Because of the current political climate, my wife is considering a revolver. I have hand guns but they really don’t work for her.
I would just like that she felt comfortable with firearms. And have something suitable for her.
My question is in the title. What’s with the double trigger in pistols. I’m sure it’s some sort of safety, but that’s rediculous.
If the hammer is cocked first, it takes very little pressure on the trigger to then fire the pistol. This is useful if you are trying to get a carefully aimed shot off.
If you have to fire the gun without the hammer being cocked, it takes a great deal more pressure on the trigger (and travel distance on the trigger), which can throw off your aim. (But better than nothing if you need to get a shot off quickly.)
So it is basically a safety feature. A double action trigger pull that cocks and releases the hammer is less accurate but more safe, whereas a single action trigger pull with a cocked hammer is less safe (because it takes very little pressure to fire the gun) but more accurate.
With a double action trigger, you therefore have an option as to which behavior you want. With semiautomatic pistols, the first shot by default is typically a full double-action trigger pull, while subsequent shots are single action because the hammer is automatically cocked as the slide cycles.
With revolvers, you have to manually cock the trigger each time if you want a single-action trigger pull. Old revolver designs were single action only, so you always had to cock the trigger, whereas most modern revolvers can also shoot with a double action trigger pull.
Are we talking about single/double action, or are we talking about that weird two trigger business that Glocks have?
I don’t think they’re talking about double action triggers.
You mean this? https://inside.safariland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/best-glock-triggers-750x600.jpg
We are talking about the weird two trigger business. I’m fully aware of double/single action on revolvers. But some semi auto’s that have an indernal hammer have one trigger stacked on top of the other one. I’m talking triggers, not hammers. It just seems strange.
It’s a safety.
Right. But how is that a safety when you are just gonna pull the stacked triggers?
Glock’s Safe Action® System consists of three safeties, including the trigger safety you’re referring to. Glock says,
The trigger safety is designed to prevent the pistol from firing if it’s dropped or if the trigger is subjected to any pressure that isn’t a direct firing pull.
Not gonna login to Glock. But It makes no sense. It will only get jammed by a glove or something. Thumb safety is best. Like the 1911. Why just stack two triggers on top of each other?
It’s so the trigger can’t be accidentally pulled.
Well… What does that even mean? If you wrap your finger around the trigger, you probably intend to pull it.
Much better is the 1911 and other that have a safety in the grip. Where you have to be holding it to fire it.
Yeah, and it’ll fire like you would expect to when you pull a trigger.
Allows you to pull the trigger when intending to and stops the trigger from being depressed when not intentional and you’re claiming it’s a bad thing?
Then buy a 1911. I don’t see what that has to do with the discussion.
How does it know that your are not intentionally depressing the trigger. When depressing the trigger releases the safety that releases the trigger.
It’s very, very dumb. Push on the trigger ‘BANG’ The safety doesn’t do a thing. It’s right on the front of the trigger. The safety is released when you pull the trigger.
It has a lot to do with it. I have a 1911. It has good safety’s. The trigger safety that is released when you pull the trigger is NOT a safety.
That’s been the knock on Glocks from the beginning. You either love ‘em or you hate ‘em.
I think it’s fine.
The big reason to have it is so you can keep “one in the pipe” and be ready to fire instantaneously. You don’t have to fumble with (or remember!) the thumb safety. Good for people like cops that may have to fire quickly. Yet it keeps the gun safe from firing while just carrying it. In a 1911 the hammer has to be back to fire. So you have to cock it before. I’m not going to carry a 1911 with one in the chamber and the hammer pulled back, safety or no.
The idea behind the Glock-style “trigger-face safety” is to interfere with the trigger movement so it moves back only if you’re actually pressing on it.
Really the main purpose of safeties in rifles and pistols is to prevent the thing from going off if dropped or bumped or fumbled with. Not to prevent someone who WANTS to shoot from shooting. Traditional manual safeties physically lock the trigger and/or other moving parts in the mechanism so the gun can’t shoot even if you are trying to make it do so. Most contemporary designs have a number of “passive safeties” that prevent the hammer/striker/firing pin from moving unless the trigger is to the rear … and you’ll need a way to prevent the trigger itself from moving back due to inertia. So you add something to require actively pressing it.
(This of course ties in with firearms doctrine whereby your finger is AWAY from the trigger housing unless you’re currently engaging the target.)
(But what if, you ask, something intrudes or gets tangled in that trigger housing and pressed on that safety tab? A jacket drawstring, a branch, etc? Yes that can be a problem, which is why these sidearms are supposed to be carried in conformal holsters that fully enclose the trigger guard.)
But if you carry a Glock with a round in the chamber you are also carrying a cocked weapon. Glocks are not double action (no second strike capability) and when the action is cycled to chamber the first round the striker is placed in a cocked position. This is why Glocks safeties are so important.
I’ve had customers have a safety trigger installed on their Glocks for extra protection.
We are talking about inertia, in case it’s dropped? Is that that this is about?
But even with that triger safety, in condition 1, It would fire just like if I pulled the trigger on my 1911 in condition 1.
What’s the point?
