Natural Pointing: Definition Please

[dyl]

From your understanding, what does it mean when a handgun is a true "natural pointer"? Is it:

A)
The sight picture is already lined up when your index finger and hand are oriented in a way that you would point as if the gun were not there - as in index finger completely straight, parallel to back of hand which is parallel to forearm.

B)
The sight picture is already lined up when your gun is raised and your hand is positioned in a firing grip you are accustomed to?

I've been wondering about this for a long time and it seems that for a gun to be a "natural pointer" if "A" is the correct definition, an improper firing grip would have to be established where the recoil of the weapon is directed towards the base of the thumb only, not the center of the web of my hand. When I point at something, I tend to point with a straight finger and wrist so this seems to contradict the idea that I can "point" at a target my index finger with gun in hand.

No one points at things with a bent finger except old witches in film, usually accompanied by cackling.

Any thoughts? Or is it something other than these two?

A while back I posted "heeling: definition please" and your thoughts were very helpful. If you've learned what "natural pointing" is, please do share. Especially if you've learned the definition from a trusted source.

Thank you and Merry Christmas in advance.

 

[smince]

If you raise your hand and point at something, note that your hand is canted in a 'half homey' position.

I submit there is no such thing as a 'natural pointing' handgun and it is a software problem that has to be learned.

 

[685cmj]

On the other hand...when I first started shooting, I shot Glocks and I found that the sights were never where I wanted the gun aimed when I brought it up. I had heard often about the "natural pointing" gun and just didn't really know what it meant. Then I switched platforms to the M&P guns and, presto! When I draw the gun and bring it up, the sight is looking right at the target. I don't know exactly how it works, but I would say #2 is the better definition (who cares where you finger points without a gun in it?) and that some guns definitely fit better than others.

 

[Microgunner]

A) has always been my belief.

 

[orionengnr]

I don't know how to quantify A).

I don't care where my empty hand points. I do care where the gun in my hand points, and if the sights align naturally when I extend my arm, the gun is a natural pointer.

 

[riggins_83]

Some people define it as the gun that feels it has the most natural sight picture to them. I suspect in most cases it has nothing to do with that.. rather has to do with the ergonomics of the previous firearms they've used.

If I pick up another Glock it feels "natural." If I pick up a Sig it's different.. or vice versa. Anybody new to shooting has to learn, at least to some extent how to get that sight picture without searching for it.

 

[cecILL]

Don't use the sights, just point and shoot. If the round goes where you think it should, it has "natural pointability".

 

[X_shooter]

My version of a natural point is when I grasp a handgun, close my eyes and raise it to an arms length shooting position. If I can open my eyes and look at the sights reasonably aligned without then needing to tilt the gun up or down I consider that a keeper. A natural pointer.

 

[44 AMP]

I look at it a bit differently

To me a gun is a "natural pointer" if it hits what I want when I point it, without using the sights! Hip shooting, for instance.

A gun that puts the sights on line with the target when you bring it up to eye level is a good pointer, not a "natural" one, to me.

To me, GLocks are neither.

 

[mete]

X Shooter has it right ! Finally gun makers are making guns with interchangeable panels to make the gun point as described. You shouldn't have to do anything but make fine adjustments to be right on. For me Glocks will always shoot high as will any gun with angled back grips so I'll never have one.
H&K, S&W M&P, and some others like the 1911 can be modified to fit you .

 

[joneb]

For me a natural pointer allows me shoot reasonably accurately without acquiring a sight picture.
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/Point_shooting.htm

 

[dyl]

Thanks for your input.

So in trying to dissect the term of a firearm being a "natural pointer" there's a few ideas that we've tossed around here as to what makes it so.

1) "Pointing" as a function of the hand alone or taking into account a learned grip. - still controversial

2) Previous training affects our perception of whether a certain firearm aligns or feels "natural". In the hands of a novice perhaps all guns feel "unnatural" in attaining a sight picture. And proficiency with a particular angle grip could be a detriment when using another at first, like transitioning from 1911 to Glock or the other way around.

