Two hand grip for Model 41

I've owned a Model 41 since the 1980's, and thoroughly enjoy it. I know it's designed for one-hand shooting, but I have always used two hands, and the gun always felt comfortable when I didn't think about how I was holding it.

After shooting other guns I have some doubts about the proper grip for the Model 41. If I were to shoot one handed, my right hand grip would fit naturally around the gun, with my thumb resting on top of the thumb rest. But, that doesn't make for a comfortable grip when I add my left hand, as my palm is held away from the left grip unless I move my left hand down quite low. If I grip the gun the way it feels most natural, my left hand ends up higher, and my right thumb ends up "outside" of my left hand. There never seems to be a way to get both thumbs comfortably in place.

If we exclude "comfort", what is the best grip with the Model 41 to get the best accuracy? My hands are of average size, not particularly large or small. With a Matchdot II on top of the gun, I can get 2" groups at 15 yards. With the long barrel and steel sights I am now shooting a 3" group. I know the gun is capable of much more, and I'm still the "weak link" in the chain, but trying to improve. That got me to wondering if I am holding the gun "properly".

I'll include a photo of yesterday's targets. I think I'm seeing the sights properly, am using "area aiming", and am thinking only of gradually increasing pressure on the trigger, so I never know when the gun will fire. I'm trying to figure out what to do next, to reduce the group size.

I hold mine just like I do a 1911. Only difference is, no need for a "high thumb" to hold the safety down. By the way, I'm left handed.

I don't really see why this would be a complex question. Hope this is helpful.

It's not a complex question, it's hopefully rather simple. Your suggestion would work better for me, if I bought a set of 1911 style grips from Herret's. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to do on the Model-41 compared to my 1911, as the 1911 doesn't have the large thumb rest.

Thanks - maybe you've been quite helpful - maybe I should just call Herret's back. I figured I would ask here before doing so.

I use what we call The Teacup Grip with my right hand holding my 41 and my left hand enclosing the bottom like a tea cup. For me it works extremely well and is easy to pick up on as well.

Mike, your second post contained the very answer I was going to suggest. If Herrett still makes their "Trainer" grip that replicates the shape and feel of a standard 1911 grip, that would be the way I would go. I put a set of them on a Military Grip High Standard and they worked out great. I think that would be your best and simplest solution.

Regards,
Froggie

The grip that consistently gets the best results for you is the right one.

I dream of buying a Model 41 after I win the lottery.

Thanks, Green Frog. I called Herret's last week, and Dee was going to get back to me, but I was out of town. I will most likely call her tomorrow and order them. (I already bought a pair for my High Standard - worked great!).

How will it look it you only use one hand?

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

Mike
Smith & Wesson 1911 Frame Adapter

Hamden, what is that? What does it do? Why might someone want one?

I also use the teacup method of hold on most of my guns (revolvers ,pre-woodsman - similar to 41). works very well the second hand is just there to stabilize the main hand. I can get at 20 yards 1 inch groups with my colt pre-woodsman king super target with this hold.

mikemyers said:

Hamden, what is that? What does it do? Why might someone want one?

Click to expand...

Smith & Wesson 1911 Frame Adapter

It is an aluminum adapter that mounts in place of the 41 factory grip and has wood grip panels just like regular 1911 grip panels.
This grip makes your 41 like a 1911. Far better than the Herrett Trainer.
If your hand is small you want the straight back set. It is like a flat 1911 main spring housing.
The other one is more like the 1911 arched mainspring housing.
Some fitting may be required.

mikemyers said:

Thanks, Green Frog. I called Herret's last week, and Dee was going to get back to me, but I was out of town. I will most likely call her tomorrow and order them. (I already bought a pair for my High Standard - worked great!).

Click to expand...

I think you will like the Herrets. They look great and work great with a two hand hold.

mikemyers said:

I think I'm seeing the sights properly, am using "area aiming", and am thinking only of gradually increasing pressure on the trigger, so I never know when the gun will fire. I'm trying to figure out what to do next, to reduce the group size.

Click to expand...

What is "area aiming?"

There's truth in the old adage "aim small, miss small."

I assume you're shooting offhand, unsupported. The gun is certainly capable of shooting better than you ( or I) can hold. My advice is to first determine what YOU are capable of under ideal circumstances. This means removing as much human error as possible. Support the gun on sandbags so it is absolutely immobile once the sights are precisely on the target. Take a deep breath, let half of it out and hold it. Gently, firmly squeeze the trigger so the sights remain remain absolutely immobile throughout the trigger squeeze and, yes, you are "surprised" when it breaks. Practice that, and you'll be able to call a bad shot the instant it breaks and know what went wrong.

Once you've established what YOU are capable of ....5 shots in 1" or 3/4" or one ragged hole at 50 feet....then you can better assess what it is that limits you when you shoot offhand.

No doubt, to improve you will need to do better at seeing and maintaining a perfect and immobile sight picture. Movement is the variable between benched and offhand shooting.

Although I had never heard it referred to as a "teacup grip" until this thread, that is exactly what I have used for years, and it is comfortable and works great for me. Like many other things, it's all about what feels comfortable and works for the individual shooter.

mike campbell said:

What is "area aiming?".....

Click to expand...

If you are lucky enough to have a copy of "The Pistol Shooter's Treasury", area aiming is an article by Paul B Weston reprinted from Paul's book "Target Shooting Today, Chapter 6".

The concept is that since nobody can really aim at a 'point', it's better to aim at an area the size of one's ability to hold.

If you went to shoot at a target and all your shots ended up somewhere in a six inch grouping, that is your ability to shoot. Instead of aiming at any particular spot, just point the gun at the blurry area that we're talking about. No need to be accurate. If the sights are lined up properly, and if you don't disturb the gun as you work the trigger, your shots will be within that area every time.

