I've had the same issues over the years. The Glock Large Frames seem big, but the actual width of the frames work for me. I've been tempted to try out a Gen 4 G20 w/ a .40 Conversion Barrel (or just trying it out with the factory barrel) lately.Originally Posted by fwrun
My solution to Glock trigger was to go back to Gen 3 and put a NY1 trigger in it. Yea I am that odd guy.
I have longish skinny fingers, but I wouldn't say my hands are big at all. The width of the frame makes sense though, because on 9mm glocks my trigger finger feels a little cramped up by the time I break the shot.
You definitely don't need to waste your money on a 40 cal conversion barrel. I shoot 40 out of my gen 4 20 and 29 all the time with stock RSA. I usually have 6" 10mm lonewolf barrels in them though, but that shouldn't make a difference.
I've tried Overwatch, Apex, and Agency triggers. Of those, the Overwatch and Apex are great. The Agency alters the trigger bar geometry by shaving bits and pieces off in order to reduce pre-travel. I'm sure they're great but I don't trust it. It looks cool though.
I've messed with aftermarket connectors from different brands but always end up going back to OEM minus connectors. Aftermarket connectors just "feel" poorly made compared to the OEM offering. I'm sure they're fine though.
I actually like the stock trigger. I purchased an Overwatch Falx for my gen 5 and immediately put my stock trigger back in. The Falx was great but stock just feels right, to me.
A couple have tried, but the end result is generally a $50 trigger bar that doesn’t provide an advantage over the OEM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve played that game, and got nothing but FTF’s (both feed and fire) and double taps to show for it. But only when I dick around with recoil and striker springs.
I do like the Suarez flat trigger. Current iteration is the Face Shooter (I didn’t name it). Works great with a minus connector and keeps some of the factory reset/takeup. There’s been a few versions of the Suarez trigger. Current one is gtg.
Personally I don’t see a difference between the Glock factory serrated or smooth, but I do prefer a flat trigger. Doesn’t make you better by itself, just my preference.
After a year or two shooting a HK P2000, I recently dusted off a G19 and did some dryfire. I noticed I couldn't get much finger on the trigger, compared to my HKs. I see the Suarez "Face Shooter trigger" advertises a .25" inch reduction in length of pull, but uses an OEM trigger bar and retains Glock OEM internal geometry.
Despite the horrible name, and Suarez's general unpleasantness, I'm thinking about trying the face shooter (cringe) trigger. Are you still happy with yours? Any complaints or observations?
Wow, necrothread. To answer your questions, the Suarez triggers I had and have passed all safety checks, including engagement when viewed with an armorer’s plate. Short but safe reset, and all else being equal I’d prefer a flat vs curved trigger.
But despite what I may have said in previous threads, all my current Glocks have smooth SP00357 triggers except for two which still have Suarez. No particular reason for that other than keeping them all (mostly) stock for various reasons.
Thanks, good to know.
And for anyone else stumbling on this thread, the Suarez trigger I referenced does not "reduce length of pull" as I misstated in my previous post. According to Suarez, it "reduces trigger reach by 0.25", making it an ideal option for smaller handed shooters". It doesn't appear to change the length of the actual trigger press, it just positions the trigger closer to the the backstrap.
"advertises"
Personally, I'm really picky about putting aftermarket triggers in Glocks.
Injection molded polymer is a great way to crank out a lot of parts fast and cheap. But there is an art an science to getting it exactly right. Mold status (because they do wear out), consistency of materials, environmental factors...all play a role in getting a polymer product that comes out of the mold the way you want it to.
Run to run, injection molded polymer products can have slight variations in dimensions. These slight variations can result in variations in the way parts fit together and act together. Glock knows what these variations are.
Various trigger companies, on the other hand, don't. And so when they monkey around with fire control parts by sort of reverse engineering them around specific specimens you can end up with parts that don't work as intended...assuming, of course, they were intelligently designed in the first place. Which is sometimes a stretch. (Haley's "Skimmer" trigger debacle as an example)
The only company I'm willing to buy aftermarket trigger parts from is Apex, and that only because I've carefully observed Apex's work for the better part of a decade. They have been in business for a long time doing quality work on S&W revolvers and evolved from that to doing a lot of quality work on M&P's (where they understood the proper fix for M&P accuracy issues before most at S&W gave a damn) and expanded from that to building some parts for Glocks.
I'm confident that the trigger safety on the Apex triggers in my Glocks will work as intended should the gun be dropped. Unlike the trigger safety on another manufacturer's trigger when an acquaintance of mine's wife unknowingly dropped a bag with his holstered pistol in it, touching off a round that missed her head by inches.
I also don't want something named a "face shooter trigger" in a gun I'm carrying in the US. That isn't my primary concern, but given the legal environments that are rapidly developing across the nation I really wouldn't want a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney holding up my gun with the "face shooter trigger" in it in front of a jury. That's just a bad idea.
So, as to Glocks and leftism in general, my 2 cents:
Glocks and other striker fired guns do tend to push left for many people. While citations about the fundamentals of trigger control are valid, the fact remains that the way your hand interacts with the gun also has a role.
Look at double action revolvers: Originally the intention was that they be fired single action except in dire emergency. (Which is kind of the definition of a gunfight, but whatevs) Their grip was designed for that single action shooting. Those pioneers who started using the guns double action quickly came to the conclusion that if you wanted to run a DA revolver properly you needed to fill that sinus in the grip to lower your hand so you could address the trigger straight on. Attempting to run the DA revolver with the sinus unfilled led to pulling the revolver off-target because your finger typically came on to the trigger at a downward angle. Meaning when you press the trigger you are pulling up and to the side.
