Sunday, March 16, 2008

Trigger Feel

I think I am ruined for preferring only Military Style 2-stage trigger types. Which is probably a good thing.

Here, this is what I got used to. I got used to shooting a double action revolver, which sort of has a 2 stage trigger, and milsurp or military surplus style rifles and the 1911 .45.

Before I go on, let me define my terms and how a Double Action revolver is sort of like a Military 2-Stage trigger to me. A military trigger, in my mind, has some movement of take-up in the trigger that is kind of easy, then you meet stiff resistance right before you trip off the sear. You can take up this "slack" then squeeze for the break at the resistance. And I tend to do it this way. That might be bad, someone chime in if they know I'm hurting myself with a bad habit.

A revolver in Double Action is a firmer trigger pull, but with mine there is definitely a first part where it is easier and a point where it stiffens and I KNOW I am close and do the squeeze thing. In Single Action it's just a light 1 or 2 pound pull, but that's neither here nor there.

What do I have that shoots like this? The .03, the Garand, the 1911, the 1903, the S&W 686 (sorta, as I said). Even the .22 plinker from Mossberg and the Remington Model 11 shotgun (sorta, again) are 2 stage.

So I figured most all triggers worked that way. Take up the slack, then break a glass rod when you hit reistance and the trigger goes off.

But they don't ALL feel that way.

The Glocks I've tried are different feeling. The XD is similar to the Glock, but it, too, feels uniquely different, but i personally prefer it to the Glock. I will need to play with both more to firm up that personal opinion. Both trigger are mushier than I like. I don't know where they are gonna break. And not in a good 'surprise' way. They seem to travel forever. It's hard to get a handle on them.

The S&W Military and Police 9mm I tried was like that too. So are a lot of other models, I understand. Modern models. What was wrong with the old style trigger that these new types want to change? It's probably a reaction to police officers with not enough training, or are accustomed to Double Action revolvers, shooting themselves when the trigger doesn't have a lot of travel. Mushy, long-travel triggers might be a reaction to the abhorent modern trend of trying to make everything safer. Swaddle us in bubble wrap because of contingency plaintiffs attourneys and Gummint mandate. Sigh.

I haven't heard of or experienced a long gun that felt like that. I hope those are rare.

I don't like this new trend. I like the old style trigger.

It's probably just a natural conservative reaction to the new. But it is my preference. I like my firearms designs to have 60+ years of real-world testing, anyway, before I consider them for personal use. I also like to ask "which gun has killed more Tojos, Nazis, and Commies?" and for that you gotta go with older military designs. That 1911 sure is the pistol that has killed a lot of soldiers that meant the United States harm. Compared to any other pistol. The M-16 might have let the air in and the blood out of more commies than the 1911 manage, but only because you fire a rifle more.

Notice there are darn few Commies, Nazis, and Tojos to shoot at? And notice there are plenty NEW bad guys that are persistently sticking around and they became a problem at about the same time we got rid of 1911 as a military sidearm? Coincidence? I think now.

So bring back the 1911 and ban all non 2-stage trigger, rename the Department of Defense BACK to the Department of War and then 'problem aread' will start falling by the wayside again.

No comments: