Safest Glock Gen5 trigger enhancements

[JohnKSa]

The striker position isn't visible through the mag well.

[Sgt127]

You are correct. That may have been a Kahr. I tried this with all the striker fired guns I owned at the time.

I think I used an inspection plate on the Glock.

I just grabbed a Glock 35. Removed the rear plate.

Using a set of calipers, I pressed down on the plastic sleeve until it was flush.

Extending the tail (depths measure of the calipers, the end of the striker was 13.61 MM with the striker past the firing pin safety.

With the striker resting on the firing pin safety, 11.55 MM.

In cocked mode, the tail of the striker was 5.74 MM to the end.

As I pressed the trigger, when the sear tripped, it measured 1.73 MM.

Roughly 4 MM of movement.

So from “at rest”. On the firing pin safety. 11.55 MM to fire 1.73 mm. Round it to 10MM of travel.

11.55 MM to semi cocked, at 5.74 MM. and, 1.73 MM more movement to fire.

That is a lot of pre loaded energy.

I’ll pull a couple bullets and try it again. But, I know the last time I tried this. The gun fired more often than not.

[JohnKSa]

On the firing pin safety. 11.55 MM to fire 1.73 mm. Round it to 10MM of travel.

Pretty close to what I observed--I measured 10.2mm of total compression

11.55 MM to semi cocked, at 5.74 MM.

That's about 5.8mm of pre-compression. I measured 5-6mm of pre-compression.

With about 10mm of compression total that means the remaining 4-5mm of compression is performed by trigger travel.

Roughly half is pre-compression, the other half is applied by the trigger pull. Because of the way springs store energy, that means maybe 25% to 30% of the energy is stored by the pre-compression, the other 70% to 75% is done by the trigger pull.

One thing to keep in mind is that one can observe significant wear to the firing pin safety and firing pin where they make contact during normal operation. The firing pin safety doesn't quite get all the way out of the way of the firing pin. A completely representative test would leave the firing pin safety in place and try to compress it upwards the same amount that would be done with the gun in normal operation.

[wild cat mccane]

Correct me, but this sounds like real world the cocked at not 100% glock is no better than what would happen in a single action gun like a walther?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Correct me, but this sounds like real world the cocked at not 100% glock is no better than what would happen in a single action gun like a walther?

In both cases you would need a catastrophic failure of internal components, a very poorly maintained firearm, and/or incorrectly done modification for a problem to manifest itself as a result of mechanical failure of the pistol itself.

Some people are comforted by the Glock being less cocked than say another striker fired pistol like the PPQ, P320, etc. Over the years we’ve had a number of threads that have debated, with anecdotal evidence both ways, whether or not a Glock striker has enough energy with a round chambered to ignite a primer. In order for that to happen in the first place the drop safety would have to fail to allow the trigger bar to move out of the way and release the striker. The striker block would also have to move out of the way as well. Some people don’t trust mechanical devices to not fail, or at least not if those items are potentially pointed at or near them. I don’t disagree personally, but at the same time I think we all make our own evaluations of risk and handle them accordingly. I think the likelihood of both of those devices falling on a properly maintained firearm are extremely low.

The mechanical safety of a Glock is imo separate from how safe a particular user is with a Glock. Comparisons were made to a Glock being like a cocked and unlocked 1911. Personally I disagree. Even if the pull weights are similar (though many 1911s have weights that are lower, some much lower), the trigger travel and feel on a Glock is not like that of a 1911. If it were people wouldn’t spend so much money trying to improve the triggers on Glocks, and this thread likely wouldn’t exist. All of the 1911s I have owned have had triggers that were much shorter in travel and much crisper in feel than a Glock.

I don’t personally have reservations about the mechanical safety of a Glock. I think an argument can be made that compared to a pistol with a manual safety and/or a double action trigger with an exposed hammer, that similar striker fired pistols are more prone to being fired by something catching the trigger unknowingly than other designs. That said, many if not most of the cases of negligent discharges that I read as they relate to Glocks show blatant disregard for what seems to me to be basic firearms safety. I have personally seen literally hundreds of people draw, shoot, and holster pistols with similar layers of mechanical safety without issue. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. My point is more that I am unfamiliar of any design that will completely stop a user from a negligent discharge and that most of this has to do with the user than the mechanical device itself. At the same time if someone prefers a design that allows greater exterior control or visibility of the internal function of a pistol, that’s fine by me.