3) When we're talking about a gun being a "natural pointer" are we speaking of using the sights at all or point shooting? - this is definitely a new idea to me as I hadn't considered point shooting in this discussion. In a thread I read not long ago I think someone went to a gun store and easily evaluated a gun as being "natural pointer". It might have been the gentleman handling a K-frame - I may be mistaken. I've read lots of accounts of someone stating that a particular firearm pointed naturally without firing it. Does it mean that this definition is wrong? No - and adopting this definition (point shoots easily) does not exclude the idea that the sight picture is correct because as a fact, the sights still must line up in order for the bullet to fly towards the intended target. Unless the sights are way off and the shooter has adapted to it. Maybe the only difference is whether this natural pointing handgun's shot is confirmed by checking the sight picture with your eye before a shot or by looking to see where the hole is afterwards.

4) "natural pointing" includes the shape of the grip affecting aiming on the horizontal plane as well as on the vertical axis. - This point seems small but there's something to it for me based on our physiology. How much of the day do we spend with our wrists bent "sideways" towards our thumb or pinky? Or extremely flexed or extended? - that's not the most comfortable nor healthy for our wrist to be in. (Carpal tunnel syndrome in secretaries) There's this whole "ergonomics" movement with the funny looking snow shovels, chairs, and keyboards. So maybe a very "natural pointing" firearm for each of us depends on how each of us were made. Ergonomics research is always going on so maybe we'll see a change in pop culture's idea of how a handgun should look like over time. I'm thinking of really early black powder handguns that have just a slightly bent stock. Those look so uncomfortable to shoot!

But maybe an artificial/forced grip enhances shooting. For example, I've heard that the down-turned wrist in a Glock grip supposedly helps reduce muzzle rise because it resists upwards rotation. This supposedly helps follow up shot times.

That's it for now, no more thoughts upstairs except lunch!! Thanks for the discussion folks!

 

[RickB]

I don't think we can expect "natural pointing" to exist in a vacuum. That is, if you are a shooter, own guns and shoot them, you will either have discovered the gun that points naturally for you, or you will have adapted to the gun that you do have, and it will become what's natural. I am so accustomed to shooting 1911s with arched mainspring housings, that I cannot "point shoot" worth a darn if the gun - even my own gun - has a flat housing. If I'd been shooting something else for 40 years, that would feel natural. I've read that the Luger and Colt Peacemaker are two of the most natural pointers ever, but both feel awkward and unnatural in my hand, and I can't hit a thing without using the sights.

 

[pythagorean]

Take out some of your handguns and point them below eye level--see where they are pointing to determine the more natural pointers.

 

[dyl]

Ah, I see. Well that's an argument for some advice I'd heard, "find a weapon system and stick to it" to build that familiarity. I'd follow that completely if there was only 1 good brand or design of handgun but isn't part of the fun messin' around and trying new things? There are just too many good guns out there... to own them all I mean - I'm not complaining.

About that mainspring housing. I've been thinking - maybe the backstrap of a grip matters more to change the angle of the hand more than the front strap. There are more joints in the fingers (as opposed to the palm) so they could adapt to any given contour of a front strap within reason by curling more or less. But the back strap makes contact with larger bones near the wrist (metacarpals?). Maybe the only way to really "adjust" the contact of the back strap with these large bones is by bending the wrist - by changing the angle of the grip. On the forum a couple of days ago someone was promoting a product to fill in the curve of a Glock back strap to make it more 1911'ish.

Back on topic, I think it's safe to say that some would feel that "natural" in "this gun is a natural pointer" may be misleading since "natural" implies an inherent trait. This gun's a natural pointer in itself since it's designed so well, it is for me, it should be for you! - you know, I may have even read that term in gun mags when it came to a description of features. I've no beef with the term but I guess I should remind myself that there's a good chance it won't apply to me when reading a gun review.

