Ok, saw this thread and I have been mulling over it most of the day. Fair warning I may rock the boat a little bit.
To my understanding the premise is that, if group sizes get better when going to a lighter trigger, it is because a lack in fundamentals on the part of the shooter. Basically if the shooter had good fundamentals both groups should have been the same size.
To me this begs the question, what are "fundamentals?"
It also asks the question, "Why are fundamental needed?"
To me and my understanding the word in the context in which is it being used is as a skill or technique used while shooting. The goal being to steady the weapon while aiming to aid in hitting the target with a small group dispersion.
So, lest go down this rabbit trail.
Why are fundamentals needed? To my understanding precision shooters try to find ways, techniques, and tools, to limit the input of the shooter into the gun. Because the interaction between the shooter and the gun can impart additional variables into the shot.
The goal of fundamentals is to regulate the shooters body and reduce the input into the firearm.
For example, in this case, in relation to a trigger as a single variable. lets say 2 identical triggers with the exception of pull weight. say 5oz vs 5lb. With the 5lb trigger the shooter is imparting 5lb of force which is being imparted into the rifle. the shooter must then use "fundamentals" to counter the forces being imparted through the trigger to steady the rifle. with a 5oz trigger significantly less force and shooter input is being imparted into the rifle and this less compensation and or "technique" is needed.
In short fundamentals are a coping mechanism to counter deficiencies in the firearm, or reduce human error being imparted into the rifle.
So the question becomes. Does one focus on building and maintaining a perishable skills, AKA "fundamentals". Or does one invest in better equipment, in this case a trigger, reducing the need for "fundamentals" AKA coping mechanisms.
To me the over all goal is accuracy, hitting the intended target with as small of a group dispersion as possible.
Both methods help to achieve the goal of accuracy. However improved equipment is not a perishable skill... I would recommend the lighter trigger so that one can focus on other aspects of "fundamentals", reducing variables.
To my understanding the premise is that, if group sizes get better when going to a lighter trigger, it is because a lack in fundamentals on the part of the shooter. Basically if the shooter had good fundamentals both groups should have been the same size.
To me this begs the question, what are "fundamentals?"
It also asks the question, "Why are fundamental needed?"
To me and my understanding the word in the context in which is it being used is as a skill or technique used while shooting. The goal being to steady the weapon while aiming to aid in hitting the target with a small group dispersion.
So, lest go down this rabbit trail.
Why are fundamentals needed? To my understanding precision shooters try to find ways, techniques, and tools, to limit the input of the shooter into the gun. Because the interaction between the shooter and the gun can impart additional variables into the shot.
The goal of fundamentals is to regulate the shooters body and reduce the input into the firearm.
For example, in this case, in relation to a trigger as a single variable. lets say 2 identical triggers with the exception of pull weight. say 5oz vs 5lb. With the 5lb trigger the shooter is imparting 5lb of force which is being imparted into the rifle. the shooter must then use "fundamentals" to counter the forces being imparted through the trigger to steady the rifle. with a 5oz trigger significantly less force and shooter input is being imparted into the rifle and this less compensation and or "technique" is needed.
In short fundamentals are a coping mechanism to counter deficiencies in the firearm, or reduce human error being imparted into the rifle.
So the question becomes. Does one focus on building and maintaining a perishable skills, AKA "fundamentals". Or does one invest in better equipment, in this case a trigger, reducing the need for "fundamentals" AKA coping mechanisms.
To me the over all goal is accuracy, hitting the intended target with as small of a group dispersion as possible.
Both methods help to achieve the goal of accuracy. However improved equipment is not a perishable skill... I would recommend the lighter trigger so that one can focus on other aspects of "fundamentals", reducing variables.