carry that boat anchor, S&W 4046 with it’s 11lbs trigger, I was happy about getting a new Glock 22 issued. At first I couldn’t shoot it as good as the Smith, but I took the time to go to the range and have one of our instructors help me. Never be afraid to ask someone for help.
Over the years I have accumulated several handguns and I’m able to shoot most with the same leave of proficiency.
And yes. There are some that fit my hand better then others. Did I already say how much I like the M&P?
So, find the one that fits you best. Never give up on a gun just because it not comfortable the first time you try it out.
My son, Austin, always said that he didn’t like revolvers. Then he shot my Webly Mk6. He shot my last 30 rounds and asked if I had more. I told him, at almost a buck a round, he would have to by his next box. It

 

[JeeperCreeper]

I don’t know which ones are worse, the fanboys or the hatters.

You know what they say about those hatters!!! They are MAD!!!!

I don't think it was blatant propaganda, but Glock was the only platform represented in all sizes and more than once. Which puts it at like a 300% increase in representation.

Like I said, I don't disagree with the message, just the delivery.

 

[entropy]

Where should I send the free box of chewed bubblegum?

Sen. Diane Feinstein, Capitol Building, Washington DC......
Be sure to write "This is NOT C-4!" on the box......
I'd shoot up all your Webley ammo, too. A friend of my dad's had one, I only got to fire one cylinderful. But it was a fun gun to fire!

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Sen. Diane Feinstein, Capitol Building, Washington DC......
Be sure to write "This is NOT C-4!" on the box......
I'd shoot up all your Webley ammo, too. A friend of my dad's had one, I only got to fire one cylinderful. But it was a fun gun to fire!

I’ve got it packed up and ready to go

 

[DPris]

The fit of a handgun to a hand is important, both for function and for feel.
I am not a Glock hater, but I can't tolerate the grip on 'em.
That's not hating, it's just fact.
It's not holding it wrong, it's just an uncomfortable grip.
I like the top half, dislike the bottom half.
There are so many other pistols that do fit my hand extremely well, the Smith M&P line being one example.

I once had a Glock grip reduction done, turned that gun into an entirely different pistol.

In Smith DA revolvers, I rarely keep the factory grips on 'em.
Smiths are particularly bad, I've yet to find a DA Smith revolver grip that fits my hand well, aside from the occasional model that shipped with Hogue rubber already installed.
I'll replace or add T-Grip adaptors.

When I was much younger & didn't know any better, I fought with revolvers that were just wrong for my hand, accepting what the factory put out.
Once I discovered the world of aftermarket grip makers, I never looked back.

Aside from certain classics I don't want to alter, if I'm going to be shooting, and definitely in whatever I'm going to be carrying daily, that gun will fit my hand or I'm not going to be shooting or carrying it.

Single-action revolvers are an exception, I stick with factory grips & adapt my hand to them.

I'd take exception to the video commentary about holding it wrong.
I know how to hold a handgun.

I'd take exception to the statement that pistols are "designed" for a specific thumbs forward grip.

I'd take exception to the idea that comfort doesn't matter.
When a gun has a good ergonomic fit to my hand, I can "lose the pistol" in my thoughts & concentrate on my shooting.
When a gun fights my hand, it's a constant annoyance as I'm shooting.
In the case of Glocks, finding where to position it in my grip takes some effort. It does not automatically drop in, it does not automatically position itself.

Not to push one over the other, but the Smith M&P 2.0 9mm in all three of its models does fit, does drop right in, and does position itself in the right spot for shooting, without having to fiddle the grip to get it right.

Maybe not explaining that well, but suffice to say I'm not going to be shooting a defensive gun that DOESN'T fit, because it'll never become an effortless part of me, like a gun that DOES fit will.

I do agree with the statement about learning one platform & sticking to it.
I'm not a believer in carry rotation because you have half a dozen guns of varying sizes, types & brands that you LIKE, and WANT to carry simply because you like them.
Pick one, learn one, carry one, and while "like" is an important factor, the selection should be based more on efficiency, not affection.

Otherwise, an 18-minute waste of time watching the video.
Denis

 

[stchman]

I have average sized hand I think. Unless a grip is overly fat, overly short, or overly small, the gun fits my hand. The CZ P10C had an overly stipply grip which made it not so comfortable to hold.

I've had a couple of guns that just putting a Hogue grip on it made it much more comfortable.

 

[rskent]

I think they got it right.

I’m not generally a fan of 8888’s videos. They are a little fluffy for me, and I don’t need to see another AK meltdown or whatever. But I think they were pretty much spot on in this one. I think for most people a gun is pretty much a gun and if your finger reaches the trigger, go shoot it. For most people It won’t matter what it is. (Just to be clear, I am talking about the average person. If you are reading this, you are not the average person so don’t get mad at me.) The intricacies or each brand of pistol are just that, intricacies. They are mostly the same size and perform the same function. A compact pistol is pretty much a compact pistol. A full-sized pistol, no matter who made it is a full-sized pistol. If you like M&P’s best. buy a few and practice with them. If you like Sig’s, please buy a bunch.

I will keep my Glocks. Having said that, I gotta say, nothing fits my hand better than a 1911. A flat mainspring housing and a short trigger fits my short chubby fingers better than anything else. Nothing feels better than a 1911. For me nothing points more naturally than a Government Model. But I will still keep my Glocks. They run well, and they have other attributes that I like. When I pull the trigger a bullet generally comes out of the barrel. Now I’m sure I could get used to a M&P or a SIG if I had too, but why would I want too? What would make it worth the time and the ammo?

I think the main point of the video is that whatever gun you have you should make the effort to learn how the use the thing. And if it gives you problems, don’t blame the gun or your hand. Seems like good advice to me.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

The fit of a handgun to a hand is important, both for function and for feel.
I am not a Glock hater, but I can't tolerate the grip on 'em.
That's not hating, it's just fact.
It's not holding it wrong, it's just an uncomfortable grip.
I like the top half, dislike the bottom half.
There are so many other pistols that do fit my hand extremely well, the Smith M&P line being one example.

I once had a Glock grip reduction done, turned that gun into an entirely different pistol.

In Smith DA revolvers, I rarely keep the factory grips on 'em.
Smiths are particularly bad, I've yet to find a DA Smith revolver grip that fits my hand well, aside from the occasional model that shipped with Hogue rubber already installed.
I'll replace or add T-Grip adaptors.

When I was much younger & didn't know any better, I fought with revolvers that were just wrong for my hand, accepting what the factory put out.
Once I discovered the world of aftermarket grip makers, I never looked back.

Aside from certain classics I don't want to alter, if I'm going to be shooting, and definitely in whatever I'm going to be carrying daily, that gun will fit my hand or I'm not going to be shooting or carrying it.

Single-action revolvers are an exception, I stick with factory grips & adapt my hand to them.

I'd take exception to the video commentary about holding it wrong.
I know how to hold a handgun.

I'd take exception to the statement that pistols are "designed" for a specific thumbs forward grip.

I'd take exception to the idea that comfort doesn't matter.
When a gun has a good ergonomic fit to my hand, I can "lose the pistol" in my thoughts & concentrate on my shooting.
When a gun fights my hand, it's a constant annoyance as I'm shooting.
In the case of Glocks, finding where to position it in my grip takes some effort. It does not automatically drop in, it does not automatically position itself.

Not to push one over the other, but the Smith M&P 2.0 9mm in all three of its models does fit, does drop right in, and does position itself in the right spot for shooting, without having to fiddle the grip to get it right.

Maybe not explaining that well, but suffice to say I'm not going to be shooting a defensive gun that DOESN'T fit, because it'll never become an effortless part of me, like a gun that DOES fit will.

I do agree with the statement about learning one platform & sticking to it.
I'm not a believer in carry rotation because you have half a dozen guns of varying sizes, types & brands that you LIKE, and WANT to carry simply because you like them.
Pick one, learn one, carry one, and while "like" is an important factor, the selection should be based more on efficiency, not affection.

Otherwise, an 18-minute waste of time watching the video.
Denis

See! I told y’all we had some old farts that don’t like change.
DPris, have you tried a Beretta APX? I love the way the gun fits my hand, almost as much as the M&P.

One of my friends is a big HK guy. He just loves them. I shot his P30 and liked it, but I didn’t want to have to learn a totally different mag release so, I have no plans to buy one.
rskent, I’m in the same boat when it comes to my favorite gun, the 1911. But I like the flat mainspring housing and a long trigger.
Never be afraid or to old and grumpy to try something new, be it a different gun or the way to grip a gun.

 

[DPris]

I work with a bunch of new guns every year, I get to see how they "feel".
For my own carry, "fit" is one criteria, functional reliability is tops, and accuracy may come in third.

I've been trying to get Beretta to turn loose on an APX for several months, no luck yet.

I carried a 1911 for several years & it fits VERY nicely, something no factory Glock ever has.

In my case, it's not Old Fartishness, it's trying a bundle of guns over the years & going with what works.
I've carried Glocks off & on, in uniform & on my own time.
Just can NOT get past that grip.


And I'm not going to allow somebody else, I don't care who they are, to cavalierly tell me to basically "Just get over it, hold it right, and shoot the thing, because how it fits your hand has no importance whatever."
Denis

 

[sean m]

I miss Barry, he was entertaining

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I work with a bunch of new guns every year, I get to see how they "feel".
For my own carry, "fit" is one criteria, functional reliability is tops, and accuracy may come in third.

I've been trying to get Beretta to turn loose on an APX for several months, no luck yet.

I carried a 1911 for several years & it fits VERY nicely, something no factory Glock ever has.

In my case, it's not Old Fartishness, it's trying a bundle of guns over the years & going with what works.
I've carried Glocks off & on, in uniform & on my own time.
Just can NOT get past that grip.


And I'm not going to allow somebody else, I don't care who they are, to cavalierly tell me to basically "Just get over it, hold it right, and shoot the thing, because how it fits your hand has no importance whatever."
Denis

The point of the video was not to get people to shoot Glocks, but that A gun doesn’t have to be comfortable to be able to shoot it.
You said that you’ve carried a Glock. I bet that you were able to shoot it proficiency even tho you didn’t care for the grip.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

The point of the video was not to get people to shoot Glocks, but that A gun doesn’t have to be comfortable to be able to shoot it.
You said that you’ve carried a Glock. I bet that you were able to shoot it proficiency even tho you didn’t care for the grip.

They just didn't say it so nicely... not one "please" the whole video!

 

[DPris]

I fully realize the point of the video was not to persuade people to carry Glocks, just as the point of my commentary is not to get people to carry Smiths.

Glocks were mentioned, I used Glocks as being foremost in the "Doesn't Fit" category for me as an example.
I could shoot the things proficiently, but they annoyed me every time I did.

No, a gun doesn't have to be comfortable to shoot it, but why the hell SHOULD I keep shooting a gun I don't & can't like, when there are alternatives I can & do?

If somebody, in a discussion, asks why I don't shoot one, I certainly have a right to say "It doesn't fit me".
And I certainly have a right to choose a gun that does over a gun that doesn't.
If the two guys in the video don't want to hear it, they don't need to bring it up.
Denis

 

[tarosean]

But I think they were pretty much spot on in this one. I think for most people a gun is pretty much a gun and if your finger reaches the trigger, go shoot it. For most people It won’t matter what it is. (Just to be clear, I am talking about the average person. If you are reading this, you are not the average person so don’t get mad at me.) The intricacies or each brand of pistol are just that, intricacies.

I think you nailed it right there... I would venture to guess a extremely high number of members here would never ask the counter person for advice when purchasing a new gun. So its really preaching to the wrong audience.

 

[JR24]

I think fit is just a factor of practice and time. You can adjust your grip to nearly any gun (with the exception of too small hands and trigger reach, and too big hands vs small guns) with practice and time.

Fit and comfort just make that process easier and faster.

I'm at the point where I know what I like and what my hands are trained (muscle memory) for. Glocks, 1911s and Sig hammer autos. I know that will ammo and range time I can adjust to just about anything eventually.

For example, I am set with Glock in all sizes and calibers I need so when a new poly hits the market I need it to be exemplary in terms of fit and trigger (and shooting) to make me consider spending money on it. Thus far I haven't found one. Some are more comfortable in the hand, sure, but bullets to paper they offer little my Glocks do not already do.

New shooters, yes, fit will help them have more success faster I believe, but it's not a valid excuse, IMO, If you are willing to put in the time, and you should be if it's a defensive gun, that's just responsible.

YMMV, naturally.