So if natural pointing with a firearm design can possibly be learned, is it possible for a gun to inherently be an "unnatural" pointer? I guess people can adapt to a surprising number of things... maybe a design that wouldn't match with our gun safety rules or our physiology. It seems we can get used to grip angle fairly easily (early pistols all the way to Glocks). Maybe a bore that's not inline / parallel with the stock (aims 90 degrees left) would do it since it would mess with our ability and doctrine to aim linearly. - but I'm guessing those designs got scrapped hundreds of years ago. Unless you count those shoot-around-the-corner guns.

Goodness. Why can't I put this much thinking into things that matter

 

[pythagorean]

For instance my 27-2 .357 DA is a "natural aim" when I take the time to bring it to my eye level.
My Colt Single actions and Ruger Blackhawk are easier to point below eye level.

The fastest gun out of the holster and fired to center of mass is the single action for me.

So....if I was in a "draw" situation I'd want my Frontier Colt Six Shooter above the rest!

 

[woodguru]

I'd call it one of the guns that fits and sits in your hand in such a way that when you bring it up to point at a target everything naturally is lined up.

On my Colt Diamondback the pachmeyer grips wanted to lean the front sight down to where I constantly had to align the sights properly. With the Hogue Walnut finger grips it sits solidly in my hand in the perfect alignment position.

The best little natural pointer I've felt besides an antique Walker was a Colt .380 pocket gun from the early 1900's, it could be held way under eyesight line up and could be snapped off to where you could hit anything with it without looking at the sights out to about 15 or 20 feet.

I suspect one person's natural pointer might not be another's.

 

[JohnKSa]

This is a very good question.

First of all, it's true that what points "naturally" for one person won't necessarily point "naturally" for another person. There are two reasons for this:

1. People vary in the way their wrist and hands are shaped and sized.
2. People with training will find that what points "naturally" is a gun that is similar to what they have trained with.

Your second definition is the correct one. That is, a gun that points "naturally" will come up with the sights lined up and on target when a proper firing grip is taken.

When an experienced shooter tells you what points "naturally" for him he's almost certainly not telling you what points "naturally", he's telling you what grip configuration he's trained with most often. In one sense this is almost the exact opposite of what points "naturally" because it's has little to do with what's "natural" and a lot to do with training/experience. Training teaches you to learn what's NOT natural.

The classic example of this is that when SAA Colts were "THE" handgun, experts touted the Luger and other guns with similarly steeply raked grips as being "natural" pointers because they apparently came up on target well for a person who had a lot of experience with SAA Colts. These same experts claimed that the 1911 was a poor pointer because it didn't come up with the sights pointed properly.

Now "THE" handgun being touted most often is the 1911 and it is frequently claimed to be a "natural" pointer by folks with lots of 1911 experience while the same folks are often heard to state that guns with more steeply raked grips are poor pointers.

So did Lugers somehow change over time to become less "natural" in the way they point? No, they were simply being compared to something different.

If you want to actually find how what points naturally you would have to find a representative sample population of people who have zero experience with firearms. Then you would have to take each one of them and teach them to take a proper grip on a handgun but using a mockup that didn't have any sights.

THEN you would give them a number of handguns (or handgun mockups) with different grip configurations and test them to see which configuration was REALLY the most "natural" pointer.

Otherwise you're primarily finding out what people are already accustomed to using.

 

[pythagorean]

Uh oh. The Luger P-08 is mentioned.
Yes. It does point very naturally without aligning the sights. It has the rake grip that is very different. But it fits in my hand perfectly to "line up."

The problem I have with it is it is an auto that has to be ready to fire first--like the 1911--before it is fired.

In the Colt SAA or Ruger Blackhawk you merely thumb the hammer back while drawing which gives you complete alignment at the hip.

 

[dyl]

caught my own assumption

So now, when you've evaluated whether a gun was a "natural pointer" or "pointed well for you", were you speaking about a one hand grip or a two hand grip?

I just realized something. During all your discussion I had been visualizing everything mentioned with a one hand grip on a handgun. Raising up to eye level with one hand. Point shooting with one hand. And it's possible a good number of you have too. Why? For me it's most likely because the first person to mention pointing with a finger to quickly aim did so with one hand.
- this will be interesting to hear if we get some further input.