Well, if you take a look at how a lot of people get on the trigger of a Glock, you will notice that a significant number of them end up with a trigger finger that's pretty damn diagonal. I'll start with this excellent photograph of my hands on a Glock at speed during a shootoff at the Tactical Conference:
Look at the angle of my trigger finger. To quote the late, great Todd Green: I have a "freakishly high" grip. As a result, when I grip a Glock like I would any other handgun my trigger finger is doing a solid impression of what you'd get if you were on a DA revolver with the old style stocks on them. Compare my trigger finger angle to that of this individual shooting a G34:
Note how his physiology brings him lower on the gun, meaning his trigger finger is not at an absurdly diagonal angle to the trigger. Because his grip is "lower" on the gun, he's able to get straighter on the trigger which likely means he has a lot less problem with his trigger pull dragging the gun off target to the left.
Now let's take a look at this shooter on a Beretta 92 compared to another shooter on a P320:
Note how the lower bore axis of the Beretta, a feature people blather about to a ridiculous degree, brings his hand lower on the gun...meaning he is able to get on the trigger really, really straight. Which means for his double action or single action press he's pressing the trigger in as straight a line as possible on a non-1911 semi-auto. Note that the 320 shooter is still coming on to the trigger at an angle...so it's more than just bore axis. The shape of the grip and the exact measurements of your hand play a role.
The relation of your hand to the trigger makes a significant difference in your results with a pistol. In the revolver days this was understood: It was extremely common for police officers issued revolvers to have custom made stocks specifically for their hands to allow them to get the right grip at speed and just start pressing the trigger. They got the best results with grips that fit their hand. That's been lost in the era of the semi-auto. We don't have truly adjustable grips on most pistols and so that element of shooting a handgun well has essentially been lost to institutional amnesia. But physics is still physics, and physiology is still physiology.
A number of folks who shoot double stack Glocks just fine have picked up single stack Glocks only to find they shoot left with them by a significant margin...and it's for the same reasons. The smaller grip magnifies the problem for a good many of them.
There are other considerations, too.
The Glock has a prominent corner just above the trigger guard. If your finger makes contact with this point on the frame, as your trigger finger presses to the rear it has a tendency to push the gun off center.
The overtravel of a typical Glock trigger also contributes. Overtravel is movement of the trigger after the firing mechanism has been released. When the striker breaks on a typical Glock the trigger will continue to move rearwards, which means that if your trigger finger is at a sub-optimal angle, you are probably driving the gun off center as the firing process is happening. If you are making contact with that corner of the frame just above the trigger, the results are magnified further. The vast majority of this leftward push in most people's shooting is happening during the overtravel of the trigger in that golden couple of miliseconds after the striker has released but before the bullet is out of the barrel. And because it's happening in that tiny window it is usually invisible to the shooter. They can't see it happening before recoil so they have no idea how it is happening. They just put the sights on the target, press the trigger, and the bullet hole ends up left of where they intended.
I use Apex triggers in my Glocks because they reduce the overtravel in the trigger, helping ameliorate this phenomenon. Some overtravel is probably necessary for a Glock...and most other striker guns...to function reliably. So it can never be completely eliminated, but reducing it seems to reduce the margin of error for me.
The flat face of some aftermarket triggers can further reduce the problem, but for some people it can make the problem even worse. It just depends on the blend of factors at work for your specific situation.
So, given all of that what's my advice?
Exercising good trigger control is always a good idea. But good trigger control won't eliminate this problem. I've shot a number of very pretty groups at extended distance that were inches to the left of where I intended them to be. Not because my trigger control sucked, but because every time I pressed the trigger in that golden moment when the striker has released but the bullet hasn't left the barrel, the interface between my hand and the gun drives the muzzle to the left.
Changing your grip is one approach to correcting that. Putting a lot more trigger finger in the trigger guard, or using as little trigger finger as possible can both help to ameliorate the issue depending on your physiology. My problem with that approach is simply that while one can remember to do these things without significant stressors, can I guarantee you are going to get that altered grip and/or trigger finger placement from the holster when you are working against a timer or a threat? For me, the answer has been "no". And while I'm not going to claim to be the world's best pistolero, I have spent 20 years training rigorously with a handgun. I fired more than 20,000 rounds in the last calendar year working with the Glock...and I could not reliably produce those alterations under stress.
So...what does one do?
For now, I drifted my sights to compensate. The phenomenon was consistent enough for me that I moved my sights to get the point of impact where I want it. The only time I don't have the lefty push is when I'm shooting 25 yard bullseye at a very relaxed pace. In such circumstances I seem to be able to get on the trigger better enough to reduce the leftism to almost nothing. So if that happens and I don't account for it in my sights, I put a group on the right side of the B8 instead of in the center. When I've taken shots at squirrels at distance, I offset slightly to make the hit. On a timer working on a drill like the B8 Bonanza, I'm definitely getting leftism when I'm shooting at the 10 second pace. So no compensation needed there.
What I really need is the Glock equivalent to the Tyler T-Grip. Something that drives my hand lower on the gun so I can get on the trigger straighter. Such a thing doesn't exist yet. There are different back panels and beavertails, but they don't actually achieve the goal of changing my grip on the gun. In the first picture you see, I have one of the Glock grip panels with a beavertail on it on the gun. It's invisible because of my hand size and how high my hands get on the gun. Something that would be like the T-Grip on the back of the gun to lower my hand on it and force a more straight angle of my trigger finger would help immensely.
YMMV, offer void where prohibited or taxed, yadda yadda.
3/15/2016
Reply With Quote