TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:On the other hand, just because you get used to drinking a bad wine doesn't make it a good wine.

But I LIKE Mad Dog and Thunderbird when you can drink it from a brown bag.

austinrealtor wrote:I believe a shorter/lighter trigger pull is inherently more accurate than a longer/heavier pull because of simple physics, kinesiology, and some ergonomics. The lighter and shorter a movement of the human body (including a trigger finger), then inherently the more controlled that movement can be.

This is absolutely not true. I could list dozens of examples but there is no point.

Most of the things you do with your hands and fingers with precision (or any part of your body for that matter) involve muscle memory and it requires some amount of resistance in order for you to have any accuracy in doing it. This is also true for all kinds of body movements that require any precision. The weight or resistance of anything that you must move in order to use with precision aids in the precision of the movement, because the lighter the weight or the lower the resistance, the finer the motor control you must exert in order to control it.

The debate over how much resistance is required is a valid debate, but it is not true that "less is better" universally. It is true that if you pull the pistol down and to the left when you pull the trigger, that a shorter and lighter trigger will result in less pulling down and to the left and you will shoot more accurately, but I contend that the light, short trigger in that case is a crutch that allows accuracy in spite of poor trigger technique, at the expense of increased probability of an AD. Now, maybe this is a worthwhile tradeoff, maybe you prefer the lighter/shorter trigger, and maybe it is a perfectly valid point to suggest that it is unnecessary to learn good trigger control if you can equip yourself with a pistol that does not require such control. But it is not the universal case that no matter what, for whom, or with which weapon, a lighter and shorter trigger is going to be more accurate.

mr.72 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:I believe a shorter/lighter trigger pull is inherently more accurate than a longer/heavier pull because of simple physics, kinesiology, and some ergonomics. The lighter and shorter a movement of the human body (including a trigger finger), then inherently the more controlled that movement can be.

This is absolutely not true. I could list dozens of examples but there is no point.

Most of the things you do with your hands and fingers with precision (or any part of your body for that matter) involve muscle memory and it requires some amount of resistance in order for you to have any accuracy in doing it. This is also true for all kinds of body movements that require any precision. The weight or resistance of anything that you must move in order to use with precision aids in the precision of the movement, because the lighter the weight or the lower the resistance, the finer the motor control you must exert in order to control it.

I'd like to hear your examples.

I'll grant you that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to some body movement as relates to weight/resistance (for instance a baseball weighs more than a ping pong ball, but is easier to throw more accurately) but in most of these instances the reason for the lighter resistance being harder to control is related more to external influences (the ping pong ball is influenced more by wind and air pressure because it is "too light"). Also most instances I can think of where less resistance is not necessarily "easier to controll" are more complex body movements involving multiple body parts and muscle groups. On more simple movements, such as squeezing a trigger in one direction, lifting a weight in one direction ( a bench press, for example) less weight/resistance is inherently easier. Also with more weight/resistance you introduce the debilitating factor of muscle fatigue (more pronounced, obviously, in someone bench-pressing 300 pounds than someone squeezing a 10-pound trigger).

But I don't think anyone is discussing whisper-light hair triggers here, like found on some target rifles. Even a finely tuned 1911 trigger is at least 2 or 3 pounds of resistance, I believe. So even the "light triggers" we're discussing here require some amount of resistance (bold/underline in quote above added by me for emphasis).

mr.72 wrote:The debate over how much resistance is required is a valid debate, but it is not true that "less is better" universally. It is true that if you pull the pistol down and to the left when you pull the trigger, that a shorter and lighter trigger will result in less pulling down and to the left and you will shoot more accurately, but I contend that the light, short trigger in that case is a crutch that allows accuracy in spite of poor trigger technique, at the expense of increased probability of an AD. Now, maybe this is a worthwhile tradeoff, maybe you prefer the lighter/shorter trigger, and maybe it is a perfectly valid point to suggest that it is unnecessary to learn good trigger control if you can equip yourself with a pistol that does not require such control. But it is not the universal case that no matter what, for whom, or with which weapon, a lighter and shorter trigger is going to be more accurate.

My previous post overtly expressed that shooters who can accurately shoot a heavy DAO trigger are inherently more skilled. So all this discussion of "crutch" and "poor trigger technique" seems unnecessary as the point is already agreed upon .... it takes more skill to shoot a DAO trigger as accurately as a SA trigger, or put another way a DAO trigger is more difficult to shoot accurately than a SA trigger.

