Bad Trigger Alignment = Bad Grip Angle

[ACIinventor]

Ever wonder why Gaston Glock went with a 22 degree grip angle for his Glock pistols? Answer: Bad Trigger Alignment. It's the reason people are having their Glock grips modified to reproduce an 18 degree grip angle. Browning had it right with the 18 degree grip angle, the natural angle of a pointing hand. Glocks drive to produce a lower bore axis, a good thing for recoil control, is the culprit. Switching to a striker fired system eliminated the need for the space a hammer would occupy in the frame. This in turn, allowed the grip backstrap to curve much higher facilitating the shooter's high grip. But the trigger stayed low in the Glock creating bad alignment. Sure, adapting and training can compensate for the trigger alignment problem. But why go to that trouble when better trigger alignment can be designed into the handgun in the first place. To get your trigger finger correctly on a Glock, you have to torque your wrist down. This isn't natural.

 

[TSiWRX]

Robert Vogel would suggest differently.

I started off not liking the Glock angle, but over time, I've become indifferent.

 

[Annihilator]

I love Glocks, never had any issues whatsoever with the grip angle, I do prefer the grip with no finger grooves though, but I never really had any trouble with the guns that do have the finger grooves.

 

[Snake45]

When I first started reading about handguns, the Luger (and similar Ruger .22) was the only automatic touted as being a "natural pointer." The 1911 was said to point low, even with the "corrective" arched mainspring housing intended to jack the gun up in one's hand a little. Remember that in those days, the default, go-to handgun was the DA S&W or Colt revolver. Only outliers shot 1911s and other autos.

In the intervening years (over 50 of them), LOTS of people have been shooting LOTS of 1911s (and similar guns), to the point where the 1911 is considered to have the "natural" pointing angle and Lugers and Glocks and stuff are said to "point high."

I shoot both autos (mainly 1911s) and DA revolvers about equally and noticed some years ago that my wrist automatically assumed the angle necessary for the barrel to align with my forearm (and the angle is quite different between them).

Shoot enough and your "muscle memory" will adjust for whatever gun you're shooting.

 

[TEXASforLIFE]

My wrist point natural with the perfect glock angle! As for those horrific 1911s not so much! give me a 1911 with a glock angle grip and I'm all over it like flies on my ty neighbors! Not everyone wrist work or point the same. Thus the reason quarterbacks and pitchers can't do both and those who can are able too shoot both style guns? Wheel guns and non 1911 style guns I can shoot very well. As for muscle memory I've tried firing 1,000 rounds using a 1911 and had a hard time hitting dirt in a desert! Beautiful guns and I wish they worked for me. I also thought a 45acp cartridge was a terrible round until I bought a g21. The first mag (13 rounds from winchester white box 230gr fmj) from about 15yards I hit a wooden stake 1.5" wide by 12" tall 11 times. That showed me it wasn't the cartridge.

 

[David N.]

Ever wonder why Gaston Glock went with a 22 degree grip angle for his Glock pistols? Answer: Bad Trigger Alignment. It's the reason people are having their Glock grips modified to reproduce an 18 degree grip angle. Browning had it right with the 18 degree grip angle, the natural angle of a pointing hand. Glocks drive to produce a lower bore axis, a good thing for recoil control, is the culprit. Switching to a striker fired system eliminated the need for the space a hammer would occupy in the frame. This in turn, allowed the grip backstrap to curve much higher facilitating the shooter's high grip. But the trigger stayed low in the Glock creating bad alignment. Sure, adapting and training can compensate for the trigger alignment problem. But why go to that trouble when better trigger alignment can be designed into the handgun in the first place. To get your trigger finger correctly on a Glock, you have to torque your wrist down. This isn't natural.

I never knew about the Glock grip angle until I test fired a G19. When I presented the pistol, the barrel was pointing at the ceiling. I ultimately did not chose this model as my EDC, because it did not feel natural. It was hard coming from a 1911, because every choice seemed inferior somehow.

