Hand size... Why is there no standard?

[Schwing]

I had a thought today that made me wonder, why is there no standard for hand size? We have it for feet, waist, neck and just about everything else so why not hands?

I can see so many practical applications for this. Just about every musical instrument, firearm and even gloves come to mind. I think we have hit a level of sophistication and technological level that we deserve to have something more defining than small, medium or large

As a guy with very small hands, I find it a challenge to find full size guns that I can manipulate well. I know there would be a large cost associated with this idea but being able to buy a handgun with a grip in say a men's 9 1/2 wide sure would be nice.

 

[JTQ]

Gloves come in sizes, just like shoes. Normally, your glove size and shoe size are the same.

http://www.gibson-barnes.com/prod-293962/Nomex-Flying-Gloves.html

 

[JTQ]

I know there would be a large cost associated with this idea but being able to buy a handgun with a grip in say a men's 9 1/2 wide sure would be nice.

You'd have to figure out what exactly a gun grip size would be.

Some guns, designed many decades ago, when folks were generally smaller, are often better options for those with small hands. Guns like the 1911 and the Browning Hi-Power are usually good choices in full size guns for those with smaller hands.

 

[JTQ]

I recall a Charles E. Petty article from several years back, on the S&W SIGMA. Mr. Petty mentioned S&W checked with the USAF on typical hand sizes (the USAF apparently keeps track of such stuff), and used that information in designing the grip of the SIGMA. It is another gun that is pretty good for those with smaller hands.

 

[bannockburn]

Schwing

As another chap with small hands I understand your plight all too well. Don't know if I need a "size number guide" to direct me to the best fit in gun sizes though. Basically if I were looking to get something new in a handgun I would go to a gun show and try to handle as many of the guns that I'm interested in. By now I know that the Browning Hi-Power and SIG P229 are a good fit, while the Glock 17 not so much so. The Steyr M9 is also very nicely sized but something like the Beretta 92 really isn't. I generally look for the compact version of a full size model as it has been "downsized" a bit to make it more comfortable to those with smaller hands; much like the Ruger SR9c over the SR9 or the CZ P01 versus the CZ 75. And of course most single stack magazine guns, like the Colt Government or Commander (one of my favorites), also help in cutting down the overall width of the grip frame.

 

[Sistema1927]

I think that the problem is that the way that handgun grips feel can be very subjective, and varies from person to person. Some people with large hands like smaller grips, others with smaller hands may like larger grips. What would be standard?

 

[maxxhavoc]

I think that the problem is that the way that handgun grips feel can be very subjective, and varies from person to person. Some people with large hands like smaller grips, others with smaller hands may like larger grips. What would be standard?

This. If gloves are the same size as shoes, I need size 15.

The most comfortable gun in my hand is a compact 1911. With flat mainspring housing and thin grips. Or a J-frame size revolver. Go figure.

 

[chicharrones]

Makes me think of my old motorcycle days with 7/8" and 1" handle bars. Both with a one-size-fits-all reach to the levers.

At least many guns have changeable grip panels, stocks, or grip inserts. I remember passing up a thin grip set made by Trausch for the Beretta 92, but silly me never bought them because I thought they were ugly at the time. Instead, I bought nice to look at wood grip panels, but all that did was make a 92 even fatter.

 

[1911 guy]

There's more than just "size" in handguns. You've got the thickness of the frame from front to back, width of the frame from side to side and trigger reach, measured from the rearmost point of the grip frame to the face of the trigger. Now you add in the human factor. Palm size, length of fingers and thumb. Then there's the natural angle of the wrist, which is slightly different for everyone.

 

[larryh1108]

Many guns now come with 3 different grip straps to make it easier to find a good grip. As has been said, smaller hands like single stack guns due to the lack of girth. Lots of choices out there for all sizes.

 

[Sam1911]

Some guns, designed many decades ago, when folks were generally smaller, are often better options for those with small hands.

That might actually be quite true.

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs.

That was the average, not the little guy in the platoon.

I think it's a really interesting question. Various Enfield rifles had different length butt stocks that could be fitted, and I think they were numbered like 1, 2, and 3.