 

[ATLDave]

Some thoughts:

• "Comfort" standing at the gun counter doesn't matter.
• Having a gun that works well for you when you are actually shooting does matter.
• If I shoot an old-style-latch S&W revolver with more than .38 special, the latch cuts the top of my thumb knuckle. That is uncomfortable. I gives zero figs about whether the yahoos in the video think I should or should not replace the latches (saving the originals, of course, in case a future owner wants it back the way it was) with the new design, ground down a bit. I'm gonna do it, and it's going to be more comfortable.
• Oftentimes, an ergonomic problem will be intermittent. For instance, maybe a magazine release is just where it might or might not be depressed without having to re-grip the gun in any way. Maybe it doesn't always slow down a mag change, but sometimes it does. Fix that. Get an extended release or skinnier grips or whatever it takes to make that work.
• I had to laugh when the yahoos said something about how "professional shooters" don't pay attention to gun ergos. The top competitive shooters in the world - the ones whose livelihoods are tied most closely to measured, objective, repeatable performance - absolutely do all kinds of things to guns to make them fit better. From skateboard tape to grinding on frames to changing out triggers to... well, you name it. Competition is extremely efficient at identifying stuff that works/matters and stuff that doesn't. Fitting the gun to the shooter absolutely matters, if you're talking about shooting at a high level.
• If you're talking about shooting at a can-pass-police-department-qual levels, one can pretty much adapt to anything.
• Saying that a competent shooter can shoot competently with anything doesn't prove that ergonomics don't matter. I'm sure Tiger Wood circa 2005 could have beat 99.99% of the golfers on the planet with the rental clubs at the local muni.... but that's not what let him play his best. He went to enormous pains to have his clubs set up exactly how he liked them. Same thing with race car drivers. Any serious driver could lap an average driver in just about any old jalopy... but drivers are extremely particular about how they want their car set up.
• Of course, if you are issued a gun, you have to make do with what you are issued. See post above about passing quals - that stuff usually isn't that hard.

 

[entropy]

I had to laugh when the yahoos said something about how "professional shooters" don't pay attention to gun ergos. The top competitive shooters in the world - the ones whose livelihoods are tied most closely to measured, objective, repeatable performance - absolutely do all kinds of things to guns to make them fit better.

They're talking about a different type of professional shooter-they kind whose targets are sometimes live, and shooting back. And they don't always get a choice about what weapon they use. (Sometimes they do, though.)

Of course, if you are issued a gun, you have to make do with what you are issued. See post above about passing quals - that stuff usually isn't that hard.

The type of shooter they mean is way past merely 'qualifying'. There are some of them here.

That said, I prefer a gun to fit me and feel good also. But I have enough experience with enough different types of guns that I can pick up and 'run and gun' with whatever is available, whether a $10,000 Perazzi trap gun or my 870 Tactical Magnum at the 16 (or 27) yard line. A stock 1911A1 or an STI2011 race gun or even a Glock 21 at the pistol range. A '42 Ishevsk 91/30 with a horrible trigger, or a .300 Mag 700 set up for 1000 yards, at the rifle range. And not embarrass myself at any of them. (I have shot all the above guns, I might add.)
Comfort helps, no doubt, but a good shooter will be a good shot with anything, whether it fits or not.

 

[ATLDave]

They're talking about a different type of professional shooter-they kind whose targets are sometimes live, and shooting back. And they don't always get a choice about what weapon they use. (Sometimes they do, though.)

Right, they're actually talking about soldiers. That's why calling them "professional shooters" is silly. Shooting is a part of their job. So is running. They aren't professional runners. We wouldn't expect them to be able to beat the world-class professional runners in those runners' chosen events. That would be a silly expectation, given how much else the soldiers have to manage. Their jobs are far more complex than just running. And far more complex than just shooting.

This is an especially silly claim in a discussion that seems to be about handguns. As has been discussed many times here, handguns are way, way, way down the list of how soldiers are expected to defeat the "live and shooting back" targets. They're not generally supposed to be prevailing in violent conflict through individual feats of pistolcraft. If it comes to that, something has generally gone very wrong.

Also, pointing to military guys as proof that ergos don't matter is really, really stupid. First, military guys generally are issued the gun(s) they use. They can't choose a different platform. Second, though, look at the rifles/carbines of "operators." They'll frequently have a variety of different grips (fore and aft) and other (removable) changes to their guns that are nothing but ergonomic improvements.

I'd also add that the US Army does have a group of "professional shooters." They're called the AMU. Some of them are professional pistol-shooters. They shoot tens or hundreds of thousands of pistol rounds per year. They practice, they compete, and they instruct non-AMU soldiers on shooting.

