CMC Flat Trigger or RRA 2-Stage?

Would you consider the Geissele S2S? Its only $125 and have good reviews.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

I don't have any experience with the RRA but I've read mixed reviews. My triggers are other Geissele triggers and they've served me well.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

I prefer a single stage trigger. I have used a BUNCH of Jards as a good basic range/hunting trigger, and think well of them. I also have one flat CMC trigger and it's been my favorite AR trigger, excepting for the cost.

Generally speaking, two stage triggers are popular for people who compete in sports like High Power.

If you're doing run and gun shooting like you'd see for 3 Gun or a defensive carbine course, a single-stage trigger is generally the accepted way to go because the additional pause before breaking the shot can be considered a bit of a hindrance.

Is the 2 Stage safer or something?

Click to expand...

Not safer ... but a different feel...a distinct heavy 1st stage and a 1-1.5 # 2nd stage. Some are easily adjustable (Geiselle at around $275). Most using an AR for action games prefer a smooth single stage.
/Bryan

I believe that a two stage can be considered to be safer in a sense. With a two stage, you can have a pretty light trigger with less chance of an unintended discharge.

If I had to choose between the CMC or the RRA, I'd just get the CMC without consideration for single or two stage. I've had more than a couple of RRA triggers fail on me over time. Since I've gone to Geiselle, I haven't looked back. They have a trigger for all uses.

I use the CMC flat 2 stage on my target/PD rifle. It has served me well for 4 years and thousands of rounds. And yeah the flat trigger is cool.

I'm going to ask about the level of quality and precision in the gun in question? What makes it superior enough to bother putting a $200 trigger in it (aside from it being America and you do what you please?)

If it's a milspec barrel 2MOA shooter, and it's a plinker berm shooter, then it won't do much at all for accuracy. It can't, the gun is only 2MOA. If it's a precision long range shooter with $500 Kreiger SS match barrel, then go right ahead. A good shooter will see the incremental increase in reduced lock times and less dispersion from shooter error.

That implies 1/4MOA is a documented ability - match results and standings in hand. Otherwise, a target trigger will only feel good, seeing an improvement in accuracy will be masked by the larger gross inaccuracy of a wandering barrel, factory loads, etc. Again, if it's milspec, it's 2MOA. That's an 8 inch group at 400m. Lethal in combat, not much in competition for bullseyes. In competitive action shooting, it could help, but that's questionable. Shooting to hit paper wins matches, shooting to hit lethally is entirely different and a much tougher skill.

A shoulder hit in the black of an action silhouette isn't necessarily a stopping shot in real life.

I read a lot about shooters praising expensive triggers, none ever tell us how much their group size shrank, or the new trophies they earned. It's starting to sound like either they wanted one to brag about owning it, or are simply covering the disappointment that their skill level, or the typical lack of precision most ARs have, isn't improved.

For a lot of good technical reasons, it won't make any significant difference. The silence and lack of information proving otherwise is somewhat deafening.

Jccollins here's a link to a thread in m4carbine that gives a detailed review of the s2s trigger.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=82827

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

If it's a milspec barrel 2MOA shooter, and it's a plinker berm shooter, then it won't do much at all for accuracy. It can't, the gun is only 2MOA. If it's a precision long range shooter with $500 Kreiger SS match barrel, then go right ahead. A good shooter will see the incremental increase in reduced lock times and less dispersion from shooter error

Click to expand...

Without a good trigger you will never know if she is a 2 or 1 moa shooter. My AR will give me about 2.5 with commerical ammo @100 yards, with reloads it cuts down to 1.0+ with a quality trigger+reloads it will go below 1.0 that is with a factory 16 inch barrel.

Is it necessary for everyone to run out and purchase a match trigger, no because it depends on your needs, how you use the gun, lots of rounds, or more of a slow target shooter.

Make no mistake a quality trigger "will" improve accuracy you can kid yourself or try to thing otherwise due to price of a quality trigger but the improvement is noticeable.

Also, if you are used to a nice, crisp one and a half to two pound trigger in a 1911, anything else really doesn't feel very good at all.

Jccollins I think I have a solution for you.

ETA

Pm sent.

Sent from my LG-P999 using Tapatalk

I'm a big fan of the RRA two stage.

I'm into highpower as well as IDPA carbine matches an 3gun, and there is no way that the 2 stage trigger is a disadvantage over a single stage. Fun theory, but completely false. If you're pulling with more than the required 4lbs of force the trigger doesn't pause between stages.

The RRA two-stage triggers work well for the money. I've heard equal stories of them going south after low-round usage as well as holding in for thousands of rounds without issue.

Between a 2-stage or a single-stage, it will depend on the shooter's preference. I shoot better with a two-stage, but I've put a lot of rounds downrange through my Service Rifle at Highpower matches, plus dry-firing. I don't like having to take a standing run at a 4-5 lb break shooting offhand, but anywhere else it isn't as big of an issue.

Also, trigger control is frequently more important than outright pull weight. A lighter trigger simply makes a rifle more user-friendly, in that it is easier to wring out the last fractions of accuracy if you're not fighting to maintain smooth trigger control. Some shooters are more sensitive to this than others. (I feel I can shoot anything reasonably well unless the trigger is truly atrocious. Others complain about anything that doesn't break like a glass-rod. If you prefer a glass-rod sensation, you won't like my match trigger.)

A good barrel and ammo deliver accuracy. A free float just helps keep a sling or the shooter from moving the barrel, it doesn't add accuracy to that package. Same for the trigger - it can't ADD accuracy, it just helps the shooter to time the shot better, reducing HIS dispersion.

There are pistol shooters using Glocks with NY ten pound triggers who've won matches, it's all about the shooter. A trigger, not as much as we'd think. Again, it just reduces shooter error, it can't reduce the natural dispersion the barrel and ammo can be documented to produce.

I'm aware of what it takes to get precision, I shot International .22 for three years in high school. Long time ago now, but the facts remain - barrel and ammo, after that, do your best to reduce shooter error. That's what stocks, jackets, slings, free floats, and triggers do. Mount that action in a sled, you reduce shooter error to a minimum, all you get is what the barrel and ammo can do.

Point being, we place too much emphasis on buying gear, when using it and being proficient would get us to a higher level of skill. It's just that being impatient and having credit cards, too many Americans just buy gear to elevate their results - rather than actually practice and gain it the hard way.

Not a bad concept for new soldiers, it's the entire point of attaching a red dot optic - it certainly enhances hit probability of the average soldier faster and cheaper than 1000's of rounds downrange. On the other hand, when it's the most difficult shots to be attempted - we train select, skilled shooters who practice putting 1000's of rounds downrange, at varying distances, in all kinds of weather, in every circumstance we can recreate, whether as a precision marksman or in CQB.

Gear cannot make up for skill and experience. Only really good shooters see benefits from high level gear -they have to be better to see results. Average shooters putting an option to reduce groups less than 1/2MOA can't get any benefit from a 2MOA gun. It still shoots 2MOA. If better ammo made it a 1MOA gun, then it was really a 1MOA gun after all. If adding a trigger made it a half MOA gun, it was - and the shooter is holding it back from being a 1/4 MOA gun.

The gun can only shoot so small, adding options to make it shoot smaller groups is usually just reducing shooter error.

There's another issue - making a 2MOA combat gun shoot under 1/2MOA. The issue is effectiveness - it doesn't need to. Sure, anyone can do that to one, but for what it was intended to do, it's out of it's design intent. It isn't part of combat requirements, and the expense on the level of an army using them isn't justified, entirely why it's a milspec standard 2MOA. That does the job in combat.

In other words, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to make it more accurate. What we do with our money is, however, our own darn business. Not many good shooters can simply accept 2MOA as good enough, because we get our egos engaged, and then, Katy bar the door, we will show everyone how much better we can shoot!

At least there is some justification to the sport, unlike, say, golf ...