Now it is obviously a little more difficult to do that for handguns in an effective way, but it also really might point to the fact that handguns were considered so secondary for most troops.

 

[Deus Machina]

It's not just the size, it's that hands are all built different.
Heredity, soft tissue mass, job, injury... I've met guys with big meaty palms and a bass player with creepy-long spider fingers but a thumb like a big toe.
In my case, I have to find 'medium' gloves that fit my palms, but sort through the selections to find ones with longer thumb and little finger than the rest.
And that's not counting my issues with shoes, either...

In general gunmakers shoot for what feels best, rather it be for the target audience, around the designer's office, or just Gaston Glock's weird pointing angle and finger grooves. Yeah, I said it!

 

[boom boom]

That might actually be quite true.

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs.

That was the average, not the little guy in the platoon.

I think it's a really interesting question. Various Enfield rifles had different length butt stocks that could be fitted, and I think they were numbered like 1, 2, and 3.

Now it is obviously a little more difficult to do that for handguns in an effective way, but it also really might point to the fact that handguns were considered so secondary for most troops.

Enfield stocks were S for Short (sometimes confused with the Stylized Savage S mark), Regular (usually unmarked), and L for Long (sometimes confused with Long Branch).

 

[rodspade]

There's more than just "size" in handguns. You've got the thickness of the frame from front to back, width of the frame from side to side and trigger reach, measured from the rearmost point of the grip frame to the face of the trigger.

I often have trouble with trigger reach on full size guns. Even with guns that are known to be "good" for people with small hands, I feel like I really have to stretch to get the pad of my finger flat on the face of the trigger.

Trigger reach would be an easy specification for manufacturers to publish, along with grip width and circumference. But they never do publish such details - they tell me everything about the gun except what I really need to know.

 

[everydefense]

There is a loose scale for glove sizing that most manufacturers abide by, but the "this hand measurement equals that glove size" chart varies slightly from company to company. Also keep in mind that some use a unisex scale, while others use a separate scale for men and women (typically women's gloves would go from small or extra small up to large, while men's go from medium to extra large; often a men's medium is the same size as a women's large). So just like for shoes, vanity sizing gets in the way of what could be a (more) straightforward fitting process.

As others have rightly noted, hands, just like feet and other parts of the body have a more complex matrix of sizes and shapes than can be noted with a single "size". In my opinion, clothing should be sold by at least two actual measurements (think men's jeans), as opposed to arbitrary sizing scales. But I'm sure that will never happen, seeing as the U.S. has a very hard time changing traditions (see: metric system). Of course the main reason manufacturers boil their products down into a single "size" is so they can simplify their production into as few "models" as possible, as opposed to offering many length/width combinations. Besides, the majority of the population (in the middle of the bell curve) fit these standard offerings, so "the system" works in most cases.

This. If gloves are the same size as shoes, I need size 15.

I also wear a size 15 shoe, but wear a size 10 (XL) glove. So I think that rule of thumb (no pun intended) that that poster left is a bit off.

 

[JTQ]

Trigger reach would be an easy specification for manufacturers to publish, along with grip width and circumference. But they never do publish such details - they tell me everything about the gun except what I really need to know.

A single measurement that goes around the backstrap and around the trigger and back to the starting point would be a useful measurement. This would take into account grip thickness and how it affects trigger reach. However, there are so many variables even on single weapons (HK P30 with multiple backstraps and side panels, and 1911's with thin/thick grips and a variety of trigger lengths) to where it would be difficult for a manufacturer to list all the numbers.

 

[Varminterror]

I had a thought today that made me wonder, why is there no standard for hand size?

There are. Gloves do come in standard sizes, both in "general" sizing of Small, Medium, Large, and eXtra Large, but also in numerical sizes like 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5... depending upon the glove brand and type. I wore an 8 1/2 Long for all of my competitive career.

We have it for feet, waist, neck and just about everything else so why not hands?