It makes a lot of sense to me now, although when I first read it, I thought it was crazy. I thought I "knew" that you need to aim at the middle of the bullseye, even though all my shots were scattered within an area around that spot. Aiming at that spot is a mistake, if for no reason other than you're supposed to be looking at the front sight, not the target. So, forget precise aiming. Line up your sights perfectly, and don't disturb things when you fire the shot.

Still have doubts? Shoot at a plain piece of 8 1/2" x 11" writing paper, and shoot away, allowing your subconscious to more or less point at the target, and while holding as perfect a sight alignment as you can, spend all your concentration on the trigger. The resulting grouping will probably be better than when you aimed at a bullseye. I didn't believe it - but it worked.

It's difficult to find that book - I eventually did, on Amazon. Wonderful book, especially for bullseye shooting.

Maybe I should write a book titled "Aim small, Miss Small."

I aim precisely at the finest point my vision can perceive.

In my youth I won 4 state titles shooting iron-sighted revolvers at 12x 24" targets at 220 yards.

At 65 I can still put 5 shots in a 3" inch group with an iron-sighted revolver @ 100 yds. So can my 60-yr old buddy.

I'll send you a copy when it's done.

Shoot well.

I grip it like a 1911 and have my left thumb resting on the "thumb rest" from the first joint onward. It over rides my right thumb nicely that way.

mike campbell said:

Maybe I should write a book titled "Aim small, Miss Small." ......... I aim precisely at the finest point my vision can perceive......

Click to expand...

If I ever am able to shoot the way you describe, my "area aiming" might be around half an inch or so. With my current ability, and my current eyes, I can only do what I showed in the attachment to my first post, and I'm shooting at only 15 yards. (I can do better with a red dot sight.)

If you're using a revolver with open sights, and you're focused on the front sight, meaning the target is a gray blur, how can you even "see" a tiny point to aim at? For me, I can see the target, or I can see the front sight. The only way I can see both is with a red dot sight.

I don't doubt that you can do what you say, but I have no idea on how to get to "there" from where I am now (other than more and more dry fire, and live fire). I see how much my front sight "wiggles" when I'm aiming, and to put all the rounds into a three inch grouping, I would need to put my arms in some kind of support. How did you get so good?

You're on exactly the right track.

You're aware of the "wiggle." Your goal is to eliminate it. Don't take lightly my comment about holding your breath, as a for instance. Precision shooters joke (half in jest) about being able to pause your heartbeat.

Precision shooting is putting all the bullets into the same hole...regardless if it hits the bull. Accurate shooting is hitting the target every time....regardless of the group size. That's where a technique, such as area aiming might be useful....the group size is adequately small to hit the target every time, such as shooting a 3" group in a 6" bull. But a 1" group will do that, as well as allowing you to hit a 3" bull every time.

When I said "finest point" I didn't mean "tiniest bull." I meant tiny, single point of intersection of post and target. I shoot sub - 1.5" groups at 50 yards using a 6" square with a 4" inner circle. I suggest using a round black dot for a bull...1 - 2" in diameter for 30-75 ft target distance. Assuming a patridge post and notch for sights, the goal is to line up the top of the post with the tops of the notch...not just close, but perfectly...within .001" . The same applies to the "light bars" on either side of the post...equal width to within .001". The next goal is to have the post touch the bottom of the bull on a tangent. Not with a hair of white paper visible between post and bull, and not with the top edge of the post barely encroaching into the black bull....but a perfect, single-point intersection of rectangle and circle. If you can maintain that sight picture through the press, that's the ideal and will let you shoot to the maximum potential.

You're correct, of course, about not being able to focus in multiple planes. That's why the focus thing is a sequence of events.

Excellent eyes can focus both front and back sights simultaneously, at least well enough to see the crystal clear sharpness of post top and sides. Lesser eyes can't focus on more than one at a time...front post, rear blade and bull. I get the sights lined up approximately, Bring it to where the fuzzy post seems to barely touch the sharp circle, then shift my focus back and forth between the 3 focal points ... the top edges are the same height? light bars identical? post top touches circle? Going thru the focus switch 2 or 3 times convinces me everything is in alignment and nothing has shifted. Just before and during the press, yes, I focus on the post. One problem with aging eyes is that they don't change focus as fluidly as they once did.

I had always heard the importance of focus on the post and didn't argue it. But it really hits home now that I shoot with 2.0 diopter reading glasses! The sights are as sharp as a razor and a 50 foot bull is quite blurry ( oddly, more so than a 50 yard bull). I handload a lot and can't/won't shoot enough groups when load developing to discern the #1 and # 2 loads at 25 yds. Is 1.0" really better than 1.25"? To pick #1, I'll often go to 50 yds and sometimes 100 yds where, yes, I believe a 4" grouper is a better load than a 6" grouper.

Another subject is what movements one makes when shooting offhand. Sneaking a surprise dryfire into a sequence often reveals an unintentional (and previously unaware) movement caused by anticipation during the trigger press. Recognizing it and practicing to avoid it, such as dry firing with your red dot while trying to keep it immobile, pays dividends in building useful muscle memory.

At the end of your post, you're still on track. But what is your goal in shooting? is 3" not good enough for whatever application you have in mind? For instance, 5 shots in 3" at 50 feet in 3 seconds or less would make you a very competitive steel shooter. The same result with unlimited time would make you non-competitive in other games. If it's just to be the best you can be, I advise again....establish your benchmark from the bench. Aspire to shoot as well offhand as you can from a rest and the process will lead you to improve.