Comfort helps, no doubt, but a good shooter will be a good shot with anything, whether it fits or not.

That's generally true. If someone is blaming actual poor shooting on some gun fit issue, that's probably not a correct diagnosis. It's a far leap from that to say that ergonomics are irrelevant. They clearly are relevant. But not how the gun feels standing at the counter.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Right, they're actually talking about soldiers. That's why calling them "professional shooters" is silly. Shooting is a part of their job. So is running. They aren't professional runners. We wouldn't expect them to be able to beat the world-class professional runners in those runners' chosen events. That would be a silly expectation, given how much else the soldiers have to manage. Their jobs are far more complex than just running. And far more complex than just shooting.

This is an especially silly claim in a discussion that seems to be about handguns. As has been discussed many times here, handguns are way, way, way down the list of how soldiers are expected to defeat the "live and shooting back" targets. They're not generally supposed to be prevailing in violent conflict through individual feats of pistolcraft. If it comes to that, something has generally gone very wrong.

Also, pointing to military guys as proof that ergos don't matter is really, really stupid. First, military guys generally are issued the gun(s) they use. They can't choose a different platform. Second, though, look at the rifles/carbines of "operators." They'll frequently have a variety of different grips (fore and aft) and other (removable) changes to their guns that are nothing but ergonomic improvements.

I'd also add that the US Army does have a group of "professional shooters." They're called the AMU. Some of them are professional pistol-shooters. They shoot tens or hundreds of thousands of pistol rounds per year. They practice, they compete, and they instruct non-AMU soldiers on shooting.



That's generally true. If someone is blaming actual poor shooting on some gun fit issue, that's probably not a correct diagnosis. It's a far leap from that to say that ergonomics are irrelevant. They clearly are relevant. But not how the gun feels standing at the counter.

For someone that thought the video was a waste of time, you have gone off pretty deep into the topic. I didn’t go back and watch it again, but I don’t recall them saying anything about the military are law enforcement. And the topic was about people saying that this or that gun didn’t fit there hand, not that they didn’t like this or that gun.
Think about what these guys do for a living. One buys and sells guns and the other teaches people how to use and shoot firearms.
If you buy and sell guns, everyday you will here people say how a gun doesn’t fit their hand. Not that the gun is to big or to small, just that it doesn’t fit. Most often this is just an excuse for lack of knowledge or poor handgun skills. We’ve all seen the guy looking at guns at the LGS that holds a simi auto handgun with the backstrap against his thumb. Right off you know he doesn’t know how to properly hold a gun.
If you’re an instructor, students will blame poor performance on the gun. The instructor then teachers proper grip, sight picture, trigger control and anything thing that may need to be addressed.
But I think John instructs on a higher level of shooter at times.
As men that shoot handguns, and those of us that the handgun is our primary weapon for work, we know the ones that fit our hands better, and the ones we like and don’t like, for what ever reason. But I believe that most of us can shoot just about any gun on the market with proficiency. But we know that there are a lot of people that have handguns that could use a lot more training.

 

[ATLDave]

For someone that thought the video was a waste of time, you have gone off pretty deep into the topic. I didn’t go back and watch it again, but I don’t recall them saying anything about the military are law enforcement.

Please see the post to which I was responding.

As men that shoot handguns, and those of us that the handgun is our primary weapon for work, we know the ones that fit our hands better, and the ones we like and don’t like, for what ever reason. But I believe that most of us can shoot just about any gun on the market with proficiency.

Sure. See my earlier post.

 

[entropy]

I'd also add that the US Army does have a group of "professional shooters." They're called the AMU. Some of them are professional pistol-shooters. They shoot tens or hundreds of thousands of pistol rounds per year.

They have other professional shooters also. Some are AMU 'graduates', many AMU were these guys once. I wasn't talking about SPC Jones in the motor pool, or PFC Johnson in the mess hall, who fire their issue weapon once a year. Or even Sgt. Peterson in the Infantry, who'll get to fire his issue rifle more than those two REMFs. (outside of combat) Men (and women) who do run, too, but spend as much time, or more than the AMU teams shooting. Usually in shoot houses and MOUT units, not Camp Perry Hi-Power or Bullseye. Lovell was one of these guys. IV8888, probably not. From what I can gather`on him, a mortaman in the 3rd ID.