This point, in and of itself, in many ways makes the case that a SA trigger is inherently more accurate. If it requires LESS SKILL to shoot a SA trigger just as accurately, then doesn't it stand to reason that an SA trigger is inherently more accurate? We're not talking about inanimate objects here like barrels (a thicker bull barrel on a target rifle will warp less as it gets hot, so it is inherently more accurate than a pencil thin barrel that bends as it heats up), so debating whether one trigger is inherently more or less accurate is already an exercise in placing qualities of inanimate objects on objects that are greatly influenced by external factors of a user's skill level. That being said, "more accurate" in trigger terms to me means more easily capably of being fired more accurately by more people.

But a more simple counter argument would be, if SA triggers are not "more accurate" then why do the majority of competition shooters use fine-tuned hair-trigger 1911-style pistols for competition? Why don't they all shoot competition with 10-lb Smith & Wesson New York Police DA triggers?

Obviously, as you said above, there is a trade off for defensive weapons of light trigger for accuracy vs heavier trigger for safety. And this is a personal choice for everyone, but has nothing to do with inherent accuracy capabilities of a trigger style.

austinrealtor wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:I believe a shorter/lighter trigger pull is inherently more accurate than a longer/heavier pull because of simple physics, kinesiology, and some ergonomics. The lighter and shorter a movement of the human body (including a trigger finger), then inherently the more controlled that movement can be.

This is absolutely not true. I could list dozens of examples but there is no point.

Most of the things you do with your hands and fingers with precision (or any part of your body for that matter) involve muscle memory and it requires some amount of resistance in order for you to have any accuracy in doing it. This is also true for all kinds of body movements that require any precision. The weight or resistance of anything that you must move in order to use with precision aids in the precision of the movement, because the lighter the weight or the lower the resistance, the finer the motor control you must exert in order to control it.

I'd like to hear your examples.

I don't want to get too deep in the middle of this, but the first thing that came to mind is target pistols vs. carry pistols. Target pistols (especially smaller caliber ones) tend to be quite heavy relative to their caliber. The reason is that the muscles in your arm & should find it much easier to control the movements of natural muscle tension with a little more resistance that you get with a slightly heavier pistol, and this enhances their accuracy at stationery targets and relatively longer ranges.

austinrealtor wrote: I'd like to hear your examples.

Hold a sheet of paper in the air by the corner.

Try and write on it with a Sharpee.

The most important aspect of "trigger pull" is repeatability and consistency in the feedback to the shooter.

If the trigger reacts and feels the same each time, is not scratchy, does not "stack" differently with each pull, and the reset is the same; with practice the shooter will be able to control it.
Within limits, it makes little difference to the shooter if it is "short and sweet" or "long and heavy" as long as it is the same for each pull.

Jerry Miculek can shoot a D/A long heavy trigger just as well as Rob Leatham can shoot an S/A short and sweet trigger and put Dave Sevigny in there with whatever trigger is in a Glock.

Keep in mind that accuracy comes from trigger control and speed comes from sight alignment.

psehorne wrote:
I've seen the work stacking in magazine articles. What does it refer to?

Some double action triggers get heavier as you pull them, That's stacking. A really good double action won't need harder and harder pressure to fire.

For hunting rifles/precision shooting, I love the double action triggers. Take up the slack and then it just trips.

For pistols, I prefer DA/SA mainly because I want the first shot to be deliberate. I don't want there to be any AD's and with the double action on the first shot, there is less chance of that happening. At least it is for me.

I spend a lot of time practicing DA shooting. I fire, drop the hammer, fire, drop the hammer, etc..

Whatever you end up with, there is no substitute for practicing enough to gain that muscle memory.

Wow great stuff here !!!!!! I only disagree with one point. Speed comes from a very repeatable index and "seeing" very quickly.
Also Rob trigger slaps, does Dave ?

TxD wrote:The most important aspect of "trigger pull" is repeatability and consistency in the feedback to the shooter.

If the trigger reacts and feels the same each time, is not scratchy, does not "stack" differently with each pull, and the reset is the same; with practice the shooter will be able to control it.
Within limits, it makes little difference to the shooter if it is "short and sweet" or "long and heavy" as long as it is the same for each pull.