 

[ACIinventor]

It appears to me Gaston Glock used the 22 degree grip angle to get the trigger finger lower, somewhere in the vicinity of the trigger. Unnatural indeed and a compromise to achieve the low bore axis. But what if we can have both? A low bore axis with good trigger alignment, so the shooter can point the handgun naturally and enjoy better recoil control. Anybody know of any examples already out there? I can only think of the HK P7M8.

 

[TSiWRX]

I don't think that recoil-control necessarily is equated 1:1 with lower bore-axis. To me, recoil-mitigation is more the physical performance of the shooter rather than a characteristic of the instrument in his/her hands. As-such, the extent to which the "fit" of the gun may play towards that is inexorably intertwined into said equation. Similarly, how said shooter defines "recoil control" makes for some differences here, too: some define recoil control as the ability to minimize the deviation of the sight package from the intended point-of-aim from shot-to-shot, while others see recoil control as the ability to return the sight package to the intended point-of-aim efficiently and consistently, regardless of the amount of muzzle rise.

Similarly, as to the "paintability" of the gun, we are all built differently - what's "more natural" for one person may well not be for another. Additionally, influences from outside the confines of the act of shooting can also drastically affect what individuals will describe as "natural." For example, there has always been the mention by those who are engaged in hand-to-hand combative sports that the Glock grip angle feels more natural to them due to the way they're taught to align their knuckles to deliver punches.

 

[Snake45]

Additionally, influences from outside the confines of the act of shooting can also drastically affect what individuals will describe as "natural." For example, there has always been the mention by those who are engaged in hand-to-hand combative sports that the Glock grip angle feels more natural to them due to the way they're taught to align their knuckles to deliver punches.

Wow, a lot to unpack in this great post, but I'll focus on this statement for the moment.

For quite a while now (a couple decades or so), I've thought that whether an individual favored the Weaver or "isosceles" stance might have a lot to do with previous activities and sports the shooter brings to the table, and whether he/she is more comfortable and "natural" facing a task head-on or "bladed." (I'm a firm Weaver-shooter, myself.)

 

[David N.]

Wow, a lot to unpack in this great post, but I'll focus on this statement for the moment.

For quite a while now (a couple decades or so), I've thought that whether an individual favored the Weaver or "isosceles" stance might have a lot to do with previous activities and sports the shooter brings to the table, and whether he/she is more comfortable and "natural" facing a task head-on or "bladed." (I'm a firm Weaver-shooter, myself.)

When I first started shooting handguns as a teenager, I naturally bladed away from the target like I was shooting my bow or shotgun. However, I switched to head-on after military handgun training.

 

[Bassbob]

When I first started shooting handguns as a teenager, I naturally bladed away from the target like I was shooting my bow or shotgun. However, I switched to head-on after military handgun training.

Likewise I found myself on the range in Weaver until I began taking training classes.

 

[C. Sumpin]

When I first started shooting handguns as a teenager, I naturally bladed away from the target like I was shooting my bow or shotgun. However, I switched to head-on after military handgun training.

The military, and everyone, has come a long way baby.

My 1911 military training (vintage '63) was a wide stance one handed grip, facing 110 degrees away from the target with right arm fully extended and head turned with chin on shoulder for the sight picture! Useless for self defense but produced high scores for the instructor. Grip and accuracy was surprisingly strong following the instructors method of grip with the thumb straight up against/near the safety to offset the LH rotation of barrel twist at time of discharge.

As for the Glocks, I'v shot competitively with them and done well though was never fond of the long trigger pull and reset. My last concealed carry class (Texas, eight years back) I shot a Glock (loaner, 50 rounds) from their shelf and scored second highest in the class with the bulls eye shot out of the target. I also had a blister on the inside of my trigger finger from friction on the bottom of the trigger guard which I could not eliminate. I have since liquidated my entire line of Glocks and stay with 1911 style in more than one manufacturer.

