New (old) idea. The thumb trigger

[octagon]

The video makes it hard to see exactly how it looks or works but it is fired with the thumb and offers a full 4 finger grip. More accurate in testing by the maker/designer for what that is worth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auUBtGS3Oo

And more info with translated text here.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/13/technostudio-italian-pistol/

[Peally]

Man that sounds tiring to shoot a lot.

[Lomshek]

More accurate in testing by the maker/designer for what that is worth.

I'm sure the maker/designer said it was more accurate.

I really doubt that claim.

[GardoneVT]

So instead of shooting the triggers already available properly, unsafe alternatives are created instead.

Makes sense to someone I suppose.

[spinmove_]

Ok, I get where they're coming from on this. However, now where are you going to put the slide lock/release lever? What happens when I grip the pistol with a proper thumbs forward grip instead of this dude's teacup? What happens if I'm left handed? Now I have to have two triggers on one gun? So if Glocks shoot low left, is this one just going to shoot low right?

It seems this system is fundamentally flawed.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[octagon]

I'm sure the maker/designer said it was more accurate.

I really doubt that claim.

I stated it the way I did to indicate that there was a likely bias by the maker. I'm curious what you base your comment that you really doubt the claim on? The thumb can move independently of the fingers unlike the index finger. Having a different acting trigger movement that doesn't apply a torquing effect at least logically would offer less.

Unfortunately I don't find the negativity and pessimism about a non traditional design in regards to firearms surprising but it still is disappointing. This is just 1 design concept built to consider a different method of firing a gun. It isn't clearly shown and documented how it works in the proof of concept nor how it could or would be applied if it has merit to go further. No one says it will have any effect on traditional firearms for good or bad or that anyone has to buy or use the design. Much of this country's strength was founded on innovation and risk taking in attempts to improve on the status quo. To not give a different design a fair shake before knowing how it functions and works or doesn't in more objective evaluation seems terribly pessimistic and sad.

I have no connection to or like/dislike for the gun,trigger design or anyone involved with the project. I only appreciate peoples efforts to not stay stagnant to one idea.

[1slow]

Interesting. Might have benefit for those with damage to their trigger fingers. It would require a LOT of retraining I think.

Those who shot cocked and locked pistols a lot might have negligent discharge issues.


Back in the Colt SAA day some few used a "Slip Gun". Trigger was removed and the SAA was fired by cocking and then slipping the thumb off of the hammer for each shot. Elmer Keith wrote about this. I believe there was a pistolero named John Selman that used this method.

[spinmove_]

Maybe the same place it is on the HK P7. Maybe not have one at all. Years ago Todd and I talked about a pistol design where mags automatically drop free when empty and that intentionally release the slide (and don't rely upon inertial quirks like pistols that currently auto-forward) when a loaded mag is inserted. Maybe something completely different.

It's an idea, and like the "thumb trigger", an interesting one. Not sure how well something like that would be




What happens when you use a "proper thumbs forward grip" on a revolver and your thumb spans the cylinder gap? Point being, completely different designs often require different techniques.

True, adjustments do need to be made on various designs. But having a thumb trigger where you would have your support hand to help manage recoil seems like you're trading recoil mitigation for pure precision. Why not have both?





Two triggers would be one way to do it, but likely not the best. I know nothing about their design, but I can easily conceive how to make a tool-less way to easily rotate the "trigger" from one side to the other.

But then you get into the issue of having to shoot support hand only. What happens in those situations? You then would either have to have a second trigger to actuate firing with your support hand thumb or you now have to actuate the trigger with your support hand index finger and now you has a severely compromised shooting grip with your support hand only shooting.




