Nevermind, not worth it.
Glock Grip Reduction
- Thread starter T_A_N_K
- Start date
Nevermind, not worth it.
lol nevermind.
Yes, exactly.
Hundreds of gun designers, and millions of 1911 owners, have changed the grip angle that John Moses Browning originally designed into the gun when they swap out their arched mainspring housing for a flat one... Browning was also trying to get you to avoid limp-wristing.
Don't get me wrong, I modify all kinds of things to suit me. cars/trucks/bikes and even guns.
Something I learned along the way with pistols was that when my gun didn't shoot where I wanted it to, I needed to focus on the fundamentals and techniques more. Improving them improved my shooting.
I trust the actual designer of your beloved gun, and the inventor of mine.
Last edited:
LOL, typical bs reply when someone ####s up.
Yes, exactly.
Hundreds of gun designers, and millions of 1911 owners, have changed the grip angle that John Moses Browning originally designed into the gun when they swap out their arched mainspring housing for a flat one... Browning was also trying to get you to avoid limp-wristing.
I trust the actual designer of your beloved gun, and the inventor of mine.
Makes sense...as long as you're shooting one-handed, as JMB intended.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
I don't hate Glocks, I only own a G17. But this video is mildly amusing and suitable for this thread...
[Youtube]UTEswkc4lPs[/Youtube]
[Youtube]UTEswkc4lPs[/Youtube]
Is .05-.10 of a second that critical when transitioning platforms? I'm not overly interested in the fastest "gamer" times so the answer is no, its far from critical. However, the difference is still there. I'd still like to know why yourself or others are running multiple platforms??
As for the Design of the Glock, It wasn't directed towards you, more another poster.
TDC
As I posted, I don't think the minor reduction in speed for first shot is worth worrying about. I do agree that if a change can improve performance(more so than improving ones fundamentals) without negatively effecting reliability then go for it. With your statement in mind "Why would anyone stick with something that would make them slower?" why would anyone run a DA/SA gun, or a gun with a manual safety? Why run a gun with a low capacity magazine or a revolver? All are slower than their counterparts.
TDC
No, it totally isn't critical, which is why I am not fanatically obsessed with doing grip reductions on my Glocks. It's a minor advantage that I can get which I sometimes like to make use of...only the individual can decide if the subtle change you can get by altering the grip is worth doing. For many people it really wouldn't be and I never tell anyone "grip reductions are mandatory". They're purely a way to eke out a specific performance benefit and if you want to make use of it, it's potentially worthwhile. If you're using it to mask some other deficiency, well, in the long run, any deficiency you mask is just going to be a skill you failed to develop, so if your goal is to be a better shooter...
The reason I run multiple platforms is pretty simple: I love the 1911, irrationally, and always have. And from time to time I work on 1911s for myself and others. Consequently I feel obligated to maintain my 1911 shooting skillset, even when I have standardized on Glocks for everything else.
If I shot a particular platform for work, or even if I carried as a private citizen for defensive purposes, I'd pretty much limit myself to whatever my carry gun was going to be. Well, I say that, but I'd probably still mess around with 1911s, because I love them and I fully recognize that by continuing to shoot them, I am hurting my performance with Glocks. I was a slightly better glock shooter when I never touched anything but G17s. But considering I don't carry here, I'm willing to take the hit on my performance to be able to spend time with 1911s. I'm also totally cognizant of the fact that the performance benefits of shooting one platform exclusively are greater than the performance benefits of grip-reducing a Glock. Totally true. But if, for whatever reason, even if it's a stupid reason, you can't bring yourself to only shoot one kind of gun, IMO making them as similar as possible is not a bad idea.
Tracking you on the history stuff now.
Hold on; the grip angle isn't changed by swapping the arched spring housing for flat. The grip angle is what it is and besides, that's not really why they get changed out. It's just to get a more complete contact with the grip in the palm of the hand when using the high-thumb grip.Yes, exactly.
Hundreds of gun designers, and millions of 1911 owners, have changed the grip angle that John Moses Browning originally designed into the gun when they swap out their arched mainspring housing for a flat one... Browning was also trying to get you to avoid limp-wristing.
I think when many 1911 people refer to the grip angle on a Glock as feeling alien, it's not really about the angle. The angle is fine. It's more about the placement of the palm-swell at the bottom of the grip that tends to leave the area at the base of the thumb out of contact with the grip surface (again, assuming a high-thumb grip), but it depends on what you're used to. The arched mainspring housing on a 1911 has the same effect on many shooters, and that's why they change them. It is in fact, the more common configuration now on modern versions.
Excellent post, nice to see it clarified for others
You made a very valid point which is what I was fishing for. The minute advantage of a grip reduction is lost on the majority of shooters who haven't mastered the fundamentals. That was the point I was trying to bring to light. An advantage, yes in the hands of those who can benefit from such a minor change, but an advantage that will bring your rounds into a nice consistent group? No way.As for multiple platforms, you again answered with a logical response and one only you have to be satisfied with. By the sounds of it you've limited yourself to two systems and are more than capable with both. Again, what I don't understand is why the masses have several different systems and can't run any one of them with any level of proficiency. yet in the same breath talk about mods and wanting to improve their performance. To each their own, but I see endless amounts of frustration and wasted time and money.
