The grip angle myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
I use the sights. They are there for a reason.

I have at least 3-400,000 through 1911's

I have at least 500,000 through High Standard auto pistols and at least 300,000 from S&W revolvers and Glock’s. All require me to look at the sights.

I have never found 1 hand gun with a natural grip, I do however have to compensate for the 1911 the angle is not my favorite.
 
I didn't think of using my scanner. Now I may be dangerous. Could you take an image of the 1911 pointed with the sights aligned? I'd like to show what happens when the wrist is rotated more up.

Aligned how? I was just laying my hand across the scanner, not really aiming or anything.

FWIW, point-shooting, much like sight shooting, is less a matter of "pointing" than of training your wrist and arm to go to a particular angle. Stick to one platform, and you're good.
 
somebody might have said this...

this sounds crazy to me? am i the only one??? Pick up a gun, and if it FITS...tah dah.....
no magic...people are different...small hands, big hands, bones, etc etc etc...
this seems to me like the old "my caliber is better than yours, and heres why!" splittin hairs ;)

good luck on findin an answer to this "angle thing"
 
natural wrist angles, natural 'pointing' angles, and so natural grip angles, and then there aren't. Any kid who ever played cops and robbers & pretended to shoot a bad guy with his thumb and forefinger has used an already-developed natural angle. Pointability is VERY dependent on grip angle.

If you were to put lasers in the fingers of those kids playing cops and robbers, you woould find that people don't point their fingers very well, because there are no consequences for several degrees of error when pointing a finger.

Let me put it this way, I can get Minute of pie plate at 7 yrds by point shooting with my S&W K grip round butts fitted with S&W target grips, and it comes natural. I Had to retrain myself to do it the with Glocks, and that effected how I shot the S&W J frames

That's my point exactly. Because a pistol won't point naturally when you pick it up doesn't mean it will never point naturally. Grip angle isn't something that is right or wrong for a specific shooter. any reasonable grip angle is equally pointable, with a little practice.

Bye the bye, I'd still want a laser in my finger, even if I couldn't hit anything with it!
 
Owen ~

Been thinking about this since you posted it, and have a couple thoughts.

First, I think I agree with you that there is no universal "natural" grip angle. You make a compelling case about the way the human wrist is designed, without a locking point unless the wrist is at the limit of its rotational ability. So far, so good.

However, I believe there may be a "natural" grip angle for any individual person. You kind of touched on that, a little bit, when you said it was a matter of what any individual has practiced shooting. I would not stop there, though. I think I would say that the most comfortable grip angle depends upon the individual's muscle and tendon flexibility, and the exact geometry of one's wrists, as well as the individual's accustomed wrist motions (which may include how much the individual has shot firearms which use a specific grip angle).

One of my best buddies is closely related to an octopus in his wrist flexibility. Doing jujitsu with him is lotsa fun, because it is darn near impossible to get a wrist lock on him even when you do everything exactly right.

Husband, in contrast, has the least flexible wrists I've ever noticed on anyone. You can lock his up pretty well by looking at him cross eyed.

So best buddy has no trouble whatsoever adjusting to various grip angles. His wrists are flexible enough that no grip angle stretches any of his wrist or forearm tendons, or tightens his forearm muscles. So he can "naturally" point guns with lotsa different grip angles without thinking much about it.

Husband, on the other hand, has exactly one grip angle that works for him, and he had to practice bunches even to find that one comfortable. His tendons are tight enough that putting anything in his hand stretches them. There really is no "natural" grip angle for him -- just one that he's taught himself to habitually use.

Two extremes, admittedly. But perhaps gives you an idea what you're up against when you say there isn't a "natural" grip angle. Each individual may have an ideally-comfortable grip angle, but they don't necessarily have only one. And taken as a whole, humanity does not. Further, the individual may have a preferred grip angle based on any number of things -- his own natural wrist geometry, years of previous shooting and getting accustomed to a particular angle, or because he is accustomed to some other repetitive wrist use besides shooting.