To your question, I have at times carried a Glock, a P320, a P365, and a PDP. I don’t feel inherently safer or less safe with any of them. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tactical Jackalope]

To be totally honest, I've never had an issue with the stock Glock Gen 5 trigger. In fact, I would make my Gen 3 Glocks feel pretty darn similar to what Gen 5 is.

If I had to pick for you, I'd say Overwatch Precision or Apex. That's the trigger shoe and trigger bar. They're good to go.

Currently, all my Gen 5 Glocks are in a factory configuration.

[MarkCO]

A short reset connector and an overtravel set screw, then a good .25 cent trigger job. Safer and better than the vast majority of $100+ kits.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019871839?pid=607232

https://www.lonewolfdist.com/PRODUCT/922115/lwd-uth-9/

One can drill, tap and install a set screw in a Glock trigger housing for less than a dollar.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by Sgt127

There is enough stored energy in a Glock, at “rest” to fire a primer at least 75% of the time from my experiments.

I don't agree, and I have tested it on multiple occasions. Spring rates are NOT linear either, they are progressive.

With an XD or an M&P, you are right. With a Glock, you are not right.

[wild cat mccane]

If I can say it back and you all correct?

Someone has said, no, the glock in stock has enough energy to hit a primer hard enough to fire if the sear also had a mechanical problem along with the firing pin block.

SO, the movement in stock configuration actually isn't sufficient for a dead rest safety freak out situation on the FPB and sear failure (where my finger isn't the issue or something in the trigger guard).

THEREFORE, an aftermarket get like Apex that removes travel actually isn't making the changing the drop safety or sear/firing pin block both fail issue?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

If I can say it back and you all correct?

Someone has said, no, the glock in stock has enough energy to hit a primer hard enough to fire if the sear also had a mechanical problem along with the firing pin block.

SO, the movement in stock configuration actually isn't sufficient for a dead rest safety freak out situation on the FPB and sear failure (where my finger isn't the issue or something in the trigger guard).

THEREFORE, an aftermarket get like Apex that removes travel actually isn't making the changing the drop safety or sear/firing pin block both fail issue?

Your first sentence has me scratching my head. That said, I think I get the gist of what you’re asking.

To understand how the Glock safeties work internally, see the following:

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-...-action-system

The “sear” on the Glock is essentially part of the trigger bar (an area often called the cruciform). In order for a stock Glock to inadvertently discharge from a purely “mechanical failure” standpoint you would need a few things to happen. Somehow the trigger bar would have to be drawn rearward enough that it clears the drop safety built into the trigger mechanism housing and then the trigger bar can drop down to release the striker. Or the rear of the trigger bar somehow catastrophically fails allowing the striker to go forward or the trigger mechanism somehow fails allowing the trigger bar to drop. We’re talking metal and polymer parts practically disintegrating for those two cases to happen (which is why people will mention proper maintenance). In both of those cases the striker would still need to have enough energy at rest to detonate a primer, which seems under dispute at least. The firing pin safety would also have to somehow not stop the firing pin from moving forward during any of the above, and its rest position stops that from happening. Maybe if the firing pin block spring broke in such a way that the firing pin block was locked upward, though that would be in defiance of gravity (assuming you have the pistol upright).

You seem to want a definitive answer of whether or not an aftermarket Glock trigger is less safe than a stock trigger from the perspective of stopping a mechanical failure. Like others have said, that will depend on how the aftermarket trigger works. If the aftermarket trigger changes the above process, even slightly, then a person could make the argument that the aftermarket trigger is less safe. It’s hard to know the details of every Glock aftermarket trigger because of how many there are.

