quote:

---

I'm currently down to just my 1911 as for semi-autos, yes, but because the grip angle of my 1911 is similar to that of 95% of the handguns out there, my practice with it is still going to benefit me very well if I switch to another platform. I get to choose from 95% of the market. If I chose a Glock, I'll have to tear down all my muscle memory and relearn how to shoot that gun.

---

Does not compute for me.

I shoot a large variety of pistols regularly, and the only thing that changes muscle memory wise between Glock and Sig, for example, is a slight change in wrist angle. All of the shooting fundamentals remain the same.

Frankly, I find the transition between different trigger styles to be much more detrimental to my shooting ability than any problem with the grip angle and muscle memory. It's a bear getting used to the Sig DA/SA again after shooting either Glocks or 1911s.

Yeah, if I've spent the last hour shooting a Glock my draw presentation with something else might point slightly off the first time, but a good presentation allows you to see and correct that as your draw to get a good sight alignment as you extend your arms, regardless of what you're shooting.

I'll also add that shooting my Sig messes up my draw presentation with my Ruger 22/45 and the 92 is slightly different from the 1911, so this isn't exactly the Glock vs Everyone else problem you claim. Every pistol points a little bit differently, and it's a slight adjustment every single time you change a firearm.

I personally think you convincing yourself that shooting Glocks somehow requires completely brand new muscle memory is far more damaging to your abilities as a versatile shooter than actually shooting Glocks could ever be.

I've practiced and carried with a variety of pistols, from Glock, Sig and 1911s to J frames. Yes, they're all different to shoot. That's why I practice with them all. I haven't noticed shooting Glocks magically degrading my ability to shoot a 1911 or vice versa. If I was a Jerry Miculek level shooter, maybe I would, but then again I've seen him shoot a lot of different firearms (sometimes back to back) and he seems to do just fine with all of them....so maybe not.

Either way, I find the thought that "That Glock guy is pigeon holing himself and it's bad, but 95% of guns out there are going to shoot and handle like my nice high end 1911 so I'm not" is pretty darn funny.

Your mileage may and apparently does vary.

Skub, that's a fan-freaking-tastic gif. I'm stealing it

quote:

---

Either way, I find the thought that "That Glock guy is pigeon holing himself and it's bad, but 95% of guns out there are going to shoot and handle like my nice high end 1911 so I'm not" is pretty darn funny.

---

You're putting words in my mouth. No where, at all, have I said that pigeon holing himself was necessarily a bad thing. It was his choice and that's it. By its nature it does limit him as it clearly has done. He said himself nothing else shoots like his Glock. That's because he's trained himself to it.

I also think you and I (Bender) are doing a little different training. Instinctive and reflex shooting, as well as shooting without sight alignment relies heavily on muscle memory.

quote:

---

I also think you and I (Bender) are doing a little different training. Instinctive and reflex shooting, as well as shooting without sight alignment relies heavily on muscle memory.

---

We're not. I've done point shooting/instinctive shooting drills with all of my guns, I just don't accept the idea that training with one gun ruins muscle memory with another. Just as an example: Professional golfers use different clubs, often back to back. How on earth can they manage to hit the ball well with both a wedge and a driver? By your logic, they should be terrible at it because their driver muscle memory should mess up their wedge muscle memory.

But just for fun, I'll take the counter point as well: lets accept your premise that glock muscle memory has ruined my ability to instinctively shoot with other guns and run with it for a moment. At the distance and in the situation that I would instinctively shoot without any sight alignment, even if I shot a 1911 or Sig with my "glock muscle memory", the POI difference would be measured in inches. If I'm aiming center of mass to stop a threat at point shooting distances, that's more than acceptable accuracy.

Going back to the golf analogy, the reason golfers can use both drivers and wedges without messing up their swing for the other is they've worked hard to build muscle memory for both clubs. There is zero reason why a shooter can't do the same thing for different guns, which is why this whole "Glocks ruin your muscle memory" idea just doesn't hold water for me. You're smart. Your brain is capable of learning more than one thing. You can shoot all the guns.

Ok, did you not see where he said he only shoots Glock for defense?

Seriously, go back and look and confirm for me that you see that.

Phideaux, this was the statement I wanted to address:

quote:

---

If I chose a Glock, I'll have to tear down all my muscle memory and relearn how to shoot that gun.

---

As BradleyKohr mentioned, the fundamentals are the same. There really isn't as dramatic a difference between shooting Glocks and the "other 95% of the market" as you claim. That's what I was addressing.

I have no issues with someone choosing to standardize on Glocks, or 1911s, or whatever as their "go to defensive gun". I was disputing your reasoning for not shooting Glocks: That it would ruin your muscle memory for every other gun out there.

Might feel minor to you but at 7 yards, the bullet is more than inches off...





Unless you change your hands to pick up a 1911 to a different pair of hands than you pick up your Glock with, they ARE going to interface differently. That's all there is to it. Anyone with the slightest bit of hand eye coordination can compensate for the difference on a static range punching holes in the paper, but in a dynamic event, these are the small differences that CAN get someone hurt. Unless you practice it. Again I ask you, do you see where he said he only carries Glocks?

If that is true he has practiced with this grip. He has practiced with this grip angle. I'm sure he's a deadly shot and I certainly don't want to come up against him. However, in only carrying Glock he has pigeon holed himself into this grip angle.

AGAIN it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is true.

quote:

---

If I chose a Glock, I'll have to tear down all my muscle memory and relearn how to shoot that gun.

---

As it pertains to this quote directly, I do not shoot Glock. All I shoot are guns that have a grip angle similar to the 1911. Every time I pick up a Glock, if I instictively point it at a target, I see all of the top of the slide and the sights aren't even close to one another. With my 1911, my buddies M&P, all the Sig's I've ever had, Beretta's, Rugers, CZ's, the Kahr I had, ad nausium... They all come up with sight very nearly aligned and on target.

Glocks don't. My muscle memory doesn't work with them because I haven't trained with them. So yes, I would have to tear down my muscle memory and rebuild it.

quote:

---

However, in only carrying Glock he has pigeon holed himself into this grip angle.

---

Language is a funny thing. "Pigeon hole" has some implications (at least to me) that I don't think you intend.

At room distances I can pick up one of my Glocks and point and shoot at a target and be in a 6" circle without ever even seeing the sights on the gun. Just point, bang, done. I'm sure if I were to pick up your 1911 I'd probably want to get a look at the front sight before sending a round because I haven't trained with a 1911.

I'm guessing that if we switched roles and guns the same thing would be true for you as well.

The question is how big a deal is it really? And for me the answer is "it isn't." YMMV.

And as has been mentioned on here several times, grip angle isn't the only part of muscle memory. Trigger function, safety, and magazine operation are every bit as important and in my opinion more so.

But let's stay on grip angle for a minute because that seems to matter to some folks. And let's pretend that instead of me selling off my LCP, I instead sold off my Glocks. So for my subcompact I got a M&P Shield in 9mm, and for my compact I got an XD in .40 and for my full size I got a Kimber 1911 in .45 ACP and then let's say I wanted to throw in a Sig P229 in .357Sig just for kicks.

I would then have five different guns, all with slightly different grip angles, all with slightly (or dramatically) different triggers, all with varying safety configurations.

That set up? TERRIBLE for instinctive shooting. TERRIBLE.

Or I could get a Glock 42 in .380, a Glock 27 in .40, a Glock 20 in 10mm, a Glock 19 in 9mm, and - oh, let's say a Glock 41 in .45ACP.

All of them have the same grip angle. All of them have the same trigger. All of them have the same sight picture. All of them have the same safeties. I can pick up any one of them and start shooting almost precisely as well as I can any of the others, despite massive differences in size and caliber.

I am not pigeon-holed. I'm liberated to shoot the **** out of whatever makes the mistake of stepping into my sights.

... and I wind up with a dele-conceal weapon, a quality EDC piece, a fine hunting sidearm, a home defense gun and a target/competition gun that all take advantage of my training and existing muscle memory. So you'll forgive me if I don't feel exactly limited in any way.

While I agree that 95% in the Indian, not the bow, the point I was trying to make, at least in my own head, was similar to Skubalon's.

Muscle memory is vastly more than merely grip angle - while I am not a "defensive shooter," nor do I know to what the term refers, I do shoot Steel Challenge and other practical pistol sports which place a very high emphasis on speed.

There is thumb safety position, if present, grip safety, if present, trigger safety, if present, type of trigger safety, reset feel, reset distance, balance, how the gun feels when it cycles, recoil produced by the load, mag release position, and probably lots of things I have forgot.

If I go from my open (2011) gun, to a Glock, I never seem to struggle w the grip angle as much as not putting my finger far enough in on the trigger to release the trigger safety, I also "bobble" the draw a bit, looking for the thumb safety.

A few runs on a plate rack sorts that.

Then, if I shoot a "defensive" load instead of a carry load, in 45, the recoil is so different I have frozen before to check the gun, sure I just had a double charge.

I don't notice the difference in 9, TMK all 357 Sig is full bore, and my carry and competition 10 and 38 super loads are the same.

The benefit of a Glock platform - or a 1911 or Witness - is that you can get the same design, tweaked to suit multiple parameters.

XDs and M&Ps would be close, but they don't offer a hunting level sidearm.

Humans are amazingly skilled - lots of folks play multiple instruments, which is vastly more complicated - but there is some extra work involved.

quote:

---

Language is a funny thing. "Pigeon hole" has some implications (at least to me) that I don't think you intend.

At room distances I can pick up one of my Glocks and point and shoot at a target and be in a 6" circle without ever even seeing the sights on the gun. Just point, bang, done. I'm sure if I were to pick up your 1911 I'd probably want to get a look at the front sight before sending a round because I haven't trained with a 1911.

I'm guessing that if we switched roles and guns the same thing would be true for you as well.

The question is how big a deal is it really? And for me the answer is "it isn't." YMMV.

And as has been mentioned on here several times, grip angle isn't the only part of muscle memory. Trigger function, safety, and magazine operation are every bit as important and in my opinion more so.

But let's stay on grip angle for a minute because that seems to matter to some folks. And let's pretend that instead of me selling off my LCP, I instead sold off my Glocks. So for my subcompact I got a M&P Shield in 9mm, and for my compact I got an XD in .40 and for my full size I got a Kimber 1911 in .45 ACP and then let's say I wanted to throw in a Sig P229 in .357Sig just for kicks.

I would then have five different guns, all with slightly different grip angles, all with slightly (or dramatically) different triggers, all with varying safety configurations.

That set up? TERRIBLE for instinctive shooting. TERRIBLE.

Or I could get a Glock 42 in .380, a Glock 27 in .40, a Glock 20 in 10mm, a Glock 19 in 9mm, and - oh, let's say a Glock 41 in .45ACP.

All of them have the same grip angle. All of them have the same trigger. All of them have the same sight picture. All of them have the same safeties. I can pick up any one of them and start shooting almost precisely as well as I can any of the others, despite massive differences in size and caliber.

I am not pigeon-holed. I'm liberated to shoot the **** out of whatever makes the mistake of stepping into my sights.

---

I don't disagree with anything here other than the fact that you've pigeon holed yourself. Maybe it's that your specific pigeon hole is for racing pigeons. You're not in Doss, Tx are you?

:-)

Maybe it is just my definition of pigeon holing.