How much should the gun/trigger system matter?

[Handy]

I shot IDPA last week with a 40 year old HK P9S. DA/SA, heel release mag, 4 inch barrel. I was no superman, but I shot well enough on several stages to get a few admiring grunts from the regulars. I don't find the DA to SA transition to be a big deal, and my mag changes were no slower than slingshotters'. I also shot part of one stage single handed.

I came across this forum and was amazed to find people here who are actual proponents of DA/SA and LEM triggers, rather than Glocks with 3.5 connectors and 1911s.

I also recall years ago when IDPA nationals were won with P226s and Beretta 92s.


For this type of "practical" shooting, how much does the platform matter? If some of those terrible grouping M&P pistols are reasonable choices, just how much extra time or dropped points should someone shooting a 92FS or a 5904 expect over those shooting Glock 34s or PPQs? If you can control a DA trigger, is there really that much difference with any 9mm pistol at those ranges?

Reading the recent thread about the HK P30 woes shooting one handed made me think that shooters emphasize many aspects of gun design, but in the end the gun didn't work because the grip didn't index well, making all that other stuff irrelevant. I'd kind of like to think someone with good DA trigger control could buy a $400 Bersa and shoot 99% as well as with whatever wonderplastic they normally use.

[hossb7]

This is an applicable quote from a thread you may have seen:


Of course we could save all of that, pick a platform that best fits our lifestyle and needs and practice to a solid level of performance and work hard to maintain that level for our chosen system. If we want to participate in some type of competitive event, sport, or chase a specific shooting achievement or test, then knock your self out and chose the "thing" that is best for that. This isn't really that complicated. It's sort of why I carry a HK LEM pistol of some sort daily, even though I can do better on some shooting tests with a compensated 1911.

It really comes down to the shooter. I posted recently about my transition from being a long-time P226 shooter to an M&P and that my performance has been positively reflected. YMMV.

[LSP972]

I'd kind of like to think someone with good DA trigger control could buy a $400 Bersa and shoot 99% as well as with whatever wonderplastic they normally use.

And I think you would be correct.

As to all the angst in the other threads you reference (and I share some of it), you have probably figured out by now that most of the active participants here are, shall we say… a bit more clued in than your average gun board denizen. Yes, there is some over-analyzing going on, but much of that is in the spirit of discovery, as opposed to the "gee-whiz" factor.

Your tale of shooting IDPA with a P9S reminds me of the last IDPA event I went to. A fellow showed up who looked like he stepped right out of the pages of 1974's epic "Cooper on Handguns"; mid-60s, Levi jeans, rough-out work boots, a western style shirt, a Hoag custom 1911, and by-God genuine Gordon Davis leather all around; belt, holster, and double mag pouch. The fellow said he had been into the game heavy in his youth, then family and work put everything else aside. Now retired, he decided to dust off the old gear and try his hand again. He did fine.

What you're seeing here is people who know of a world beyond Glocks and other VolksPistoles. And although the phrase has been used enough now that it almost seems trite… it really IS the Indian, not the arrow.

.

[JHC]

I think its all relative to the GM quotient the shooter is functioning at.

There may be a handful of freaks at the pinnacle for whom it doesn't matter. And there may be a big chunk of just decent shooters for whom it doesn't matter. For a lot of good to GREAT shooters; equipment; especially the trigger makes a significant difference for extremely fancy shooting. Equipment pretty much always matters. If it matters enough to be important? YMMV.

[Tamara]

...buy a $400 Bersa...

Let's not talk crazytalk, now.

[jetfire]

Let's not talk crazytalk, now.

I was all like "lol" then I went to gunbroker and actually looked. Most of the guns listed under the Bersa Thunder Pro are going for 4 bills or more.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Semi-Auto-Pistols/BI.aspx?Keywords=bersa+thunder+pro

I has a sad.

[Handy]

Tamara! A name from a distant time...

[okie john]

I'll start by saying that I have nowhere near the IDPA experience that many folks on here do. That said, I find that IDPA is a good way to add stress to basic shooting tests, but the quality of shooters and officials, as well as the difficulty of stages, can vary wildly from club to club. If you can run a heel-release SA/DA pistol well, then you'd do very well in a lot of our club matches, but you might be trailing the pack at another club. In any case, a shooter who really knows his or her way around a good semi-auto pistol can go a long way before gear starts holding them back in IDPA.

I think that this forum emphasizes SA/DA and LEM pistols because the posters are studying how to fight more than they’re studying how to shoot. The Glock and the 1911 are good for fighting, but posters here find that other designs offer real benefits during the events that precede and follow actual gunfights. A forum that focuses on winning matches may regard equipment differently. Also, switched-on shooters have established performance benchmarks in a context that's relevant to their needs. A big-city SWAT cop will have a different needs than a military CQB specialist, whose needs will differ from that of a sheriff's deputy in a rural county, and so on. A lot of these folks are looking for relatively small improvements that matter to their specific situations. While instructive, these improvements may be less important for other people.


Okie John

[LSP972]

[QUOTE=okie john;218831]
The Glock and the 1911 are good for fighting, but posters here find that other designs offer real benefits during the events that precede and follow actual gunfights.

And that about covers it.

Beautifully stated.

.

[Handy]

I wish there were more people using NY1 and NY2 triggers with standard connectors in their Glocks to comment on that those guns being more applicable to those "non-fighting" applications.

[JBP55]

I wish there were more people using NY1 and NY2 triggers with standard connectors in their Glocks to comment on that those guns being more applicable to those "non-fighting" applications.

