9mm

[glockguy68]

Originally Posted by SFMarine

I carry a Glock 23...and Walther P99 both are 40 calibre and the same size.

It all depends on your price range too but HK USP or the new P30...there's a lot of good choices out there..

Glockguy- what's going on? When are we hitting the range again.

HEY DUDE,YOU JUST PUT A RANDOM DATE BEFORE IT GETS REAL COLD,IM SURE WE ALL GONNA GO AGAIN,I WILL BE THERE AND SOME OF THE GUYS TOO,SET UP SOMETHING MY FRIEND,LET'S SEE WHEN CAN WE GO,MAYBE AT THE END OF THIS MONTH?

[theSaj]

Originally Posted by synergy

No it's not.

You should ask a race-car driver or a downhill skier where comfort fits on their criteria for selecting equipment.

There are far more relevant criteria than ergonomics. If you know what you're doing, you can shoot any gun well.

"No it's not."

Sorry, I disagree and so do most of the people I've read. While some handguns will allow for a change of ergonomics via grips, and other exchangeable parts. Many do not...

In my case, I simply found the Glock in .45 ACP with a double-stacked magazine unwieldly. But I have short stubby fingers, arms and legs. While the average person could be comfortable with such a firearm, someone like me would spend innumerous amount of time just strugging to grip, and comfortably reach the trigger.

To have a firearm that is not a good fit for your hand can result in reduce accuracy or the need to compensate in unwieldly manner.

Now granted, their are considerations FAR more important than grip ergonomics. Such as safety, reliability and accuracy.

However, I believe most of us are discussing reasonably decent firearms that are reasonably safe, reliable and accurate. The mere statement that the firearm should be comfortable does not negate the need for the other requirements. No one's recommending a Talon Industries 9mm "Explode in your face" pistol.

"You should ask a race-car driver or a downhill skier where comfort fits on their criteria for selecting equipment."

Actually comfort is extremely important to both of those individuals. Do you really think no importance is placed on the comfort of the driver in professional racing. A driver who may sit in an overly hot car for hours. Thousands of dollars are expended on seat design and climate control. Likewise, a professional downhill skier will spend significantly more $$$ on their boots than probably anything else but the skis themselves. Why? Because comfort and fit are extremely important. Too loose and the foot wiggles, too tight and you break the foot.

So your examples seem to further my point of view.

"If you know what you're doing, you can shoot any gun well."
Well, and optimally over prolonged shooting are two different things.

If you are having to rotate your hand around a grip just to reach a trigger. Than no, I do not believe you can shoot such a firearm optimally. Can you learn and train yourself to fire such a firearm accurately if need be....yes. But I seriously doubt that you can achieve on par results against a firearm that is comfortable in your hand. Truthfully, for the average guy, this is not a situation you'll encounter as most firearms are made for the avg. male hand. However, if you are as one petty officer referred to me in the Coast Guard "a mutant" with much shorter arms and fingers than the average male...you may indeed find this to be a significant issue.

So I stand by my opinion....all things equal (or close to it, ie: all models you are looking at are well made safe, accurate and reliable firearms, etc) then one of the next criteria to look at is "comfort and fit". And in a market with quite a number of choices for reliable, accurate and safe handguns. WHY...would you get one that was uncomfortable.

Synergy, Please give me one reason to pick an uncomfortable handgun that does not fit your hand well for one's purchase (besides collectibility).

[Lycanthrope]

I think you are both right.

FWIW, I think ergonomics matter. I know I have shot guns that certainly allow me to shoot better....but then, as my skills improve, I do shoot everything better. The margin between platforms narrows with a higher skill level in my opinion.

But.....ergonomics does not mean it "feels good". I know I have tried some things on the timer that felt "horrible", but really improved my shooting. Shooting high hand/thumb on the safety with a 1911 comes to mind.

Lycanwhatevergetsthefrontsightonthetargetthrope

[synergy]

Originally Posted by theSaj

"No it's not."

Sorry, I disagree and so do most of the people I've read. While some handguns will allow for a change of ergonomics via grips, and other exchangeable parts. Many do not...

In my case, I simply found the Glock in .45 ACP with a double-stacked magazine unwieldly. But I have short stubby fingers, arms and legs. While the average person could be comfortable with such a firearm, someone like me would spend innumerous amount of time just strugging to grip, and comfortably reach the trigger.

To have a firearm that is not a good fit for your hand can result in reduce accuracy or the need to compensate in unwieldly manner.

Now granted, their are considerations FAR more important than grip ergonomics. Such as safety, reliability and accuracy.

However, I believe most of us are discussing reasonably decent firearms that are reasonably safe, reliable and accurate. The mere statement that the firearm should be comfortable does not negate the need for the other requirements. No one's recommending a Talon Industries 9mm "Explode in your face" pistol.

"You should ask a race-car driver or a downhill skier where comfort fits on their criteria for selecting equipment."