TDC
When held "properly", there is zero skin out of contact with the gun. Your support hand can/should be used to fill the void completely, creating the maximum amount of friction. The more you squeeze, the more friction, the less muzzle rise, the faster follow up shot... ymmv??? works for me and the people that taught it to me.
The added thickness of the 1911s arched mainspring housing effectively changes the angle of contact, as you mention, to a very similar feel to the glocks. This angle, or palm swell if you prefer, is what causes ones wrist to roll forward, locking bones together.
The way most people respect JMB, you'd think it would be considered sacrilege to change his design. Yet so many people screw with his, and good 'ole Gaston's engineering marvels of their own time.
Well said.
Few people who molest their guns have actual reasons beyond "because I like to".
As someone with much more 1911 experience than me, what are your thoughts on running an arched mainspring housing on a 1911 compared to a non shaven glock?
When I hold a flat mainspring 1911, it feels foreign, but the arched isn't so bad... for a 100 year old, external safety, gamer SA triggered, design that I love to hate...
I like the flat MSH better but before I reduced the grip on my main shooter glock, I did use an arched MSH.
If you prefer the arched there's no downside that I can think of. It was an adaptation to the original design intended to make the gun easier to control - it worked for some people and not for others. If you're one of the people it works for, well, it is definitely more similar to the Glock grip, although also definitely not as extreme.
If you prefer the arched there's no downside that I can think of. It was an adaptation to the original design intended to make the gun easier to control - it worked for some people and not for others. If you're one of the people it works for, well, it is definitely more similar to the Glock grip, although also definitely not as extreme.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Interesting pics I found....
Ok, but "properly" according to who? And what does that mean; that one grip profile fits all human profiles so long as they hold it properly? That's a pretty all-encompassing statement. In my experience, there is no one pistol that will fit all people any more than any one shoe will. Aside from that; for all intents and purposes the actual grip angles of the Glock and the 1911 are functionally the same.
Body mechanics related: the harder you squeeze, the tighter your muscles become. The tighter they become, the slower they become. While a firm grip is advisable and in fact, necessary insofar as keeping the hand and gun welded together during recoil, excess tension in the platform is not optimal either for recoil management or speed. It doesn't work when swinging a hammer, or a bat, or a tennis racquet, or shooting a pistol.
Also, the grip angle does not in fact cause the wrist of the shooting hand to roll forward to lock-out. Not even close, unless you are horribly arthritic and your joints are pretty much immobilized. If you hold your gun with your wrist bones locked out the muzzle will be pointing down towards the floor. However, the support hand should be cammed down to wrist-lock (it won't actually be bone-lock), but this has little to do with the angle of the pistol grip.
The lowest possible axis of the pistol bore will be achieved with the beaver tail or tang wedged down into the web of the hand and the thumb pointing forward towards the target. This will permit the best mechanical advantage over the rotational forces of recoil. This hand position in many people tends to open up the area at the base of the thumb. Since recoil energy seeks the path of least resistance, it will try to flow into this gap, causing the pistol to twist in recoil. This effect can be compensated for in several ways, all of which are compromises that one has to choose from in order to achieve the most favorable overall package. However, solving grip issues by adding tension is not necessarily the best way to manage recoil.
Regarding muzzle rise: how high the gun rises is almost irrelevant (this can and has been proved with an electronic timer). What matters is how fast and consistently the gun returns and tension doesn't help that. In fact it hinders it.
Regarding things sacrilegious: JMB was indeed an absolute genius. He was way ahead of his time. So is Gaston Glock for that matter. But neither of them are/were gods. The 1911 pistol as originally adopted was actually a pretty tough gun to shoot well. Anyone who has ever gotten a case of hammer bite will tell you that the design really needed a few updates. Eventually it got them and the design evolved.
In terms of simple physics, the addition of the arched mainspring housing or the Glock palm-swell makes sense. It decreases the moment arm, theoretically reducing recoil. But in so-doing it also means a certain portion of the population won't be able to interface with it as well.
All mechanical designs are compilations of compromises and as such, I don't think there is any such thing as a perfect design of anything. As time passes we find that everything can be improved and inevitably, everything eventually is....or it is replaced with something better. That's just evolution. If this was not the case, we'd probably all still be driving Model-T's.
I personally think that rather than modifying the grip on the Glock, I would be inclined to give the Gen 4 a try and see if that gives a better fit. But whatever floats your boat.
The OP shaved down a gen4... the front, rear, and sides. More sacrilege! lol
What you say about grip isn't making much sense to me, because with a high tang/thumbs forward grip, my pistol feels like they used my hand for the mold. From what I have seen with my own eyes, many people don't grip pistols properly, and have issues because of it. Shaving down a grip, or swapping the msh, or backstrap or adding a gfa won't solve a poor grip.
btw, I put properly in quotes because I know not everyone shoots the same way that I do. There are several methods, and the solid grip, thumbs forward, concrete wall arms/shoulders, is proper only in my opinion...and proper in the opinion of those that I would ask for advice.
That style doesn't interest everyone, and I should keep that in mind when offering advice.