Do you shoot a Glock with a standard connector and the NY2 trigger spring?

[LSP972]

.. NY2 trigger spring?

That's the orange one, right?

I've got a couple of the old white ones and black ones; talk about give yourself a hernia making the pistol go off…

If we ever get a break in case work, Pat and I are going to do a pull-strength study on those things.

.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I wish there were more people using NY1 and NY2 triggers with standard connectors in their Glocks to comment on that those guns being more applicable to those "non-fighting" applications.

I played with the NY1/standard set up, but for me the "hard wall" is even more pronounced than with the standard trigger spring. I really dig the NY1/(-) connector combo, but it is demonstrating that the Gen3 Glock is on the upper end of my hand size compatibility.

[Handy]

I used to use a NY1. I wouldn't exactly call it a difficult trigger pull. I doubt it was even seven pounds. It was just very positive. I thought it was much closer to a sensible trigger pull, but still light.

I've never talked to anyone who used a NY2 or the 8 pound connector.

[JBP55]

That's the orange one, right?

I've got a couple of the old white ones and black ones; talk about give yourself a hernia making the pistol go off…

If we ever get a break in case work, Pat and I are going to do a pull-strength study on those things.

.


As you know I am a Senior Citizen with weak arthritic hands and I would hate to have to train with a NY2 spring in a Glock. I would probably break my trigger pull gauge testing Glocks with the NY2 trigger springs. Baton Rouge Police Department used to run the NY1 spring. I have not asked in a while if they still use them.

[JonInWA]

While there are certain applicable generalities to the Glock connector and coil trigger spring vs. NY1 spring, my more specific answer is the "It somewhat depends on the individual Glock." On my G34, one of my G19s I've found the ideal for those individual guns with me is the "-" connector and a NY1; on my G17, the standard connector and coil trigger spring; on another G19, a Gen 3.5 triggerbar, a "." connector, and the coil trigger spring; and on my G21, a "." connector and coil triggerspring....

Generally, a good across-the-board compromise solution might be to go with a NY1 and a "." or "-" connector. That combination(s) will provide a slightly heavier, but consistant triggerpull from inception to break, with a strong, discernible reset point.

But, as always, YMMV...

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

RX-79G was in my squad in the match. I can personally attest that he shot (and reloaded) his HK P9S beautifully. Enough so that we couldn't even substantively pick on him, except for the hokey holster he wore....(He's correcting that as we speak).

Best, Jon

[Tamara]

Tamara! A name from a distant time...

Which time?

[JonInWA]

I shot IDPA last week with a 40 year old HK P9S. DA/SA, heel release mag, 4 inch barrel. I was no superman, but I shot well enough on several stages to get a few admiring grunts from the regulars. I don't find the DA to SA transition to be a big deal, and my mag changes were no slower than slingshotters'. I also shot part of one stage single handed.

I came across this forum and was amazed to find people here who are actual proponents of DA/SA and LEM triggers, rather than Glocks with 3.5 connectors and 1911s.

I also recall years ago when IDPA nationals were won with P226s and Beretta 92s.


For this type of "practical" shooting, how much does the platform matter? If some of those terrible grouping M&P pistols are reasonable choices, just how much extra time or dropped points should someone shooting a 92FS or a 5904 expect over those shooting Glock 34s or PPQs? If you can control a DA trigger, is there really that much difference with any 9mm pistol at those ranges?

Reading the recent thread about the HK P30 woes shooting one handed made me think that shooters emphasize many aspects of gun design, but in the end the gun didn't work because the grip didn't index well, making all that other stuff irrelevant. I'd kind of like to think someone with good DA trigger control could buy a $400 Bersa and shoot 99% as well as with whatever wonderplastic they normally use.

The DA/SA concern has turned out for me to be far less of a performance inhibition that I thought that it might be. I think that it's important that the gun selected have a smooth triggerpull, and that the shooter 1) index well with the gun, and 2) have sufficiently practiced with it (dry- and live-fire-wise) to have built up sufficient muscle memory on it, and 3) have good draw/presentation/sight acquisition/trigger control habits. Other than that, the action type can be relatively easily adapted to, at least in my personal experience.

Somewhat ironically, the platform that I find presents the greatest challenges for me is the 1911. It's not a single-action thing per se; I shoot my .40 Hi Power with much greater finesse (and with better scores in all parameters) than my 1911s...

Best, Jon

[Handy]

TFL and THR. I posted many Handy tips and thoughts, but argued a bit too much.

[Tamara]

Truly another, very distant time. :)

[Handy]

Actually, your posts and meeting you at IDPA, John, got me thinking a lot about this.

I can shoot a 1911 fine, but the grip doesn't do anything for me.

[okie john]

And that about covers it.

Beautifully stated.

Thank you.


Okie John

[JHC]

The DA/SA concern has turned out for me to be far less of a performance inhibition that I thought that it might be. I think that it's important that the gun selected have a smooth triggerpull, and that the shooter 1) index well with the gun, and 2) have sufficiently practiced with it (dry- and live-fire-wise) to have built up sufficient muscle memory on it, and 3) have good draw/presentation/sight acquisition/trigger control habits. Other than that, the action type can be relatively easily adapted to, at least in my personal experience.

Somewhat ironically, the platform that I find presents the greatest challenges for me is the 1911. It's not a single-action thing per se; I shoot my .40 Hi Power with much greater finesse (and with better scores in all parameters) than my 1911s...

