Glock trigger - Perfection or So-So?

[eldon519]

Not to get too much off on a tangent, but I have never used a encountered a 1911 that was really stone-cold reliable. My 1911 is probably my most-shot pistol, but I don't have illusions about it just because of that.

I posted this in a different thread, but it bears repeating:

I looked up some information on the outcome of the XM9 and XM10 pistol trials (the trials how we ultimately wound up with the Beretta M9 as our service pistol), and I was somewhat surprised at how poorly the 1911 performed. In the 1981 trial, the 1911 had a mean round between operational failure (from what I understand in the report, this would include a parts breakage or jam) of 165 rounds. Basically no guns passed the 1981 criteria and the Beretta and SIG had 158 and 209 rounds respectively. During the 1984 testing, the 1911 came in at 162 rounds. By comparison, the Beretta and SIG had jumped to 1,750 and 2,877 respectively.

The somewhat shocking-to-me outcome of this failure rate is that these particular 1911s in this particular test only had 95% probability of making it through a 7-round magazine without interruption. The SIG and Beretta were both 99% likely to make it through a 15 round magazine without interruption. By comparison, the 1911 was 90% for 15 rounds.

 

[45_auto]

What kind of 1911's were they testing? The last new ones the military bought was in 1953 I believe?

Were they testing 30 year old worn out 1911's against new Berettas and Sigs? The original 1911 acceptance testing went 6,000 rounds without a malfunction.

In fact, during a 6,000 round test fired over two days in 1910 that was personally supervised by John M. Browning, his sample pistol became so hot that it was simply dunked in a pail of water to cool it for further firing. Browning’s sample reportedly passed the test with no malfunctions.

http://www.browning.com/library/infonews/detail.asp?id=301

What happened between 1910 and 1984?

 

[eldon519]

I don't know, but it seemed to perform about the exact same in '81 and '84. The results were from a formally documented (and heavily scrutinized given the whole SIG-Beretta dispute) government trial. The document I was reading was an actual government report.

I don't know anything as to the validity of the 1910 test, but I would like to see a more reliable source than the Browning webpage. Even by their own account, the test was conducted by Browning himself which seems a potential conflict of interest if nothing else. That isn't so different than Glock conducting their own "torture tests."

 

[tuj]

Consistent, yes. Gets the job done, yes. Perfection, no.

Yeah that about sums it up. I shot a 34 recently and I was actually pleasantly surprised at how 'acceptable' the trigger was. I had just finished shooting my Pardini's so I had a very high measuring stick in my mind for triggers when I shot the 34.

If you want 'perfection', then as close as it gets in my mind is the Pardini GT-series. It's a single action gun with a more 'European' feel to the trigger. I prefer it to my Les Baer.

Not to get too much off on a tangent, but I have never used a encountered a 1911 that was really stone-cold reliable.

My STI Spartan has been very reliable out of the box. Pretty impressive for a $600 1911.

What happened between 1910 and 1984?

Absolutely nothing AFAIK. They pulled old 1911's that were worn or out of spec from the inventory and used them in the test against brand new pistols. Not fair for the venerable 1911.

The funny thing is, look at how close to the 1911 we still are....the Glock is still a short-recoil, locked breech, tilting barrel pistol. JMB got a lot of things RIGHT!

 

[Buckeyeguy525]

I apologize for highjacking the thread and turning it into a glock vs 1911 debate, which has been done to death. A wise man once said "whenever you're having an argument with an idiot, make sure he isnt doing the same thing". Agree to disagree. Every test thats ever been done where the 1911 did poorly was somehow "unfair" so theres really no point.

 

[SDGlock23]

Of all the polymer pistols I've owned, the Glock trigger is by far my favorite. I suppose each person has his/her own idea of what makes a good trigger, but to me the Glock trigger is consistent. It has a short reset and it's the same every single time. I especially like the "." connector on the Gen4's.

 

[1911 guy]

The information that is most telling is maintenance schedules. The M9 has periodic maintenance done based on round count. Frankly, that's the way it should be. However, the M1911 had no such support. If it broke, you fixed it. If it was worn slap out and should have been replaced before we'd ever heard of Viet-Nam, it was put back in the armory to bolster the "can't hit a barn" and "won't run right" myths.

