Second-strikers

[random guy]

So other than allowing some small (insignificant? ) amount of mainspring compression to deal with the practicalities of sear engagement, any mainspring compression means the trigger can be described as DA, to at least some degree.

Yes, and it is at that point that the degree or percentage of pre-tension becomes glaringly important to knowing what type of trigger we are dealing with. Hey, I'm not against labels. We simply need better, more accurate yet concise labels.

60% pre-tensioned DA
90% pre-tensioned DA
98% pre-tensioned DA

Or something other than DA, if it suits. It's really that simple (He says before being bombarded with examples where it's NOT that simple).

You must surely see the problem with labeling everything from 0-97+% pre-cocked as simply "Double action". To be fair, we can usually find this percentage with enough digging but it should be one of the most central descriptors of the trigger.

[JohnKSa]

... it is at that point that the degree or percentage of pre-tension becomes glaringly important to knowing what type of trigger we are dealing with.
60% pre-tensioned DA
90% pre-tensioned DA
98% pre-tensioned DA

I can see the benefit of knowing whether we're dealing with trigger that performs significant cocking action or whether the only cocking action performed by the trigger is the insignificant amount that occurs amounts to camming the striker/hammer back in the process of releasing it. I can't see any benefit of knowing the precise pre-tensioning amount in the general case.

Here are the only two things that might be worth knowing, and 2 is a stretch.

1. Does the trigger perform any significant cocking action? (i.e. Can it reasonably be classified as some variant of a double action trigger?)
2. Does the pre-tensioning/presetting store enough energy to fire the gun? Given that passive safeties make this largely a moot point, the value of knowing this is questionable. You certainly don't need to know this to properly classify the trigger action type.

Past that it's just knowing numbers for the sake of knowing numbers.

You must surely see the problem with labeling everything from 0-97+% pre-cocked as simply "Double action".

I don't see how anything I've said could be construed as supporting the idea of labelling a wide range of DA variant triggers as "simply 'Double action'".

What I have been saying is that knowing the precise level of pre-tensioning doesn't change the variant. You can easily distinguish between the various types of "DAO" actions without knowing the specific number that equates to the pre-tensioning or trigger cocking action. (I put "DAO" in quotes for a reason--because not all guns called "DAO" are really Double Action.)

[random guy]

Yeah, numbers are overrated for the purpose of objectively defining properties.

I'm thinking of relabeling all my ammo cans as either "Big" or "Small". I think we all know the difference.

What I have been saying is that knowing the precise level of pre-tensioning doesn't change the variant. You can easily distinguish between the various types of "DAO" actions without knowing the specific number that equates to the pre-tensioning or trigger cocking action.

I doubt there is any more concise way to sort out the highly varied approaches to "DA" than to know that one objective measurement. JMO and I'll stop belaboring the issue now.

[JohnKSa]

Yeah, numbers are overrated for the purpose of objectively defining properties.

Numbers are very useful, but in this case precise numbers are simply not necessary.

Let's say we have a gun with a trigger that performs a significant portion the cocking action (by mainspring compression length) while another significant part of the cocking action is pre-tensioning performed by slide action. Clearly it's easy to categorize the trigger type and provide a clear and accurate description of how it works even though the information provided does not include the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger.

Ok, let's take another gun where the trigger performs only incidental compression of the mainspring in the process of camming back the hammer to release it. Again, even without knowing the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger, it's child's play to accurately categorize it and clearly describe it.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Let's say we have a gun with a trigger that performs a significant portion the cocking action (by mainspring compression length) while another significant part of the cocking action is pre-tensioning performed by slide action.

What are "significant" and "incidental" amounts of mainspring compression length? Are they totally subjective, or is there some empirical basis on which they stand?

Mainspring compression that is inadequate to ignite a primer would seem fairly meaningless. So how much would a mainspring have to be compressed before it would be capable of igniting a primer? <25%? 25%-50%? 50%-75%? >75%?

[random guy]

Let's say we have a gun with a trigger that performs a significant portion the cocking action (by mainspring compression length) while another significant part of the cocking action is pre-tensioning performed by slide action. Clearly it's easy to categorize the trigger type and provide a clear and accurate description of how it works even though the information provided does not include the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger.