Best, Jon

Boy that resonates. In my decade of the 1911 ('80's) I was pretty slick with it but after more than a decade of Glock focus, I'm having a devil of a time getting back into the swing of things with my extraordinary 1911. I think my trigger (it's a Dave Sams full custom build) is maybe a little under 4lbs. I'm thinking of sending back to Dave (what a great guy!) for a curved MSH at least; but I was also contemplating a re do of the trigger to get it up around 5lbs. Seems stupid and I'm just spit ballin' but its one helluva downshift to feather that light trigger at speed.

But a "-" in a Glock ends up being around that 5lb mark. I've got a NY spring or two in my tackle box and I should install it

[Highplains45]

I have used the "-" connector and black NY spring in my Glock pistols, for both carry and competition. That combo produces a very nice ~4.5 lb trigger that is very consistent.

[JBP55]

I have used the "-" connector and black NY spring in my Glock pistols, for both carry and competition. That combo produces a very nice ~4.5 lb trigger that is very consistent.


Add a NY1 spring to a stock Glock and the trigger pull will be in the 8.0# range. Installing a - connector to a Gen 1/2/3 Glock will reduce the trigger pull approximately 1.0#. A - connector will reduce the trigger pull of a Gen 4 Glock approximately 8 oz.

[Mr_White]

I wish there were more people using NY1 and NY2 triggers with standard connectors in their Glocks to comment on that those guns being more applicable to those "non-fighting" applications.

I can't comment on the field use of those triggers, but I spent some time training with a Glock with NY1/standard connector trigger parts, and a little bit of time playing with the NY2/standard connector.

Here is what I ended up thinking about them:

They all can be run 'well', but the heavier triggers cost some combination of effort, time, and/or accuracy.

NY1 and NY2 are harder to run than a lighter OEM option (standard or minus connector paired with coil spring.)

It costs me either time or accuracy to use either the NY1 or NY2, compared to a lighter OEM option.

NY1 and NY2 were very close but the character of the NY1 was better for me (cleaner break, less sponginess.)

NY1/standard connector weighed out to ~10.5 lbs.

NY2/standard connector weighed out to ~12 lbs, IIRC.

When I tried the NY1/standard connector under simulated physical stresses (iced hands + fatigued hands/fingers + tunnel vision glasses), it continued to be harder to shoot well than a lighter OEM option.

For two reasons, I ended up skeptical of the NY1/NY2 being appreciably better to avoid firing the gun unintentionally: convulsive force of the hand/trigger finger is much more than it takes to fire the NY1 or NY2, and in operating the NY1/NY2 triggers, I found that I had to be aggressive enough on the trigger that there was little practical difference in control (shoot when I choose to and not shoot when I haven't chosen to) compared to a minus connector/coil spring.

[JHC]

I can't comment on the field use of those triggers, but I spent some time training with a Glock with NY1/standard connector trigger parts, and a little bit of time playing with the NY2/standard connector.

Here is what I ended up thinking about them:

They all can be run 'well', but the heavier triggers cost some combination of effort, time, and/or accuracy.

NY1 and NY2 are harder to run than a lighter OEM option (standard or minus connector paired with coil spring.)

It costs me either time or accuracy to use either the NY1 or NY2, compared to a lighter OEM option.

NY1 and NY2 were very close but the character of the NY1 was better for me (cleaner break, less sponginess.)

NY1/standard connector weighed out to ~10.5 lbs.

NY2/standard connector weighed out to ~12 lbs, IIRC.

When I tried the NY1/standard connector under simulated physical stresses (iced hands + fatigued hands/fingers + tunnel vision glasses), it continued to be harder to shoot well than a lighter OEM option.

For two reasons, I ended up skeptical of the NY1/NY2 being appreciably better to avoid firing the gun unintentionally: convulsive force of the hand/trigger finger is much more than it takes to fire the NY1 or NY2, and in operating the NY1/NY2 triggers, I found that I had to be aggressive enough on the trigger that there was little practical difference in control (shoot when I choose to and not shoot when I haven't chosen to) compared to a minus connector/coil spring.

Wow. Just . . . wow.

[Mr_White]

Wow. Just . . . wow.


I do think it was hugely beneficial to learn to run a more difficult trigger. I just didn't end up thinking I was better off with that heavier trigger permanently.

[JBP55]

I can't comment on the field use of those triggers, but I spent some time training with a Glock with NY1/standard connector trigger parts, and a little bit of time playing with the NY2/standard connector.

Here is what I ended up thinking about them:

They all can be run 'well', but the heavier triggers cost some combination of effort, time, and/or accuracy.

NY1 and NY2 are harder to run than a lighter OEM option (standard or minus connector paired with coil spring.)

It costs me either time or accuracy to use either the NY1 or NY2, compared to a lighter OEM option.

NY1 and NY2 were very close but the character of the NY1 was better for me (cleaner break, less sponginess.)

NY1/standard connector weighed out to ~10.5 lbs.

NY2/standard connector weighed out to ~12 lbs, IIRC.

When I tried the NY1/standard connector under simulated physical stresses (iced hands + fatigued hands/fingers + tunnel vision glasses), it continued to be harder to shoot well than a lighter OEM option.

For two reasons, I ended up skeptical of the NY1/NY2 being appreciably better to avoid firing the gun unintentionally: convulsive force of the hand/trigger finger is much more than it takes to fire the NY1 or NY2, and in operating the NY1/NY2 triggers, I found that I had to be aggressive enough on the trigger that there was little practical difference in control (shoot when I choose to and not shoot when I haven't chosen to) compared to a minus connector/coil spring.

The average healthy young male under stress can pull a trigger with approximately twice the weight of a Glock with a NY2 trigger installed.

