Thinking Man's Corner

Article by: William G.

The “feel” of the gun in the hand is an important factor in performance, both mentally and physically. If the gun fits the hand, especially on the draw, and points quickly, then people tend to perform better. If you have to fight with your equipment, or consciously alter your grip to get on target, that adds unnecessary stress to one of the most critical tasks you’re likely to perform. 

Glocks are wonderful guns, but require you to cant your wrist downward to align the sights, due to the angle of the lower receiver. It can be trained, but it is rather unnatural (even though there is precious little that is natural about gunfighting). That is not a knock on the Glock, just a fact. When I use one, I find it takes a few minutes of dry practice to adjust. Then it becomes pretty much ok, as long as I focus on it. However, it is a little blocky in the hand, and that “grip” angle can be an issue for some people. 

The Beretta points much more “natural” to me, but the de-cocker is in an awkward and improper location, and is problematic to operate after a stressful event, especially with one hand only. One size does NOT fit all. The width of the frame (especially on the M9 variants), from front to back and side to side, in conjunction with the reach of the trigger from the tang, is a little big for small to medium hands. It can be a little too much to grab onto, especially when combined with a level 3 duty holster, under compressed times. 

I think the Sig 365 is a marvel of modern engineering, but it is a little small when it comes to a true gunfighting piece. It’s a glorified pocket rocket, and a good one at that. It’s just a matter of knowing your limitations. It is a not a lot to grab onto, under stress. The length of the frame matters just as much as the angle and width.

What am I getting at? Well what do you want, and what do you need? 

If the requirement is fast presentation from a retention holster or from a concealed holster, the frame/lower receiver/“grip” of the gun must provide a long enough surface for the shooter to grip rapidly, and fully. It must allow the shooter to fully wrap his hand around it to provide more secure purchase for a swift presentation without adjusting the grip or fumbling the gun. 

Now, this assumes the proper combat oriented way of driving the hand down onto the gun and wedging the web of the hand into the tang. This is opposed to the trick shooting gimmick of “scooping” the gun from underneath. A gun that is too short or too thick, depending on the shooter’s hand size, is detrimental to speed and surety of execution of the presentation under duress. 

Last weekend at the range, I enlisted the assistance of my trusty Rhodesian friend, Big Dick (who is now a legend of the GALEFI blog, for better or worse). As any good mad scientist, I didn’t let him know he was a lab rat, though he knows how devious I am, and probably suspected he was an experiment. 

I was getting data for Leo H on a classifier he designed, and also data points for this article. Big Dick’s hands are about 40% larger than mine, so what works for him, doesn’t work for me. He shot three guns: a Platypus (1911 that takes Glock 17 magazines) with a dot, a Ruger RXM with a dot, and a 1911 Commander (single stack – with slim stocks). I shot the same 1911 Commander, and a Glock 19; both with iron sights. He was between 1/10th to a quarter second per string faster with the Platypus than his RXM. I yielded the same time frame advantage of the 1911 over the Glock. His times with the single stack 1911 was somewhere in the middle of his performance between the Platypus and the RXM. We used leather inside the waistband holsters for all guns, carried in the “FBI” position. 

Examining this, for him, the length and the width of the Platypus gave him a long enough surface to grab quickly, and the circumference was just filling enough for his hand. The RXM was too “stubby” in length, and the flat side caused him to wedge his thumb to create space, thus being slower in the presentation. (No doubt the trigger “action” was not as good on the RXM as the Platypus, and that played a roll as well. However, some of the times were broken down further in draw to first shot, and the RXM was clearly behind.) The slim lined Commander was still faster for him than the RXM, due to the length of the Commander’s frame. It was not as fast as the Platypus for him because it was much smaller in circumference. The length was the same, but being slimmer with him having bigger hands, it was a fraction slower. 

With me, the Commander’s slimmer “grip” area was quicker than the G19. The length was longer, which made it quicker as well. Finally, the angle was correct for my hands, and those three factors proved to aid in my performance on a measured classifier. Coincidentally, for both of us, with the correct angle, width, and length for each of us; the grouping on our targets were tighter as well. 

When Col. Jeff Cooper pioneered the modern slim line concept of pistols, yes that is documented in several places, he noted that a reduced circumference pistol worked for both small and large hands, where as a “normal” size pistol may not work for small hands. As usual, Jeff Cooper was right. 

It is important to select the right tool for the job. If you want to plow a field, it is best not to get a Ferrari. If you want to win Le Mans, John Deere may be a bad idea. Yes, sometimes we have to make a compromise (deep concealment in a UC situation would not work best with a full size duty gun), but in our day to day operations why compromise? The old knowledge of “bring enough gun” applies in caliber, action, and size. I can draw a 1911 Commander quicker, and shoot it better than a 365 XL, but the 365XL conceals better. A J frame conceals even better than that in some cases, and a Kel Tec P32, even more so. How long does it take me to access each gun? How accurate am I with each, at the speed of life? Can I handle them all with the same surety when someone is trying to actively and combatively murder me? Sometimes we have to make compromises, and I am not fooled by that fact. I am presenting information to get other good people to think, and not be fooled by a false sense of security. Yes, different sizes of guns and methods of carry have their place, but what place is it, and is it a place you really want to be when you need emergency life saving tools?

Why force one gun on all officers in the agency (or worse, the same trigger reach with a different length frame – since figment to the hand comprises trigger reach too)? Would you make the 5’ 4” 110 lb female officer wear a size 40 duty belt? No, because it wouldn’t fit her. How about issuing the 6’ 5” 300 lb SWAT guy an XS ballistic vest? No? That won’t work either? Just because it is a gun, the size issue doesn’t change. We need to take a hard look at arcane ideas of one size fitting all, and the “good enough” mentality for whichever mission we have at a given time; and get a grip.