Now it gets even more complicated: toss in the size of the grip. (See photos at http://www.corneredcat.com/FirstGun/TryOnGun.htm if you have a hard time visualizing this next bit...)

I have come to suspect that how well the grip fits your hand might also affect how you perceive the "naturalness" of the grip angle and how comfortable that angle is for you. A grip that fits your hand perfectly might allow you a more comfortable range of grip-angle possibilities than one that does not. This would be because a too-small or too-large grip generally forces the wrist to curl slightly to the left or right, which might in turn limit how comfortably you can flex your wrist up or down to cope with a slight change in grip angle.

Dunno if this is clear enough, or if I should keep talking. What do you think?

pax
 
As a guitarist I have learned that there is a difference between what is natural and what is correct. I submit that some of the same techniques for playing guitar can be applied to shooting. For example: Wrist angle. If you bring your arm in to your chest, turn your hand palm up, and let your fingers curl in toward your palm, relax your wrist and arm; that is a natural position for the hand. Now if you retain this same relaxed hand/wrist position and bring your arm up to a one-handed firing position; that is also a natural position for the hand.

I have no idea what degree of angle the hand is in at this point, however, I suspect it isn't 22 degrees. I'm not saying that 22 degrees isn't correct, only that it isn't natural.
 
I'm with Pax and Supernaut. Without bothering to read the whole thread, I can make a reflection or two. (I am also a guitarist.)

I had a friend growing up who was a retired marine, who taught me most of what I know about, well, lots of things.

We were out shooting one afternoon, and he had his issued 1911A1, a S&W single-stack full size .45, (I'm thinking it was a 1045, I can't remember for sure,) a 6" Python, and a 6" K-frame. He had me pick up the Colt in one hand, and the S&W in the other, close my eyes, bring them both up to firing position, and open my eyes. The Colt was lined up perfectly in my right eye. The K-frame was a touch high. Then, the autos. Again, the 1911A1, (which did have the arched mainspring housing,) and the S&W auto. Same thing. The 1911A1 was aligned perfectly.

He explained to me that our hands match, and for both of us, Colt/Browning was a better fit. He told me that in my life, I would use both guns that an institution issued me, and guns that I acquired on my own. While I would be able to make sure that the ones I got on my own would fit, I would still have to master those that don't. He also said that when we picked the 1911 as our sidearm, pistol shooting was traditionally one-handed. (He still hated shooting two-handed.) Shooting two-handed may not be the same fit as one-handed.

I also carried a Glock for many years, but I went back to a 1911, and I put the arched mainspring housing with the lanyard loop in it. Perfect.
 
Well I'm not a guitarist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last week.

All interesting reading, but I'll stick with the conventional wisdom for now. BHP's have excellent natural pointing ability, with 1911's close behind. Of course, maybe that's because it's what I learned on.
 
I was reading an airsoft forum a while back when I was looking for an airsoft pistol to use as an in-home training aid. I read through their reviews section of various makes and makers to get a good buy. About halfway through the reviews, I realized that this was a great site for getting a neutral perspective on various real pistols ergonomics. After all, these people have no brand loyalty to the real pistol manufacturers and most are kids with no prior shooting experience to color their perspective. They're blank slates with no prejudices. And the airsoft guns are pretty close to the originals in terms of their dimensions and controls.

So guess what some junior high kids review of a Glock replica said? He said that the grip angle was too steep for him. The gun was always aiming high until he learned to correct for it. He also wanted an external safety other than the trigger safety (which was a working safety on the replica). Here is a kid who doesn't know anything about Glocks, but he makes two of the common complaints about them when reviewing a Glock replica.

Anyway, do I think the Glock is wrong and everyone else is right? No. That's as bad as the idea that Glocks' have the one true grip angle and all others are ergonomic infidels. I'm open to the option that a range of grip angles may work best for different people. Freedom, beloved freedom!
 
I have not found the handgun I couldn't shoot and usually pretty well if the gun shoots well. I think the grip angle thing is overrated, too. I do believe that single action revolvers point quicker for me. I can hit without the use of the sights more reliably with them at short combat ranges where I tend to hit low with anything else. I also like the way the old plow handle dissipates recoil by rolling in the hand with heavy loads. That's really more important to me since I always use the sights.

But, here again, the one constant in my shooting life is single action revolvers. My first handgun was a single action and I carry them afield and shoot them often and have never been without at least one in my collection. So, to an extent, it's familiarity.
 
:D

Owen,

Like I said earlier, this is in fact a great thread, on a difficult subject , that will make folks think! You even mentioned Shotguns, and this thread being in Handguns , well, perhaps some will think about shotguns and rifles in this light as well.

*ahem* Sure does reinforce why a person needs to select their own firearm, and why it is recommended they do so with a qualified shooter, with the ability to assist in choosing and to get training /lessons in correct basic fundamentals doesn't it? *snicker*

Owen, Thanks for a great thread!

Steve
 
pax,

Interesting about your husband's wrists. Have they been injured, or is he just naturally rigid? :confused:

Your point about grip size is interesting. Doing my patented "make a claw and wiggle it around" methodology, a larger grip would seem to make the wrist less flexible.

As you may have surmised, most of my current shooting is with a Glock 17. This pistol is near my limit for trigger reach. For that reason I generally put down a gun with a longer trigger reach or greater circumference within seconds of picking it up.

Who the heck was the HK 23 designed for anyhow? I'd say less that 10% of the population has hands nearly big enough you shoot that thing well and fast.
 
Don't forget that while point shooting is indeed done from the forearm onwards, most sighted shooting is fro they eyeballs onwards, so you have to include the vertical distance from the eyes to the shoulder.

So if you have a great comfortable angle for point shooting, you have to raise that to level the gun with your eyes, thereby changing the angle.
 
Grip angles for me and thee.

We're forgetting a big part of handgun fit here. After getting a good width, length of trigger reach and general ergonomics, we need to look at grip angle. Everyone is different, so I agree that there is no "correct" or even "best" angle, except for an individual. For the individual selecting a handgun, though, the comfort or "pointability" of a certain handgun may become very important. The only reason to tell a new shooter that it doesn't matter is to push your own preferences onto them. Bad move. I taught my wife what good handgun fit is, she shoots a Sig while I use 1911's. Don't seek converts, just teach.
 
1911 guy, what I am saying is that the grip angle is so secondary that it's darn near a tertiary consideration.

If your wrists are flexible enough to get the sights on the target, then the grip angle is acceptable, because with a little practice, the gun will point for the shooter. Of course this also depends on the shooter being willing to dedicate himself to a single platform.

You may notice I modified my theorem a bit to make it more shooter-centric. The shooter is central, the hardware, and the nature of the hardware is secondary.

IOW:

The purpose of the grip is to allow the shooter to perform without being a hindrance. Grip angle is so far down on the list of possible hindrances that I would put "graspability of the slide" and "protruding magazine floorplates" above grip angle in importance.
 
I can somewhat agree with you, but...

I think you're approaching it backward. When introducing new shooters to handguns, fit, including grip angle, is of critical importance. Making everything "just right" reduces the learning curve. Once the basics are learned well, the shooter can easily adjust to a high or low point of aim.

For example, I can shoot my 1911's, my wife's Sig and even a (shudder) Glock with reasonable accuracy. My wife, however, cannot shoot a 1911 or Glock accurately. The difference is fit and experience. We can adjust the car seat and mirrors while backing out of the driveway. A sixteen year old with a learners permit would have ran into the mailbox already just thinking about adjusting the seat.