[psalms144.1]

I just finished up day 2 of a 3-day Active Threat Response course for folks in my field office. The last drill of the day was a "link up" drill, two agents approaching from different ends of a building with a "known threat, unknown location" active shooter. Students were told the following: (a) the "threat" would be a CARDBOARD TARGET, (b) there would be no human role players in the scenario, (c) instructor(s) would be in the building, wearing reflective neon yellow traffic vests. I was the kitten selected to be the "stimulator" by firing off blank rounds and screaming in the room where the "threat" was located.

Students had a mix of G19 and Sig P229R airsoft pistols. Results: (a) three blue-on-blue shootings during link up, (b) two NDs as students holstered cocked Sig pistols during debriefing, (c) one team shot each other in the hallway, then entered the room, shot me, but did not shoot (or even report SEEING) the cardboard target on a chair approximately 4 feet from the doorway. Interestingly, NONE of the "unintentional" shootings occurred with Glocks, which tells me, anecdotally, that the 12# DA trigger on a Sig isn't that much of a "safety measure" when amped up folks get their fingers inside the trigger guard of their pistols.

On a side note, none of my Glock shooters had any NDs - which MIGHT be a result of the fact that I verbally beat the dog snot out of them when I see ANY "early" movement of fingers towards triggers during live-fire training... I need to start hammering on the Sig shooters as well - but, everyone knows that the DA trigger is SAFER, so I haven't been paying them as much attention.

This is NOT to say that I think the Glock trigger is "safer" or even "as safe" as the DA/SA - just that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE TRIGGER when Rule #2 gets violated...

Regards,

Kevin

[GJM]

This is a very interesting post, and thanks for taking the time to write it up. When I looked at the Front Sight ND reports, no single action type seemed more or less safer.

I would be very curious what your "take-aways" are from this, especially in light of the extra safety we tend to associate with LEM and DA/SA actions here at PF?

[Dagga Boy]

I have a theory on this. Stand by for a PM.

[YVK]

This is a very interesting post, and thanks for taking the time to write it up. When I looked at the Front Sight ND reports, no single action type seemed more or less safer.

I would be very curious what your "take-aways" are from this, especially in light of the extra safety we tend to associate with LEM and DA/SA actions here at PF?

Having holstered a cocked DA/SA gun twice in last 8 months, I keep loving lem that way.

[Hooper]

Hmm, that is very interesting, Kevin. I was hesitant to say anything in the other thread, since I am just a new guy here trying to learn from those with tons more experience than I have, and figure out what program to follow to start getting serious about my pistol training, before I start engraining habits. But I do read a lot, and try to approach things as a scientist and an engineer when I have enough background knowledge to think through things in any field of study, so perhaps I have at least come up with a good question or two that relate here, if nothing else.

Specifically, I am wondering if Bill Rogers doesn't actually come out looking like a genius here.

In another thread there seemed to be some mention of Bill Rogers' methodology not being particularly relevant to the street, which kind of threw me off after having just finished reading Bill Rogers' book last week. In his book he does see his program as having profound implications for the street in multiple ways, which he discusses in his book, and not being just a game and pure shooting skills program.

The crux here is that he clearly advocates against pointing your pistol at potential threats before firing, opting instead for an extended low ready when the pistol is out of the holster but prior to firing, and using a reactive shot if one needs to fire. He advocates this for both civilians, and especially law enforcement. Reasons he cites for not pointing your pistol at potential threats on "the street" IIRC are:


We can expect real, living, breathing human threats to be moving targets, and it is easier to hit the threat if he/she moves laterally from the stationary position if the pistol is not already pointed at them, for a number of reasons having to do with focus and attention, and the extra tracking benefits conferred by your brain hitting a moving target when it already knew it was going to have to dynamically move the pistol toward the target in order to shoot it in the first place.
Keeping one's pistol pointed at the target does not make for an appreciably faster shot compared to utilizing reactive shooting because both scenarios involve one action/reaction delay for the brain to execute a mental command (makes sense to me as squeezing a trigger takes some time, regardless, which is probably on the order of the time to move the arms toward the target and squeeze the trigger at the same time once the motor command his begun to move the arms/fire),
It decreases one's ability to see as compared to an extended low ready position, and
It conditions one to violate Cooper's rules 2 & 4, which may make a difference in uncertain circumstances.

(my summary from memory, missing a lot of the detail and eloquence of the original)

I don't doubt what Nyeti and others have said about the extra layer of safety of the TDA, LEM, and DAOs, it just makes sense. Nyeti's article on the LEM inspired me to convert my P30 V3 to V0 LEM, and I noticed the added feedback of the hammer moving on every shot almost immediately. The visual feedback on where my trigger is provided by the LEM hammer almost reminds me of some kind of gauge/meter bar on a video game. Just because the added safety imparted by a trigger system such as a TDA or LEM doesn't totally mitigate NDs, doesn't mean that they aren't providing an incremental benefit here that is serving us better. Unless we have a good amount of real world data to the contrary, I don't think it reasonable to assume otherwise.

But thinking about Bill Rogers' system, if we are using a trigger system like a DA/SA, DAO, or the LEM to make us safer for the purpose of forcing us to spend more time on the trigger squeeze and give us more feedback on the trigger pull, in order to guard against firing unless one really means it; the extra movement in your arms of the reactive shot serves the same purpose. If we do both, we have multiple layers of improved control and intentionality that go into our shots on the street.

Thoughts? Perhaps pointing our pistols directly at a potential threat when it is not a time to fire is necessary to instill fear?

