Fit vs Fundamentals
- Thread starter Tongarirohiker
- Start date
If you can hook up with a member and go as their guest it's much cheaper to rent.
Though last time I checked he just had the Norc siggish (as I call it). Doesn't do justice to the real thing.
Oh, and if you do rent there, make sure you don't hit their baffles. I know someone who got nailed for a cool grand for several .22 strikes to the baffles at $50 per paint chip...
Tongarirohiker
CGN Regular
- Location
- Edmonton, AB
Wholesale Sports is just as bad. One of the counter blokes told me that they think it's silly too. To sell the firearms, to handle them, they must possess the proper PAL. To hand one over to you, unloaded and safe, they would have to be within arms length, no? Sounds like someone with a PAL is within controlling distance of the firearm at all times.
That said, a lot depends on the counter bloke you get. I asked to look at a GSG 1911 before and before I knew it, it was in my hands without the trigger lock. Some know better than others.
If the pistol's fit compromises its function in the hands of the user than fit trumps fundamentals in a negative context. I cannot own a pistol that does not allow me to fire it with my conditioned grip. I can shoot almost everything fairly well but there is always one poorly fitted pistol that will break down my fundamentals. I would say shooter induced stoppages from inadvertent activation of controls and slide/hammer bite will always effect my fundamentals in a negative way. Exceptional fit has only very marginally improved function but training in fundamentals and conditioning on a specific platform will alleviate almost any issues surrounding fit.
That comes down to staff, and the lack of intelligence behind the counter. Its far from uncommon to have a frustrating experience at WS. Any decent retailer with atleast a room temperature level IQ understands that handling a product is what makes a sale..
Inadvertent control activation is a result of a poor design coupled with poor or non existent training, fit is not a factor, lack of fundamentals is. Then again, if said shooter knew about the fundamentals and had a desired role for the gun, then a more informed decision could be made as to which make/model to run.
TDC
I'm sure that Cabelas policy has to do with tire-kickers. If you don't have the licence why spend time showing you the product?
Fit vs. Fundamanetals - I feel like I have a good handle on the fundamentals, so fit is more important. My first pistol did not fit me well, I could shoot it fine but once I moved to something that fit better (2 years later), my scores went uuuuuup.
As an instructor I often see students whos pistols don't fit them. At my last class one shooter with short thumbs was reaching under the trigger guard from the right side of the pistol to activate the mag release on the left side. It was a clever adaptation but not practical. I tell new shooters to buy something you 'like', that fits your hand after that we can begin to work on improving fundamentals.
Fit vs. Fundamanetals - I feel like I have a good handle on the fundamentals, so fit is more important. My first pistol did not fit me well, I could shoot it fine but once I moved to something that fit better (2 years later), my scores went uuuuuup.
As an instructor I often see students whos pistols don't fit them. At my last class one shooter with short thumbs was reaching under the trigger guard from the right side of the pistol to activate the mag release on the left side. It was a clever adaptation but not practical. I tell new shooters to buy something you 'like', that fits your hand after that we can begin to work on improving fundamentals.
Sorry, but the fact that you mention fit as a contributing factor to performance tells me and anyone else who's in the know that you're clearly not. Metcalfe just posted what's required from you the shooter to make hits, and it does not involve, include, or otherwise require anything resembling fit. Apparently the lop sided poll above and the fact that not one reputable big name instructor on the planet preaches "fit" over form/fundamentals isn't a big enough clue, and should be dismissed.
TDC
Yea im 6 foot 1 285 i bought a fiesta cause it has great fundamentals but my head sticks out the roof, Fawk fit
Shanks4300
Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, mb
I think when raks is talking fit he means a pistol where the operator can physically reach the controls. Not necessarily intangibles.
The CQB matches do not require quick shooting, if you find you are having to shoot fast then you probably have a gun handling issue that is costing you time. Precision counts way more than raw speed at the CQB matches.
Agreed. Fundamentals are the base-line to which we always return; they are the foundation on which we construct the vast body of shooting technique. It's the first thing I always teach.
Having said that, I have run into variables which render the execution of the fundamentals virtually impossible, so I am reticent to apply an absolute proclamation to the rule of fundamentals over fit. I would therefore context it this way: All things being equal, fundamentals are more important than fit.
Of course, the "all things being equal" part means that if, for instance, you have tiny little child hands and you flat out can't reach the trigger, you aren't going to be able to apply the fundamentals correctly with that platform. You will need something smaller that you can reach. That is; something that fits better.
I think some people tend to misinterpret what is meant by fit. Or at least what I mean by fit. I think it's safe to say that most of us would trend towards buying a pistol that we like the subjective "feel" of, and that's totally cool, but feel and fit are two different things.
How small of hands do you think people have? Or rather, how large of a grip do you think most service pistols have? Do I need to post the video of a 9 year old girl making solid hits with a G19 and full house loads?? I'm sure her hands weren't quite large enough for a "normal" grip on the gun but she got it done. So unless your hands are smaller than a 9 year old girls, you have no excuses.
I do agree that "feel" and "fit" are separate, however most tend to blur the two together. Fit, as in can you reach the trigger is almost never an issue(see my last paragraph). Feel has absolutely nothing to do with performance, zero, bupkis, nada, zilch. As I mentioned earlier, the fact people mention "fit" or "feel" when selecting a firearm tells me they haven't a clue about either, let alone the fundamentals. I've watched several "experienced" shooters at the range struggle with their performance, only to realize they weren't using their dominant eye, that they were cross dominant. That alone tells me the shooter is seriously lacking in the knowledge department. Of course said shooter in one case was adamant it was the gun that was screwed up, not him. I've also watched a guy holster his SIG hammer back. I asked him why he did this and informed him that without a mechanical safety his SIG with hammer back is far more dangerous than hammer down. His response, "I prefer the trigger pull after the first shot, so I just leave the hammer cocked". Sounds like he made an informed decision before purchase. I'm willing to bet that "Fit" and/or "cool factor" were the criteria used, rather that look at design features...
TDC
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
This may ramble a bit, just woke up, working midnights.
Fit matters, just way less then most people think. You need to be able to reach the operating controls, but beyond the trigger stroke, most of the controls are secondary. I don't know many shooters who can reach mag releases on most handguns without "rolling" the grip. For myself, the only handguns that I can operate mag releases on, without moving my firing hand, are those with ambi mag releases. Does this mean all i shoot is a revolver, since these other handguns don't fit properly? Of course not. I'd love to have longer thumbs, but thats not gonna happen.
Personally i find pistols that are too small a much larger handicap then ones that are too large. IE, it's much easier to fire a Mk 23, a pistol that fits no one I've ever met due to it's frame size, then a baby browning, on which i can reach all the controls.
Some aspects of construction will add challenge to the shooting. Sigs have a high bore axis. hence recoil is accentuated over a similar pistol with a lower frame/barrel relationship. They have a long DA pull and a deep frame front to back, this limits use based on hand size as it's hard to run the trigger straight back if you can't get enough finger on the trigger.
On the other hand, take a glock trigger, yeah, out of the box they fell crappy. This isn't a fit issue. it's just feel/perception. I have yet to meet an adult who can't place a finger properly on a glock/M&P trigger and run it without canting or torquing the pistol once they get used to the feel. I have met lots of folk who won't put the time in to learn though because they won't work past the feel, NOT the fit.
Finally take a 1911, the one big advantage to the platform? 3 lengths of trigger, and no take up and a short stroke. Pretty much anyone can shoot a 1911 well....ok, unless the slide lock is extended, and the saftey somewhat enlarged over the GI size, most find the controls awkward initially. But because we're told it's the perfect pistol, we decide it must be us and learn to get used to them. But it is a platform that is easy to shoot, hence it's use in the past as a bullseye gun in center fire categories.
Feel is subjective to the individual, fit is mechanical, and based on geometry. I think in this discussion there is a certain blur between the two..All this being said, fit make a pistol easier to shoot, but all the fit in the world won't let you shoot well if, as Metcalfe so perfectly puts it "Align the sights and press the trigger straight to the rear.
Do that with any pistol or revolver and no matter how it feels in your hand, your hits will be on target."
Jeese, excuse me but I didn't realize we were talking about service pistols only. For some reason it wasn't instantly apparent that there are in fact no other valid forms of firearms on Earth and everyone should know that. I guess that's the problem with making assumptions.
And "I have no excuses?" Really? Who said I was talking about me? But go ahead and post anything you want if you think that will prove me wrong....and if it's really that important to you to do so. After all, videos posted on the internet are the only empirical proof needed for justifying any position, right?
Man, it would be so nice to have a civil exchange of ideas for once without you diving in with a bunch of pointless insults. For the record, it is entirely possible to disagree with someone without being an ass.
I always regret clicking the 'View Post' link.
Without an agreement on what we're trying to achieve this discussion gets more and more meaningless. If we are talking about single precise shots on a target then yes, fundamentals are the most important.
Most people I know shoot more than one round per range session and at that point I am certain that for me, fit is extremely important.
Without an agreement on what we're trying to achieve this discussion gets more and more meaningless. If we are talking about single precise shots on a target then yes, fundamentals are the most important.
Most people I know shoot more than one round per range session and at that point I am certain that for me, fit is extremely important.
Edward Teach
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- who cares?
Oh so THIS is why I like golf...
You know what is terrible, watching guys at the range all badass with their pistols who have absolutely 0 fundamentals. Like the guys next to me the other day. They were having FUN, and I wasn't going to rain on it but....it looks like they learned to shoot by watching too many movies and are all gung-ho at the range.
Then you see them throw 50 rounds at 7 yards and maybe 30 are even lucky to be on paper, using strange stances and grips and overexagerating follow through and other very strange things....
Once you learn basic fundamentals, seeing people who don't know what they are doing is a little cringe worthy at times. Like I almost want to help by showing them how to do a few simple things properly but, really its not my business.
To these guys, fit means nothing.
FUNDAMENTALS FIRST, only then can you UNDERSTAND WHAT WILL WORK FOR YOU IN TERMS OF FIT. I mean, if you don't know how to shoot "properly" and don't even know proper stance or grip, how can you tell if the gun fits you??? I guess its like saying, if you don't know how to properly swing a golf club, how would you even know what golf club you would like?
Then you see them throw 50 rounds at 7 yards and maybe 30 are even lucky to be on paper, using strange stances and grips and overexagerating follow through and other very strange things....
Once you learn basic fundamentals, seeing people who don't know what they are doing is a little cringe worthy at times. Like I almost want to help by showing them how to do a few simple things properly but, really its not my business.
To these guys, fit means nothing.
FUNDAMENTALS FIRST, only then can you UNDERSTAND WHAT WILL WORK FOR YOU IN TERMS OF FIT. I mean, if you don't know how to shoot "properly" and don't even know proper stance or grip, how can you tell if the gun fits you??? I guess its like saying, if you don't know how to properly swing a golf club, how would you even know what golf club you would like?
Last edited:
