Somewhat relevant to this discussion, this is what Vogel says on ergonomics. While Vogel is in a league of his own, I think the take-away here is that at some level of achievement, fit becomes nearly as important or as important as fundamentals.
Read that quote again, the design allows for better RECOIL CONTROL. Nowhere did he say it felt better, fit my hand better or any similar BS. Low bore axis is a design feature that aids ALL who run the gun, not a specific hand size or shape. What's even more interesting is that Mr. Vogel who is an accomplished shooter indicates the grip angle and design of Glocks as a positive. Yet most(who have never trained and haven't a clue about the fundamentals) cry wolf that the grip angle and design is garbage.
Ok, but evaluate based on what data? Most of the shooting sports operate in a vacuum of quality information so where do they source it and how to they recognize it when they see it? When they ask questions they often get incorrect answers and advice from people who should but don't necessarily know better...they are only handing down "factoids" that they themselves have been told. So trusting in the voice of experience they base their purchase decisions on the information presented because what else can they do. The internet? Let's face it; that's just a big disorganized morass of infocrap, some of it good and a lot of it bad and quite a bit of it just pure sewage. But how would a neophyte know the difference? It's like trying to learn a martial art by reading books and watching videos. Not going to happen. Eventually, frustration sets in and they just give up and quit. It's too hard, too confusing, too expensive. I see this happen over and over again and I'm trying to prevent that.
Learning the fundamentals of pistol shooting is focus #1, but having correct equipment is also important. Call it fit; call it ergonomics, call it feel-onomics....whatever sounds right, but equipment should never impede the learning. And I don't personally care what gun anyone chooses since I don't get paid to endorse anything. So long as it works for the individual, I'm happy.
In any case, she's doing much better and we can now focus on the process of shooting rather than stupid hardware issues.
I apologize for the late response, nonetheless here it is.
I agree that the often ignorant misinformed "data" passed on by "experienced" shooters to new shooters is a flawed method. Same goes for a fair amount online. You said it, and I agree, trying to learn a martial art(and shooting is a martial art at its core) from videos and books is pointless. To that point you still see an endless number of people buying Magpul videos and others in an attempt to "self teach" marksmanship. Are videos and books completely useless? No, they are a great vehicle to get you started, started thinking that is.
The information a new shooter needs does not have to come from any one(or more) individual. The information is an answer or possible answer(s) to questions they themselves must ask. These questions must be relevant to the end goal, the desired result of said firearm. What does that mean? The first question any new shooter needs to ask of THEMSELVES is this: WHAT DO I WANT TO DO/ACHIEVE WITH SAID FIREARM? After you've decided what your goal(s) is then you can look at more practical and important factors, like design, calibre, competition"legal", size, price, finish, operating style etc etc. From a logical standpoint, if a new shooter simply takes what the CFSC/CRFSC course teaches about operating systems and applies that to the first question, the answer is much easier than for the clueless with zero firearms knowledge.
Without ever handling a handgun for example, you can extrapolate the following facts with minimal research and use of the firearms course material. All steel guns are heavier than alloy or polymer guns of similar size and calibre. DA/SA guns have two distinct trigger pulls and often employ a decocker. .40 and .45 will have more recoil than 9mm. With a little more intelligent thought one can eliminate designs that are not ergonomic or difficult to operate. Your end goal(question one above) will quickly eliminate the options, the design of others will eliminate themselves. From there you can apply some not so common sense, for example: If you can't reach the trigger with a proper grip on a DA/SA gun due to short fingers, then a DA/SA gun or that specific make/model is a no go. That isn't a "fit" issue, that's a fundamentals issue. If you cant reach a slide mounted safety/decocker without breaking your firing grip, then that make/model is no good, again that's a fundamentals issue not a "fit" issue. If you're concerned about forgetting to activate a manual safety or decocker or want the simplest operation possible, then a DA/SA gun as well as SA guns are not for you. Same goes for DA/SA guns in general, they require you to master two separate trigger pulls. If you're new to shooting, I suggest you not run a DA/SA gun. IMO, DA/SA guns are a dead design..
Aside from the above, one simply needs to compare two or more guns side by side. What does one offer over the other? What does one fail to offer over the other? Evaluate the lists generated and decide what's most important. A clear winner will emerge based on your criteria.
TDC