While the full on two handed straight ahead to the target is my go to stance, with my luck I figure that won't be possible in a real life situation so incorporate into my training awkward and offbeat positions and views of the target.

Now to that Gent that prefers Glock cuz he thinks he might forget the real safety of a 1911: My draw is with the thumb on the (always extended) safety, and fired that way (grip does not adjust after the safety goes off and before ignition) which goes a long way in holding down recoil and twist. I have never had a case of "forgetting" to activate the safety from safe to fire.

 

[TEXASforLIFE]

The military, and everyone, has come a long way baby.

My 1911 military training (vintage '63) was a wide stance one handed grip, facing 110 degrees away from the target with right arm fully extended and head turned with chin on shoulder for the sight picture! Useless for self defense but produced high scores for the instructor. Grip and accuracy was surprisingly strong following the instructors method of grip with the thumb straight up against/near the safety to offset the LH rotation of barrel twist at time of discharge.

As for the Glocks, I'v shot competitively with them and done well though was never fond of the long trigger pull and reset. My last concealed carry class (Texas, eight years back) I shot a Glock (loaner, 50 rounds) from their shelf and scored second highest in the class with the bulls eye shot out of the target. I also had a blister on the inside of my trigger finger from friction on the bottom of the trigger guard which I could not eliminate. I have since liquidated my entire line of Glocks and stay with 1911 style in more than one manufacturer.

While the full on two handed straight ahead to the target is my go to stance, with my luck I figure that won't be possible in a real life situation so incorporate into my training awkward and offbeat positions and views of the target.

Now to that Gent that prefers Glock cuz he thinks he might forget the real safety of a 1911: My draw is with the thumb on the (always extended) safety, and fired that way (grip does not adjust after the safety goes off and before ignition) which goes a long way in holding down recoil and twist. I have never had a case of "forgetting" to activate the safety from safe to fire.

The REAL safety is your trigger finger no matter what gun you use! 1911s have a use, but no use for me! The grip angle just doesn't work for me. Period! SIG, S&W, Walther, Magnum Research and FN work just as fine as my Glocks as far as non 1911 semiautomatics.

 

[C. Sumpin]

The REAL safety is your trigger finger no matter what gun you use! 1911s have a use, but no use for me! The grip angle just doesn't work for me. Period! SIG, S&W, Walther, Magnum Research and FN work just as fine as my Glocks as far as non 1911 semiautomatics.

Relax Texas.

No one is trying to convert you. Enough designs/options to suit anyone.

 

[TEXASforLIFE]

Relax Texas.

No one is trying to convert you. Enough designs/options to suit anyone.

Unless my wrist improve there is no way I can be converted

 

[ACIinventor]

I don't think that recoil-control necessarily is equated 1:1 with lower bore-axis. To me, recoil-mitigation is more the physical performance of the shooter rather than a characteristic of the instrument in his/her hands. As-such, the extent to which the "fit" of the gun may play towards that is inexorably intertwined into said equation. Similarly, how said shooter defines "recoil control" makes for some differences here, too: some define recoil control as the ability to minimize the deviation of the sight package from the intended point-of-aim from shot-to-shot, while others see recoil control as the ability to return the sight package to the intended point-of-aim efficiently and consistently, regardless of the amount of muzzle rise.

Similarly, as to the "paintability" of the gun, we are all built differently - what's "more natural" for one person may well not be for another. Additionally, influences from outside the confines of the act of shooting can also drastically affect what individuals will describe as "natural." For example, there has always been the mention by those who are engaged in hand-to-hand combative sports that the Glock grip angle feels more natural to them due to the way they're taught to align their knuckles to deliver punches.

Maybe not 1:1 but a lower bore axis does direct the recoil force more in line with the forearm of the shooter. This allows more of that recoil to be absorbed by the forearm instead of forcing the wrist to swing upward higher. Chiappa's Rhino revolver is a great example of a low bore axis. You are correct about the physical component. Limp wristing happens when the recoil overcomes a physically weak grip. So from my perspective, any design feature that can reduce the impact of recoil on the shooter is a benefit. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger would likely prefer a handgun with a low bore axis to make terminating his target more efficient.
Yes, "recoil control" is subjective. But lowering the magnitude of the recoil's impact on the shooter should improve sight recovery, no matter which way you define "recoil control."
We do come to the shooting sports carrying our previous experiences. I find myself punching out my handgun during presentation. I find this punching to be more repeatable, having the stronghand arm fully extended. I wouldn't consider it a punch that I learned in the martial arts though. As I have no intention of attempting a contact shot with a semi-automatic pistol. So if the Glock's grip angle was designed to mimic a punching hand, do brass knuckles share the same 22 degree angle?

 

[ACIinventor]

Wow, a lot to unpack in this great post, but I'll focus on this statement for the moment.

For quite a while now (a couple decades or so), I've thought that whether an individual favored the Weaver or "isosceles" stance might have a lot to do with previous activities and sports the shooter brings to the table, and whether he/she is more comfortable and "natural" facing a task head-on or "bladed." (I'm a firm Weaver-shooter, myself.)

Chapman stance is where most of my shooting comes from. Since I'm not expecting to be wearing body armor, I have little need for the Isosceles. Being "bladed" makes more sense as I would rather present a smaller target for the criminal. That said, I do find that head-on Isosceles stance works great when shooting one-handed.

 

[Haroldg48]

The CZ 75 is the best pointing pistol I've ever shot. Your mileage may vary. I have a Glock 19, a 1911, some M&Ps and a Hellcat as well as a S&W revolver. They all hit where I aim them, but I've been shooting for 60 years.

 

[ACIinventor]

When I first started shooting handguns as a teenager, I naturally bladed away from the target like I was shooting my bow or shotgun. However, I switched to head-on after military handgun training.

Chapman stance is where most of my shooting comes from. Since I'm not expecting to be wearing body armor, I have little need for the Isosceles. Being "bladed" makes more sense as I would rather present a smaller target for the criminal. That said, I do find that head-on Isosceles stance works great when shooting one-handed.
The question for you David N. becomes, "Does your military training really apply to self defense on the street, especially when you're not wearing body armor?" Your military training assumes that you will be wearing body armor. And the best protection of the armor comes at the front of the vest. Just something to consider.

 

[ACIinventor]

The military, and everyone, has come a long way baby.

My 1911 military training (vintage '63) was a wide stance one handed grip, facing 110 degrees away from the target with right arm fully extended and head turned with chin on shoulder for the sight picture! Useless for self defense but produced high scores for the instructor. Grip and accuracy was surprisingly strong following the instructors method of grip with the thumb straight up against/near the safety to offset the LH rotation of barrel twist at time of discharge.

As for the Glocks, I'v shot competitively with them and done well though was never fond of the long trigger pull and reset. My last concealed carry class (Texas, eight years back) I shot a Glock (loaner, 50 rounds) from their shelf and scored second highest in the class with the bulls eye shot out of the target. I also had a blister on the inside of my trigger finger from friction on the bottom of the trigger guard which I could not eliminate. I have since liquidated my entire line of Glocks and stay with 1911 style in more than one manufacturer.

While the full on two handed straight ahead to the target is my go to stance, with my luck I figure that won't be possible in a real life situation so incorporate into my training awkward and offbeat positions and views of the target.

Now to that Gent that prefers Glock cuz he thinks he might forget the real safety of a 1911: My draw is with the thumb on the (always extended) safety, and fired that way (grip does not adjust after the safety goes off and before ignition) which goes a long way in holding down recoil and twist. I have never had a case of "forgetting" to activate the safety from safe to fire.

Outstanding!