[Dagga Boy]

We (HiTS) are huge advocates of the low ready for dealing with most situations (both compressed and extended). I came from an LAPD Metro based education on gun handling, where they are also huge advocates of the low ready for the above cited reasons, and have been for a very long time as they were very early advocates of the Modern Technique. A true low ready should not have any part of the muzzle covering the target at all, as that would be a "Contact Ready" that requires articulation of the reason the muzzle is on that person. Presently, the Low Ready is quite maligned as another antiquated technique. I haven't read Rogers book, but all of the above is exactly what we found on the West Coast, where the low ready is pretty much the norm.

By the way, I am not sure about the Rogers "methodology" not being relative to the street. I am sure most of his methodology is relative. I just don't see being smoking fast at shooting non-evaluated pre-determined array of targets being relative to the huge complexity of a street encounter. It is without a doubt a very difficult to master shooting drill, which will have obvious benefits to the actual "sight, press, follow through" portion of any shooting being on the street or otherwise. My point was that changing equipment, "gaming" the test, and specific little techniques for the various tests is not what I think is what makes a person good a dealing with the big picture of handling street problems. Others disagree. We happen to use a lot of specific drills from Rogers and many others to work on individual performance gains and checks on marksmanship. I just don't equate what someone's score is on a schools test to anything more than that-their individual score. Others put far more weight on it.

[YVK]

GJM posted a video of me shooting a Rogers stage in that 19 page thread below. To shoot that stage cleanly, one has to
- run the gun competently across several tasks,
- accurately assess a deceptively difficult target and adjust mental and visual patience to guarantee a one shot hit,
- not to expose self with a gun down,
- not to get thrown and assume a defensive posture after a setback.

Do you think those things are somewhat relevant to handling street problems? I personally think yes, but I have no street experience. And, while in scoring department I give myself maybe OK with one point down, in street relevant department I give myself a fail because I screwed up most of the above requirements.

Bigger point I am making that a thinking student should be able to make most of the training opportunities relevant as long as he/she is able to transcend the limits of steel and paper targets and rules of the game.

[Hooper]

Ahh, those are some excellent points. I suspect that not even Rogers himself ever viewed his range as being a totally comprehensive test of all things defensive pistol, but rather as just a good way to practice and learn reactive shooting of small targets. I can definitely see "perfecting" such a course of fire as being a whole different animal. Awesome thoughts, Nyeti, thanks! There's one more book I want to read, Scott Deitz's, before I start, but with what you said and everything I've gathered from here and elsewhere, I think I'm nearly ready to begin looking at taking some classes and doing some more thoughtful training. I wish I would have done all this before I started shooting IDPA and carrying about five years ago. All the stuff I was doing wrong...

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

GJM posted a video of me shooting a Rogers stage in that 19 page thread below. To shoot that stage cleanly, one has to
- run the gun competently across several tasks,
- accurately assess a deceptively difficult target and adjust mental and visual patience to guarantee a one shot hit,
- not to expose self with a gun down,
- not to get thrown and assume a defensive posture after a setback.

Do you think those things are somewhat relevant to handling street problems? I personally think yes, but I have no street experience. And, while in scoring department I give myself maybe OK with one point down, in street relevant department I give myself a fail because I screwed up most of the above requirements.

Bigger point I am making that a thinking student should be able to make most of the training opportunities relevant as long as he/she is able to transcend the limits of steel and paper targets and rules of the game.

Now we are getting exactly to my general point. Maybe I am an idiot and just don't get it (which is possible), but I do not see very many folks talking about doing all those things you listed (which are all relevant). What I do see are discussions of what score they got, what score others got, what strategies are best to get that score, and what guns are best to get that score. Essentially, are you concerned about doing the best that YOU can do with your current training added to what was learned at the RSS with gear and firearms that were selected based on your lifestyle, experience, and personal needs......or are you concerned with adapting your lifestyle, needs, guns and gear to attaining a score at RSS? That is my only point.

[GJM]

The Rogers School test, by virtue of its difficulty, length, and the number of times it is administered, is an excellent technical shooting skills test that is a very accurate representation of the state of your technical shooting skills. The way to score higher at Rogers is to increase your technical shooting skills. While you may be hearing folks talking about scoring higher at Rogers, what is really happening is folks are talking about improving their technical shooting skills. The rub is most people overestimate their own on-demand technical shooting skills, and Rogers in a brutal way, exposes deficiencies in your abilities. New guys want to be successful on one test. Repeat folks want to be successful on every run of the test, and use the test by virtue of its difficulty and length, to benchmark their performance over time.

If a person believes technical shooting skills are important, and is interested in benchmarking their performance, there is no better place to do it than on the Rogers range. If a person believes technical shooting skills are mostly for gamerZ, and/or is afraid to lay their skills out there for all to see, reduced to a number on a test, Rogers is the wrong place.

[JHC]

I just finished up day 2 of a 3-day Active Threat Response course for folks in my field office. The last drill of the day was a "link up" drill, two agents approaching from different ends of a building with a "known threat, unknown location" active shooter. Students were told the following: (a) the "threat" would be a CARDBOARD TARGET, (b) there would be no human role players in the scenario, (c) instructor(s) would be in the building, wearing reflective neon yellow traffic vests. I was the kitten selected to be the "stimulator" by firing off blank rounds and screaming in the room where the "threat" was located.