You’ve picked the APEX trigger. It’s been some time since I’ve looked at that APEX part. I think asking APEX how their trigger does or doesn’t change the factory trigger function is the only way to have a definitive answer, and then it will still be a matter of perspective to an extent. In order to have a noticeable, which to me means significant, impact on the Glock trigger in terms of “feel” and the various aspects related to that, I think you have to change the above if even slightly, and then someone will argue it’s less safe as a result. If you don’t want to change the factory safety level of a Glock, then leave it factory, or investigate the workings of the different aftermarket triggers and decide for yourself if those changes result in a meaningful difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

Reason I persist is until here, I'd never heard that the glock has enough energy to hit a primer "good enough" to fire.

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

Reason I persist is until here, I'd never heard that the glock has enough energy to hit a primer "good enough" to fire.

Because they do not. Even reducing travel and using Fed Primers. I have eliminated that as a potential failure mode in multiple cases I have worked on professionally as a forensic engineer.

M&Ps, XDs and 320s definitely have enough energy. But you still need a failure of an internal part to get them to fire.

[TunnelRat]

This question has come up on threads here before in the past.

Again, in order for the striker energy to come into play both the drop safety and firing pin safety (as Glock terms them), essentially have to be defeated. Per their design that’s not easy. Even if a Glock did have enough energy with its striker at rest to detonate a primer, that would make it no less safe than a number of designs, and I’m not sure if other designs incorporate a drop safety into their trigger mechanism housings like Glock does, so I think Glock might still be safer than those (even were that true).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wild cat mccane]

Thank you

[Fishbed77]

The safest Glock trigger enhancement?

Shoot the stock trigger until you are proficient at shooting it and the trigger is well broken in.

[JohnKSa]

THEREFORE, an aftermarket get like Apex that removes travel actually isn't making the changing the drop safety or sear/firing pin block both fail issue?

This is a separate issue from the one about stored energy in the striker spring.

If there is enough reduction in trigger travel, the internal passive safeties may be disabled. This is a problem because those are there to prevent things like inertia operation of the mechanism. As in, when the gun is dropped, inertia can operate on the parts of the mechanism and result in the same kind of force being applied to the fire control parts as if the trigger were pressed normally. The passive safeties prevent that, but if they are disabled then they can't do their job.

[wild cat mccane]

So the question is then does a "less aggressive" aftermarket trigger like the Apex disable #2 and #3 from this:

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-...-action-system

Glock says as the trigger moves, the trigger bar lowers, deactivating the drop safety of the system.

Guess the question is now, does the Apex drop in enhanced trigger do that?

[JohnKSa]

None of them SHOULD, but there have been instances of some aftermarket triggers that do.

On another forum, a person installed a Timney trigger in their Glock and found that it was dimpling primers during drop testing.

I don't know if that's a problem with all Timney triggers in all Glocks, or if that was just an issue where variations in the parts and the guns added up just right to cause the issue.

It's just something to be aware of. If the design alters the trigger travel, there's a chance that it will alter it too much. The gun needs to be thoroughly tested after installation to insure it is still drop safe.

[wild cat mccane]

I was convinced on this forum that the Timmy wasn't for me.

I'm thinking Apex because I haven't seen the same break down/slide cut demonstrations like the Timmy problem.

But I'm open to throw away the Apex idea too.


Remember how Canik had the recall warning that drop testing would lead to the safety mechanisms for the drop test being destroyed? https://www.canikusa.com/severe-duty-upgrade


How does one test to make sure without damaging the frame or the internal parts?

Thanks all!

I'm getting the message, I really am, that altering it COULD defeat what I want to keep. I just want to learn the if people know one is safe or how to test if it remains safe.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I'm getting the message, I really am, that altering it COULD defeat what I want to keep. I just want to learn the if people know one is safe or how to test if it remains safe.

You need someone intimately familiar with the aftermarket trigger in question. But even then, as has been explained, what is or isn’t “remains safe” can be open to interpretation. If the trigger requires 1mm less travel to be free of the drop safety then that is by definition less safe, but does that matter to you personally from a practical standpoint? At some level you have to make the determination, not us, as you are the person using the firearm. As for the testing, most of these companies are aware of potential liability, or they should be. Ask them about what, if any, testing they have done to determine if their product has maintained factory safety levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Another thought here is if this concerns you, have an armorer or gunsmith do the install.

