Glock flat faced trigger shoe

[Moonshot]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the EDC thread, but does anyone have an opinion on after market Glock flat faced trigger shoes? I am thinking of experimenting and modifying my trainer G26 with a flat trigger shoe (shoe only - leaving everything else stock).

I am not a fan of aftermarket internal FCG parts, for both reliability and liability reasons, but I figure a trigger shoe replacement by itself is no more of a change than replacing my magazine base plate with a GAP base plate or swapping out stock sights for aftermarket.

With this in mind, are there any flat trigger shoes that do not impact the pull weight, reset, internal safety or drop safety of the OEM equipment?

[GJM]

Apex is what I use, although it very slightly reduces pre travel.

[Austin Sibley]

I've used Apex and Standard Co shoes a lot, and like both. Both reduce pre-travel, though not to a degree that compromises the function of the firing pin safety (which is easy to verify for yourself after you install).

[Sero Sed Serio]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the EDC thread, but does anyone have an opinion on after market Glock flat faced trigger shoes? I am thinking of experimenting and modifying my trainer G26 with a flat trigger shoe (shoe only - leaving everything else stock).

I struggled for years to shoot Glocks well, but the Apex trigger has made a huge difference with consistent finger placement and allowed me to shoot Glocks with a degree of precision that I could not before.

I am not a fan of aftermarket internal FCG parts, for both reliability and liability reasons, but I figure a trigger shoe replacement by itself is no more of a change than replacing my magazine base plate with a GAP base plate or swapping out stock sights for aftermarket.

I tried installing just an Apex trigger/bar on a Gen. 4 Glock, and found the resulting "wall" to be an impediment. An Apex connector fixed the issue and greatly improved the trigger.

I have handled shooting cases, some of which were legitimate, some of which were not, as both a prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney (I say this not to give you legal advice, but to provide context for my answer). I think the whole "aftermarket parts" concern when it comes to defensive shootings is vastly overblown. I have never personally been involved in a case where the mechanical condition of a firearm was an issue that came up in an intentional shooting. In my experience law enforcement and prosecutors make their decisions on the circumstances surrounding the trigger pull, as opposed to the internal mechanics that make the gun go bang once that decision is made. Even if someone tries to make issue with modifications, there's also a lot that can be done with pretrial motions to limit such arguments when they have no relevance to the case in question. I know there are a bunch of horror stories out there about ridiculous issues raised in courts (see Rittenhouse and exploding bullets), but those are the exceptions, not the rule, and can and should be headed off by competent counsel that has some subject matter knowledge (something I believe is very important to self-defense cases that might not apply to other types of cases).

Aftermarket modifications could be a point of contention in a civil liability case or if the claim is "the gun just went off," but use of quality components that do not compromise safety features greatly mitigates this issue.

YMMV, but even having done criminal jury trials at both tables, my carry Glocks are stuffed full of Apex and Tango Down aftermarket controls, and I am able to justify and explain every single part.

[L-2]

I've installed and used ~six kineti-tech.com brand flat-faced trigger shoes.
Take a look. I think I usually order "Style 4".
I did try one Style 3, but could barely determine any difference.
https://kineti-tech.com/glock-triggers/

[Artemas2]

The overwatch precision "Tac" triggers are the standard for me. Almost all my glocks have them. Having a fleet of gen 4 guns, the triggers are a substantial improvement.
The geometry of the shoe does reduce pre-travel very slightly, but not so much as to disable the FP block.

[HeavyDuty]

I’ll be the oddball here (a common case) and mention that I’ve had good luck with the TangoDown Vickers triggers.

[CarloMNL]

I don’t need the flat faced triggers on double stack Glocks but installing an Apex in my 43X made it easier for me to be consistent with the gun.

I don’t have a lot of rounds through it yet, but so far the Apex trigger and trigger bar assembly have not caused any reliability issues.

[60167]

I've used the Vickers and Overwatch Tac triggers with good results (they functioned properly and felt good). I sold both of those guns and have no interest in putting flat faced triggers in any subsequent guns because I don't think they make much a difference from a performance standpoint.

[Moonshot]

Apex is what I use, although it very slightly reduces pre travel.

I've used Apex and Standard Co shoes a lot, and like both. Both reduce pre-travel, though not to a degree that compromises the function of the firing pin safety (which is easy to verify for yourself after you install).

The overwatch precision "Tac" triggers are the standard for me. Almost all my glocks have them. Having a fleet of gen 4 guns, the triggers are a substantial improvement.
The geometry of the shoe does reduce pre-travel very slightly, but not so much as to disable the FP block.

Wow, thanks to all for the advise. There are many more options than I thought.

I am not yet ready to experiment with replacing the trigger bar, FP safety or connector with aftermarket, but a new shoe looks like something I would like to try (at least on my trainer / experiment gun).

In looking at all the suggestions presented here, plus one other I was aware of from my own research, I see pricing across the board. From a low of about $35 for Suarez (out of stock) to a high of $115 for the Overwatch TAC shoe. Other than brand preference, I’m not sure what the difference is between them, although some are 7075 T6 and some may be polymer.

What concerns me is when you all say they reduce the pre-travel, but not enough to impact the FP safety. I suppose I am stepping out of my lane here, but I understood pre-travel actually consists of three phases - take-up or slack, the wall and creep.

I am guessing at this point, but does the reduced pre-travel with these flat shoes mean there is less rearward movement of the flat trigger from initial finger contact to the wall (the take-up) or is the press thru the wall to the break cleaner?

Also, many of the posts refer to the reduction in pre-travel as not being enough to impact the FP safety, but as I understand how the Glock works, unless one also changes the geometry of the trigger bar or FP safety, how could reduced pre-travel have any impact on the FP safety? That doesn’t make sense to me.

If this matters to any of your answers, I am looking at ultimately upgrading my EDC carry G26 to whatever trigger I finally select (or leaving it stock).

YMMV, but even having done criminal jury trials at both tables, my carry Glocks are stuffed full of Apex and Tango Down aftermarket controls, and I am able to justify and explain every single part.

I appreciate the input, but as I said above, I'm not ready to swap out internal FCG parts. Too many Mas Ayoob classes under my belt where he stresses liability issues for me to go there, at least not yet.