Every mechanical device needs some sort of maintenance. Some more than others. Not really a better or worse thing, just different strokes for different folks. The only edge a newer design has on a correctly built 1911 is when you want to deliberately abuse it. I fail to see the point that your Brand X pistol can get run over by a cement truck, given a bath in volcanic ash, be fed through a wood chipper and still function. Those are beyond the realistic uses of a handgun. And if normal maintenance is beyond or beneath you, maybe you are better off with a pistol designed for people who don't take particular care of their armament.

Again, I'm not trying to slam Glock as being a junk pistol. They're fine if they fit your hands. They're just not the be-all and end-all some claim them to be. And quite frankly, neither is the 1911. The smaller and more portable you make a weapon, the more compromises you have to make. The definition of handgun is small and portable. Personally, I'd like to confront life in general with something .30 caliber and supportd by something crew served. However, like everyone else that carries a handgun, I compromise.

 

[hentown]

Not going to wade through all the posts, so somebody might have already said this: You can spend $10-$12 on an aftermarket connector and do a little polishing of the mating surfaces in the firing mechanisms and considerably improve a Glock's trigger. I use aftermarket connectors in all my Glocks, including my daily-carry G26. (Yeah, I know, "Ayoob, modifications, aftermarket parts, blah, blah, blah." I take my legal advice from real lawyers and feel comfortable carrying a modified G26.)

 

[Fishslayer]

Out of the box, definitely so-so. I would describe it otherwise but this is The High Road.

They can be made better though. Just time & money. Unlikely they will achieve "perfection."

 

[WinThePennant]

Like anything else when it comes to Glocks, they SHOOT better than they FEEL in the hand. You can say that about the grip, and you can say that about the trigger. I don't even feel the trigger when I shoot. Just practice, and let nature take its course.

 

[GLOOB]

I find it easy to dryfire a Glock without disturbing the sights. I have owned and fired a surprising number guns with relatively crisp SA trigger pulls where this is not the case. Esp DA/SA guns... the SA breakpoint tends to be too close for me.

Perfection? Yeah, for my purposes I suppose it's pretty close.

 

[Godsgunman]

The trigger does seem to be growing on me a little more. It is pretty easy to stage and then feel when its "go time". Having never even fired a Glock before buying my 26 I guess I was caught off guard, definitely NOT what I was used to. Not too bad since Im more acquainted with it.

 

[mljdeckard]

The biggest reason I don't carry a Glock anymore is the trigger. Not terrible. But not as good as a 1911.

 

[Roadking Rider]

So,So. Not bad, not great either. IMO no striker fired straight out of the box pistols have great triggers.

 

[481]

Glock trigger?

While I wouldn't call it "perfection", I have become very accustomed to the standard trigger that comes on the Glock 17 (gen 3) which rolls nicely along at 5 pounds even after break-in according to my trigger pull scale.

 

[SullyVols]

Had a Glock 17, traded it for a 40 year old 4" S&W 19-3 during this recent semi-auto craze. I am much more comfortable with a revolver in my hand.

My 686 had a 13.5 lb. DA trigger (about 350 rounds ago) and 'felt' much better than the advertised 5.5 trigger on my Glock 17.

But again that isn't Glock's selling point. The Glock's selling points are its price and reliability.

 

[Buckeyeguy525]

1911 guy brings up a good point, the smaller the pistol the more problems you potentially face. I believe thats why Wilson Combat doesnt make a 45 with a barrel less than 4", the design just doesnt lend itself to that. My hat goes off to Wilson for bringing that to the attention of potential buyers, vs Kimber or any of the other big companies who will sell you a 3" 1911 for carry that you are supposed to bet your life on knowing that its flawed in that configuration.

 

[Ankeny]

Even more thread drift. While I too subscribe to the notion that buying a 1911 smaller than a Commander size gun can be asking for problems, there are no doubt thousands of sub 4.25 inch guns that run flawlessly. My 9mm EMP is a good example (I know the above post addresses .45). Another example is the Dan Wesson ECO. The ECO has been well received and they run like the Energizer Bunny. There are other examples as well.