Students had a mix of G19 and Sig P229R airsoft pistols. Results: (a) three blue-on-blue shootings during link up, (b) two NDs as students holstered cocked Sig pistols during debriefing, (c) one team shot each other in the hallway, then entered the room, shot me, but did not shoot (or even report SEEING) the cardboard target on a chair approximately 4 feet from the doorway. Interestingly, NONE of the "unintentional" shootings occurred with Glocks, which tells me, anecdotally, that the 12# DA trigger on a Sig isn't that much of a "safety measure" when amped up folks get their fingers inside the trigger guard of their pistols.

On a side note, none of my Glock shooters had any NDs - which MIGHT be a result of the fact that I verbally beat the dog snot out of them when I see ANY "early" movement of fingers towards triggers during live-fire training... I need to start hammering on the Sig shooters as well - but, everyone knows that the DA trigger is SAFER, so I haven't been paying them as much attention.

This is NOT to say that I think the Glock trigger is "safer" or even "as safe" as the DA/SA - just that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE TRIGGER when Rule #2 gets violated...

Regards,

Kevin

That's pretty dang interesting stuff. Might there be a factor whereby a gun that is perceived as more dangerous and less forgiving; may be routinely handled more carefully than a "safer" design? I think so. Even though this is a mental lapse or poor training. I've caught myself in admin handling of a DA revolver being less strict with my finger laying in the trigger guard vs Glocks and 1911s where it's like "milking rattlesnakes". Hot range vs cold range, Hack's "snake drill" and his preaching come to mind - more dangerous things sometimes make us safer.

IDK

[LSP972]

Baton Rouge Police Department used to run the NY1 spring. I have not asked in a while if they still use them.

They 10-22'ed that practice with the new Gen4 pistols.

Most of the turn-in Gen3s I looked at (including the one I bought) have the NY1 spring with standard five pound connector. The resulting trigger pull is... hard. Usable, but hard.

.

[SteveK]

I shot IDPA last week with a 40 year old HK P9S. DA/SA, heel release mag, 4 inch barrel. I was no superman, but I shot well enough on several stages to get a few admiring grunts from the regulars. I don't find the DA to SA transition to be a big deal, and my mag changes were no slower than slingshotters'. I also shot part of one stage single handed.

I came across this forum and was amazed to find people here who are actual proponents of DA/SA and LEM triggers, rather than Glocks with 3.5 connectors and 1911s.

I also recall years ago when IDPA nationals were won with P226s and Beretta 92s.


For this type of "practical" shooting, how much does the platform matter? If some of those terrible grouping M&P pistols are reasonable choices, just how much extra time or dropped points should someone shooting a 92FS or a 5904 expect over those shooting Glock 34s or PPQs? If you can control a DA trigger, is there really that much difference with any 9mm pistol at those ranges?

Reading the recent thread about the HK P30 woes shooting one handed made me think that shooters emphasize many aspects of gun design, but in the end the gun didn't work because the grip didn't index well, making all that other stuff irrelevant. I'd kind of like to think someone with good DA trigger control could buy a $400 Bersa and shoot 99% as well as with whatever wonderplastic they normally use.

Remember, when IDPA was started in 1996, the premise was to provide a venue for competitive pistol shooting for the everyday Joe. IPSC had become the land of the $3,000 + race gun and few could enjoy it. Ken, Bill, LAV and if I recall Walt Rauch ( and maybe a couple others ) got together and came up with a game where everyone could show up with whatever they had in the dresser drawer, compete against others with like guns and skill sets on an even playing field and not break their savings accounts. Like most other shooting sports it eventually became a little perverted but the IDPA staff has reevaluated the rule book from time to time to keep the premise of the sport the same. The initial IDPA Conference Championship was won by Rob Haught with a Smith & Wesson "Shorty Forty", basically a custom 6906 blown up into a .40 S&W pistol. So much for gaming, huh.

[YVK]

Essentially, are you concerned about doing the best that YOU can do with your current training added to what was learned at the RSS with gear and firearms that were selected based on your lifestyle, experience, and personal needs......or are you concerned with adapting your lifestyle, needs, guns and gear to attaining a score at RSS?

There is both going on, behavior varying not only between different shooters, but also for the same shooter on different days if said shooter chose to.
As GJM said, it is a comprehensive test. While shooting such test from an open rig with a competition oriented gun (and I did that) can be looked at as an unrealistic behavior and gaming, what's overlooked is that this establishes an ideal circumstances performance yardstick for the person. One can then vary a number of things like use same gun but run it from concealment (did that), or run a carry gun from a concealment (did that too) and see how much performance you give up and where you give it up, and why.
Others could do entirely differently and run all week from their work and duty gear to get most info that way, and they did so.
One can use those 5 days and what at first looks like a cool steel challenge match to learn about his gear, or one can use that and gear itself to learn about himself, and then suddenly it starts looking more than just a steel challenge. That was my main lesson from the RSS, along with many others.

And, to the point of the original question, yes, gun and trigger system matter a lot. Using this RSS class as an example, people who were shooting DA/SA in this given class weren't shooting generic TDA guns, they were shooting sweeta$$, smooth, shot-in, great TDA triggers. The devil is in details.

[Mr_White]

We happen to use a lot of specific drills from Rogers and many others to work on individual performance gains and checks on marksmanship.

What specific drills from Rogers do you use?

