[QUOTE=farscott;No one is perfect, especially me, so I like my gun to be a bit forgiving of my less-than-perfect handling.
579699]
That's the whole point.
So you carry a...?
[QUOTE=farscott;No one is perfect, especially me, so I like my gun to be a bit forgiving of my less-than-perfect handling.
579699]
That's the whole point.
So you carry a...?
My observation from training folks years ago mirrors what Dagga Boy wrote in his original post in the linked thread and I think a trigger like Dagga Boy describes is best.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....t-trigger-quot
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
For the last three years, P30 Light LEM has been my carry pistol. I have had some trigger time with Glocks (only centerfire striker-fired pistols I own), but I have not holstered one since I transitioned to the P30 LEM. I like the single long, smooth, and light pull weight for carry. Being able to feel the hammer during holstering is second-nature for me due to starting with a 1911, and I like being able to see the hammer move as I apply trigger pressure. For me, it is a very good carry gun.Originally Posted by SLG
That's the whole point.
So you carry a...?
Yes, it is harder to shoot the P30 LEM accurately at speed than the Glock, but the trade-off in terms of safety fits my personal weighting of needs.
Last edited by farscott; 03-21-2017 at 06:11 AM.
This is the revolving door of the concealed carry world. Neither ideas are wrong in my opinion, but my mindset goes with what is easier to shoot, and to train with that system accordingly.
My belief is that the draw + first shot on target is the most important skill to develop as a non-Leo concealed carrier. Thankfully, the gadget gives me the same comfort of thumbing a hammer.
Here is something that just popped into my head.
After reading this thread and some threads on improving Glock triggers I wonder if a reduced weight striker spring and/or a lightened or lightweight(Titanium) striker would improve trigger pull (at least reduce weight) and decrease the likelihood of the striker being able to ignite primers from the partial cocked position IF all the safeties failed? I say this because a common discussion point on reducing trigger pull weight was reducing the striker spring to a 5# 4.5# or even a 4# but some commented on anything less than 5# would sometimes not ignite some primers. IIRC lightened or titanium strikers also have less mass so they sometimes can have lighter primer strikes. I wonder if a combination of striker spring and lighter striker would prevent a Glock from igniting a primer from the partial cock position and improve trigger pull and reduce lock time? These would be small gains across the board but together with a minor safety improvement on top of it may be worth considering.
This is a bit of diminishing returns obviously. I would consider it for a range or competition gun but probably not for a duty/carry gun but I would guess a manufacturer could tweak the design and weight of springs and strikers some to provide the same possible benefits as they re-design the gun over time. Just spit-balling here
Interesting discussion. A few personal observations:
On the subject of TDA verses striker fired, there have been some TDA semiautos of surprisingly recent production that do not have features intended to make them drop safe without a manual safety being switched to on-safe. Some examples include but are not limited to some variations of the Walther PPK and clones, as well as others. The fact that a hammer is down does not necessarily mean the gun is drop safe. Although the discussion above seemed to focus on more modern designs like the Sig, S&W (2nd generation and beyond), Beretta, and HK, all of which are drop-safe, TDA does not always equal drop safe.
Regarding training and trigger pulls, the ease or difficulty of working a double action trigger can vary considerably from shooter to shooter. I did much of my early learning on double action revolvers, so most reasonable triggers are not a problem for me. However, I have observed about 40% of the female shooters I have taught having difficulty with trigger pulls of 9 lb. or more - including a Glock with a NY1 trigger spring and standard connector. My wife is in that group. When I helped teach the NRA Basic Pistol class at my range, I seemed to end up working with a disproportionate number of elderly students and/or students with hand problems. Heavy triggers were often a cause of problems.
My experiences led me to favor Glocks with NY1 trigger springs and minus connectors, other striker-fired guns, DAO hammer-fired guns with partially preset hammers, and 1911's (my 1911 has a titanium firing pin and extra power firing pin spring). I tried my wife out on almost every 9mm handgun in existence, as well as a few .38 spl. revolvers, a few .380 pistols, and a couple of .45 autos. She now has a Springfield XD9 because that is what she found easiest to shoot well. I have less concerns about mechanically induced discharge from any of these pistols than I have with the only TDA pistol I own (Sterling .380).
Obviously human error can be another story. I have read that at one time in recent history, the FBI insisted on TDA guns because accidental/negligent discharges tended to happen on the first shot, but if shooting more than once was required, the agent was in a gunfight and needed to make hits as easily as possible. I have made sure my wife has had training from me as well as other more advanced instructors. When I start teaching my kids to shoot, trigger finger discipline will be thoroughly stressed.
What do you consider recent history? They've been issuing Glocks for over 20 years now (started in 96 or 97). Since moving to a striker they've never gone back to TDA.
I know exactly what quote he is referring to, and what article it was in, and I remember it well. It was written by Mas Ayoob, and said by John Hall, about the time of the 1076. Relatively recent, but not THAT recent I guess. I wish some of Hall's knowledge and thought process was more widely understood, as I certainly agree with the sentiment.
Maybe this cross thread link will matter to someone searching. IDK.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-issues/page85
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I was just rereading this thread and saw my above posts, which are wrong.
The NY trigger springs do not, as far as I know, change the resting location of the striker. That's determined by the cutout in the trigger housing and the dimensions of the striker and cruciform. I was mistakenly thinking about the resting location of the cruciform when the frame is field stripped from the slide. In this state, the stock trigger spring pulls it back until stopped by the trigger tab safety. The NY springs by contrast push it forward. But this is a mostly irrelevant fact because when the gun is fully assembled and the striker is cocked, the striker pushes the cruciform as far forward as the housing allows regardless of which trigger spring is installed.
Sorry for speaking out of my ass.
There are still some other "subtle theoretical benefits" to the NY springs, and I still think the position to do drop safety ledge inspections and so on from is where the trigger is pushed back until limited by the trigger tab safety.
Reply With Quote