Not giving you a hard time, but it's easy to see problems if that's all you look for. Looking for solutions isn't really any harder, but requires a different mindset and approach. But I'm a guy that makes a "hammer" for the Glock, and gets a Google Alert every morning full of links to places all over the internet telling me exactly how stupid I am, so I'm probably a little less inclined to be completely dismissive right out of the gate. :)

Another thing is, if you or I or anyone else can look at a new design and easily spot several fundamental flaws within seconds, it's probably likely that the guys behind it can see them too and that maybe the guy reporting on it (and that admits he doesn't understand the language it's presented in) might be omitting some pertinent details. You and I and everyone at PF are obviously very smart people, but we're probably not that much smarter than everyone else. :)

Do I think that this will be the service pistol design of the future? No, almost assuredly not, but that doesn't mean that there won't be certain places where it could gain traction. I could see something like this being used in a Olympic free pistol or other bullseye-type sport (assuming the rules would allow it).

I totally get it, and I appreciate you playing the role of Devil's Advocate. I do see some merit to the design, whether that be for a purely competition/Olympic style pistol or maybe even adopt it for a rifle. My point is that I don't think it has any viable role on a service/concealed carry pistol due to the inherent design. It's cool to see new and interesting stuff and I guess I should have been more precise in my assessment of my perception of the design. It'd be cool to learn more about it, but I'm not holding my breath on seeing it in too many holsters any time soon.

[octagon]

I think one of the bigger obstacles to "new" ideas (and possibly "improvement") in the gun world are gun owners/users. Someone smarter and funnier than me should write a satire piece about what it would have been like if the internet, gun forums, and Facebook had existed when Colt/Browning/Kalashnikov/Stoner/Glock were all getting started in firearms design. :cool:

I think the same thing whenever I see a new product. Many are garbage or a solution looking for a problem but I always try and give them an objective consideration. The satire you speak of was at least done by Family Guy with Edison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yl20r4dbgs

[TAZ]

Interesting idea. Given that the thumb by design can operate independently of the other fingers it's not a bad idea. Hope the guys figure out how to make it feasible in production and have success. I always applaud folks trying different ways to skin a cat. Even if they fail, they have tried, which is better that the majority of us.

[Lomshek]

I stated it the way I did to indicate that there was a likely bias by the maker. I'm curious what you base your comment that you really doubt the claim on? The thumb can move independently of the fingers unlike the index finger. Having a different acting trigger movement that doesn't apply a torquing effect at least logically would offer less.

Unfortunately I don't find the negativity and pessimism about a non traditional design in regards to firearms surprising but it still is disappointing. This is just 1 design concept built to consider a different method of firing a gun. It isn't clearly shown and documented how it works in the proof of concept nor how it could or would be applied if it has merit to go further. No one says it will have any effect on traditional firearms for good or bad or that anyone has to buy or use the design. Much of this country's strength was founded on innovation and risk taking in attempts to improve on the status quo. To not give a different design a fair shake before knowing how it functions and works or doesn't in more objective evaluation seems terribly pessimistic and sad.

I have no connection to or like/dislike for the gun,trigger design or anyone involved with the project. I only appreciate peoples efforts to not stay stagnant to one idea.

Sorry about the misunderstanding (the curse of typed responses). I took your "for what that is worth" to mean you were skeptical of their claims and I was agreeing with that perceived skepticism not directing snark at you.

Innovation is a good thing but that doesn't mean we need to applaud a dumb design.

A trigger pushed forward with the thump means a weaker grip (lacking the thumb's opposition to the fingers) and the thumb's range of motion for a forward push is very limited meaning you're out of leverage so you need a very short travel "hair trigger" plus the thumb is pushing the whole gun out of the grip instead of a traditional trigger pull pushing the gun deeper into the grip. Cumulatively that means less accuracy and less recoil control.

ETA - I'm open to being proved wrong but count me as a naysayer until then.

[Lomshek]

Except the thumb isn't pushing forward, it's rotating down, but don't let that stand in the way of some good ol' fashioned naysaying. :)

:o (Is this an embarrassed smiley? That's what I identify it as.)

I watched the first video in small screen and missed that but watching it in full screen that is pretty obvious now. (oops)

I can still hate on it though. Naysayers of the world unite!

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Maybe the same place it is on the HK P7. Maybe not have one at all. Years ago Todd and I talked about a pistol design where mags automatically drop free when empty and that intentionally release the slide (and don't rely upon inertial quirks like pistols that currently auto-forward) when a loaded mag is inserted. Maybe something completely different.


