Are they making these for people who are not great shooters to make them better at shooting?
Honest question along these lines. Don’t we want manufacturers to make firearms that are more conducive to easier shooting? The lease hear me out.
I don’t want a pistol with abysmal sights. With the focus issues due to my vision I really benefit from a red dot on a pistol. Even without that I benefit from a good set of iron sights that are readily viewable rather than nubs. These features are to an extent enabling me to shoot better. Does that make the inclusion of these features inherently wrong?
Now a good counter to the above is a trigger has a direct impact on safety. Even if I would argue identifying your target in relation to your sights also has an impact on safety, I accept that critique. My question is, and I had a thread about this not long ago, is where is that line where we cross from a trigger that can be shot well but is safe to a trigger that can be shot well but is unsafe?
On a hammer fired pistol you can use a hammer spring that runs the gamut, or on a striker fired pistol the same is true of the striker spring. Besides ensuring more reliable ignition of the cartridge, they also increase the trigger pull. A manufacturer can (and some do) make trigger pulls that border or exceed 12 lb. That requires more force, simply speaking, than an 8 lb. trigger. Does that mean to be safe we should have 12 lb. triggers? As a side effect the pistol will generally be harder to shoot well in terms of maintaining that sight picture while the trigger is pressed to the rear than that 8 lb. trigger (assuming all other aspects of the trigger are the same).
This isn’t me saying I think any and all trigger weights and lengths of travel are fine. I have my own specifications that I wouldn’t go below. My point is simply a firearms manufacturer making a product that is easier to shoot for the end user isn’t inherently a bad thing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk