"Feels good", "Balance"

[dahermit]

In reference to handguns, I frequently see statements like, "...feels really good in my hand...", "...good balance...", etc., implying that if one likes the "feel" it is a "good" thing relative to shootability. To me, that is an oxymoron.

Take for instance the standard (not longer "Artillery" or "Navy"), four-inch Luger. Most would say that the Luger "feels really good", in the hand, but in fact that gun's weight is in the hand and the barrel (and front sight), is free wander about as it will...not exactly a desirable trait for a handgun if you want to actually hit what you are shooting at.

On the other hand, take the various targetmodels of Ruger .22 autos that mimic the grip of the Luger, except that they have untapered, heavy barrels. Compared to the Luger, the balance point is in front of the hand, not in it. Those autos are likely to be described as "...feeling less good...", in the hand than the aforementioned Luger.

Nevertheless, Ruger put bull barrels on those guns for a reason...to be able to be fired as accurately as possible via a steady hold and consequently more steady sight picture.

I wholeheartedly agree that handguns represent several compromises depending upon intended use (i.g., light weight to accommodate having to carry it), but I think a lot of people get the concept of what is "good balance", all wrong. Feel free to post disagreements, but explain why..I may learn something I have not thought of.

[jmr40]

Most people use those terms to justify their own personal choices. Within reasonable limits the human hand will conform to any shape placed in it. Balance is subjective. Most people can adapt to and use most any gun if they really want to.

[44 AMP]

that gun's weight is in the hand and the barrel (and front sight), is free wander about as it will...not exactly a desirable trait for a handgun if you want to actually hit what you are shooting at.

And muzzle heavy handguns point low (for some of us, anyway)...not exactly a desirable trait for a handgun if you want to actually hit what you are shooting at.


Different designs feel different. What feels best to one person might be horrid to the next. 2 of the three bears favorites were wrong for Goldilocks...

What's "best" for a fighting handgun and what's best for a target gun can be quite different, even with the same shooter.

Semi autos put more of their weight in and over the hand than other designs. a good thing for some people, not so much for others. Its a matter of personal preference.

A muzzle heavy gun has advantages ONCE you are ON TARGET. But it can be a disadvantage, GETTING on target.

"throw" the pistol up in a shooting stance, with your eyes closed. Then open them and see where the sights are lined up. Do it several times. The "best" gun for instinctive (defensive) shooting will be the one where the sights are lined up and on target "automatically". Most people and most guns won't be perfectly aligned, and correction will need to be made. Not a big issue in sport shooting, potentially a big issue in defensive shooting.

Pointing instinctively, most guns will be close enough to "get the job done" at close range, defensively, but would only be "on the paper" and not in the bullseye when target shooting.

Balance matters, when you aren't taking the time needed for maximum precision.

As an example, I've found that, for me, the "perfect" gun for instinctively lining up the sights is a S&W N frame 4". (Which is kind of sad, actually, because I don't really like 4" barrel magnums)

The 4" S&W L frame weighs exactly what the N frame does, but it balances differently in my hands. When I point it, it points LOW for me.

Other people have exactly the opposite experience.

So, overall, I'd say that "feel" (balance) matters most when you don't have/can't take the time to line up your sights. And what is good, better, best will be as varied as the people doing the shooting.

[dahermit]

Most people use those terms to justify their own personal choices. Within reasonable limits the human hand will conform to any shape placed in it. Balance is subjective. Most people can adapt to and use most any gun if they really want to.

I agree. After all, we (BASIC Training, Fort Knox 1962), all of us adapted to an M1 Garand with a standard length of pull...even the lefties.

[buck460XVR]

In reference to handguns, I frequently see statements like, "...feels really good in my hand...", "...good balance...", etc., implying that if one likes the "feel" it is a "good" thing relative to shootability. To me, that is an oxymoron.

