Fit vs Fundamentals

[Tongarirohiker]

The idea of 'fit' came up in another thread, which obviously led to a fair bit of discussion. I'm of the camp that 'fit', as far as pistol shooting, means very little in comparison to the fundamentals. I see a lot of comparison between shooting and golf.

My dad's been with the CPGA for a lot of years. One of the things (which hasn't always helped his own bottom line) that bothers him is all of these guys buying new sets of golf clubs every year, or buying that new hot driver that's supposed to give you 10 more yards. Yes, graphite shafts can give you a little bit more clubhead speed. A more forgiving sweet spot can help minimize faults on off-plane, off-target swings. The problem is, they don't fix the root problem which is your fundamentals stink.

Many a time he has given a lesson to a guy who said that he bought a new driver and he couldn't hit it any further than his old one. The end result was many swings with a 5-iron until several fundamental flaws were fixed. At the end of the lesson, my dad would give them back their old driver and take a few swings. What magically appeared was the 10 extra yards they were looking for. When given back their new driver, they might have acheived an additional 5 yards on top of that.

So are the manufacturers lying? Not necessarily, but their claims are based on a "perfect" swing. In other words, most people are not good enough to get everything they can out of that new driver.

The same thing happens with a pistol. If it's your first pistol, simply put, you're not good enough to know what 'fit' should mean. I had my own 'first pistol' thread. I poo-poo'd certain pistols (Glock, Sig) cause I couldn't hit the broad side a barn with them. Coming back to them 8 months later, after a few thousand rounds and a lot of dryfire, my groups were closer to being equal regardless of the pistol. Further more, when my shots were off, I could feel and see what I was doing wrong. Grip pressure was too tight, too loose, anticipating recoil, etc. I calm down, get back to fundamentals, and bang, the holes are appearing where they're supposed to.

More importantly, that Glock which I so derided before? I'd actually consider adding it to the collection now. What changed? Experience. Practice.

So, I said that 'fit' means very little. Where does it matter? When you're working at a level most of us simply aspire to. Until you've reached a level of proficiency at something, I belive 'fit' is a convenient excuse.

Thoughts?

 

[Master-G]

So, I said that 'fit' means very little. Where does it matter? When you're working at a level most of us simply aspire to. Until you've reached a level of proficiency at something, I belive 'fit' is a convenient excuse.

Very good post--and an astute comparison with golf clubs (I always think that golf and shooting have more in common than most non-shooters think). I'd agree that unless there's some physical limitation preventing manipulation of the controls (hands too small, for example) that, yes, "fit" is not important. Now, I'll agree that some handguns are just comfortable and fun to shoot (for me, it's ones like a 1911 or an S&W M&P) but that doesn't mean I shoot them any better.

Your Glock example is a good one--years ago when my Dad bought one of the first Glocks in the province I hated it. Hated the look, the springy sound and especially how it felt in my hands compared to my other 9mm pistols (a CZ75 and S&W 5906). But, when I shot it (still hated the trigger pull and snappy recoil) I found I could shoot it really well. So yes, outside of personal preference, how a gun fits is not that important.

 

[Cocked&Locked]

This is an excellent observation and accurate IMHO.

There where pistols years ago i couldn't stand to feel in my hand (double stack smiths, para's and glocks come to mind) Now, i pick them up, adjust to the platform, and shoot, with little to no difference in accuracy. Glocks (heaven help me) actually feel pretty good now, but still point low). After 10 years or so of teaching handgun shooting, i find that the number one issue is "will the person work on fundamentals?" I have a couple of students who keep getting better, but they will always work on the fundamentals. I have a couple who will never get better then they are now, why? because while the are proficient in gun handling and gamesmanship, they won't work on what they don't like or aren't good at.