Ok, let's take another gun where the trigger performs only incidental compression of the mainspring in the process of camming back the hammer to release it. Again, even without knowing the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger, it's child's play to accurately categorize it and clearly describe it.

Yes. at the extremes it is easy enough to categorize a trigger, although plenty of people still screw that up. As I said though, this is a continuum with potentially every shade in between. At what point does insignificant become significant? I'd prefer to simply be given the daggone number and spared somebody else's subjective opinion.

Have you noticed that you are the one drawing a threshold between DA and SA, albeit a vague one? I feel it is really better to think in terms of a continuum.

This is for the sake of discussing systems which are not sitting in our hands. The ultimate truth can only be known by pulling the trigger yourself but when that is not feasible, a few key numbers mixed with a minimum of subjective description can tell us an enormous amount about a trigger we've never laid hands on.

Admittedly, a lot of people don't care much about the details. They may hold that training makes any trigger both safe and shootable. I'd contend that some are better than others in both respects and you may as well be informed when weighing one against another.

[TailGator]

I feel it is really better to think in terms of a continuum.

If that is a helpful concept for you, fine, but I wouldn't expect to see other people adopting the concept, because the difference between SA and DA, or between insignificant and significant loading of a striker or hammer, is not nebulous for most. Sitting here at a desk, I honestly can't think of a pistol that stands as an example of an indistinct area.

As for the numbers, I care far more about a pull weight than a percentage of loading. If I read that, a DA vs SA designation, and a length of pull, I have a pretty good idea what the trigger is going to feel like in my hand. I might even submit that if I know the length and weight of a trigger I will have a pretty darn good idea of whether it is SA or DA.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by TailGator

I might even submit that if I know the length and weight of a trigger I will have a pretty darn good idea of whether it is SA or DA.

Length and weight might not be a great indicator of whether a trigger is SA or DA. Apex Tactical advertises a kit for the M&P as reducing trigger travel by 50% and weight by 25%-40%.

[random guy]

If that is a helpful concept for you, fine...

Well, it's not really a concept, just a literal statement of fact. Any pistol which is pre-tensioned from 0% to 99% (or slightly less in practical use) would be a DA pistol. That is a continuum all under the umbrella term "DA". We can compare just "how much DA" a given trigger is by its percentage of pre-tensioning.

"SA" would seem to be a more absolute term but could logically apply to a "DA" which is 90% or more pre-tensioned. I've read that SIG's strikers are about 90%. IDK, all I've shot are their hammer guns.

As we've said, other trigger specs and impressions can be added to give an even better picture of its practical feel. I believe a very good start to understanding a given striker trigger is pre-tension though. That alone will tell you in many cases that the trigger is SA. If 60% or less, it is a safe bet that it will behave more like a TDA trigger.

To those who see no need to know striker pre-tension:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30

[JohnKSa]

What are "significant" and "incidental" amounts of mainspring compression length?

Look at the examples I gave and explain how not knowing the precise mainspring compression amounts prevents you from properly understanding if the trigger is DA or some variant of DA or not. You're also welcome to answer the challenge by providing an example of a trigger where one must know the precise amount of trigger-generated mainspring compression in order to categorize the trigger type and explain its function.

As I said though, this is a continuum with potentially every shade in between.

This doesn't help your argument. What this means is that even if you know for certain the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger, it doesn't help you categorize the pistol because there are no officially defined boundaries in the continuum to compare that precise number against. So now you have your precise number and you still don't have an official categorization. You're going to have to make up your own unofficial threshold which is not only a far cry from being precise, it also doesn't settle anything.

I'd prefer to simply be given the daggone number and spared somebody else's subjective opinion.

This doesn't help your argument either. If all you care about is understanding how the trigger works, you don't need to have a precise number as my examples show. If you want to others to agree with you, it's going to take a lot more than just a precise number. You're going to have to find some organization with clout and get them to provide official thresholds so that the precise numbers can be used to officially categorize trigger function.

Have you noticed that you are the one drawing a threshold between DA and SA, albeit a vague one?

Of course there's a threshold and it's not at all vague. The threshold has been clear ever since DA came into being and in all that time it's never needed a precisely defined number to clarify it.

I'd contend that some are better than others in both respects and you may as well be informed when weighing one against another.

Better is a very vague term for you to use given the context of the discussion , but that aside, they certainly are different, and I definitely understand why some people might prefer one over the other.