One day someone will combine a bunch of the above with a beretta-type slide and a frame with an integral MRDS mount and that's going to be the next generation of pistols.

[GardoneVT]

The people at Cobalt Kinetics conceived and developed a similar idea on their own (without knowledge of anything I sketched out) and have released it in competition oriented ARs as the CARS system. So at least one other person thinks it's a good idea -- and good enough for them to put the significant amount of time and money into developing it. Will all guns have something like this in the future? Probably not.

I think one of the bigger obstacles to "new" ideas (and possibly "improvement") in the gun world are gun owners/users. Someone smarter and funnier than me should write a satire piece about what it would have been like if the internet, gun forums, and Facebook had existed when Colt/Browning/Kalashnikov/Stoner/Glock were all getting started in firearms design. :cool:

I think that's a good thing. Innovation has its place with consumer products, since if your cutting edge car fails the worst that happens is you have to find another way to church/ gun shop/etc.

If your cutting edge gun fails at the Momemt of Need, it might be the last technical failure you'll ever have. I remember a reactive sim drill where I borrowed a friends P220 and went through an active shooter scenario. Target three appeared and as soon as I pressed the trigger I got one bang....and then the slide locked open. I'll never forget seeing the "bad guy" shooting ,knowing that I was realistically history because I ran out of ammo. It would be ten times worse to be unable to defend yourself because the New Gun failed as cutting edge devices do.

While we look at modern Glocks and ARs as reliable products, it should be noted that many who carried their first generation had serious problems. A Gen 4 Glock and modern Colt AR are solid guns,but both have been around 20+ years with multiple improvements and revisions.

[JohnO]

Traditional use of the thumb for the trigger!


18134

[octagon]

I think that's a good thing. Innovation has its place with consumer products, since if your cutting edge car fails the worst that happens is you have to find another way to church/ gun shop/etc.

If your cutting edge gun fails at the Momemt of Need, it might be the last technical failure you'll ever have. I remember a reactive sim drill where I borrowed a friends P220 and went through an active shooter scenario. Target three appeared and as soon as I pressed the trigger I got one bang....and then the slide locked open. I'll never forget seeing the "bad guy" shooting ,knowing that I was realistically history because I ran out of ammo. It would be ten times worse to be unable to defend yourself because the New Gun failed as cutting edge devices do.

While we look at modern Glocks and ARs as reliable products, it should be noted that many who carried their first generation had serious problems. A Gen 4 Glock and modern Colt AR are solid guns,but both have been around 20+ years with multiple improvements and revisions.

Good points however both of your analogies have to be put into similar perspectives to be an apples to apples comparison. The new technology car that fails when you are enroute to the hospital emergency room or in pursuit is just as bad a failure as the gun that fails in a defensive situation. Most new,cutting edge technologies are vetted in competition or other environments before being relied upon for life defense,military or police carry. This is likely because competitors are always looking for the advantage that helps them win and seem to be willing to push the envelope of tech and reliability further. The tech once proven often trickles down to regular guns and defensive use guns like red dots,compensators,extended controls etc. Early cars also had a lot more issues with safety and reliability but improved with time and development just like any gun.

One key difference between cars and guns is that every production car has to meet set specific test criteria and is tested by outside,independent organizations (DOT,FMVSS,IIHS,NHTSA,Consumer Reports...) Guns not so much. All are at least manufacturer tested but not all of them go through a test process like the recent MHS for the Army which in itself has flaws. The possible issues with some guns some of the time like Caracal,Taurus semi auto,Canik,Sig P320,H&K VP9 and others once these guns are in wide spread distribution is a good reason to have independent testing with set well defined criteria for the testing. No mechanical device made by humans will ever be fault free when mass produced but I think there is more that could and should be done on the gun front including many defensive use guns.

Sorry for the rant. I just see similarities and differences that can be addressed and improved upon for all users and some missed opportunities. It is good to consider flaws and weaknesses of design but I think too often new designs are overly criticized or disregarded entirely. Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.