While I also had my OEM triggerbar replaced back around 2006 when the light strike issue first raised its head, I think that the issue was overstated-as I recall, the primary LEO complaining was LAPD, and a significant causal factor was that back in the day they felt it was acceptable/necessary to liberally oil the striker/striker channel. The oil would serve as a grunge attractant, gum up/varnish, and inhibit the firing pin/striker's path and impact force on a cartridge primer. The revised triggerbar, which was quickly standardized by Glock, featured a revised geometry which delivered more force. Glock Training also deployed in force to LAPD, where individual officer's G21s were individually inspected, had the triggerbar replaced, underwent a certification firing, and were issued a certification slip, enabling the G21s to be allowed back on duty.
It's my impression that LAPD felt the necessity to lubricate the firing pin/channel was derived from the lubrication protocol of the Beretta 92, which was the specified/default LAPD issue gun at the time. The G21 was the most chosen Glock (by a huge majority) of the allowable Glock selection palette by LAPD officers wishing to go the Glock route as their duty firearm; hence the perception that it was a "G21 problem."
It's hard to sort out whether it really was a problem or not, and what the true causal factor(s) were. The Glock LEO Area (and later the overall Regional) Rep (who was a personal friend as well) personally told me that the felt that the original triggerbar was just fine, and that the issue was overblown. Nevertheless, I chose to have him replace mine (there was no degradation in trigger feel, at least in my sample size of one G21), and I figured the additional firing pin force wasn't a bad thing (although I'd had absolutely zero issues with the OEM triggebar). It's also interesting to note that Glock did standardize the replacement/improved triggerbar shortly afterwords...
Best, Jon