Are Crimson Trace grips generally shunned?

[314159]

My J frames are nigh onto arms length tools with my older eyes and no CT grips. Many of the pros seem to agree and I read of them being widely used and recommended. I pair them with a fiber optic front sight and get very good results, in light or dark.

This SME endorsed device barely gets even mentioned in reference to other pistols. What am I missing here?

My theory is that the bulk of most of the CT grip designs negatively affects the pistol's handling so much that they may be counter productive in general. I'm generally a Sig guy (with an XL glove size) and the CT grips added bulk really bother me in particular on those guns. It gets even worse if I'm wearing winter gloves of course.

So, am I just unaware of widespread usage or do the pros know/teach/recommend something about these grips I don't?

[joshs]

The ergonomics and durability of some of the models aren't great, but some work really well. I see a lot more on M&Ps than any other full size pistol. Likely because that is the best integrated laser grip that CT makes. If I were using an M&P, I'd almost certainly use lasergrips, but I haven't had the greatest luck with the Glock models.

[GJM]

I really like the CT dual visible/IR product for the Sig 226.

[Chuck Haggard]

I really, really like the CT grips for the J frames and other snubs.

On some semi auto pistols they are value added, on the Glocks they interfere with the ability to run the gun correctly IMHO.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I like the CT grips on my 642. Found them comfortable and fit well. Took Claude's snubby class with them on the gun. Worked for me.

[314159]

One of the things that bug me the most is that the grip has to be "just so" on some guns to get them to work consistently. I wonder if that alone is a reason to pass them by.

[TheRoland]

On guns where they work very well, CT grips still cost money, and people will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid spending money.

I like them a lot on M&Ps, snubs, and 1911s, which appear to work well and have good grips. If you're running a
Glock, I can understand the hesitation. But if you're running a 642, passing them by because they don't fit well on Glocks doesn't seem to follow.

[VolGrad]

I had them on a j-frame in the past and thought they were great. On a Sig 239 I thought they were helpful at times but I generally chased the dot. On a GLOCK I hated them. The grip was just too much to take. It was uncomfortable and cumbersome.

[Appalachained]

I have the Lasergrips on my HD fun G37 and the LaserGuard on a G26. I like being able to turn them off at the range. The laser grips don't add much to the grip like the Laserguard does.People will chime in soon saying how you'll become dependent on them. It's never been an issue for me because I aim with the sights and don't even notice the dot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtnbkr]

I have a set of 105s on my j-frame.

They fit my hand well and I have no problem activating the laser.

However, the glare of the dot on the target screws with my eyes and I have a difficult time focusing on what I'm doing. I shoot a little better, but it's tedious, if that makes sense.

I haven't decided if I'm going to keep them or not.

Chris

[PHUMC BEAR]

I use them on my LCR and it's flawless. My opinion is the CT was perfectly designed for the snubby wheel gun...

...oh, look...my first post...

[Chuck Haggard]

I have a set of 105s on my j-frame.

They fit my hand well and I have no problem activating the laser.

However, the glare of the dot on the target screws with my eyes and I have a difficult time focusing on what I'm doing. I shoot a little better, but it's tedious, if that makes sense.

I haven't decided if I'm going to keep them or not.

Chris

Get ye to a range that will allow you to shoot at a cardboard IDPA or USPSA target that is wearing a T-shirt. You'll change your mind.

[SLG]

I have them on my J frames. They work well and for the number of rds I put through them (not that many) they have held up year after year for a long time now. I use the 405's, and have had them on ever since they were first available.

I have used them on Sigs, 1911's and Glocks fairly extensively. Somewhere around 100,000 rds with the Sig and a bit less with the others. IMO, they are not ready for hard use. My Sig would lose zero somewhere around 3,000 rds pretty regularly, and as noted above, they molded them off the hogue grips and so they are just too big for most people. The only pistol induced hand and arm problems I have ever had came from the Sig and CT grips. Aside from losing zero, they would flat out break between 10 and 20,000 rds. Once they went into my case for an overseas deployment just fine, and when I took them out at the other end, they were broken.

The 1911's tend to function even worse, as do the Glocks. The 1911 Master series is my favorite, but with gloves on, they are a drop too big for me.

On an L frame, they are difficult for me to activate.

So, for me, they are J frame only.

As an aside, I used to know the owner, and have told them about these issues for many years in a row. They seemed ot be very interested in improving the product, but they never did. They just sent me new grips whenever I asked, which is nice, but at the end of the day, they are toys for casual users, nothing more.

[Crash41984]

I had a set of CT grips on a Sig (when I used to carry Sigs) and also on a J Frame. I used them for several years and came to the realization that I was putting too much reliance on the red dot. My groups had tightened without a corresponding increase in skill. I ditched them around 5 years ago and I am definitely better for it. My 0.02.

[JDB]

....... but at the end of the day, they are toys for casual users, nothing more.

That's a little bit severe. Not that I disagree with your experience at all. My experience is much much less, but kinda reflects yours.

However, I think they make a ton of sense on something like a nightstand M&P pistol, that doesn't see a heavy firing schedule. To me, that's not a toy at all, that's a pretty legitimate purpose, and a good application
And I don't believe in depending on the laser at all, 99% plus of my practice was with without the laser. But it was always amazing to see how useful they could be.

Anyway, they have their applications, wouldn't write them off as just a toy. At least for some purposes.

But yes, sure wish they were more durable.

[TDA]

I bought a bunch back when I was an NRA Basic Pistol Safety instructor and they ran a pretty great deal, thinking you'd get all your students hooked on them I guess. I still have and use the pair on my old floating J Airweight Bodyguard, which seems to be the killer app for this product. It was a big step up on that gun from stock grips and a Tyler T.
I had the setup for a Glock 23 and sold it, gun and all. I still have a set for a P226, which really does makes the grip too big, and a set for a 1911 which I now realize has just been sitting in the parts bin for ten or more years completely untried.

[BillSWPA]

I have LaserGuards on my Kel-Tec P-32 and P3AT, North American Arms .380, and a 1911. I have also tried them on a Glock 26, but took them off before long.

The dot is visible indoors at all times but not outdoors except at night or close to dawn or dusk. All of mine are red lasers.

On the tiny pocket guns, the laser is a very serious accuracy enhancer when it can be seen, which in most cases is when you are likely to need a gun. Using the laser, I can get at least as good accuracy from these tiny guns as I could a full size gun without a laser. I would almost call them a necessity on these tiny guns. They change the grip very little, but do make magazine extensions advisable on the Kel-Tecs.

On my 1911, the accuracy improvement was small. It hardly changes my grip at all. For some reason, this is the most visible of all the red lasers I have tried. There are some light conditions where even tritium sights - which I put on any serious purpose gun that will take them - are tough to see, and the laser is easy to see under these conditions. Also, this 1911 is the gun in the lockbox by my bed, so the likelihood of needing it without time to grab my glasses is high.

On my Glock 26, the accuracy improvement was small. Due to the shape of the grip and my hand size, the button was under one of the joints in my finger, causing me to lose activation between shots. This is why I took it off this gun.

For practice, I am a strong believer in doing almost all practice with iron sights. If I ever had to shoot something other than a paper target, I would do exactly what I always do with iron sights and just use whichever sight system comes into view first.

I have stayed away from green lasers since these are a bit too visible at night, with not only the dot but also the beam being visible, telling a burglar right where I am and to some e tent what I am doing.

[SLG]

That's a little bit severe. Not that I disagree with your experience at all. My experience is much much less, but kinda reflects yours.

However, I think they make a ton of sense on something like a nightstand M&P pistol, that doesn't see a heavy firing schedule. To me, that's not a toy at all, that's a pretty legitimate purpose, and a good application
And I don't believe in depending on the laser at all, 99% plus of my practice was with without the laser. But it was always amazing to see how useful they could be.

Anyway, they have their applications, wouldn't write them off as just a toy. At least for some purposes.

But yes, sure wish they were more durable.

I guess it's severe if you are happy using a product with known issues in a life saving capacity. I don't consider my family's defense (home defense gun) to be less important than the public, so why would I use gear at home, that is known to fail, when it won't cut the mustard at work?

Everyone has different priorities and concerns. Your concern is getting a feature, rather than getting quality. Mine is the other way around. Diversity drives the market.

[JDB]

I'd agree (and do with the second part), but for me it's only been an enhancement. Lemme 'splain.

I like the CTC lasergrip size and shape for M&P9s. I don't in any way depend on the laser workinng. In the 3 years that that was my primary pistol, I shot maybe 12-15k through that gun, with the laser grips on. 99% of that was using iron sights. Yet, every time I shot with the laser, it helped. I did quite a bit of dry fire work with it

So for me, big potential benefit, with no downsides. If it didn't work, then oh well, my eyes were expecting to see sights anyway.

The only failure I had was the diode got dimmer, and it would unintentionally turn on in USPSA matches when I didn't want it to. That was embarrassing, until I learned to tape over the laser.

Granted, my gun wasn't out in the elements and didn't see the hard use like you did. But for my applications, it was a benefit.

The benefit (potentially much easier sighting in low light) outweighed the cost (I'd have to use iron sights, just like I did most of the time...plus frustration and cost of the unit).
Maybe if I had a much higher failure rate I'd feel different, or if my zero wandered. But my zero didn't wander, and I checked it regularly (like every time I dry fired, so multiple times per week).

Anyway, I can totally get where you're coming from, but think our applications are a little different here. I prefer the grips (shoot better than the factory med or large) in that particular gun. The loss of zero thing would definitely make me reconsider though.

Anyway, been shooting a P30 for the last couple years. Don't see myself going back, but do miss the capability the laser brings. Even if I rarely actually shot with it. Definitely wish the quality were better.

[SLG]

I think the laser is tremendous benefit. I wish there was a pistol option that worked as well as the rifle options out there.

The problem with your train of thought (unless I missing something) is that you may not be depending on the laser to work, but if you need the gun, and you use the laser, and the laser is either broken or not zero'd, you have just lost valuable time and possibly fired rounds that will not impact your target. They may injure someone else, cause you to get shot, who knows?

My CT grips all failed under nice conditions. Which is why I can't trust them for anything at all.

If you have had no issues with your M&P grips, then maybe you've been lucky, or maybe those grips are better made, or whatever. Many other M&P grips have failed, so like with everything else we do, you pays your money and takes your chances.

I'm not trying to beat up on you at all. We all have different needs, wants and comfort levels. I was just responding to the fact that you agreed with me, but thought my ultimate assessment was a bit harsh. I'm a huge fan of the CT concept, and on my snubbies, which I really don't carry, they have worked fine. It's all the others that seem to be weak. I really wish they weren't.

[JDB]

I think the laser is tremendous benefit. I wish there was a pistol option that worked as well as the rifle options out there.

The problem with your train of thought (unless I missing something) is that you may not be depending on the laser to work, but if you need the gun, and you use the laser, and the laser is either broken or not zero'd, you have just lost valuable time and possibly fired rounds that will not impact your target. They may injure someone else, cause you to get shot, who knows?

My CT grips all failed under nice conditions. Which is why I can't trust them for anything at all.

If you have had no issues with your M&P grips, then maybe you've been lucky, or maybe those grips are better made, or whatever. Many other M&P grips have failed, so like with everything else we do, you pays your money and takes your chances.

I'm not trying to beat up on you at all. We all have different needs, wants and comfort levels. I was just responding to the fact that you agreed with me, but thought my ultimate assessment was a bit harsh. I'm a huge fan of the CT concept, and on my snubbies, which I really don't carry, they have worked fine. It's all the others that seem to be weak. I really wish they weren't.


Hey no worries at all, I appreciate hearing your experiences and opinion. You have a much more valid data set to work from then me I think.
Your experience with wandering zero gives me pause. And I could definitely see good reason for some unit saying "hell no" to dealing with the headaches, due to unreliability and wandering zero.

I was always paranoid about my zero, so I would compare it to my sights almost every day (whenever I dry fired). When I checked on the range, corrections (when needed) were small (2-3 inches at 25 yds), except if I removed the unit from the frame (in which case I re-zeroed). It could well very well be I was just lucky (dittto for the overall reliability and durability). Or maybe my routine of checking laser/vs sights daily nipped any problems in the bud. Anyway, not difinitive, but it worked for me in my limited experience. I won't ignore yours.


The other thing was, I was determined to not let the laser slow me down. For reference, I shoot IDPA classifiers in the 90 second range, and used to do it a couple times a month. The few times I've done it with the laser, I noticed I was about .1-.2 slower on the mozambique drills (strings 1-3)..but only for when I was determined to use the laser. When I just shot whatever came first, I used my sights on the cloes fast stuff. However, on the 2 ea head shots, or the longer range stages, there was no denying the benefits of the laser. Back at 20 yds, it seemed like I was cheating. It wasn't a huge difference, but I was a little more accurate and scores improved. I noticed the same thing in my dry fire routine...slower up close, faster/more precise at distance.

Anyway, all that practise with iron sights, and I was able to shoot whatever I saw, and overall scores improved. Sample size of one and all, and probably could have done more experimentation

The other thing I really came to appreciate is that the laser made me develop as a shooter. Kinda like how open shooters can become better at pulling triggers, because now they see the movement of the gun (or so I've heard). By using the laser in dry fire, I became better at working the trigger at speed. I got to be more accurate, and I think the laser helped. Pretty handy for a guy that shoots maybe 3-5k rounds a year if I'm lucky.

Slightly off topic, its been a really nice aid in teaching for me. The ability to do ball and dummy drills with the laser has really helped a lot of people get their trigger control under control. For many of the folks who come to me, its been a really useful tool.

Finally, I still think even with wandering zeros (within reason...), laser might potentially be worth it for folks that aren't going to train much, and probably would only point shoot otherwise. Especially as eyes get older. Different can of worms there, I know, and I'm open to persuasion.

Anyway, while I don't unequivicably advocate laser grips, I think they can still have a place for some folks on some guns.


Thanks