Are They Suggesting Ergonomics and Fit Don't Matter?

A recent post from Say Uncle indicates that grip angle, natural point of aim or a gun feeling “good in your hand "are unserious considerations." Say Uncle in turn links to a post from the View From The Porch blog that asserts that "[o]ne of the most trite pieces of advice given to prospective first-time handgun buyers is to "go to a gun store and try holding a bunch of different ones to see which one feels good in your hand."

     Is there anyone that takes this seriously? For instance, if you were to go into a room full of serious rifle shooters and suggested that the length of the stock, the location and height of the cheek rest, the angle or drop of the comb, or a scope set too far forward or back was irrelevant, "unserious" or "trite," you would be laughed out of the room. Ditto for a group of shotgun shooters if you suggested that the fit of the shotgun wouldn't impact your shooting.

     What you get with a pistol that naturally points for you and fits your hand is a weapon that you don't have to fight against to shoot well. Can you train around a poor fit? Probably, but good fit will save you time, repetitions and money in becoming proficient.

     I came across the Say Uncle post at The Captain's Journal. Herschel Smith adds his background from engineering when he expresses his doubts about the foregoing posts:

      I’ve been a practicing registered professional engineer for a very long time.  But until recently I had not studied ergonomics and biomechanics, and things like pronation and abduction, axis of action, first, second and third class levers, resistance to circulation, kinetic chains, etc.

     I would have been more likely to accept these pronouncements before I engaged in my recent study.  Now, not at all.