So while the equipment is indeed a distant follower of skill and mindset, I think it's a step backward to say it doesn't matter at all. Any obstacle can be overcome with training, but why do that when the obstacle can be made to simply go away?
 
Are you proposing that of all the things that go into the fit of a handgun, that the only differences between those pistols is the grip angle?
 
Not at all.

What i am saying is that skill can and will allow a shooter to compensate for a less than optimum fit. Angle, width, trigger reach, control positions, etc. A shooter who is new and developing those skills should be given the proper tools to work with.

I don't entirely disagree with you. I think if you took an experienced shooter, handed them handgun X and told them to deal with it, they could. An inexperienced shooter would not have the skills needed to make the handgun perform because they'd be fighting the gun.
 
Owen, here's an article that counters your assertion that "there is no natural wrist angle". It's written from the perspective of an engineer designing a workspace to prevent carpal tunnel injuries. The first page does have a good overview of wrist anatomy though, and is pertinent to this discussion.

Edit: Forgot the link - http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=34&page=1
 
Last edited:
If I read the article correctly, no one using isoceles or weaver is using a "neutral" position, but a position with significant dorsiflexion in order to sight the shot.

Back to the topic: I was introduced to centerfires first by trying out a variety of handguns and grips. I found that when I held a 1911 (flat mainspring) "naturally" and pointed with my eyes closed, I was pretty much on target. Glocks and revolvers shot a bit high. So, I chose a 1911. My buddy, who was introduced at the same time, had the same experience, but he had already bought a Glock, so he stuck with it. We pretty much trained in parallel, and I found that I got better faster than he did. I never knew if it was the trigger or the grip angle, but he usually errored high -- so I've always assumed it was grip angle.

Over time, we both hit the same plateau, which I guess proves the point that training overcomes a "natural" angle or shape.

Bottom line, I do believe each person has an ideal starting grip angle and shape, but can adapt with training.
 
http://www.ucgc.org/segments/wrist-injury/

This is the best description of wrist anatomy I've found.

As near as I can tell the neutral position refered to by the the ergonomics paper means that the carpal tunnel is straight. For someone that has carpal tunnel syndrome, this is important.

Reading about carpal tunnel syndrome itself, it seems like there is no real agreement about what causes the actual inflammation. It also seems that only about 10% of the population is at all susceptible to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. It also appears that it is dorsiflexion is where the Carpal tunnel Pain comes from, and not flexion in the other axis. This other axis is the one we are talking about here.

All of the info I can find on finger pointing performance requires the purchase of papers. I'm kinda cheap, so...
 
When I point my CZ75BD it points as natural as my finger, more so than any other gun I have held. However I do believe that I buy Owens theory, but from Pax's point of view.

If your hand fits around the gun correctly and the grip angle isnt extreme you will learn to shoot/point well with it. How your hand wraps around a firearms is much more important than angle to a new shooter. Basically you cant ajust the size of your hand but you can eaisly learn to ajust the angle of your wrist.
 
In other words, there is no neutral position, just limits of travel, especially in the axis we are concerned with when discussing pistol shooting.

This is a false premise. Muscles only contract and relax. Maintaining any position of the wrist in pistol shooting requires an equilibrium between lateral and medial flexors of the wrist, working opposite each other, and any resistance (e.g. the effective weight of a pistol at a given wrist position, determined by a force vector that depends on the weight distribution of the pistol, and the grip angle).

Note that these are the medial and lateral flexors because these terms apply to anatomical position, where the palm faces forward with the hands down at each side.

There is a position where the muscles on either side of the wrist can relax. This is less fatiguing and more "natural" feeling. That contributes to accuracy, since muscles contract as a summation of all-or-nothing nerve impulses, which means that there is a pulsation in a contracted muscle that tends to increase with fatigue. It contributes to easy pointing, since it's FAR easier for the brain to just signal "RELAX" to both muscle groups, than it is for the brain to signal "CONTRACT 23.5%" to one and "CONTRACT 4.6%" to the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top