With work, you can pick up and shoot most handguns very well. but the less comfortable the package is to your paticular hand, the more you have to focus on what your doing. Once you reach a high level of proficiency in the fundamental skills (sight alignment, grip, posture/stance, trigger control, breathing) you will realize small gains from a handgun that "fits" you better. For a good example, see grand master IPSC shooters playing with recoil spring weight to tune muzzle recovery. A beginning shooter can't even see the front sight thru the shot, so no amount of spring adjustment is going to help them.

The same example would be dropping an average commuter into a Formula 1 car and expecting them to drive it as fast as a top driver....practice practice practice..

and practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect

 

[Avenida]

this thread is going to be a long and interesting one.

 

[Vladivar]

I have to say that I was in the "that gun doesn't fit me - so I don't shoot it well" camp for the longest time. Then I got my passport in order and emigrated from the land of denial, and discovered that it was in fact me that was at fault (a hard thing to admit as I am generally accepted to be perfect in every way). Now after many months and many trips to the range and many many many rounds down the pipe I have found that all the guns I own - including Glock, Sig, Kimber, Ruger & Smith all actually fit me just fine.

Having said that, I do have to admit that the smooth Rosewood grips on my Sig are more comfortable during a long day at the range than the RTF grips on the Glock - but then that's more a factor of texture rather than fit I guess...........

 

[Chuck3436]

Having good fundamentals should make you decent with any pistols, they all pretty much do the same thing.

I still however, will say that certain guns will fit certain people differently, and those small nuances will "fit" you better giving you better results, or make it easier for you to attain those results.

IMO pistols are the most personal of firearms, each one will be different to each person.

 

[pavmentsurfer]

The arguments are not separate. They are connected. Yes, you should learn the fundamentals before obsessing about fit. But a gun that fits you properly is no different than a set of clubs that fit you properly. The OP's comparison is ALMOST accurate. But in the golf exMe he's referring to new technology... Not "fit". In the gun comparison he's talking about how the gun "feels" in your hand. Huge difference.
If you were a new golfer and were out to buy some new clubs would you just go buy any 'ol set, because the club doesn't matter? Or would you shop around for a set of clubs that FEELS right, then take those clubs out and practice the fundamentals?
For me, finding a gun that fit me removed one area of annoyance and distraction that took away from my practice of the fundamentals. Did the gun make me better? No, but it allowed me to focus more entirely on What "I" was doing wrong and not why the gun constantly felt wrong in my hand.
I used to have an old set of golf clubs my dad gave me. I was terrible at golf and I really didn't enjoy it. Then I decided to give it a fair shot with equipment that fit me properly... NOT the latest and greatest technology, just a decent set of clubs that fit me right... Low and behold my game improved drastically and I actually enjoyed playing. Did the clubs magically give me more talent... No. But they allowed what little ability I did have to come through.

 

[Pooface83]

I remember shopping around for a 45 and holding a few in my hands. The CZ97 for example, was way too big for my hands (I'm 5'5"). I would say fit is pretty important.

 

[BCRider]

I totally agree that it's about technique far more than it's about fit.

Hell, I can keep 10 rounds (2 cylinders worth) of .22's from my diminutive NAA "The Earl" toy gun all within 2 inches at 15 yards. And a harder gun to hold well I doubt has been made. That doesn't stop it from being a total giggle to shoot though. And through the proper technique it's still possible to shoot it well.

In fact the one time I've managed to make it out to Abby's steel practice evening (I really need to get back there. OODLES of fun) I took along the NAA for giggles and found that I had no issues at all getting 5 for 5 of the gongs.

I won't be buying any Glocks though. I shoot them fine. And in fact they are a fine firearm. I just don't LIKE the way they feel like a 2x4 in my hands compared to my CZ's and 1911's. I'm also not a big fan of how striker fired gun triggers feel compared to hammer guns. But those are choices I made for reasons other than the fit of the guns.

 

[johNTO]

I don't shoot seriously enough to care about how my HG's fit me. I chose to buy one usually because there's something I like about it (obviously)
I buy Glocks because they are easy to maintain and if they get a little scuffed up....so what.
I buy DA and SA revolvers with short 4.2" to 7.5"bbls from 22lr to 460v because they either look Bad A$$ or I just like the unfluted cylinders or wood grips.
All my HG's feel different in my hands. Are they comfortable?....I don't spend more than 1/2hr max per HG at the range so its not really an issue.
I can't shoot 2-3" groupings at 25yrds with any of my HG's(like some or you) and really don't care about that ....I shoot for pure pleasure and enjoyment. If you shoot for ragged one holes...great!
Perhaps I'll have enough skill one day to know what a good fitting HG should feel like. Until then, I'll just keep blasting away.....and having fun.

BTW...a set of new grips could do wonders on some hand me down golf clubs.

 

[heavenIsAlie]

yes fundamentals mean you can shoot just fine with anything, but you will shoot better with a gun that fits you better. And since no one is paying you to shoot a certain gun you might as well shoot the ones that fit you the best.

I dont own any striker fired guns and I never will simply because the trigger feels like total crap to me and I dont shoot as well with them as I do with my hammer fired guns (even the ones with very heavy trigger pulls) sure the m&p is a fine gun, but why would I spend money on it when I can buy something that will work better?

 

[mcpiper]

Good post. People place way to much emphasis on gear and brands instead of fundamentals and training. I hear the "those guns are garbage, you need a Glock,Sig,S&W,Beretta,CZ" or whatever they happen to prefer comments all the time. People will always have preferences and will be more comfortable shooting one design over the other but in my opinion the differences at least for me are not that great.

 

[silverfoxdj]

Great thread...

I bought a Glock because (I like it) and it's really not forgiving on poor fundamentals,

I shoot better with my other guns but use the Glock to measure how I'm doing on the basics.

 

[LowPost42]

As a diehard golfclub fitter who happens to love his guns as well, I'll offer this point of view:

When your gear is properly fit it can help mask flaws in your technique.

The better your technique the wider a range of gear you can "get away with using" to achieve similar results.

At the end of the day you should be using gear fit to YOUR technique for YOUR best result.

Change techniques and a re-fit may very well be in order.

 

[tazik]

Great thread...

I bought a Glock because (I like it) and it's really not forgiving on poor fundamentals,

I shoot better with my other guns but use the Glock to measure how I'm doing on the basics.

interesting, way far from many thread about Glock .... I like your point of view my friend

 

[Nestor]

You can take a nice picture of your new gun, but there is no way to post a photo of your fundamentals.
That's one thing. Second - fundamentals are boring and what is even worse - they are perishable, so You need to work on them often.
You can't even discuss fundamentals on this forum...because they are...obvious fundamentals?
People don't like boring things and repetition. True true to be told - many don't really need to master them.
They go to the range for fun. Nothing wrong with that as most of us don't train to fight with the firearms that we own.

 

[tazik]

I won't be buying any Glocks though. I shoot them fine. And in fact they are a fine firearm. I just don't LIKE the way they feel like a 2x4 in my hands compared to my CZ's and 1911's. But those are choices I made for reasons other than the fit of the guns.

Well BCRider...... your ''don't LIKE the way they feel like a 2x4'' is kind of not the right fit ......, like me......this is a feeling that we always put in the balance of choice ...... )

 

[tazik]

I buy Glocks because they are easy to maintain.

Pretty much all pistol are easy to maintain.....

 

[tazik]

to add to the thread subject, I would say that everything is a balance between ''fit'' and ''foundamentals'', some have handguns just for occasional shooting (3-10 times a year) , for them ''right fit'' could mean something , well I think it does.... (it was for me at first...)...., and I think that is non negligeable aspect....., right fit for the first handgun bought will evoluate and transit on something else...., like been capable to feel each different gun and then find the balance in each single one and find the right way to shoot it properly...

this is how I feel with it.....

 

[Nestor]

Pretty much all pistol are easy to maintain.....

...not as easy as Glock though...well at least in my own experience.