Like shoes, pants, and shirts, not all hands are created equally. Even within the same brand, say using jeans as an example, you'll see 33"x36" available in slim fit, boot cut, relaxed fit, classic, straight leg, husky, etc. In dress shirts, I know I have to go up a full size between the two brands I wear, and within one brand, I have to wear a half size larger if I buy their "fitted" shirts instead of a classic cut shirt. Even in my size, I can't wear ANY slim fit shirt, because my arms are too big.

So again, like shoes, pants, and shirts, shooters really have to "try on" different pistols to find the proper fit for their hand. It's really not so different than anything else in life.

 

[rskent]

By now I know that the Browning Hi-Power and SIG P229 are a good fit, while the Glock 17 not so much so.

Interesting, I think just the opposite. In my hand a Sig P228 (almost the same as your P229) is a little big. Mainly for that first double action shot. After that it’s fine. Great in fact.
A Glock 17 gen 4 is absolutely perfect (in my hands). Did I say perfect (in my hands). And softer shooting (in my hands). I guess there may be more to it than just size.

 

[bannockburn]

rskent

I guess there may be more to it than just size.

Oh I definitely agree! My P229 has the E2 grip configuration and for me it's a great fit. Felt the same way with a P228 I use to have as well. My Glock 17 Gen.1 has always felt a bit awkward to me, like it's lacking the right curvature and grip dimensions that I love so much with a Hi-Power, a P229, an SR9c, or a CZ P01. It's not so much size or width but configuration and grip shape that make a difference to me.

 

[roval]

mas ayoob's hand size is the standard!!!

naah, he just frequently mentions that his hand size turns out to be the average american male hand size.

 

[JR24]

Not to mention that grip preference changes. I used to want a Glock 21 but even the SF was "too big" for me.

Got a just slightly smaller Gen 4 Glock 21 and it was great.

Fast forward a few years and I run my G21 with the medium backstrap, which makes it a non SF size, the very size that was "way too big".

My hands aren't bigger, just my preference.

 

[Sunray]

Because there is no standard hand size. Don't believe there's such a thing as an average hand size either.
Enfield rifles butt stocks had letters not numbers. B for bantam, S for short, N for normal and L for Long. That applied to our FN C1A1's too. The FN would bop you on the cheek bone if the stock was too short.
The little guy in the PBI platoon was the guy with the MG or the radio. Never figured out why.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

That might actually be quite true.

In the introduction to his book The Sharp End about the life of the fighting man in WWII, John Ellis quoted some pretty amazing facts, such as the average height and weight of a US Soldier at that time. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but these men were waifs by today's standards of physical development, diet, and health. IIRC, the average soldier was 5'-2" and under 150 lbs.

That was the average, not the little guy in the platoon.

I think it's a really interesting question. Various Enfield rifles had different length butt stocks that could be fitted, and I think they were numbered like 1, 2, and 3.

Now it is obviously a little more difficult to do that for handguns in an effective way, but it also really might point to the fact that handguns were considered so secondary for most troops.

One reason the Vikings were so feared. When your opponent in hand to hand combat is 6 to 8" taller and outweighs you by 25-50 lbs you are at a definite disadvantage. Not to mention all he weird noises they made(Beserkers).

 

[Demi-human]

Muscle mass and dexterity have much to do with it. I can single hand hold and manipulate the controls and hammer of my D. Eagle. My friend has hands of the same size, but he is unable to do the same. Even though he is much stronger than myself, he can not get his hands to move in the nessasary motions.

There IS something to the adage, "Fits like a glove."

 

[lysanderxiii]

I had a thought today that made me wonder, why is there no standard for hand size? We have it for feet, waist, neck and just about everything else so why not hands?

I can see so many practical applications for this. Just about every musical instrument, firearm and even gloves come to mind. I think we have hit a level of sophistication and technological level that we deserve to have something more defining than small, medium or large

As a guy with very small hands, I find it a challenge to find full size guns that I can manipulate well. I know there would be a large cost associated with this idea but being able to buy a handgun with a grip in say a men's 9 1/2 wide sure would be nice.

Well, you're wrong.

There is a standard for hand size. You measure the circumference of the hand just below knuckles and there you go, your hand size. (It can be in inches, or cm.)