The grip angle...does it really matter?

[Robb Jensen]

In my experience the grip angle of a gun does not matter at all. This draw can be performed on a German 9mm Luger pistol or a STI 2011.


Here's my draw captured on a still photography camera yesterday.

Find your target and locate the gun.


Draw the gun, weak hand will be at your stomach.


As you bring the gun to your core (stomach/chest) the weakhand meets the guns and you grip it with both hands.


You're still looking at the target and start to see the front sight/muzzle in your peripheral vision.


Your eye focus changes from the target to your front sight. You continue your press out and as the pistol comes up you begin to see the rear sight.


The sights are in focus and when properly aligned on the target you fire.

[ucrt]

I don't think it matters a whole lot on modern pistols because they generally have "close" to the same angle. But I have shot some older handguns or guns with bastardized grips that start to hurt your wrist. I've shot some that start to wear on your wrist painfully after just a few shots. It might be that the odd angles work muscles that don't normally get worked or I just might be a wuss.

I always thought it was like trying punch something when the back of your hand, wrist, and forearm are not in-line - something is going to give! I think the angle should compliment making the recoil push straight back into the arm as one unit and load your wrist up because the angle is too close to 90 degrees.

But maybe it's just me...

.

[nrose8989]

I used to think it mattered..... now I don't

Mainly because I learned how to do a proper press-out (exactly like you described).

My biggest pet peeve is hearing "XYZ gun doesn't point right"...

[titsonritz]

Focusing on the front sight, proper trigger control and follow through is what matters, not the grip angle.

[RogerinTPA]

It "depends". I shoot the Glock well, and have owed one (Gen I G23) for over a decade, but absolutely hate the grip angle, how it sets and feels in my hand when shooting it. It just feels weird as hell to me. Glocks are the only handgun I've fired that generate contempt when I shoot it after 100 rounds or so. It rarely got shot, maybe once every couple of months. M&Ps on the other hand, feels comfortable and I can shoot it all day long (which I currently shoot weekly during normal practice). If a Glock was my only choice on earth, it would get a quick trip to Boresightsolutions for a grip reduction. YMMV.

[Cagemonkey]

You don't believe in "Natural point of Aim"? I know you can force the weapon on target and get proficient through training/drilling, but wouldn't muscling the weapon can cause added fatigue? I find Glocks naturally point high for me. I takes a conscious effort to point the front site down.

[nrose8989]

You don't believe in "Natural point of Aim"? I know you can force the weapon on target and get proficient through training/drilling, but wouldn't muscling the weapon can cause added fatigue? I find Glocks naturally point high for me. I takes a conscious effort to point the front site down.

Not when discussing the handgun.

When you consider "Natural Point of Aim", it's a rifle technique in which you will shift your entire body to naturally align the sights onto the target.

Conversely, when you consider the handgun, you are not going to shift your entire body just to obtain a sight picture. You are going to drive the gun from target to target regardless of where your lower body may be and regardless of where the target may be.

Think of a target low and at your 10 o'clock, then another at shoulder height at your 2 o'clock. There isn't going to be a natural way to shoot those targets, you are not going to take the 2 or 3 extra steps to square off to the targets.

When you really think about it, there is nothing natural about pointing a handgun. Just because you can pick up gun X and put it in front of you with the sights magically aligned isn't natural, it's either muscle memory from time using the handgun, or you got lucky... try doing the same by pointing in different directions other than directly in front of you at shoulder height.

Now consider how you perform your draw. Do you pull the gun out and just throw it out to the target? or do you track the front sight during the press-out? If you did the later then you wouldn't be pointing high when using a Glock. You are also more likely to get a faster aimed hit vs. throwing the gun out in front of you and fishing for the sights.

Just my .02.

[Cagemonkey]

Good explanation. Thanks

[Robb Jensen]

Not when discussing the handgun.

When you consider "Natural Point of Aim", it's a rifle technique in which you will shift your entire body to naturally align the sights onto the target.

Conversely, when you consider the handgun, you are not going to shift your entire body just to obtain a sight picture. You are going to drive the gun from target to target regardless of where your lower body may be and regardless of where the target may be.

Think of a target low and at your 10 o'clock, then another at shoulder height at your 2 o'clock. There isn't going to be a natural way to shoot those targets, you are not going to take the 2 or 3 extra steps to square off to the targets.

When you really think about it, there is nothing natural about pointing a handgun. Just because you can pick up gun X and put it in front of you with the sights magically aligned isn't natural, it's either muscle memory from time using the handgun, or you got lucky... try doing the same by pointing in different directions other than directly in front of you at shoulder height.

Now consider how you perform your draw. Do you pull the gun out and just throw it out to the target? or do you track the front sight during the press-out? If you did the later then you wouldn't be pointing high when using a Glock. You are also more likely to get a faster aimed hit vs. throwing the gun out in front of you and fishing for the sights.

Just my .02.

Very well said. I was about to post the exact same thing.

Natural point of aim really only refers to rifles when shooting standing/prone etc. You don't draw your handgun to full extension and then look for your sights and find your natural of aim with a long time limit like you do in Hi-Power rifle shooting. If you draw your handgun you're probably shooting in within 1-2 seconds.
If you're tracking the front sight then the gun will end up 'pointing' at the target. The bullets go where the front sight is pointing which is why we locate it during the draw and get on the sight before the press out. This is the most efficient way to get the gun on target. I learned this draw from one of the fastest pistol shooters in the world and that was USPSA/IPSC GrandMaster Phil Strader. I worked for Phil for a few months.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc8Il...eature=related

[YVK]

Now consider how you perform your draw. Do you pull the gun out and just throw it out to the target? or do you track the front sight during the press-out? If you did the later then you wouldn't be pointing high when using a Glock. You are also more likely to get a faster aimed hit vs. throwing the gun out in front of you and fishing for the sights.

Just my .02.

Natural point of aim really only refers to rifles when shooting standing/prone etc. You don't draw your handgun to full extension and then look for your sights and find your natural of aim with a long time limit like you do in Hi-Power rifle shooting. If you draw your handgun you're probably shooting in within 1-2 seconds.
If you're tracking the front sight then the gun will end up 'pointing' at the target. The bullets go where the front sight is pointing which is why we locate it during the draw and get on the sight before the press out. This is the most efficient way to get the gun on target.

These are undisputable points, but I think "naturally pointing" is used in different meaning in reference to handguns. It may be terminologically incorrect, and perhaps "less strain or effort" is better term contextually. I track my sights in press-out all the same whether I draw Glock, P7 or 1911. With Glock my strong hand has to be canted forward more aggressively than when I hold 1911 or HK; otherwise at the end of my extension I'll still be pointing up.

In other words, with 1911 and P7 I need to acquire grip, draw, get support hand on, extend out and track my sights - and I am on target. With Glock, I need to do all that plus cant my strong hand forward a bit - hence, I consider Glock, for the lack of better word, less naturally pointing for me due to grip angle.