Semi-Auto Triggers: market trends, choices, and consequences

[rsa-otc]

While I agree with much of the above, I think it is important to state that not everyone in the community advocated for the 1911 trigger in a striker-fired pistol. Dagga Boy is a great example who made many cogent arguments, backed up by experience, of why (for example) LEM was an ideal action for threat management. That discussion drove many, including me, to try -- and then embrace -- LEM. While those guns were brought to market for reasons other than drop safety, those actions are very safe in terms of drops.

I think it is also important to state that there were other advocates of DA/SA, including TLG and EL. TLG specifically wrote about his concern that trigger travel distance, not trigger weight, played a role in "avoidable" NDs. Beretta and S&W both offered DAO guns as did SIG with the P250 and HK still does. So there must be at least a perceived market for people who want a trigger whose travel distance can help with safety. The existence of the Gadget and its success in our community shows, at least, some awareness of the liabilities of a short-travel trigger on a pistol.

It is also fair to say that, as the quoted section states, that many people want(ed) a 1911 trigger on a striker-fired pistol. But it is also important to remember that most people today have no understanding of the trade-offs involved in pistol design -- or even basic physics. They want a gun that is easy to use and safe just like their phone -- the iGun. It is up to manufacturers to give customers what they want while still providing products that are safe. Manufacturers are supposed to be the experts, not the customers.

The problem is that these voices while well spoken with reason on their side are in the minority. Hopefully with the coming of TDA guns now dominating USPSA and similar type of competition we will see the pendulum swing back the other direction. But unfortunately I think it's going to be awhile since the almighty budget dollar rules and typically a TDA, LEM, DOA gun costs a couple of hundreds more to purchase and the additional training costs typically associated with TDA, LEM guns.

[JHC]

Prescient GJM

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ons-and-safety

The PPQ was the first one that when I dry fired it, I was like "whoa". That 5" model; if it had a thumb safety? mmmmmMMM.

But, with some new fully tensioned striker designs, I'm not clear that a thumb safety does the trick in an impact. IDK.

[Pit]

Agree with Mr. Landgon's overall idea of what the community seems to be asking for and it's direction at this time. However, firearms manufactures must remain above board and offer weapons proven to be safe. The firearms customer part of the community has the belief that the major manufactures are responsible companies. They do there best to make a weapon that meets expectations including being safe. I know this belief can be taken for granted and misplaced to some degree. However it's not that a machine can break, they all can. It's are they willing to acknowledge a problem and stand behind their product.

JW

[fixer]

OK, so here is a statement that many will not like. This whole thing is the gun communities own fault!

I for one make mistakes, get scared, and do stupid stuff some times. I will just be over here in the corner with my TDA guns trying to learn how to shoot them better.

Thanks Ernest.

Similar thoughts have been percolating in my mind.

Like...How sure are we that all the new "wonder strikers" produced for the XM trials are really and truly vetted? How sure are we that we won't be seeing some serious safety flaws with time and use?

There is a huge rush to market with these things and like any other industry that does it (autos and consumer electronics) there WILL be problems.

[spinmove_]

Agree with Mr. Landgon's overall idea of what the community seems to be asking for and it's direction at this time. However, firearms manufactures must remain above board and offer weapons proven to be safe. The firearms customer part of the community has the belief that the major manufactures are responsible companies. They do there best to make a weapon that meets expectations including being safe. I know this belief can be taken for granted and misplaced to some degree. However it's not that a machine can break, they all can. It's are they willing to acknowledge a problem and stand behind their product.

JW

Firearms manufacturers are in the business of making money and giving the customers what they want. Combine all that with some shady business practices and you get a P320.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[John Hearne]

The race has been on to see which manufacturer could build a gun with the shortest and lightest trigger on a striker fired gun for years. ... We have developed an acceptance for basically single action guns with no safeties. ... When the 320 hit the market, everyone was raving about how great the trigger was and the fact that it did not have a trigger tab. Here we have a fully cocked gun, with no external safety of any kind, and we thought it was great.

