I'm mostly a 1911 shooter, but I've always liked the Glock grip angle. It's probably the thing I like most about Glocks, aside from their (mostly) robust utility.
I'm mostly a 1911 shooter, but I've always liked the Glock grip angle. It's probably the thing I like most about Glocks, aside from their (mostly) robust utility.
I've thought the same thing about the Glock grip, but find few who agree with me. I think it's because most people have a different idea of what a locked wrist is when throwing a punch. I've studied martial arts since I was 19 and was always taught to lock my wrist forward when punching to align the bone structure with the first 2 knuckles. I didn't start shooting until I was 30, and my first pistol was a Glock. It pointed naturally for me from day one, probably because the grip angle matched my idea of a locked wrist from previous training. Most people have a different definition of a locked wrist and the Glock angle feels weird to them.
I like glocks... However, I am not sure if the angle is what is responsible for its shoot ability. I actually believe that the angle could cause the grip and elbow injury because it is not natural . I still tend to grip all my pistols similarly to glocks because I shot them for a quite while but I am currently working on changing my grip to make it more natural. As a matter of fact, I would gladly switch to glocks if they change the damn angle
Last edited by cheby; 12-11-2019 at 01:08 AM.
I found the exact same thing. With a G19, Beretta 92 or M9, HK USP, or 1911, I suck equally with all of them.Originally Posted by TGS
I gave a VP9 a fair shake for several thousand rounds. Man it sure felt comfortable, seemed to point "better" than a Glock, but I never did end up shooting it as fast or as accurate as my G19. Plenty of guns feel "comfortable" but I've learned feeling good in the hand does not equate to speed and accuracy.
I was not an easy convert to the Glock world. I went from a 1911 to my first plastic gun, a XDm in .40. I shot the XDm better than my 1911 and I liked the capacity increase. I bought into the whole idea that Glocks were junk and they pointed weird. Then in 2011 I went to my first formal class. I actually won an award for the most accurate shooting with the XDm, but I was introduced to the G19 in that class. (I know, late bloomer).. It only took a week and I was shooting my newly purchased Gen3 G19 better than any of my previous handguns.
8 years later I'm still shooting G19's, but am experimenting with an MR918. Funny enough, I shoot the MR918 best with it's "high" backstrap, the one that is virtually the same as the Glock grip angle.
Part of it is because you switched to 2011 but if we looked at CZs and Tanfos, with their dominance in certain places, we'll see that what they do with their grips is very close, although more refined, to Glock's. When I get a few draws with a Glock and then draw my Shadow 2 just by the index, I get a lot less vertical misalignment between the two than Glock and, say, Beretta. I even noticed that 2011s started doing that. Your PT EVO angles the wrist a little more than conventional 1911s, and Cheel2 E2 is almost like CZ.
We all know that we should be able to lock the wrist at any angle; I do think that Glocks make it a little more effortlessly.
I am trying hard to get this argument going in such a way so you'll get sucked into posting that pic of your dots target...
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
I think the soft polymer Glock uses is a huge factor, and that it does absorb a good amount of recoil sharpness/ vibration.
The PPQ I had had a much sharper / snappier recoil impulse then the Glock. For no reason that I could explain - comparable weight slides, comparable recoil spring weights, identical ammunition.
The only main difference I could find is that the PPQ uses a much more rigid / less 'flexy' polymer. And I suspect that this more rigid polymer is less able to absorb / dissipate the recoil impulse.
From firing an all steel CZ75, with my support thumb pressing against the frame, I was really surprised by how much recoil vibration was transmitted to my support thumb from the metal frame.
I'm a big believer in "there's no 'correct' grip angle."
There's too much variation in hand sizes (not to mention, palm thickness and musculature) for a one angle for all.
This chart doesn't even cover palm thickness, yet you can already see how many variables there are in the hand beyond "small medium and large."
As such, I really feel that the future of pistol ergonomics is not in adjustable size grip backstraps, but in adjustable grip angle backstraps to suit each persons natural point of aim.
90% of the rounds I've fired down range have been with Glocks. Glocks are my primary pistols.
But when I first pick up a Glock after a long trip abroad and press out - it's pointed high. It takes a fair amount of reps to re-learn to point it slightly lower.
Whereas while I have maybe 1% of my shooting done with CZ pistols, I can pick one up, press out, and the sights will be aligned and flat first time. Likewise, with a 1911, another 1% of my shooting, press out, and it's pointed a bit low.
Meanwhile, my shooting buddy's natural angle is the opposite - Glock is flat, CZ is low, 1911 is very low.
Getting back to competition, its worth noting that the 3 handguns that seem to be dominating are Glocks, CZ variants, and 1911/2011 variants. All with different grip angles (and different everything elses.)
I think the easiest explanation for why we're seeing Glock's represented with $2-3k pistols is that for a high level, world class shooter, the gun is only a small factor in their performance.
Obviously the gun can't be trash, but once 'good enough' has been achieved, the rest of the success is a function of shooters skill and practice.
As for why we're seeing Glock's instead of M&P's or VP9's etc, the answer is likely that Glocks are just more popular polymer handguns with better aftermarket infrastructure.
After thinking about this some more, I've one thing to add.
For some reason, I've always been more confident with my marksmanship and felt more precise with a big revolver, especially something like an N-frame.
For reasons I can't articulate or justify, the only semiauto that gives me that same immediate feeling of precision and confidence is a Glock 21.
My actual empirical performance with a G21 indicate somewhat more precision (so long as I do my part) but a slight reduction in speed vs a G19 or M9. If I deliberately shoot the G21 faster it gets sloppy, and if I deliberately slow down with a G19 or M9 I can usually tighten up my shooting to match.
So performance wise I'd call it a wash, but there is something about a G21 that just naturally lines up for me. I can't explain it.
Glocks shoot well, and I’ve always thought that grip and low bore axis really did well to control recoil. However, what also controls recoil well is weight. I’ve shot Glocks in Production, Limited, and now Carry Optics. I personally feel there are better options, but they come at greater cost and sometimes higher maintenance.
By the time spring is here, I’ll have a Shadow 2 carry optics gun, and I just had a match fit barrel done on my 34 to fix its horrid accuracy. I’m also adding the thug plug and pure tungsten guide rod per recommendations I’ve gotten here. I’ll be shooting both in competition and will see which works better for me.
Reply With Quote
