Grip, Grips, and insight from masters who have been there

First topic message reminder :

I know this subject has been covered before, but since we all have nothing better to do than to post and learn on this forum, but what's one more time, right?

I have heard from several people on this forum that most high ranking shooters use slabs on their 1911's. I personally found early success (for me) with Herrett's Nationals, after starting my bullseye shooting hobby with slabs, and now I have a nearly identical pair of Dick Horton's custom grips on my 22 and my centerfire pistols. They took some getting used to coming off the Herrett's, but they were expensive so I stayed with them. Recently my slow fire scores have not been consistent, but timed are almost always 97-100, and rapid 93-99. I am also not able to go to the range 3+ days a week like I could last year due to work, so I do a small amount of dry fire. I have around a 278 or 279 average NMC score in rim and centerfire on the league. If match pressure and anxiety weren't a thing, my match scores would be much higher, but that's not reality right now. Still, knowing what I am capable of in practice makes me think I have a decent idea of the fundamentals. But I'm wondering if I'm holding myself back by not throwing the slabs back on and giving them a good solid effort for a few months straight. 

So now my question - why slabs? Are they ergonomically designed to let a good shooter shoot better at the top end than the Horton's or the Herrett's? I definitely feel that the palm shelf and shape of my grips help stabilize the gun, particularly in rapid fire/centerfire, and I think they are more forgiving of grip pressure. I also feel that they are more comfortable to grip than slabs, at least when shooting the 45, which I've noticed I need to grip much tighter. When I grip slabs as hard as I need to in order to recover quickly from rapid fire, or even just shoot tight groups, my hand cramps up, particularly when focusing on front/back pressure. On some level I feel that the grips I use are a crutch, like training wheels to make up for improper technique. On the other hand, I wonder if not everyone's hands are suited to making the most of slabs, and the ergonomic grips help a shooter play the game (bullseye) better. Kind of like using a red dot - I'd love to shoot master scores with irons only and stock grips, but I really don't think its in the cards for me - I have pretty bad eyes, and even with strong contact lenses its hard to see minute detail on my front sight, or its exact location. 

Any insight from the masters who have used every kind of grips? 

thanks,

LenV wrote:

Oleg G wrote:Folks, sorry, but I feel compelled to ask one more question about Herrett Nationals. Do they fall into the category of the fifi Euro grips? Reason for asking - I am using them on both my Model 41 and my 1911. Have been dry firing a lot lately, which translates to better scores in the league. I feel that the Nationals fit my slender long-fingered hands really well. Willing to give slabs a try, if the Nationals are considered to have the same drawbacks as the true ergo grips.

I like using Herrett Nationals because no matter what pistol they are on they all feel the same. You still have to grip properly. I even modified a set for 1911's to fit on my 952. I don't shoot 2600's but I don't think changing grips is going to get me there so I might as well use these. I have never found a Euro grip that actually fit either.

My first sets were Herrett Nationals and I really liked them. I assumed that if they were good, customs would be better. I had considered going back to them actually. If I can't seem to get a grip on the slabs after a solid effort, I may try them again.

Not a High Master, never will be (or that's very unlikely), but I'm reasonably confident that 'slab grips' on a .45 are to cover the magazine well.  The 'grip' is formed by the contact region along the mainspring housing and the front frame strap.  Both of these areas are generally (but not always) stippled or cross hatched.  The thumb is not in contact with the frame (and certainly not with a 'slab') long with the non-index finger tips when firing.

Knowing 'how' to do something, unfortunately, doesn't mean or assure you can do it well.  Consistency is the primary goal of any pistol grip.  The European sport pistol style grips with the palm swell, stippling, and palm rest may, or may not, help provide a consistent grip.  But, that is their intended purpose and the reason for the non-conventional appearance.

From a 'I want to learn Bullseye shooting to more accurately shoot any pistol' perspective, learning how to shoot the standard .45 (with 'slab grips') accurately is the best choice, IMO.  Between learning to handle recoil, positioning the pistol in the hand to prevent unwanted movement of the sights when pulling the trigger, and becoming accustomed to using a heavier trigger - the standard .45 is a great learning tool.  But, it does require some dedication by the student.

Note the outer 2 grip sections are the current Herrett Nationals.  For me, feels like a tree trunk, awful!  The inside area above the thumb rest is too chunky, making it difficult to get a good grip against the front strap and the mainspring housing.  The finish on the wood seem more slick than the older ones seen in the middle which were made in the 70's.

The palm rest on the older design would wrap around the palm more which restrict the grip feel.  Also, the vertical travel of the older palm rest is limited so the feel would be too tight for most hands.  There is more vertical adjustment on the current model as you can see the extra length.  On the plus side of the left panel on the older design, the important area where the thumb rest against left panel is very similar to slab grips, being similar in thickness to the slab.

Does anyone know when the design changed to the current design?  I'm sure there must have been research and feedback from shooters, but then again, there have been too many negative comments on these Herretts.