Actually comfort is extremely important to both of those individuals. Do you really think no importance is placed on the comfort of the driver in professional racing. A driver who may sit in an overly hot car for hours. Thousands of dollars are expended on seat design and climate control. Likewise, a professional downhill skier will spend significantly more $$$ on their boots than probably anything else but the skis themselves. Why? Because comfort and fit are extremely important. Too loose and the foot wiggles, too tight and you break the foot.

So your examples seem to further my point of view.

"If you know what you're doing, you can shoot any gun well."
Well, and optimally over prolonged shooting are two different things.

If you are having to rotate your hand around a grip just to reach a trigger. Than no, I do not believe you can shoot such a firearm optimally. Can you learn and train yourself to fire such a firearm accurately if need be....yes. But I seriously doubt that you can achieve on par results against a firearm that is comfortable in your hand. Truthfully, for the average guy, this is not a situation you'll encounter as most firearms are made for the avg. male hand. However, if you are as one petty officer referred to me in the Coast Guard "a mutant" with much shorter arms and fingers than the average male...you may indeed find this to be a significant issue.

So I stand by my opinion....all things equal (or close to it, ie: all models you are looking at are well made safe, accurate and reliable firearms, etc) then one of the next criteria to look at is "comfort and fit". And in a market with quite a number of choices for reliable, accurate and safe handguns. WHY...would you get one that was uncomfortable.

Synergy, Please give me one reason to pick an uncomfortable handgun that does not fit your hand well for one's purchase (besides collectibility).

Here are my hands. Nothing fits well, aside from double stack 1911's.


What can I shoot well? Glocks (9mm or .45 frame), Sigs, 1911's, M&P's, USP's, etc. It doesn't matter what feels natural, or what feels comfortable in a gunstore. It takes a while to realize it, but it doesn't matter. As an RO, I literally shot half a dozen different guns a day...they all grouped about the same for me. Some better than others, but comfort had nothing to do with it.

If you can hold on to the firearm and pull the trigger straight to the rear...then you can LEARN to shoot it just fine. I've shot em all...I can shoot them just fine. I learned to shoot a Glock extremely well, despite my initial disdain for their grip angle "it feels weird". Plop a beginner in a whitewater kayak, or a pair of racing ski boots and ask them what they think of the comfort. They don't yet understand that there's more at issue than comfort.

The problem is that not all guns are created equal.

Your points about the example I listed make sense, but the underlying theme is that performance is not traded off for comfort.

So what's my reason? If a Taurus feels better in your hand than a Glock...and you buy the Taurus because of it, and the gun is for carry, then you're an idiot. You're "assuming everything else is equal" part is what I'm disagreeing with. If a different backstrap feels better, or the SF version fits better...awesome. But don't sacrifice the utility of the tool, just because something feels a little different at first.

Keep in mind the context of this thread, a beginner asking for which 9mm to carry. Your advice is to get what is comfortable, my advice (and others) is to get a proven trustworthy tool and learn to like it. The "Silver Medal" in a gunfight is a pine box and a dirt nap. The reliability and relevant features (trigger mechanism, capacity, safety features, weight, size) are far more important than comfort, IMO. Assuming all of these criteria have been satisfied, THEN sure, get which ever of the APPROPRIATE models is more comfortable.

[synergy]

And as usual, lycan steps in and lays it down for everyone to understand and agree with.

One of these days Lycan you might not be right for once.

I ain't keepin my fingers crossed.

synwordonergy

[theSaj]

"If you can hold on to the firearm and pull the trigger straight to the rear...then you can LEARN to shoot it just fine."

What if you can't? Some women have significant trouble reaching around to the trigger. Especially if they are petite. Studies by the FBI and other law enforcement department showed this to be true.

You have what looks to be quite the decent sized hand. So I do not expect this to be a problem for you for most any pistols. But for small, and especially small stubby hands. It can be an issue.

(ie: When I was in the Coast Guard Academy I had to have ALL my standard uniform shirts tailored and shortened. These were the shirts you weren't supposed to need tailored. In fact, there was much joking about my trenchcoat because it was essentially a short-sleeved jacket on most other people.)

"Such is very important, that the gun fit your hand...."

I want to clarify, when I made reference to comfortability in my post. I was not referring to plush ...oooh this feel nice. But rather to the design and size of the firearm facilitating a good grip, and easy reach of the trigger so as to allow me to use good firing technique.


"If a Taurus feels better in your hand than a Glock...and you buy the Taurus because of it, and the gun is for carry, then you're an idiot."

No my advice was to not just buy a gun because everyone says you should get a .45ACP, and everyone else says you should get a Glock. And so you buy a Glock .45ACP and have difficulty reaching the trigger and having a good pull thru.

I never said dismiss quality. But I think there is enough argument out there on what's the best gun that you'll never get everyone to agree. Some will say Glock, other's will advocate for this or that make of a 1911, etc.

"The reliability and relevant features (trigger mechanism, capacity, safety features, weight, size) are far more important than comfort, IMO."

I absolutely agree, and I think quite a few people were chiming in on recommended models and brands. My point was to add an aspect that while not as pinnacle as safety, reliability and accuracy is very important. And felt was being unaddressed.

Had I purchased that .45 ACP Glock based on many recommendations. I would have made a poor choice for me personally. Thankfully, I realized that after a short while of holding the firearm. I chose a Ruger that fit comfortably in my hand. A brand that perhaps not as popular as a Glock or as collectible as a Smith & Wesson, but is decently respected for accuracy, reliability, and safety.

Now I later picked up a 9mm Glock. As in this caliber my hand was able to utilize the firing mechanism without resorting to awkward positions to compensate for reach.

I've heard this expressed before in discussions of people who just found the Glock .45 ACP did not work for them. And their solution was to get a 1911 and change out the grips to thinner models. Something that many 1911's allow for which the Glocks do not.

"Assuming all of these criteria have been satisfied, THEN sure, get which ever of the APPROPRIATE models is more comfortable."

Then it sounds like we're in much agreement. I do apologize if my post came across to you as emphasizing comfort over basic key requirements. And I am glad you posted your disagreement cause it gave me opportunity to clarify.

I think we're both very much in agreement. And our misunderstanding is probably more due to the fact that I just took the short road of just mentioning that one aspect and not placing it in context of re-iterating the more important aspects that should be considered first.

***

If I were to make my recommendations. I would probably go with the following order:

1. Safety (no point in having a gun that poses more risk to your life shooting it at the range than the odds of a criminal).

2. Reliability (accuracy is pointless if 1/2 the time you pull the trigger it fails to shoot).

3. Accuracy (without this, you're only able to defend yourself at point blank range)

4. Proper fit this is where it becomes personal. If you have huge monstrous Andre the Giant hands. A .380 pocket pistol may be nigh impossible for you to use if you can't even fit your finger into the trigger guard. *lol* That said, after the above three criteria (and their many sub-criteria) are met. I do believe a firearm that facilitates best practices for grip, trigger pulls, etc. Is an important criteria.

5. Collectibility, what can I say...after all else. Having a weapon that I can defend myself. The very last criteria of purchase is having a firearm that you like the appearance of. And this is the very last criteria and IMHO should NEVER infringed on the first four unless the firearm is specifically a collectible. (ie: You've got a replica 17th century blunderbuss that you use in historical re-enactments. It's accurate to about 5ft.

Concealibility if that is a desire (weight, size, slenderness, etc.) brings sacrifices to many of the above. It's a personal determination of how much sacrifice you are willing to accept in order to have. In other words, if you're only option is a .380 pocket gun or a .22 deringer. Hey, I guess that's better than NOT having anything at all. But the less you have to sacrifice for your carry the better. And if you can carry a firearm that requires no sacrifice....more power to you. And anyone who does believe they carry a firearm that requires no sacrifice needs to compare handgun accuracy to longgun accuracy and then tell me you've not made a compromise.

[synergy]

theSaj, you're right, we do mostly agree.

I wasn't saying "get a gun you can't safely hold onto". I know the G21 is a tough fit for many people. Not being able to safely hold onto a gun is a different story than "ooo, this feels comfy!". So many people have ruled out the Glock because of the grip angle. This is something people can learn, which might feel "off" at first...but is a terrible reason to rule out the platform.

Most beginners don't even have a "grip" dialed in properly, anyway. At first I liked Gen 3 Glocks, then I liked 1911's, then M&P's, then Glocks......all the while my grip was evolving. Now I prefer guns w/o finger grooves....a total 180 from where I started at. I've realized that getting my hand shoved up high into the backstrap does more for me than finger grooves that "fill" some space between my fingers.

I've put so many rounds through a Gen 2 Glock covered in sandpaper...it now feels "right" despite: a radical grip angle, an abrasive texture, and no guide for where my fingers should lay. If I told any beginner that this was the ticket...they'd look at me like I had 3 heads.

[Scud]

Synergy, You frigg'in crack me up. I know that you shoot with a better allignment than you have in that picture.

I will have to say that my HK USP is kind of uncomfortable, but I can hit anything with it. I prefer to shoot something else however.

Who is that on your avatar?

[synergy]

Originally Posted by Scud

Synergy, You frigg'in crack me up. I know that you shoot with a better allignment than you have in that picture.

I will have to say that my HK USP is kind of uncomfortable, but I can hit anything with it. I prefer to shoot something else however.

Who is that on your avatar?

Yeah...thanks.

I was tossing around the idea of custom making my own 1911 "wide body" grips. So I crammed my hand as far into that back of that gun to show how friggin long my fingers are.

That's Vincent in Pulp Fiction, right before he shoots Marvin in the face....one of my favorite movies.

[theSaj]

"So many people have ruled out the Glock because of the grip angle."

Ah, I see where you are coming from. No, I wasn't meaning angles and such. But not being able to secure a good grip on the firearm.

Sure some prefer a Ruger MKIII over MK III 22/45 and vice-versa for comfort. But that's very trivial to me.



"Now I prefer guns w/o finger grooves..."
I learned a number of people do as it was stated as a plus when I bought a used Glock 17 for $300 with three magazines.