Why square corners?

cb51 · Aug 15, 2017

Having just sold my Glock, and not really finding another center fire semi that I could like, I was walking around the gun show when it hit me. There I was looking at all kinds of guns, new and old, and the only ones I liked was the old ones. Having handled some Colt 1903's and 1908's, and some old Beretta and Brownings, I realized that all the old ones had rounded off corners and very nice feel in hand. The grip frames were actually shaped too be comfortable in a human hand. You could put a Colt 1908 in a pocket and the pants material sort of draped around it, without the square corners sticking out practically screaming "GUN" and a arrow directing looks to the area in question.

I already have an opinion of John Moses Browning as a candidate for sainthood, and an unquestionable genius. But it seems like all the guns he designed, and then sold to Colt, had a great look as well as feel to them. The one self loader I ever really liked was the old time tested 1911A1 I had in the army. No matter how I wrapped my hand around that gun, it felt good. Like it belonged there!

So looking at the new Glocks, SIG's, S&W's, it seems like the gun industry is in love with bulky looking and crappy feeling handguns that don't seem to have any of the finer touches of the old pre-war guns. I can only wonder why????????

Doco Overboard · Aug 15, 2017

Golden means of proportion, just like a Winchester gallery gun or a P51 mustang with a Pennsylvania rifle stuffed behind the seat.

rob-cubed · Aug 15, 2017

Perhaps because it's easier to mill squarish shapes--or was at the time Glock first came up with their design? Once the Glock was a runaway success they had lots of copycats... every poly gun now seems to have that signature blocky slide.

Outside of the influence of Glock, there was a larger trend towards the squared trigger guard to support modified grips and that also makes modern pistols seem clunky.

Finally, the tools can dictate the outcome. I'm a designer, though not an industrial designer, but certainly the move to digital tools completely changed the hands-on craftsmanship in my industry. We DO everything differently now, which produces different results. Maybe it's more efficient, but not necessarily better... everything starts off in squares in digital design.

I too love the lines in old firearms. The 1911 and Hi-Power remain incredible, beautiful designs.

Biggfoot44 · Aug 15, 2017

Two factors :

Current designs largely emphasise ammo capacity, this leads to bulky square-ish grips .

And as noted above square-ish slide designs are quicker to machine, and hence less expensive to mfg, further hence more competitive retail prices . I belive it is Kahr that has a product line with complex slide maching ( among other things l and a product line more square-ish with basic machining . there is about $200 price differenc.

K-43 · Aug 15, 2017

Kahr had adds with the slogan: "Why buy a Block when you can own a Kahr?" referring to their pistol being slimmer than a competitors' pistols.

bkuether · Aug 15, 2017

I jumped on the Glock wagon a long time ago. (GEN 2 and no it is NOT for sale! :party29:

) The deciding factor for me, was, "It goes bang every time". It could be banana shaped, and as long as it fit my hand (which was important, due to their small size) I would have bought it. Squareness meant nothing to me, until it did.

Doco Overboard · Aug 15, 2017

I never was a real good shot with a pistol but I shot a glock one time at a can on the berm and was impressed at how well it went. It was a 9mm or a 40 if I remember right and have no idea what model it was other than it was square, black and plastic. I could see why people like them I just like old metal stuff.

Cheesehead · Aug 15, 2017

Life's too short to shoot ugly guns. Stick with the old stuff.

somd_mustangs · Aug 15, 2017

One thing about the Colt Model M (1903/08 Hammerless) is how thin they are compared with just about anything else, even modern stuff.
(ironically they aren't really hammerless but that's another story).
The earlier charcoal-blue high-polish guns are works of art, esp with the fire-blue small parts to accent it.
Personally I like the Type I with the slightly longer barrel, looks more proportional to me.

j_h_smith · Aug 16, 2017

I'm sure it's due to ammo capacity. When you start double stacking the ammo in a mag, you lose the luxury of making the grip more stylish. I believe it's less "form over function" today. You have almost 2 times the capacity in a Glock 21 than you do your 1911.

travistheone · Aug 16, 2017

you should look into buying a glock- if you shoot or carry.

outrider58 · Aug 16, 2017

I think it's more a case of high speed, low drag. Guns don't need to be aerodinamic. They don't fly. They do need to have flat, plain sides for easier drawing and more comfortable concelement. Try shoving a Colt Dragoon inside your waistband. I will defer to Blaster on this.

Blaster229 · Aug 16, 2017

outrider58 said:
I think it's more a case of high speed, low drag. Guns don't need to be aerodinamic. They don't fly. They do need to have flat, plain sides for easier drawing and more comfortable concelement. Try shoving a Colt Dragoon inside your waistband. I will defer to Blaster on this.

My Dragoon requires me to unzip when I draw it.

j_h_smith · Aug 16, 2017

Blaster229 said:
My Dragoon requires me to unzip when I draw it.

And I thought you were just happy to see me.....

cb51 · Aug 16, 2017

travistheone said:
you should look into buying a glock- if you shoot or carry.

Tried a Glock and lasted two years before I sold it off. Couldn't like the cheap feel of gun or the square blocky shape of the thing. I'm done with them. Using a Ruger LCR in .22 mag as a carry gun. At least it's rounded off for pocket carry.

outrider58 · Aug 16, 2017

Blaster229 said:
My Dragoon requires me to unzip when I draw it.

Is that to mean, you aim to please?

:innocent0

alucard0822 · Aug 16, 2017

Easier/cheaper to manufacture, stronger and works better with a flat barrel hood locking surface(as opposed to multiple radial lugs), more slide mass to control recoil, lower bore axis, and can be relatively narrow overall while matching up with the width required of a doublestack frame. It also allows the portion of the FCG mounted in the frame to be very small and compact, allowing a higher/deeper grip pocket to control recoil, and the overall width of a molded polymer frame can be narrower than a comparable pistol with separate grips mounted to a metal frame. Might not be as pretty, but there are several functional improvements compared to older single stack designs.

eruby · Aug 16, 2017

Why square corners?

Recently purchased by Ledo Pizza? :innocent0

photoracer · Aug 16, 2017

cb51 said:
Having just sold my Glock, and not really finding another center fire semi that I could like, I was walking around the gun show when it hit me. There I was looking at all kinds of guns, new and old, and the only ones I liked was the old ones. Having handled some Colt 1903's and 1908's, and some old Beretta and Brownings, I realized that all the old ones had rounded off corners and very nice feel in hand. The grip frames were actually shaped too be comfortable in a human hand. You could put a Colt 1908 in a pocket and the pants material sort of draped around it, without the square corners sticking out practically screaming "GUN" and a arrow directing looks to the area in question.

I already have an opinion of John Moses Browning as a candidate for sainthood, and an unquestionable genius. But it seems like all the guns he designed, and then sold to Colt, had a great look as well as feel to them. The one self loader I ever really liked was the old time tested 1911A1 I had in the army. No matter how I wrapped my hand around that gun, it felt good. Like it belonged there!

So looking at the new Glocks, SIG's, S&W's, it seems like the gun industry is in love with bulky looking and crappy feeling handguns that don't seem to have any of the finer touches of the old pre-war guns. I can only wonder why????????

According to some big Glock shooters its because a square piece of wood will not twist in your hand like a round one would. A rounded grip will slip in your hand more than a squarish one because the sharp corners keep it in place. As someone who converted to shooting some Glocks in competition there is some truth to that. I find that for my 1911s I am always trying to find a grip that I like and stays put while I don't have the issue with my 2 Glocks. That does not mean I like the feel of the Glock grip, but I understand it was made for a purpose, meaning it was designed to fire every time you pull the trigger and to stay put where you grip it even if you don't like it.

Pinecone · Aug 17, 2017

There could be something to this. As you increase capacity and thickness, you get more of a circular cross section. Versus the oval shape of a single stack.

I know I have to register a Para Ordnance in my hand more carefully than a single stack 1911. The single stack just falls into my hand pointed properly, but the PO can be a number of degrees off.

Why square corners?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

In need of moderation

Ultimate Member

West of Morning Side

Judge not this race .....

Ultimate Member

Active Member

-----

Ultimate Member

Usual Suspect

Eats Bacon Raw

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Eats Bacon Raw

For great Justice

Confederate Jew

Competition Shooter

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics