Many years ago I took an all day private class to try to learn certain things. One of them was to explore the notion of double taps.

Some say "two well aimed shots" but this was about trying to draw and fire two shots in the shortest time.

It was more about reacting to the subconscious sight picture to me.

We tried a variety of pistols over a few hours. At one point, the instructor handed me his Glock 21 - this big block of 2x4 in my hand. It felt terrible with square corners and ergo-nothing.

Turns out, that 21 was the best shooter for me. Over and over I printed touching shots and very close holes at speed. It was uncanny at 7 yards.

After many magazines, the web of my hand was red and started to turn black and blue because my hand at speed would just not settle forward enough up in the grip.

The fit was terrible for me but we couldn't deny the results.

As another anecdote . . .

I took a high speed 3 day close quarters class that I posted about years ago.

One thing I learned was at speed I could get precise rounds on target even though my master grip was less than perfect. That was with my P228.

So, it seems to me that having a perfect fit or even a perfect grip may not be necessary to get good or excellent results.

I do not prefer to shoot the Glock 21 but maybe I just like the rhythm of .45.

My favorite fit is my Sig 1911 in .45. Very accurate with that one. But, the safety lever makes me slower. So, is it "best" anyway?

Maybe "best" for a particular purpose would be a remaining issue.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
What would Musashi say?

They way is training.

There's a point of diminishing returns for me where slim becomes problematic, but I don't notice a change in groups unless I can't really get a grip on the gun.

What works best on the range shooting paper or steel is what stays around here. My most common edc is a firearm that when I bought the first one in 2010 I couldn’t believe how accurate with it I was. The range decides what I carry, keep, and shoot, not stats, not “comfort”. I came to the same conclusion with strikers vs. hammers. On paper, carrying, etc, striker wins. But in my hands at the range I shoot DA/SA better, like it better, etc. If people would buy shoot and carry what they shoot best they’d be doing themselves a big favor.

For me my Walther PPS original version. I had tried various other single stack poly frame pistols and was not impressed with my shooting of them. I was able to try a Walther PPS at a factory shoot at my local gun store and was very surprised with the results and ended up buying one.

My Gen 2 Glock 19 is another example. A bit too small for my hand/fingers but I was able to make it work and the Gripforce adapter helped too. I shoot it well and my trigger finger is at the first joint when I shoot my Glock 19 and PPS.

I might do a little better at the range slow fire with my VP9 and PPQ but the Glock 19 is pretty close. For me my Gen 2 Glock 19 is very fast out of the holster and onto the target. There are no ranges within a reasonable distance for me but I practice dry fire and with a laser cartridge.

Not so much on this forum but it cracks me up on other forums when I mention that I like the Gen 2/5 Glock grip. I get rolled eyes responses and that I must be a newbie and I need to try x, y, or Z pistols as they have superior grips. Whatever but I find there are advantages to the flat side poly frame grip, at least for me.

It makes me cringe when someone advises to handle at the LGS and buy the one that "feels best in your hand".

Standard Grip Size Gen 3 Glock 21. (BUFF)
A controllable, accurate, reliable hammer.
While it feels like a 1x2 I trust it fully and it shoots as well or better than many a gun I've owned. Results matter.
Stock Photo from Web.

Mine isn't marked US on the Ser# and I've yet to find a better cleaner machined Glock. This one inside and out is "amazing" and I don't use that word for a Glock perhaps ever.