[Handy]

Remember, when IDPA was started in 1996, the premise was to provide a venue for competitive pistol shooting for the everyday Joe. IPSC had become the land of the $3,000 + race gun and few could enjoy it. Ken, Bill, LAV and if I recall Walt Rauch ( and maybe a couple others ) got together and came up with a game where everyone could show up with whatever they had in the dresser drawer, compete against others with like guns and skill sets on an even playing field and not break their savings accounts. Like most other shooting sports it eventually became a little perverted but the IDPA staff has reevaluated the rule book from time to time to keep the premise of the sport the same. The initial IDPA Conference Championship was won by Rob Haught with a Smith & Wesson "Shorty Forty", basically a custom 6906 blown up into a .40 S&W pistol. So much for gaming, huh.
That was my recollection as well. But people started gravitating to "easier to shoot" platforms immediately - Glocks had been around for a decade by 1996. When Langdon won with a DA/SA pistol just a few years later, it was really noteworthy.

And it should have been noteworthy. Until fairly recently, a Glock was the only gun you could run with a sub 5 pound trigger from the draw in SSP. You really have to put ideals ahead of winning to choose a DA pistol when everyone else is shooting Condition 0.

[GJM]

There are a number of shooters who think a good DA/SA pistol is easier to shoot than a Glock. I do.

[Mr_White]

I don't think there is any question that a tuned DA/SA such as a Tanfoglio or CZ is seen as an advantage in USPSA Production. It's not about the first shot, it's about all the shots after the first one that are way easier with a DA/SA gun.

[rob_s]

Now we are getting exactly to my general point. Maybe I am an idiot and just don't get it (which is possible), but I do not see very many folks talking about doing all those things you listed (which are all relevant). What I do see are discussions of what score they got, what score others got, what strategies are best to get that score, and what guns are best to get that score. Essentially, are you concerned about doing the best that YOU can do with your current training added to what was learned at the RSS with gear and firearms that were selected based on your lifestyle, experience, and personal needs......or are you concerned with adapting your lifestyle, needs, guns and gear to attaining a score at RSS? That is my only point.

As I understand it, to get the scores they are talking about, you have to do loll the things he is talking about. So it goes hand-in-hand.

For those that have been, and I haven't, it is probably pretty clear.

[JonInWA]

I think that an exceptionally skilled shooter will be the one who can wring every iota of advantage (or, conversely, overcome potential disadvantages) out of a given gun/action. Unless there's a truly gross disqualifying inherent to a gun (design, materiel, or ergonomic), I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that differentiation between action types may be less relevant than in how a given individual indexes to a given gun/action (and I'm assuming that said individual is more than basically familiar with said gun).

In this sense, Ernest Langdon, David Sevigny, and Todd Green are exemplars of this theory, in that they (and certainly others)demonstrate exemplary performance with basically stock platforms/actions. To an extent, yes, I'm arguing that "It's the Indian, not the arrow" philosophy. But I'm also suggesting that there's a concurrent component factor of how said Indian selects and indexes to said bow (to mangle the analogy further); once the basic bow/platform is identified/chosen, then the individual may well relatively easily adopt to differing actions applied to the platform. And yes, a pure (and skilled) "gamer" may well gravitate to a platform that provides him/her with a "best" solution to their game of choice, such as a 1911, with it's short, light, linear triggerpull, tunabilty/customization potential and overall ergos-but that selectin might not be a good "real world" duty/carry choice, or even an ideal choice outside of a given specific competition venue.

There may also be some logic applicable to progressively approaching/applying different action types. For example, in my case, I somewhat anchor my selection and use process around my key annual matches in a given year, which for me are an IDPA State Championship match in August, and my Glock GSSF season, which covers June and August matches. Further anchoring my platform selections is that I need to configure my IDPA State match around a gun/manufacturer that my sponsor, Check-Mate Industries, makes magazines for. That translates into (for me) a choice of Beretta 92, 1911 or Ruger. Historically, since I perform better (significantly so) with my Beretta and Ruger platforms than my 1911s, I set aside my 1911 field testing and use to a period after the State match. May, June and September will likely be my months of Glock concentrated use, in accordance with my GSSF planned match attendance. October is usually a "free" month, as I choose that the month to compete with my 1938 vintage P.08 Luger in IDPA in what we've come to term "Lugerpolluza," where several of us with warped antecedents and historical sensibilities compete in the IDPA match with Lugers or similar vintage firearms (last year, we comprised an entire squad-or the other match participants may have shunned us into a quarantine squad...). November/DecemberJanuary are 1911 months; January and February are revolver months, and then from March on I concentrate on selecting between Beretta and Ruger platforms for State.

Action-wise, January is either SA or DA revolver, February is DA revolver, March is DA/SA or DAO, April is DA/SA or DAO, May is DA/SA or DAO, June is Glock; July is DA/SA or DAO, August is DA/SA or DAO, September is Glock, October is "whatever;" (I do dry-fire/live fire with the P.08, so the Luger action is probably most similar to that of a Glock more than anything else); November/December is SA...So there is actually a somewhat logical progression through the action types, with the progression aiding in my skill-building as I chronologically cycle through the action types/platforms in a given year.

My selections aren't necessarily written inflexibly (or uneditably) into stone; for example, due to last year's ammunition shortages, with .40 being seemingly the only consistently available (and, fortuitously, reasonably priced) chambering, I ended up concentrating on my FN Hi Power chambered in .40 (and the only gun in .40 left in my vault) for a preponderance of my matches for the second and third quarter of the year out of necessity-not a bad thing at all, but certainly a huge deviation from my planned platform forecasting).

Would it be smarter and more effective to simply choose one action type and/or platform and remain with it? Doubtlessly so. But I'm reasonably happy with the route that I've taken, which addresses my needs, commitments, and desires.

Best, Jon

[ldunnmobile]

To backtrack a little and look at the OP, "How much should a gun/trigger system matter?" I find it interesting to look at TLG's recent decision to go P229 over P30. He said, "The driving force between the HK and SIG for me here was trigger quality, by far." So while conceding the HK was likely to be the most durable/reliable of the two, trigger system was the trump card.

It just depends as many have said on what you are trying to accomplish. (FYI no dog in the fight, I have P30 LEM and like it)

[psalms144.1]

I have a theory on this. Stand by for a PM.Back at you, brother - sorry for the delay (day 3 down; icing multiple airsoft welts right now...)

[psalms144.1]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my earlier post, and sorry it took so long to get back; just got done with day 3.

In retrospect, I think I may have disingenuously phrased my earlier post, somehow laying the ND blame at the feet of the platform. As I told Nyeti off-line, the REAL take away from this is that there are some folks who could ND with a bowling ball, and, quite frankly, modern LE management will not allow the kind of "pain retains" corrective techniques that will get through to those folks. There are also quite a few people, in and out of LE, for whom the "stress" of a simulated shooting scenario makes them vapor lock, incapable of coherent thought, reasoned response to stimulus, or fine motor skill use. Positive Target Identification simply IS NOT happening for these folks. If I gave them a rubber chicken to do the drill, they would have thrown it at their "friendly" that they were not expecting (even though they were told it was a link up drill before I started making the banging noise and screaming).

Quite fortunately, this latter group IS trainable - IF resources (most importantly TIME) are available to do the training. And, it doesn't have to be elaborate - at least once a week, because I'm passionate about it, I incorporate movement and single-officer response tactics into my dry fire time. My kids and wife are now used to having me wander through the house, "limited penetrating" doors and barking commands/questions (the Rhodesian still doesn't get it, but, he just likes to chase the SIRT laser, I think...)

So, do I think the blue-on-blues would have been prevented if those students had a (Sig/CZ/Beretta/Glock/1911/insert brand here) instead? Nope. I just think that finger on the trigger combined with a startle reflex and bad PID is going to get the wrong people killed (or at least lead to lots of cases of brown shorts). Do I think that "switched on" guys are MUCH more aware of their trigger finger, and, as a result, are MUCH less likely to ND? You betcha. The difference? Attitude and desire.

One of the "best" performing students in this class was a late 20s female who specializes in National Security stuff - no LE background prior to our hiring her. But, her head works when things get loud, and she can control herself and her actions regardless of sets of stimuli that we set up specifically to get folks to vapor lock. She's not a "gun guy" - carries her issued DAK-triggered Sig, hates the 12 ga qualification, and never held an AR-platform rifle before this week - and she's 5'7" and about 110 pounds. NOT "Tactical Ted." But, you better believe when money comes down the pike for more training on long arms and tactics, she's going to be the top of my list of folks to train - because she can THINK under stress. I'd have no worries about her being behind me in any stack on any entry anywhere anytime.

Sorry if that's rambling, it's been a long, warmish day, and I've got a bleeding head wound from an airsoft pellet that hit me right above my face-shield, so I'm not at 100% right now...

[GJM]

One of the "best" performing students in this class was a late 20s female who specializes in National Security stuff - no LE background prior to our hiring her. But, her head works when things get loud, and she can control herself and her actions regardless of sets of stimuli that we set up specifically to get folks to vapor lock. She's not a "gun guy" - carries her issued DAK-triggered Sig, hates the 12 ga qualification, and never held an AR-platform rifle before this week - and she's 5'7" and about 110 pounds. NOT "Tactical Ted." But, you better believe when money comes down the pike for more training on long arms and tactics, she's going to be the top of my list of folks to train - because she can THINK under stress. I'd have no worries about her being behind me in any stack on any entry anywhere anytime.

Yes, but does she look like Jessica Chastain?

[psalms144.1]

Yes, but does she look like Jessica Chastain?The fact that I had to Google "Jessica Chastain" shows how hopelessly out of touch with modern culture I am... Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

[GJM]

The fact that I had to Google "Jessica Chastain" shows how hopelessly out of touch with modern culture I am... Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

you tell me

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Chastain_zps4ef451f2.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Chastain_zps4ef451f2.jpg.html)

[psalms144.1]

you tell me

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Chastain_zps4ef451f2.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Chastain_zps4ef451f2.jpg.html)Yup - she looks JUST like that. Only different...

[LSP552]

Everyone has their priorities when it comes to weapon selection. Like most things, gun stuff is a series of trade offs. To ME, a shootable trigger is one of the most important things I require. It's a big reason that my Glocks are in the safe and I went back to carrying DA/SA SIGs some years ago. I just shoot them better, period. I'm willing to trade some extra weight for a better trigger.

Ken

[Doug]

One of the "best" performing students in this class was a late 20s female who specializes in National Security stuff - no LE background prior to our hiring her. But, her head works when things get loud, and she can control herself and her actions regardless of sets of stimuli that we set up specifically to get folks to vapor lock. She's not a "gun guy" - carries her issued DAK-triggered Sig, hates the 12 ga qualification, and never held an AR-platform rifle before this week - and she's 5'7" and about 110 pounds. NOT "Tactical Ted." But, you better believe when money comes down the pike for more training on long arms and tactics, she's going to be the top of my list of folks to train - because she can THINK under stress. I'd have no worries about her being behind me in any stack on any entry anywhere anytime.


Psalms,

Take a listen to Why Some Soldiers Thrive Under Extreme Stress by And Morgan on the Yale Medical School podcast.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/psychology/id387232684

You may find it explains what you are seeing in this trainee. It posits a "born" or genetic ability to handle. Many do not like thinking it is a trait you may be born to do...

Doug