I'm all for knowing the gist of how a trigger works--i.e. is it really double action (trigger performs significant cocking action) or is it actually single action? But as my examples show, you don't have to know a precise number to understand which is which.

Apex Tactical advertises a kit for the M&P as reducing trigger travel by 50% and weight by 25%-40%.

It is very important to understand that some trigger kits FUNDAMENTALLY change the operation of the trigger and can not only disable passive safeties which depend on trigger travel for proper operation, but can even effectively transform a DA hybrid variant into what is, for all practical purposes, a single-action design. I'm not saying the Apex trigger kit fits that description, but I am saying one should keep in mind that you don't get something for nothing when physics are involved. Keeping the basic function of all safeties and trigger function the same while reducing both pull weight AND pull length significantly is not at all simple to do. If it all seems too good to be true, one should be very skeptical.

To those who see no need to know striker pre-tension:

That's a strawman. I've not said there's no need to know striker pretension. I said that there's no benefit in knowing it precisely. And while you've made it clear that you think differently, I note that you failed to take me up on my very simple challenge.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

[random guy]

Quote:
"As I said though, this is a continuum with potentially every shade in between."


This doesn't help your argument. What this means is that even if you know for certain the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger, it doesn't help you categorize the pistol because there are no officially defined boundaries in the continuum to compare that precise number against.

The trigger is already categorized as DA or SA according to the simple definition. That is the easy part but as already said, even that gets screwed up and abused. There is more to know than that though. By looking at pre-tension, we are comparing one DA to the wide spectrum and perhaps recognizing that at the very high percentages (guessing 90%+), some would perform as de facto SAs in addition to those which are literally SAs.

It's individual preference but I find the percentage helpful to know when considering a gun which is not in my hands. YMMV.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

Speaking of strawmen. DA vs SA is extremely simple and not the bigger issue although knowing the percentage might prevent a lot of the confusion which some labor under. 99% pre-cocked is hard to misunderstand. I can easily understand how people look at a striker pistol with no manual safety and assume that it must be DA or "like a Glock". It's an entirely reasonable assumption. But often wrong.

Knowing the degree of pre-tension (even an accurate approximation) blows that illusion away instantly.

[muzzleblast...]

I agree with the opinion that second strike capability is over rated. If first strike doesn't result in a bang, odds are that the hammer dropped on an empty chamber. And, in the event that the malfunction is ammo related, odds are a second strike won't result in a bang. Click = tap + rack...

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It is very important to understand that some trigger kits FUNDAMENTALLY change the operation of the trigger and can not only disable passive safeties which depend on trigger travel for proper operation, but can even effectively transform a DA hybrid variant into what is, for all practical purposes, a single-action design. I'm not saying the Apex trigger kit fits that description, but I am saying one should keep in mind that you don't get something for nothing when physics are involved.

"In practice the difference is clear" and "very easy to understand" so why hedge instead of giving a definitive answer? Photos of the example should provide all that is needed to reach such a clear and easily understood conclusion.

Of course, a definitive answer might demonstrate the problems with eyeballing trigger travel or spring compression to try to determine trigger type.

...

Just call the actions pre-cocked and quit trying to arbitrarily shoehorn them into definitions that do not fit.

[random guy]

Of course, a definitive answer might demonstrate the problems with eyeballing trigger travel or spring compression to try to determine trigger type.

Conversely, relying solely on exact striker pre-tension could "lie" to us as well. It would be entirely possible to take a crisp true SA trigger and add takeup and return spring to the point that it would be hard to tell it from a TDA trigger. It would still technically be SA but with similar performance and safety to DA, at least for the first shot.

I'm not sure that anyone is taking that approach though.

Even though layers of levers, springs and gadgets may make one trigger feel like something else, knowing what type it truly is (and its level of "double action-ness") is a good starting point.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by random guy

It would be entirely possible to take a crisp true SA trigger and add takeup and return spring to the point that it would be hard to tell it from a TDA trigger.

Many would argue that is the case with the S&W M&P trigger.

[random guy]

Many would argue that is the case with the S&W M&P trigger.

In my M&P M2.0s (don't think I've ever shot the original) I don't think they even disguised the SA trigger very much. There is some very light takeup though.

[JohnKSa]

Speaking of strawmen. DA vs SA is extremely simple and not the bigger issue...

