[Boogalou]

I currently own two plain jane type 1911's, a Springfield Mil-Spec & a Colt Series 70. I like the original configuration over the newer types, and while admitting that I only have a few years experience shooting 1911's, have never had a problem with hammer bite or engaging the thumb safety by accident while shooting. I have non-fleshy average to small hands.

I found out that many 1911 shooters, especially folks who use them in competition, prefer a high thumb grip that rides the safety. I figured fine, I'll have to try that out next time I get to the range. I did some dry-firing using this hold and it just feels somewhat weird to me, and I notice that the existing grip safety kind of gets in the way of getting a higher hold on the pistol.

So you see my dilemma, I like the current set-up on my 1911's, but I do want to use the high thumb grip if it will improve my shooting. At least on my part, its possible that the standard GI issue safeties might not be the best choice for accurate shooting.

As soon as I get a chance, I'll take the Springfield out the range and try the new grip and see how it works. Any comments or thoughts?

 

[CastleBravo]

With most guns, folks adapt their technique to the hardare.

With 1911s, for some reason many folks adapt the hardware to work with what is a priori determined to be a good technique. Fine if it works for you (which it does for many), but I wonder how all these Glock, Beretta, Sig, et. al. shooters are able to live without hardware modified to allow a 1911-style high thumbs grip...?

 

[Mus]

With 1911s, for some reason many folks adapt the hardware to work with what is a priori determined to be a good technique.

Thats not really an accurate description at all. Its a result of a slowly evolving system of modification use and remodification. Nobody just invented the idea of a high thumb hold off the top of their head and then started designing guns for what might be an effective technique.

Fine if it works for you (which it does for many), but I wonder how all these Glock, Beretta, Sig, et. al. shooters are able to live without hardware modified to allow a 1911-style high thumbs grip...?

They arent. Thats why most of the top competition shooters use 1911s.

 

[RickB]

I think the high beavertail (Brown, STI, etc.) is really only good when matched with a high front strap - either both high, or both "low"; I suppose it's possible to get used to anything. I rarely shoot more than 200 rounds in a day, and I don't have any problems with "bite" or excessive wear on my gun hand, unless something is sharp, but if I was going to a shooting school where 1000 or more rounds are fired per day, for a few days, then I think a beavertail would be nice to have.
My IDPA gun has no beavertail and a standard front strap, and my IPSC gun has a high front strap and STI beavertail; I don't really have a preference, as long as the edges are smooth.

 

[CastleBravo]

Originally posted by Mus Thats not really an accurate description at all. Its a result of a slowly evolving system of modification use and remodification. Nobody just invented the idea of a high thumb hold off the top of their head and then started designing guns for what might be an effective technique.

I wasn't talking about people inventing the technique. I was talking about how people will buy a mil-spec pistol now & then feel the need to modify it to shoot high thumbs.

They arent. Thats why most of the top competition shooters use 1911s.

Last I checked, the current champion in IDPA CDP (the traditionally 1911 class) won with a Sig P220. Guess lack of a thing to stick high thumbs on didn't hurt him so much.

As I've noted earlier, I've owned beavertailed guns & liked them, so don't think there is the slightest thing wrong with going to one per se. But people act like you are hosed if you are without one... not so.

 

[Boogalou]

I wasn't talking about people inventing the technique. I was talking about how people will buy a mil-spec pistol now & then feel the need to modify it to shoot high thumbs.

CB - I am resisting the urge to do this. Thats one of the reasons I started this thread, to find out from experienced 1911 shooters whether they feel JMB's creation needs to be changed to accommodate the high thumb hold? I also own a few CZ's, and I feel my basic gun grip should be the same for all my pistols. On the other side of the coin, if the majority of 1911 shooters perform better with this hold, shouldn't form follow function?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the high thumb hold looks to be 1911 specific, but I also can't see why it shouldn't work on my CZ75 either.

 

[CastleBravo]

Not to be non-commital, but there is nothing wrong with either choice. I think beavertails are oversold as a cure-all, but they have their place... and I've personally had the snot modified out of guns that started out looking pretty milspec-ish.

You can shoot Modern Isocoles with or without a BT just fine, but if you want to use the thumb safety to really crank the gun low in your hand with your thumb, you probably need a gas pedal and a BT. The main decision is if you think the (possibly marginally) improved technique is worth the $250ish it will cost to have the modifications done properly.

 

[2cats]

I think the high thumb grip - which I also use on my Glock 17, BTW; I'm climbing that gun - clears out a lot of room on the weak side grip panel for your weak hand, making for a much better grip on the gun.

 

[Mus]

I wasn't talking about people inventing the technique. I was talking about how people will buy a mil-spec pistol now & then feel the need to modify it to shoot high thumbs.

Ah. Well if you want to change it like that I agree to some extent. Im left handed so all my guns invariably have some form of shelf for my thumb to rest on, but one of my 1911s doesnt have a beavertail because I dont get bitten.

But your original post was that there was a desire to change their hardware to what was determined to be an a priori good technique. It is not a priori. It has proven itself superior to low thumbs repeatedly, just as the use of sights has proven itself superior to point shooting.

In other words my objection was more to the use of a priori than anything else. If anything its a posteriori. Its development process makes that clear.

Last I checked, the current champion in IDPA CDP (the traditionally 1911 class) won with a Sig P220. Guess lack of a thing to stick high thumbs on didn't hurt him so much.

Yeah he probably just uses his other thumb as a shelf. At least thats what I do when I shoot a non 1911 style gun. Anyways that is one of the reasons why I said most.

The safety on a 1911 just makes it easier for a student or beginner to remember to keep the thumbs high.

 

[CastleBravo]

In other words my objection was more to the use of a priori than anything else. If anything its a posteriori. Its development process makes that clear.

It depends on your point of view, doesn't it? If I buy the gun, and have already decided to shoot high thumbs, only to discover that to use my pre-determined technique to its potential I need to modify the gun, as opposed to modifying my technique to suit the hardware at hand... ah, forget it!

 

[Magnumite]

I find using a milspec grip safety along the lines of the origonal 1911 design will get the grip up there and avoid the hammer bite for smaller, nonfleshy hands. If you go too short on the grip safety holding high you will get some bite. So now I'll have to bob the hammer...

So this looks like a case for me where my grip and equipment are evolving.

 

[Mus]

It depends on your point of view, doesn't it? If I buy the gun, and have already decided to shoot high thumbs, only to discover that to use my pre-determined technique to its potential I need to modify the gun, as opposed to modifying my technique to suit the hardware at hand... ah, forget it!

On second thought lets just stop using latin.