Glock split times/Platform Conundrum

[GJM]

Back in April, I went thru the Rogers School with a P30. I felt like I way underperformed my ability, and in particular, my support hand only shooting was a disaster. When I got home, I grabbed a M&P 9 FS and a Glock 17, and ran comparison tests with the P30, shooting known drills like the FASTest. Despite having shot 10,000 rounds thru the P30 in the previous six months, and not having shot either the Glock or M&P that year, from drill one, I shot the M&P best, followed by the Glock and then the HK.

With that data, I started shooting a M&P 9 FS, and several months later, a M&P Pro with an Apex FSS trigger. I ran the Pro thru Todd's AFHF in October and then the Rogers School later that month. My performance was WAY better thru RSS with the Pro. While I was, for example, cleaning the free style blast drills at Rogers, my support hand only shooting still needed work. Post Rogers, I really drilled down on the support hand shooting, and came to realize that I preferred a rolling trigger like the DCAEK, to the FSS, for shooting with one hand. At Rogers, Bill Rogers mentioned that the RDS was clearly the future, and I sent out a G17 to Mark Housel and a M&P 9FS to Bowie for RMR installation.

Mark Housel turned the G17 around in two days, where six weeks later I am still waiting for the Bowie M&P. With the RMR G17 in my hot little hands, I started shooting a Glock since I had one with an optic, because I figured everyone needs to be able to shoot a Glock, and probably because of the TLG bell cow effect. By bell cow, I mean the cow that wears the bell, and the other cows follow behind.

I have enjoyed shooting the Glock with the RMR, and increasing my proficiency with it. I run a minus Lone Wolf connector with an otherwise stock trigger system. What I have found is that RMR or iron sighted Glock, I just can't seem to shoot splits below .25. Since my Pro needs a DCAEK trigger, the other day I grabbed an M&P 40 FS, and right off was shooting .21 splits. Went back to the Glock, and splits back to where they were, rarely below .25.

Yesterday, I ran some Bill drills, and was frustrated to be shooting the Glock 9 slower than an M&P .40. I happened to have an HK45 in my bag, that I am bringing back to Alaska for cold weather use, and shot it some for re-fam. At the end of that, I shot a FASTest, and was amazed to see .21 splits. That seemed confusing, as I associate a 9 mm Glock with faster splits than an LEM 45. Talked it over last night with a buddy, and he speculated that shooting a different platform caused me to be more alert, almost a placebo effect.

Today, I had another range session of almost three hours, doing a bunch of different stuff. Well warmed up, I shot a few Bill drills with the Glock, and just couldn't seem to get splits below .25. Here is an example of one, shot NOT from concealment, so I could focus just on the splits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghW7UeTQ7Iw

Frustrated, I went to about three yards, and shot six shots, so I could focus just on pulling the trigger, and my splits were no better than from seven yards.

At the end of the session, I grabbed the HK45 again, and right off the bat ran a 5.2 clean FASTest from concealment, faster than my best today with the G17, even with a sticky .45 mag pouch, and was shooting .21 splits on a Bill Drill.

I think the answer is pretty clear -- I need to get back shooting a M&P, since I shoot faster splits with it, and reload it faster. It is not as accurate as the Glock, but it still shoots three inches at 25 yards. For reference, this is an example of a FASTest with the M&P from September:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIHhAOYL8c4

Anyone have any idea why I can shoot the M&P and even an HK 45 with an LEM trigger faster than the Glock? Is there something about my technique, how I have the Glock set-up, or my anatomy that is causing this?

[JodyH]

Have you tried just "dirt shooting"?
By dirt shooting I mean shoot 5 or 6 rounds as fast as possible into the berm, tracking the front sight but not actually aiming at anything.
That'll give you an idea of how fast you can press the trigger at your absolute maximum finger and visual speed.
I do that every once in a while to force myself to speed up well beyond my comfort zone.
I find it works better for me than accepting misses on paper because I just can't allow myself to get too wild when the rounds can be scored.
My H&K P30 LEM 7 yard -0 splits are around .23, trying for 75% -0 hit's I'm around .20, dirt shooting I can dip into the .17 range.
That tells me I should be able to get down to the .20 range for aimed splits.