I've always felt that my best shooting handguns felt like an extension of my hand, thus those that feel good and balance well in my hand, point most easily and thus tend to be not only more accurate for me, but more pleasant to shoot in the case of heavy recoiling magnums. Most folks believe the reason most folks shoot 1911s well is because the grip size and angle fits most folks hands well. If something feels awkward, and has to be constantly re-positioned and adjusted in the hand to shoot, while it can still be accurate, it's probably going to take more and regular practice to achieve and maintain proficiency. Then there's the mental thing. If a gun is more comfortable to grip and transfers recoil better than another, which one are we less likely to flinch with? Because one gun is more pleasant to shoot than another, won't we shoot it more and thus become more proficient with it? Regardless of how a gun feels in one's hand, it still has to have inherent accuracy. I was always under the impression that Lugers had inherent accuracy and are one reason they were so desirable.

[2123]

I have really huge hands. I wear a size XXXL glove. Most handguns I have, I adapt to them, not the other way around.

Sure, I change out some grips every now and then, and that does help at times.

I have a couple of S&W revolvers that fit my hand like a really big glove. Both are .44 Magnums. One even still have the factory Hogue rubber grip on it. It fit me to a "T" right out of the box.

And......it's one of those "natural pointers".

[Nathan]

You are discussing the difference between static and dynamic balance.

A gun with good static properties feels good held relatively motionless, like in a gun store.

A gun with good dynamic balance will return to line of sight quick and transition well target to target.

It is disappointing when I drop some coin on a gun with great static feel and the dynamic is crap. This is rare and I'm starting to be able to predict it better.

[ammo.crafter]

Interesting subject.

A gun that feels right needs no "adjustment" in the hand to come to target "naturally".

Something like trying out the fit of a shotgun by closing your eyes and bringing it to the shoulder; it should line up properly with your eye and shoulder.

[jackstrawIII]

When I say something "feels good in the hand", I'm referring to the actual grip ergonomics. That's more important to me than weight distribution IN A PISTOL because it impacts my ability to aim intrinsically, without having to tweak my grip in the moments before shooting.

In a rifle, on the other hand, the opposite is true. Weight distribution and the feel of movement is much more important to me than the ergonomics of the grip area.

[stuckinthe60s]

if a gun is balanced, (proper weight) the shape and fit of a grip becomes a moot or a secondary point.
the old high standards with all their weights and bbl length options is a good example of this belief.
once the shooter gets the weight/balance down, then as they improve, theyd change the grips to fine tune the gun.
besides, any good bullseye shooter knows that the pinky finger and thumb just go for a ride. the entire gun should be resting in the 2 middle fingers and the trigger finger. maybe its why I never liked thumb rests or clay moulds. it all just got in the way.

[Snyper]

"Feels good" and "balanced" mean different things to different people.
There are no right or wrong answers since it's all subjective.

[McShooty]

My guideline is quick use under pressure. Revolvers in the Civil War, or any other battle situation, were not meant to be "aimed." They were meant to be pointed when engaged at close quarters. For me the king of that application is the Colt Model 1860 Army. It fits and is very comfortable in my hand and it comes up very naturally to an accurate point position. The 1851 Navy is similar, but its grip is just a bit too small for me. I think these are the best balanced pointers ever. Try one out if you haven't done so yet.

[dahermit]

"Feels good" and "balanced" mean different things to different people.
There are no right or wrong answers since it's all subjective.

I agree and as such (subjective), it is a pointless statement to make when referring to one's new gun.

[44 AMP]

Revolvers in the Civil War, or any other battle situation, were not meant to be "aimed." They were meant to be pointed when engaged at close quarters

Without documented proof from the designer, none of us can say with complete authority how the designer intended the gun to be used. Often designers intend one thing, and people find out that something else works, sometimes even better.

I believe that if it has sights (including just a bead) the designer intended them to be used. The fact that one can be effective in many situations without aiming with the sights doesn't change the intent of putting them on the gun.

[K_Mac]

I agree that how a gun feels and my ability to shoot it well are not necessarily directly related. I do not see how saying a gun feels good in my hand or balances well is oxymoronic though, whether I shoot it well or not. Feel and balance are important to me. If I post that the SR9c feels good in my hand (it does) that doesn't necessarily mean I shoot it well (I do). Posting how a gun feels, while subjective, still has value in my opinion.