--some thoughts on the "why" rather than the "what", so slightly off topic---

Interesting to me because stance may interact with this phenomenon for folks who evaluate "natural pointing" using a 2 hand grip. Weaver stance: less symmetrical than Isosceles but there is a straight arm to help align the general angle of the handgun on the way up to a firing position both visually and by feel. - that's if this 2 hand shooter takes the definition of "natural pointing" to include sight alignment. The straight arm would contrast with seeing the muzzle of a gun deviated to the left or right and feeling the wrist bent. By the time sight picture is attained, the gun is generally pointed in the right direction. Maybe an better example would be the old 1 handed bullseye shooting before Weaver came along. The whole body was to aid in alignment.

Isosceles is a bit more symmetrical but if understand the nature of the stance, requires both wrists to be bent, extended towards the back of the hand. There is no straight arm to visually index, but there is the flat line of the top of the gun on the way to a firing position which would also help tremendously.

-this doesn't take into account previous training though, just some thoughts about stance itself.

Some speculation for aiming on the horizontal axis:
Perhaps barrel length also contributes to whether or not we perceive a gun is a "natural pointer" How?

- shorter barrels may appear to be more forgiving in aligning the front sight between the rear notch/dots. A wider variation of bend in the wrist would still allow for a sight picture that's relatively "on target". This is if we use the definition of "natural pointer" to include sight picture. I wonder, do the guns you've felt were "natural pointers" typically have short or longer sight radiuses? (radii?) Or a variety?

- If we use the definition to mean "a gun that point-shoots well for me": Longer barrels on the other hand may aid in aligning the top of the gun to the target and we'd find that shots were placed closer to where we intended. And then we'd declare the gun to be a natural pointer. Do point shooters find that the "natural pointers" typically have longer barrels?

These speculations on barrel length might be wrong and they don't take into account previous training. I bet someone who's point-shot shot snubbies their whole life could out point-shoot someone who just started with a Desert Eagle.

I may edit the first post to just include a quick list of issues that we've touched on.

Smince -

note that your hand is canted in a 'half homey' position.

- yeah, I point like that too. Right hand pronated/turned inward to about 45 degrees counter-clockwise. I saw a pistol shooting instruction video on Ruger's youtube site that spoke about this. Whatever that instructor's name was he said when shooting 1 handed, some choose to allow their arm to pronate comfortably or they force themselves to have a strictly vertical grip. Both seem to work out fine with practice. Previously I had only heard of canting the firearm when shooting single-handedly with the weak hand so the sights could more easily be in line with the dominant eye.

I submit there is no such thing as a 'natural pointing' handgun and it is a software problem that has to be learned.

- there seems to be a lot more to this term than I thought. I guess we all come in with assumptions about what it means or what the person we're talking to means. It's fun exploring all the "what" and "why"

John - Ha! that's interesting to know. So history at one time might have given popular credibility to the phrase "natural pointing gun" due to how popular/available a gun type was. If the majority of people had training with a type of firearm then the same majority would agree that a newer design was or wasn't a "natural pointer" for them. It seems like the evolution of shooting styles most likely also affected the use of the term too - from one handed shooting of single-action revolvers and 1911's to two handed grips. I like your set-up for that experiment to remove some variables. If it could happen and we're talking about point-shooting, my wild guess for the most natural point-shooter would be that strange "squeeze gun" that fits in the palm of your hand if there could only be a way to ensure a consistent grip. Trajectory is in line with the bones of the forearm.

Tangent again: It's strange - when we point to something to show someone where an object is, our arm 1) shoots out straight from the shoulder or 2) we index it with our line of sight by overlapping or underlining the object in our own field of view. Well at least I do. But when I use method 2), the direction of my outstretched arm is actually no longer headed towards the object. Only a point from my eyeball to the fingertip is. And then I expect someone else to look at my arm and they'll try to mentally draw a line to our target. People are crazy