A strawman created while accusing someone else of a strawman!

The challenge wasn't just about DA vs SA. Here's what my challenge actually was--I've added some emphasis to highlight that there was obviously more to it than just differentiating DA from SA.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

Knowing the degree of pre-tension (even an accurate approximation) blows that illusion away instantly.

I agree. I would go even further and say that even a rough approximation is sufficient.

"In practice the difference is clear" and "very easy to understand" so why hedge instead of giving a definitive answer? Photos of the example should provide all that is needed to reach such a clear and easily understood conclusion.

I get that you're trying to be witty and sarcastic but I'll go ahead and answer your question straightforwardly since the topic is important.

1. In practice, the difference between trigger kits that don't disable passive safeties and those that do is not at all clear to most people. Nor is it necessarily easy to understand how trigger kits can disable passive safeties and even change the trigger from a DA variant to one that is SA for all practical purposes.

2. I can't give a definitive answer about the Apex trigger kits because I have not examined them or studied them. If you want to send me one of their kits for evaluation, contact me via PM for more information. I'll be happy to evaluate it thoroughly and provide a careful analysis here.

3. For people who need more visual input, here is a video in lieu of the suggested photos demonstrating one particular trigger kit (the brand is concealed by the videographer) which disables passive safeties and virtually eliminates the pre-travel which would normally perform mainspring compression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRXZwslXoE

Just call the actions pre-cocked and quit trying to arbitrarily shoehorn them into definitions that do not fit.

I agree that it's unwise to try to pretend that the various DA variants all fit into exactly the same category or can be defined exactly alike. Which is why I wouldn't be for simply calling them all "pre-cocked". For one thing, there are some that aren't, and for another, even for those that are, there is value in understanding how the continuum of trigger-cocking affects safety, safeties and general operation.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I get that you're trying to be witty and sarcastic but I'll go ahead and answer your question straightforwardly since the topic is important.

No, I quoted you about how simple and easy you claim it is to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms as a direct contrast to your unwillingness or inability to categorize a specific trigger mechanism.

Nevertheless ... I'm sure I will not persuade you to abandon your preference for a subjective approach and you will not persuade me that a consistent and verifiable standard is not appropriate.

[JohnKSa]

No, I quoted you about how simple and easy you claim it is to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms as a direct contrast to your unwillingness or inability to categorize a specific trigger mechanism.

Ok, I'll give it another shot, but it seems like I'm having to spend more time correcting misquotes/mischaracterizations of my previous posts than defending my actual position in this debate.

1. I haven't claimed that it was "simple and easy to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms". I have said repeatedly that it is not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works. I've also issued repeated unanswered challenges for anyone to prove this assertion incorrect by providing a counterexample.

2. Even if I had made a claim about visual differentiation (which I haven't), it doesn't automatically follow that being able to easily visually differentiate between trigger types would translate into being able to easily visually determine if a trigger kit disabled passive safeties or converted a particular pistol's fundamental trigger action. I suppose it might in some cases, but it certainly wouldn't be a given.

3. Since I never claimed to have seen an Apex trigger kit, or photos thereof, nor claimed that it was easy to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms, nor that it was easy to visually differentiate whether or not a trigger kit could disable a passive safety or change the classification of the trigger function, your post is not only logically problematic in multiple ways, it is also founded on a fundamental mischaracterization of my position.

I'm sure I will not persuade you to abandon your preference for a subjective approach and you will not persuade me that a consistent and verifiable standard is not appropriate.

I haven't said that a verifiable standard is inappropriate, I've said that it's not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works.

I have also pointed out that even if one did know the precise mainspring compression amounts, because official standards do not exist, we still wouldn't have any more precise categorization than we can already achieve.

And I haven't been arguing for a subjective approach or said that I preferred a subjective analysis as much as I have been pointing out that it's not necessary to have precise objective numbers "to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works." In other words, I'm not saying that a subjective approach is wonderful and I prefer it--I'm saying that we don't need precise numbers to gain an accurate and practical understanding of what's going on with a trigger mechanism.

[random guy]

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

No. It is not necessary to know any precise measurement to classify a trigger or describe its general function. Reasonably accurate is good enough to get the basic idea. It's not about precise measurements but why would you not want an accurate approximation? When denoting a point on the continuum, a number is a very practical way to communicate the fact.

When shopping for exotic supercars , I know they are expensive but I want to know how expensive. A number works great.

As said, this number is only the starting point in some instances but it's not a bad one. It tells you upfront the work that the trigger still must perform, through whatever leverage and with whatever springs and safeties piled on top. The ultimate trigger knowledge comes from pulling the trigger but short of that several key numbers and a minimal amount of subjective description is pretty good.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I haven't said that a verifiable standard is inappropriate, I've said that it's not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works.

I have not asked for any highly precise number.

I invited you in post #55 to identify the range -in 25% increments- of mainspring compression that you considered to be "significant" ... to which you replied in post #60 that precise numbers were not necessary.

Forget precision to multiple decimal places - an answer in the nature of "more(less) than half" would suffice.

[JohnKSa]

I invited you in post #55 to identify the range -in 25% increments- of mainspring compression that you considered to be "significant" ... to which you replied in post #60 that precise numbers were not necessary.

You need to re-read your post #55. The question about the range isn't asking what I consider to be significant mainspring compression, it's asking what amount of mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer.

"So how much would a mainspring have to be compressed before it would be capable of igniting a primer? <25%? 25%-50%? 50%-75%? >75%? "

I didn't respond before because I considered the question nonsensical.

If you really want a response, I would answer with a question: "How much would an accelerator need to be compressed before the car would go 60mph? <25%? 25%-50%? 50%-75%? >75%?"

Obviously neither question can be answered without a lot more information being provided.

Forget precision to multiple decimal places - an answer in the nature of "more(less) than half" would suffice.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along? Because I really thought it was. And every time I said it I was met with accusations of being imprecise, unclear or ambiguous.

It's not about precise measurements but why would you not want an accurate approximation?

I didn't say I do "not want an accurate approximation". In fact, I've spent a good deal of time coming up with accurate approximations of mainspring compression by slide/trigger for a few types of striker fired pistols.

What I've said repeatedly is that it's not necessary to have a precise number to classify a trigger as to its functional type/variant nor to explain/understand how it works.

I'm a data guy, that's what I do for a living. I like numbers and I like precise numbers even more. But part of dealing with data and how it relates to the real world is understanding when precision is necessary and when it's not. I know pi out to 50 decimal places off the top of my head, but do you think I ever actually poke that many digits into a calculator when I'm calculating the circumference of a circle? Of course not. Because even accurate interplanetary navigation only requires 15 decimal places.

[gc70]

You need to re-read your post #55. The question about the range isn't asking what I consider to be significant mainspring compression, it's asking what amount of mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer.

You are just avoiding the question. Why are you even interested in mainspring compression if not for the mainspring's ability to be released to ignite a primer and fire a round?

But I do understand the preference for a subjective definition over an observable or measurable standard that would hinder arbitrarily labeling guns.

[JohnKSa]

You are just avoiding the question.

The question, as posed, can't be answered. One would need a lot more information to begin to be able to formulate a coherent answer as to how much mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer. Here are some examples but this is just the beginning of the list.

1. What type of primer is being used.
2. Does the firing pin have a conventional round tip or a reduced area tip as found in Glocks.
3. What amount of energy is required for the type of primer being used when combined with the type of firing pin tip being employed.
4. What is the mass of the firing pin--with that information the required velocity could be calculated.
etc.
I already provided a pretty thorough explanation of some of the problems with this approach in post #46.

Why are you even interested in mainspring compression if not for the mainspring's ability to be released to ignite a primer and fire a round?

Yeah, I was beginning to think that perhaps part of the problem here was a loss of context. Go back and re-read the thread from the beginning. That will explain to you what this discussion is about and why mainspring compression is of interest.

But I do understand the preference for a subjective definition over an observable or measurable standard that would hinder arbitrarily labeling guns.

I'm not in favor of subjective definitions, or arbitrary labels. If you re-read the thread you'll see this is true. In fact, in post #69 I explicitly stated that I was not arguing in favor of subjective definitions. And in post #67 I stated that I agreed that arbitrary definitions were unwise.

If you want to know what I'm in favor of and what this discussion is about, there's ample information already posted in this thread to explain it--it's not really productive for me to keep reiterating things that I've already posted or referring you back to my previous posts. Of course, if re-reading the thread so that you have a correct understanding of my position is too much work, you can just continue to try to put words in my mouth.