You sound a lot like my favorite author:

Finally, I'm speculating but I think that a lot of the problem originated from Sig's attempt to give the consumer what they wanted. If you look at the criticisms of other striker fired pistols, everyone bitches about the triggers. Sig went out of their way to design a trigger that was very shootable. Their firing control system was different from everyone else because they wanted a good trigger. Sig offered a tab safety trigger since the gun's introduction but nobody ordered one. Had Sig been willing to compromise on trigger quality or pushed a tab trigger whether the consumer wanted one or not, they probably wouldn't be here today.

The other consideration is the desire of a lot of departments to find a hardware solution to training issues. If all you're worried about is getting folks to a minimally passing score as quickly as possible, it is easier and cheaper to do it with a lighter trigger pull. I think the desire to make the shooting part as easy as possible and have a trigger that those with low hand strength can still shoot well has driven a lot of what we're seeing.

[LangdonTactical]

While I agree with much of the above, I think it is important to state that not everyone in the community advocated for the 1911 trigger in a striker-fired pistol. Dagga Boy is a great example who made many cogent arguments, backed up by experience, of why (for example) LEM was an ideal action for threat management. That discussion drove many, including me, to try -- and then embrace -- LEM. While those guns were brought to market for reasons other than drop safety, those actions are very safe in terms of drops.

I think it is also important to state that there were other advocates of DA/SA, including TLG and EL. TLG specifically wrote about his concern that trigger travel distance, not trigger weight, played a role in "avoidable" NDs. Beretta and S&W both offered DAO guns as did SIG with the P250 and HK still does. So there must be at least a perceived market for people who want a trigger whose travel distance can help with safety. The existence of the Gadget and its success in our community shows, at least, some awareness of the liabilities of a short-travel trigger on a pistol.

It is also fair to say that, as the quoted section states, that many people want(ed) a 1911 trigger on a striker-fired pistol. But it is also important to remember that most people today have no understanding of the trade-offs involved in pistol design -- or even basic physics. They want a gun that is easy to use and safe just like their phone -- the iGun. It is up to manufacturers to give customers what they want while still providing products that are safe. Manufacturers are supposed to be the experts, not the customers.

Well, let's be clear, I am talking about the "pejorative we". I would hope that everyone knows where I stand on this issue, and trust me, I have tried many times to get on the striker fired band wagon. I even switched over to a Glock 19 for about two months or so back in late 2013. I figured at the time, it's a striker fired world and I just live in it, but that did not last long, I just could not bring myself to stick with it.

You can try to put the blame on the manufacturers, but that is not really fair either. Sig was one of the last hold outs in building a striker gun, followed quickly by HK, and then CZ and Beretta. The market wants a cheap gun that is easy to shoot. The gun companies are in the business of making money. The Polymer Frame, Striker Fired gun, with a chassis trigger system, is by far the cheapest way to manufacture a gun.

Yes, there are some hold outs here. Dagga Boy is one of the few left along with myself. Mike Pannon is another one. But even TGL had switched over to a Glock in the end.

The pressure from the gun culture and the gun manufacturers is almost unbearable. The pressure to shoot a Glock or at least a striker fired gun is just massive, saying otherwise is just silly because we all know it is true. The marketing from the manufacturers is going to be all striker fired from here on out because that is what they really want you to buy. Because that is what they make the most money on, least COGs equals highest profit margins.

And at the end of it, we still don't want to admit that a striker fired gun might be a bad idea. I mean how many AD/NDs have to happen before we say "hey maybe there is an issue here"? How many sets of keys need to pull a trigger on a gun that is holstered? I know of at least three cases and one is still under investigation.

Stupid is as stupid does and people will make mistakes with anything. But we can also make smart decisions that help keep those mistakes to a minimum.

Bottom line, I am just blowing smoke in the end, because this culture is like the church of the gun. Once people decide what the best gun/action is, how dare you say other wise.

[GardoneVT]

Watching some clubs start to discuss this now. My thoughts:

Sig produced a gun that drops when fired we're calling a defect/hazard. Competitors show up with all manner of tricked out guns that are susceptible to the same events (and some, more) and we call them customized, giving them their own divisions. We're talking out of both sides of our mouth.

Wrong.

If a competitor turns their own gun into an unsafe pistol,that's an unfortunate event: but it's not STI or anyone else's fault except the owners. There's also no practical test to ensure safety devices aren't defeated ,short of making every competitor X ray their gun before shooting a stage.

Sig built a defective and unsafe pistol,and evidence suggests this was not a surprise for the company. That's a major problem; how many ordinary people bought mass market P320s and have them loaded on nightstands and in drawers? Far as they know the guns as safe as anything else, until it's not. Then someone gets shot,potentially dies, or ends up disabled for life because a manager in Exeter NH decided a recall wasn't worth the revenue hit.


A competitor at USPSA knows the risk and assumes it when modifying a competition only pistol. Sig made the decisions for every buyer and user of a P320 and kept it a secret.

Yes, there are some hold outs here. Dagga Boy is one of the few left along with myself. Mike Pannon is another one. But even TGL had switched over to a Glock in the end.

The pressure from the gun culture and the gun manufacturers is almost unbearable. The pressure to shoot a Glock or at least a striker fired gun is just massive, saying otherwise is just silly because we all know it is true. The marketing from the manufacturers is going to be all striker fired from here on out because that is what they really want you to buy. Because that is what they make the most money on, least COGs equals highest profit margins.

And at the end of it, we still don't want to admit that a striker fired gun might be a bad idea. I mean how many AD/NDs have to happen before we say "hey maybe there is an issue here"? How many sets of keys need to pull a trigger on a gun that is holstered? I know of at least three cases and one is still under investigation.

Stupid is as stupid does and people will make mistakes with anything. But we can also make smart decisions that help keep those mistakes to a minimum.

Bottom line, I am just blowing smoke in the end, because this culture is like the church of the gun. Once people decide what the best gun/action is, how dare you say other wise.

To be fair there is a demand side to this dynamic as well.

The core problem is that gun proficiency is similar to physical fitness; it takes time,costs effort and work,and isn't very glamorous. Much like fitness the results are great ; but years of crappy range sessions and snatched shots and sore fingers from DA dry fire aren't. Telling people they need to train to be good shots with any platform is like the doctor saying "diet and exercise" to the overweight American.

Enter the striker fired gun. The guy who wants to look cool at the range now has a viable option. No more low left DA shots,no strenuous work. A striker fired pistol can be easily operated for someone not willing to spend quality time training to be a good shot.

There's also another group of people who don't like pistol training ; public service agencies. Range time costs money,takes troops and officers off the duty roster and risks line of duty injury during training,always a thrilling topic when insurance renewal time comes around.

Here's a solution; instead of spending large sums on proficiency, just give your troops a Glock and 50 annual rounds in qual ammo. Problem solved.


I've been an RSO for just over two years now. While I've seen plenty of Sigs and Berettas come through the range doors, not one was run from the hammer down position.

Every single DA/SA pistol was fired from SA. A fellow "RSO" even carried a 92 with the hammer back deliberately. That's saying something about the state of people's willingness to train,or lack thereof.

[Pit]

You can try to put the blame on the manufacturers, but that is not really fair either. Sig was one of the last hold outs in building a striker gun, followed quickly by HK, and then CZ and Beretta. The market wants a cheap gun that is easy to shoot. The gun companies are in the business of making money. The Polymer Frame, Striker Fired gun, with a chassis trigger system, is by far the cheapest way to manufacture a gun.

I want to make certain I was clear with my earlier message. I'm looking at the issue of a weapon carried by a LEO firing if it is dropped not the current trend of wanting a pistol with a light, short pull designed to fire with minimal shooter input. I understand a company is going to make a pistol the consumer market seems to want to get in on making a profit. It's the way the company does it due diligence in producing the weapon as well as their after sale support.

Additionally I want to thank you for all you provide on the site, including the "test" on your Beretta. WOW.

What do I know, I still carry a 1911 style pistol. Been told more than once I'm "old and antiquated". As long as I continue to come out on top of any deadly force encounters I'm ok with that.

JW

[JHC]

And at the end of it, we still don't want to admit that a striker fired gun might be a bad idea. .

True. I definitely won't admit that. Not at that broad level of brush anyway. The guns on video this week drop firing from a high likely angle of impact are of one specific design. Maybe it's amazing that since the turn of the century, there hasn't been anything comparable to this AFAIK (easy to replicate all day long).

I'm kinda sketchy on fully tensioned ones that are on the extreme short end of the trigger movement though. But as much for the fragility of the internals holding as for gunhandling. Tamara got me worried about that a few years ago.