Jerry Miculek can shoot a D/A long heavy trigger just as well as Rob Leatham can shoot an S/A short and sweet trigger and put Dave Sevigny in there with whatever trigger is in a Glock.

Keep in mind that accuracy comes from trigger control and speed comes from sight alignment.

wford wrote:Wow great stuff here !!!!!! I only disagree with one point. Speed comes from a very repeatable index and "seeing" very quickly.
Also Rob trigger slaps, does Dave ?

TxD wrote: Keep in mind that accuracy comes from trigger control and speed comes from sight alignment.

I think the reason you disagree is that you are speaking of methods of trigger control
and methods of sight alignment.

Let me be more specific.

Part 1.
It doesn't matter what method you use to pull the trigger, where your finger is on the trigger,
the strength of your finger, the shape of the trigger or whether it SA, DA or in between.

Accuracy is only obtained when the shooter controls the trigger throughout the pull until the gun fires without upsetting the sight alignment.

As stated above in answer to the OP discussion, this is best accomplished with a trigger that provides repeatability and consistent feedback to the shooter.

Part 2.
Indexing as stated above is a method of sight alignment. Moving your eyes quickly after calling a shot is a method of sight alignment. Using one eye or both eyes is a method of sight alignment. "Seeing" very quickly is a method.
Point shooting is a method of sight alignment, but again we are not discussing methods.

You can only shoot as fast as you can obtain sight alignment required for a particular shot.

Comment concerning shots on the clock or under duress:

Difficult shots are missed more often due to trigger control.
(Had a good sight picture on the 6" 15yd plate, got in a hurry and yanked the trigger.)

Easier shots are missed more often due to sight alignment.
(3 full targets at 5yds, thought I'd smoke 'em, didn't even index
and missed the 2nd shot on the last target.)

Hope this helps.

Yes thanks TxD. I wasnt thinking of sight alignment in quite that way when posting.

TDDude wrote:For hunting rifles/precision shooting, I love the double action triggers. Take up the slack and then it just trips.

I'm completely the opposite. I prefer a crisp single action trigger where the trigger only releases the hammer or striker. Some amount of slack is fine in a two stage trigger on a striker-fired firearm, but I dislike double action triggers.

austinrealtor wrote:I'd like to hear your examples.

I'll grant you that there is a point of diminishing returns in regards to some body movement as relates to weight/resistance (for instance a baseball weighs more than a ping pong ball, but is easier to throw more accurately) but in most of these instances the reason for the lighter resistance being harder to control is related more to external influences (the ping pong ball is influenced more by wind and air pressure because it is "too light"). Also most instances I can think of where less resistance is not necessarily "easier to controll" are more complex body movements involving multiple body parts and muscle groups. On more simple movements, such as squeezing a trigger in one direction, lifting a weight in one direction ( a bench press, for example) less weight/resistance is inherently easier. Also with more weight/resistance you introduce the debilitating factor of muscle fatigue (more pronounced, obviously, in someone bench-pressing 300 pounds than someone squeezing a 10-pound trigger).

How about typing on a membrane keyboard vs a traditional keyboard with more resistance.

Obviously, you could mention manual typewriters as an example, but then it sounds like something in the middle is better than going too light or too heavy.

I like a bit of "take up" in a trigger. It allows me (target shooting) to take up the slack and hold right at the break until I'm ready to fire. But the break has to be smooth and crisp.

My Kimber TLE2 is like that. The Glock, not so much.

austinrealtor wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:I believe a shorter/lighter trigger pull is inherently more accurate than a longer/heavier pull because of simple physics, kinesiology, and some ergonomics. The lighter and shorter a movement of the human body (including a trigger finger), then inherently the more controlled that movement can be.

This is absolutely not true. I could list dozens of examples but there is no point.

Most of the things you do with your hands and fingers with precision (or any part of your body for that matter) involve muscle memory and it requires some amount of resistance in order for you to have any accuracy in doing it. This is also true for all kinds of body movements that require any precision. The weight or resistance of anything that you must move in order to use with precision aids in the precision of the movement, because the lighter the weight or the lower the resistance, the finer the motor control you must exert in order to control it.

I'd like to hear your examples.

Guitar strings. I like them on the light side, but not too light. Height of the string off the neck: too much not good, too little not good. Piano keys, some resistance is good. Both of these are examples of fine motor skills where some resistance is good.