One other thing.
With Glocks I found I shot faster splits with the 3.5#/NY1 combination due to the much faster/firmer reset.

[beltjones]

You need to figure out what the limiting factor is, and my money is on the fact that you're not tracking the dot as well as you're tracking the front sight.

At a certain skill level (which I assume you have given your training background) the limiting factor is not the trigger and not the ergos, it's the ability to track the sights. If you're going back and forth between sights and a dot in a RMR type dot sight my guess is you're waiting to find the dot and that's slowing you down.

[DocGKR]

I also tend to shoot the M&P in any caliber better than Glocks--for me it is the way the M&P trigger hinges, the ability to better adjust the grip size on the M&P, and the M&P grip angle that all appear to contribute to my generally better shooting with a M&P than Glock.

[GJM]

I have had the same result with my iron sight G17. The question is whether shooting the RMR Glock has created a mental speed barrier that now extends to all Glocks. To Jody's question, while I haven't shot into the berm lately, by shooting at 3 yards into the target and disregarding the RDS, I was trying for the same result. Guess I should spend a whole session or two with the iron sight G17, including shooting into the berm. What I really want is for D. Bowie to get my M&P/RMR done so I can see what happens with that combo. If my splits slow down, it would seem to be a RDS thing, and if they stay fast more a me/Glock interface issue.

[F-Trooper05]

I think it's awesome that GJM is looking to seek perfection, but when we start talking about four one hundredths of a second I personally start to see diminishing returns. I would rather put that energy into something like shaving some time off of my 50 yard dash since speed, strength, and stamina are probably more important in a gun fight than a .04 second faster split.

[ToddG]

First, I'd echo F-T. Once your splits are in the 0.20-0.25 range, the effort needed for consistent meaningful improvement is substantial compared to what's needed to take, say, a tenth off your draw or reload.

Second, my advice is to quit comparing guns and just pick one. Shoot it exclusively (or so much as practical given your lifestyle) for a year. Don't go back to another system because you think it might work better. Force yourself to wring every iota of performance out of whatever you choose. When you run into speedbumps, fix the problem. Work from the ground up with the gun. Don't apply what you've learned from a 1911 or Glock or LEM to an M&P trigger, or vice versa. Learn the gun as if you were a newbie. Work on consistency rather than setting personal bests. Eat your veggies. Wash behind your ears.

[Mr_White]

First, I'd echo F-T. Once your splits are in the 0.20-0.25 range, the effort needed for consistent meaningful improvement is substantial compared to what's needed to take, say, a tenth off your draw or reload.

Second, my advice is to quit comparing guns and just pick one.

I think this is great advice.

I've spent a lot of my time and ammo in the past 'testing' different guns and especially different trigger parts within Glocks, trying to discern what was 'best.'

What I've consistently found is that whatever (gun, trigger parts, etc.) I was most tuned into, by having used it extensively and on an ongoing, long-term basis, is what I shoot the best. Even to the point that when I was running a Glock with a standard connector and NY1 spring that had about a 10.5lb trigger pull, I shot it better at the time, than the minus connector and standard trigger spring that I wasn't tuned into at that time.

That all amounts to, what you are used to using you will use well. What you aren't used to using, you aren't giving that equipment a fair shake. To give it a fair shake you would have to use it all the time...but then, you won't be giving the first platform/equipment a fair shake.

The 'testing' process can also be confounded by simple human performance variation.

[jetfire]

First, I'd echo F-T. Once your splits are in the 0.20-0.25 range, the effort needed for consistent meaningful improvement is substantial compared to what's needed to take, say, a tenth off your draw or reload.

This. I'm not saying that being able to pull consistent 0.18 splits isn't an awesome goal, but if you're shooting consistent 0.20-0.25 splits, I'd say "awesome, how's your draw/reload?"

[YVK]

When we start talking about four one hundredths of a second, you may never find what accounts for it. Such small differences, if they are truly present, can be, and often are, due to minute variability in trigger position, trigger shape, trigger reach, strong hand angle grip, support hand anlge grip and strength., etc etc. I don't know if I would spend any time explaining why better or worse. If obvious explanation occurred, I'd take it but I wouldn't spend any time creating null hypotheses and running statistical tests here. You know already what you shoot best. I do find it fascinating that you shoot 40 and 45 faster than 9. If I were in your place, I'd confirm by getting a bigger sample size and, if proven true, put Glocks far-far away, and run with M&P for anything other than those special weather circumstances you have LEM for.

[GJM]

To FT's point, I think he is saying that preoccupation with split times is an inconsequential increment, and time could better be spent elsewhere. We got the memo on fitness decades ago, and as a result my wife and I were the two hiking at lunch and after class at AFHF, and leaving the Rogers School every afternoon to do a 90 minute hike on the way back to town. Fiddling with platforms doesn't come at the expense of our fitness.

As to some of the other points, I both agree and disagree. Todd seems to have settled into serial monogamy with handguns, loving just one for a year or so, and then loving another. That advice has worked well for him, and probably many others. I will say that within that platform monogamy, Todd is constantly fiddling with aspects of the platform -- and almost every week we have a new set of sights, connector, laser or the like.

After evaluating the competing choices, I did intend to stick with the M&P for a year or more, until the RMR development. If I had sent my Glock to David Bowie and M&P to Mark Housel, instead of vice versa, I may well have been with that plan, and I hope to get back on it when the M&P arrives. However, I don't believe shooting a Glock for the last month plus has been a waste of time, as I have developed RMR experience, and just as important, learned that I prefer a rolling trigger for one hand shooting, and a lot of the shooting that I do. If I had been shooting the FSS M&P throughout, I might never have learned what I did about triggers.

In addition, I believe different people learn and operate in different ways. For example, it is not uncommon for me to fly a jet, helicopter and bush aircraft all in the same day. I believe I am a better overall pilot, and better at each aspect of flying because I fly all these categories, rather than just one. Other people might have a different experience, and different level of proficiency by flying just one thing, and I have no quarrel if that works best for them. My reload is at least .30 faster with an M&P than a Glock, and my splits are faster as described previously -- yet if I decided on January 1 a Glock was it, I would be unlikely to ever reload a Glock as fast as the M&P no matter how hard I worked at it. Since I am not assigned one platform, I have the luxury of picking what works best for me.

For me, a preoccupation with what some folks believe is an inconsequential increment, is part of what makes shooting so interesting. I also think, if you critically read most every training journal at PF, you will find what many would believe to be a preoccupation with inconsequential increments.

[DocGKR]

I should note that the M&P's I use have the Apex Duty Kits, not the FSS.

Picking ONE pistol platform and exclusively shooting it for a decade or so is ideal in my opinion.

If I did not live in California, I would exclusively be shooting the M&P and not have any other pistols. Given CA's ridiculous 10 rd magazine limit and the fact that I have over 100 pre-ban G17 mags, I am compelled to keep shooting 9 mm Glocks despite my preference for the M&P...

[F-Trooper05]

GJM, I wasn't trying to suggest that you were out of shape. I can tell from your video that you're clearly not (not to mention, you're an Alaskan, and as we all know, Alaskan men are built like Greek gods ;)). I was just giving an example of one of the areas that I would personally concentrate on.

[ToddG]

GJM -- I didn't even catch the fitness comment until you pointed it out, but fwiw I can absolutely attest to the fact that GJM and his wife are fitnesses nutz. I actually added six seconds to their FAST times because I was jealous. Am I proud of that? Well actually sort of, yeah. :cool:

You're absolutely correct that I've been fiddling like crazy with my Glock compared to previous years. I've been through four sights and three trigger variations (plus testing some others) over the course of less than a mere 55,000 rounds fired in nine and a half months. By which I mean to say that while I probably seem to be mucking about a lot in terms of time, I'm getting thousands of rounds down range with each setup before changing. And I haven't been making the changes due improve splits by a few hundredths, I've been doing it primarily based on finding what helps me get a low% hit at speed the best.

[JodyH]

Are low splits something I chase fanatically? No.
Do I work on them as a way to mix things up? Yes.
Sometimes the little dots haunt me and I just want to blast some dirt.

Besides... who doesn't like to go cyclic every once in a while?

[GJM]

You're absolutely correct that I've been fiddling like crazy with my Glock compared to previous years. I've been through four sights and three trigger variations (plus testing some others) over the course of less than a mere 55,000 rounds fired in nine and a half months. By which I mean to say that while I probably seem to be mucking about a lot in terms of time, I'm getting thousands of rounds down range with each setup before changing. And I haven't been making the changes due improve splits by a few hundredths, I've been doing it primarily based on finding what helps me get a low% hit at speed the best.

Todd, my point perhaps not well made, was that many of us here on PF, regardless of our reasons why, are consumed with the minutia of pistol craft. While you may define this pursuit today as seeking the best combination of components to hit low probability targets, and this week I define it as split times on the Glock versus the M&P, it is essentially the same thing. And, I would argue, it is precisely the pursuit of what most others would call inconsequential increments, that drives our passion for the art of handguns, and thus our willingness to experiment with endless variations of pistols, pistol components, holsters, EDC gear -- and most importantly, make the investment of time and resources in continuous training.

[ToddG]

GJM -- Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's meaningless. The "inconsequential increments" are what they are more by dint of the fact that good shooters rarely see huge immediate shifts in performance. As skill increases, the effort and time needed to improve further also increases. We're on the same page there.

My point is that I wouldn't select a gun based on a difference of a few hundredths split time, and I'd keep the goal of improving my splits in context.

[YVK]

G., your point wasn't lost on me. My comment on this is that I personally can't sustain an interest in minute details for long period of time, and often times I end up drawing inconclusive results from that. Yep, sometimes I obsess how exactly to put my finger on the trigger to a half of millimeter precision, and where exactly my mag pouch is to 1/2 cm. My most recent thing is how much to tilt the pistol on reload. Most of the time my periods of nano-analysis end up with "why don't I go and just shoot the effin thing".

[JHC]

Somewhat almost off topic, for decades I read about .15-.17 splits. While I shot a lot and shot well, I never owned a timer. A few years ago when I got a timer, I expected to see .15-.17 splits for my "hammers" at least. Well, wasn't I surprised to see .25 instead! I have seen .17/.18 in dirt drills with a Glock but I've abandoned the teens as I cannot begin to get hits at that speed.

Sounds like you've done the work to get the right gun for you figgered out. What's the trigger pull weight on your ideal M&P? The Pro 9 I had for 2400 rounds had a fantastic trigger from the factory. I never weighed it but my perception was that it felt much lighter than any minus connector Glock I've ever used. I have never flattened racks of plates as fast with anything as I did with that pistol. (same for reloads btw) My Glock fanboy adult son had the identical experience with it. I sold it because it wouldn't group less than 5" at 25 yds with anything I tried and I'm more OCD about that aspect of a pistol than speed.

But I think the light crisp break was the simple answer to how that pistol worked for me at speed. (I generally punch out btw)

[GJM]

Here is how I see the platforms stacking up, as a long way of answering your question:

Glock

Pro's: the world's handgun, widely available, lots of parts and accessories. So easy, I can even work on it. Very accurate. The trigger is great for one hand shooting. My wife often carries a Glock in 9 or 10, so there might be commonality. Available in a range of calibers, including the 10mm in model 29 I carry as a bear-lite pistol.

Con's: while my Gen 4's have been reliable, before and after the Gen 4 upgrades, lots of folks have had problems. I struggle with splits and reloads compared to the M&P. I sometimes have trouble with the smaller trigger guard on the Glock compared to M&P and HK, and my time for the first shot from extended, confined ready is .10 slower with a Glock. I have trouble reliably activating a Surefire DG switch with an X300 when shooting with a two hand grip. Requires a GFA to point naturally and not bruise the inside of my dominant thumb. Gadget is not here yet, and AIWB is always less attractive with a Glock.


M&P

Pro's: ergonomically feels great. Available with and without a thumb safety. Mostly reliable with the factory product upgrades (Striker, extractor, sear block). I reload it at least .30 faster than a Glock, and shoot splits .04 +/- faster. Surefire DG remote switch works great for me, easy to activate when I want light, but no issue with light ND's. The CT laser for the M&P is awesome. While not as popular as the Glock, lots of accessories and parts available. It points naturally for me.

Con's: accuracy can be spotty, although I have a FS 9 that shoots about 1.5 inches at 25 yards, while my two Pro's are closer to three inches. Apex barrels have been two months off for six months. Since I like to shoot steel at 40-100 yards, the M&P's lack of Glock/HK accuracy can be frustrating. Harder to work on than a Glock.

On the trigger question, I started with the crappy factory triggers, moved onto the Apex DCAEK, and then to the FSS. While I really like the FSS for slow fire precision shooting, and playing 1911, I have come to prefer the DCAEK trigger, with its longer travel and roll, for one hand shooting and practical defensive shooting.


HK 45/P30

Pro's: fantastic build quality. Accurate and reliable. LEM is a great cold weather trigger. The hammer rocks for AIWB.

Con's: I shoot an M&P best, then the Glock and the HK third. Support hand only is MUCH harder for me with an HK. Less accessories available. Lousy RDS platform by comparison to Glock and M&P.


When I asked Bill Rogers his choices, he said he would pick an M&P first for shooting his school, but pick a Glock 17 to take to the end of the world. I agree with that, but would say the HK 45 is probably the most reliable out of the box 45 I know of, and the one that I would take to the end of the world, if I was bringing a 45. My plan is to keep shooting an M&P as primary, ideally with an RMR if Mr. Bowie finishes it. I will carry a Glock 29 when I want a semi-auto with more penetration, and keep some Glock 17's. In the winter, I will carry an HK 45 when it is cold and inclement. Of course, if there was a pistol that combined the attributes of a Glock, M&P and HK45, I would be all over it in a second.

[ToddG]

GJM -- Do you have plugs in your gen4 Glocks? I found my reloads improved substantially after making that addition.

[JV_]

I found my reloads improved substantially after making that addition.+1 .
FWIW: The Glockmeister plug is the best flush fit plug.

[DocGKR]

Most of the guys I shoot with have found Scherer "slug" butt plug to be the best for Glocks; after using the Glockmeister for years, I switched over and could not be happier. Note that the Scherer sticks down a bit, which contributes to its utility on reloads:

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7655&filename=Glocks%20GFA.jpg

[GJM]

I have the Glockmeister part in the Gen 4's, and the Scherer in one Gen 3 19. Haven't worked much with aggressive reloads on the Gen 3 19, lest I get a blood blister. Anyways, my wife has laid claim to it, since it is a Gen 3, and OD, so I am about to lose it soon.

This is a nothing special M&P reload, at 1.77 from concealment, and I have only broke 2 seconds (with the Glockmeister plug)a few times with a Glock, and even then it is like 1.95 seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIHhAOYL8c4

By contrast, my worst reloads with the M&P are under 2.0 seconds, with my best around 1.65. First FASTest with the HK 45, after not shooting it for eight months, and I was under 2.0 on the reload.

[DocGKR]

I only reload G19's with G17 mags to avoid the pinch...

[ToddG]

Stop hooking your vest before the buzzer! :cool:

[GJM]

Yes, that was post Rogers where he wants a start with hands forward, and before I understood FASTest is hands at side. Of course, hands forward doesn't mean hooking the vest, but without realizing it, I was subconsciously gaming it.

Speaking of gaming, would it be possible to have your cover garment clear your mag pouch when clearing your holster, making for a faster reload? Also, I note that concealment covers a wide range of garments and draw speeds, from the AIWB optimized polo shirt, to stuff keeping me warm in Alaska winter.

Have you compared your Glock reload times to the HK45, P30 and M&P to see whether this is much difference? Also, can you quantify what preloading the slide stop on the Glock saves you in time?

I had a 40% tear in my right wrist, and a subsequent operation to repair it -- making me wonder whether the weight of the Glock trigger is adding to my splits. I am tempted to try the Ghost connector, since it is lighter, and I flip and press making the reset not an issue.

[ToddG]

Speaking of gaming, would it be possible to have your cover garment clear your mag pouch when clearing your holster, making for a faster reload?

I can't say that's against the rules, since sometimes it happens inadvertently and I don't want to be in a position of guessing. It's gaming, but personally I feel like the time you'd gain on the reload is likely lost on the draw. Might be worth playing with just for the data.


Also, I note that concealment covers a wide range of garments and draw speeds, from the AIWB optimized polo shirt, to stuff keeping me warm in Alaska winter.

True, and there's no question that some garments are easier than others.


Have you compared your Glock reload times to the HK45, P30 and M&P to see whether this is much difference?

Once I get the reload worked out for the particular gun in terms of angles, etc., there isn't a great deal of difference. I'll try to pull up some old data from the previous tests for comparison.


Also, can you quantify what preloading the slide stop on the Glock saves you in time?

The main reason to preload the release is not time savings but eliminating the tendency to drop the slide too early when instead you just try to time it with the mag insertion. So it either saves you (a) the time you'd spend recovering from premature slide drop or (b) the time you'd waste pausing between insertion and slide drop.


I am tempted to try the Ghost connector, since it is lighter, and I flip and press making the reset not an issue.

PM your mailing address, you're welcome to mine. It's an "Ultimate" and not a Rocket, so it doesn't have the overtravel stop.

[joshs]

Once I get the reload worked out for the particular gun in terms of angles, etc., there isn't a great deal of difference. I'll try to pull up some old data from the previous tests for comparison.

I'm the same way, my reloads are essentially identical between the P30, Glock(G17), and M&P. My raw data is a little skewed because my reload has improved significantly since I last shot an M&P regularly, but my notes show nearly identical reload times between the P30 and Glock.

[Mr_White]

Speaking of gaming, would it be possible to have your cover garment clear your mag pouch when clearing your holster, making for a faster reload?

Sometimes when I draw the pistol, the shirt I am wearing doesn't drop all the way back its original position and kind of piles onto the magazine pouches (which I wear at 11:30 and 12:00), It messes me up because then when I go to reload, the garment doesn't clear as cleanly and may have to double or even triple pump the magazine retrieval. Sometimes it's pretty ugly. It's an unhappy accident instead of a happy one.

[GJM]

Interesting on the Glock, reference split times and the grip force adapter (GFA). As I reported previously, I was puzzled as to why I could shoot faster splits with the M&P and even HK 45 LEM than my Glock 17. Since I have been serious about Glocks again, I have been using a GFA.

By chance, I ended up with a Glock without a GFA, and when dry firing, it seemed like it was easier to reset and pull the trigger. While I haven't gotten this to the range to verify, when dry firing, I can definitely reset and pull the trigger faster without a GFA. Not sure if it is something about my hands (XL gloves, long fingers) and how they interface with the GFA, and/or whether anyone else has noted the same with the GFA and split times?

[JConn]

Interesting on the Glock, reference split times and the grip force adapter (GFA). As I reported previously, I was puzzled as to why I could shoot faster splits with the M&P and even HK 45 LEM than my Glock 17. Since I have been serious about Glocks again, I have been using a GFA.

By chance, I ended up with a Glock without a GFA, and when dry firing, it seemed like it was easier to reset and pull the trigger. While I haven't gotten this to the range to verify, when dry firing, I can definitely reset and pull the trigger faster without a GFA. Not sure if it is something about my hands (XL gloves, long fingers) and how they interface with the GFA, and/or whether anyone else has noted the same with the GFA and split times?

I have not seen any real difference in split times with the gfa, but I lack enough pre gfa data to give you real evidence. What I have noticed though is that I have found the accuracy of follow up shots to be far better with the gfa. I notice this particularly when shooting things like plate racks at speed. I use the gfa on a gen 3 gun and I like the increased grip size. I have large hands according to glove sizing. Like anything else though, look at the results. If you shoot better without the gfa, just take it off.

[LSP972]

LEM is a great cold weather trigger.


What makes it better for cold weather than a Glock or M&P?

FWIW, I have been to Alaska in winter (Fort Wainwright), and I prefer the HK LEM over all others.

Just not "getting" why you think it superior for ECW? Perhaps the slightly larger trigger guard? Dunno about the M&P, but both the HK and Glock will run with no lube, so that's a wash. I assume you keep your iron dry when its below zero outside?

.

[GJM]

Big trigger guard, no thumb safety and long take up -- all are glove friendly to me. Also, when it gets extremely cold, my fingers lose dexterity, and the LEM requires less dexterity than, for example, manipulating the thumb safety and short trigger on a 1911.

[LSP972]

Big trigger guard, no thumb safety and long take up -- all are glove friendly to me. Also, when it gets extremely cold, my fingers lose dexterity, and the LEM requires less dexterity than, for example, manipulating the thumb safety and short trigger on a 1911.

Got it, thanks.

.

[GJM]

I tested the Glock 17 with RMR, and a G34 with iron sights today, both with the Grip Force Adapter removed. Split times after removing the GFA decreased from about .25 to .19-.22.

Not sure why, but the timer confirmed what I was sensing dry firing.

[Spr1]

Perhaps the increase in trigger reach decreases the mechanical advantage of the trigger finger enough to be seen on the clock.

[John Ralston]

Not sure if this is relevant or not, but for me, my split times are directly related to tracking the front sight. I have put so many rounds down range and in done so much dry fire where my goal was to have a perfect sight picture when the sear breaks that I find it difficult to shoot when the sights aren't perfectly aligned.

I have to do drills aimed at improving only split times in order to break away from that ingrained habit. When I realized what was going on, it was a real eye opener. Of course, grip, stance and trigger manipulation also play a part in improving your splits, but for me, being able to process an acceptable sight picture VS a perfect sight picture made a big difference.

Trying to follow a red dot that is dancing around (and may not be visible at all during some point in the recoil cycle) may account for slower splits as compared to a front sight that you can track during recoil.

[GJM]

John, to clarify, I was shooting as fast as I could, with no attempt to track the sights or dot.

If I were to guess, since I have XL glove hands, the issue is something about the change in reach or geometry of pressing the trigger with the GFA.

What annoys me, is that I originally put the GFA on and accepted it as a benefit, without testing my splits on the timer. My bad -- and it shows how any change can cause an unintended and unanticipated consequence.

[JV_]

I was shooting as fast as I could, with no attempt to track the sights or dot.I'm not sure that's a shooting skill I would use to evaluate the effectiveness of a GFA.

[JHC]

John, to clarify, I was shooting as fast as I could, with no attempt to track the sights or dot.

If I were to guess, since I have XL glove hands, the issue is something about the change in reach or geometry of pressing the trigger with the GFA.

What annoys me, is that I originally put the GFA on and accepted it as a benefit, without testing my splits on the timer. My bad -- and it shows how any change can cause an unintended and unanticipated consequence.

I have fairly long fingers so the longer trigger reach of the commonly installed triggers on 1911's these days work OK but I've always been able to shoot faster more accurately with the short GI trigger. I don't do a lot of 1911 shooting nowadays but in the '80's I sure did. And it sure seemed to me then and since that when my trigger finger was in closer to my palm, I could manipulate it faster. No tests, just an impression.

[GJM]

I'm not sure that's a shooting skill I would use to evaluate the effectiveness of a GFA.

JV, that was just one test -- Bill drill splits showed the same reduction in times for me after removing the GFA (irons and RMR).

[EVP]

I tested the Glock 17 with RMR, and a G34 with iron sights today, both with the Grip Force Adapter removed. Split times after removing the GFA decreased from about .25 to .19-.22.

Not sure why, but the timer confirmed what I was sensing dry firing.



GJM your a good shooter, but don't you think your kinda splitting hairs at this point?

[JV_]

JV, that was just one test -- Bill drill splits showed the same reduction in times for me after removing the GFA (irons and RMR).

I understand. I'm just pointing out that how fast you can pull the trigger, with no sights, isn't the most useful data point.

I think Todd's advise is worth repeating:

First, I'd echo F-T. Once your splits are in the 0.20-0.25 range, the effort needed for consistent meaningful improvement is substantial compared to what's needed to take, say, a tenth off your draw or reload.

Second, my advice is to quit comparing guns and just pick one. Shoot it exclusively (or so much as practical given your lifestyle) for a year. Don't go back to another system because you think it might work better. Force yourself to wring every iota of performance out of whatever you choose. When you run into speedbumps, fix the problem. Work from the ground up with the gun. Don't apply what you've learned from a 1911 or Glock or LEM to an M&P trigger, or vice versa. Learn the gun as if you were a newbie. Work on consistency rather than setting personal bests. Eat your veggies. Wash behind your ears.

[GJM]

When removing a small piece of plastic results in a 20 per cent reduction in my split times with a Glock, that is enormous for me, relative to available improvement. I just wish there was such an easy a fix to take 20 per cent of my draw and reload.

I ended up discussing this with Bill Rogers today, and as you might expect, he has studied split times and technique related to working the trigger in detail. I will include his comments here, since others may find them to be of interest:

I firmly believe that by moving the grip closer to the face of the trigger, the second joint or knuckle joint is in a more relaxed position. I believe this allows the finger to operate faster. I can run the M&P, with medium or small grip, faster than I can with the large grip. And I run the M&P large grip faster than I can run a Gen 3 Glock. I can't tell any difference from the Gen 4 small grip and the M&P large grip. The GFA does add a small amount of distance from the grip to the face of the trigger and depending on hand size this may be critical to some. We have just released a brand new GFA that only adds half the distance between the grip and face of the trigger.

Bill is sending me a few of the new GFA's to test, and I look forward to that, as the GFA protects the inside of my thumb's knuckle from contacting the left rear most edge of the slide on a Glock.

Reference your comment about picking a platform, I have reasons to have Glocks, despite shooting a M&P better.

[JHC]

When removing a small piece of plastic results in a 20 per cent reduction in my split times with a Glock, that is enormous for me, relative to available improvement. I just wish there was such an easy a fix to take 20 per cent of my draw and reload.

I ended up discussing this with Bill Rogers today, and as you might expect, he has studied split times and technique related to working the trigger in detail. I will include his comments here, since others may find them to be of interest:

I firmly believe that by moving the grip closer to the face of the trigger, the second joint or knuckle joint is in a more relaxed position. I believe this allows the finger to operate faster. I can run the M&P, with medium or small grip, faster than I can with the large grip. And I run the M&P large grip faster than I can run a Gen 3 Glock. I can't tell any difference from the Gen 4 small grip and the M&P large grip. The GFA does add a small amount of distance from the grip to the face of the trigger and depending on hand size this may be critical to some. We have just released a brand new GFA that only adds half the distance between the grip and face of the trigger.

Bill is sending me a few of the new GFA's to test, and I look forward to that, as the GFA protects the inside of my thumb's knuckle from contacting the left rear most edge of the slide on a Glock.

Reference your comment about picking a platform, I have reasons to have Glocks, despite shooting a M&P better.

So I figured out the same thing as Bill Rogers did. On 1911s in the '80's. LOL I think he's right.

[JV_]

When removing a small piece of plastic results in a 20 per cent reduction in my split times with a Glock, that is enormous for me, relative to available improvement. I just wish there was such an easy a fix to take 20 per cent of my draw and reload.
I understand the want to eek every last bit of performance out of your setup; I do the same thing. But, I can easily see a 10% variation in my splits from different range sessions, we're only talking about .02s - that's not a lot - and it's half of your reported improvement. We're talking about a small amount of time where %s can get a little misleading.

You'll need to weigh how valuable that .04s is compared to protecting your finger. I ran a GFA, and I pulled it because it caused me to miss the mag button more frequently, and when I missed we were talking about .5s of delay, not .05s. But, the sights seemed to track better, it was a trade off.

I often need to step back and ask myself if the aftermarket part is worth the improvement, especially if it's something that I'd need to get for my other guns to make transitioning more fluid.