I have ordered Apex parts for an M&P in the past where after install the pistol wouldn’t function. In that case the loop at the rear of the trigger bar needed to be expanded in order for the sear to rotate enough to release the striker. Tolerance stacking can happen and between quality control with the factory parts still in the pistol and quality control with the aftermarket parts you can have interactions between those that are less than ideal. Having someone with some experience do the install can help.

[jetinteriorguy]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Another thought here is if this concerns you, have an armorer or gunsmith do the install.

I have ordered Apex parts for an M&P in the past where after install the pistol wouldn’t function. In that case the loop at the rear of the trigger bar needed to be expanded in order for the sear to rotate enough to release the striker. Tolerance stacking can happen and between quality control with the factory parts still in the pistol and quality control with the aftermarket parts you can have interactions between those that are less than ideal. Having someone with some experience do the install can help.

I had this experience when installing the Apex trigger in my M&P. I just bent the wire loop a little at a time and tested by dry firing until it worked reliably. Since then I’ve put thousands of rounds through it without issues. As far as it’s affect on safety if dropped, I can’t comment on that since I’ve never tested it. In 60 years of hunting and shooting I’ve never dropped a gun, so I don’t worry much about it. I’m not too keen on banging my gun around to test it.

[wild cat mccane]

I reached out to Apex about #2 and #3 safety areas from Glock and they just responded back with a copy and paste of the page for the kit. Doh.

Probably not a technical person and it does say on that page that the Apex kit will not change the internal safeties... but it sounds like that is up for debate

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by jetinteriorguy

I had this experience when installing the Apex trigger in my M&P. I just bent the wire loop a little at a time and tested by dry firing until it worked reliably. Since then I’ve put thousands of rounds through it without issues. As far as it’s affect on safety if dropped, I can’t comment on that since I’ve never tested it. In 60 years of hunting and shooting I’ve never dropped a gun, so I don’t worry much about it. I’m not too keen on banging my gun around to test it.

That’s exactly what I did to troubleshoot mine.

Over the years I have had a number of “drop in” parts that didn’t live up to the name (in fairness to the companies, like I mentioned before tolerance stacking happens). Sometimes it was very minor tweaking, sometimes it was not so minor. Thats the nature of changing a pistol from factory configuration, it isn’t always straightforward, which was why I mentioned maybe having an armorer or gunsmith do the install if the person was concerned about the result.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

I reached out to Apex about #2 and #3 safety areas from Glock and they just responded back with a copy and paste of the page for the kit. Doh.

Probably not a technical person and it does say on that page that the Apex kit will not change the internal safeties... but it sounds like that is up for debate

Yeah that’s about what I expected. You could try and call and ask to speak to a gunsmith there, but honestly they may just give you the run around. I think Randy Lee is the main gunsmith there (assuming he’s still there).

I find the aftermarket companies are often in an odd space. They don’t want to accept any more liability for their products than absolutely necessary so they generally give a vague technical statement about safety followed up with the “Buyer Beware” standard clause. The thing is the products they sell go into what can be very dangerous devices, so being vague can be problematic.

A lot of this is made more interesting by many of these companies posting videos that show the installation, while at the same time explicitly saying on the packaging that the install should be done by a “qualified gunsmith”. It’s a bit of a dance. They know many people either don’t want to pay for or frankly don’t know a gunsmith (and frankly some people that use that term to refer to themselves aren’t “qualified”, as we’ve seen again and again on this forum), so they provide videos for people to do it themselves. However, some of the companies pretty much stonewall you if you call and ask for assistance with troubleshooting (I had that experience with LTT) and direct you to a gunsmith. Now the videos can help the gunsmith as well, but I think it’s fair to say that many people buy these parts, put the parts in their firearms, and hope for the best. My experience has been that sometimes it can be more trouble than it’s worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk