Second-strikers

[random guy]

Quote:
"As I said though, this is a continuum with potentially every shade in between."


This doesn't help your argument. What this means is that even if you know for certain the precise amount of mainspring compression performed by the trigger, it doesn't help you categorize the pistol because there are no officially defined boundaries in the continuum to compare that precise number against.

The trigger is already categorized as DA or SA according to the simple definition. That is the easy part but as already said, even that gets screwed up and abused. There is more to know than that though. By looking at pre-tension, we are comparing one DA to the wide spectrum and perhaps recognizing that at the very high percentages (guessing 90%+), some would perform as de facto SAs in addition to those which are literally SAs.

It's individual preference but I find the percentage helpful to know when considering a gun which is not in my hands. YMMV.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

Speaking of strawmen. DA vs SA is extremely simple and not the bigger issue although knowing the percentage might prevent a lot of the confusion which some labor under. 99% pre-cocked is hard to misunderstand. I can easily understand how people look at a striker pistol with no manual safety and assume that it must be DA or "like a Glock". It's an entirely reasonable assumption. But often wrong.

Knowing the degree of pre-tension (even an accurate approximation) blows that illusion away instantly.

 

[muzzleblast...]

I agree with the opinion that second strike capability is over rated. If first strike doesn't result in a bang, odds are that the hammer dropped on an empty chamber. And, in the event that the malfunction is ammo related, odds are a second strike won't result in a bang. Click = tap + rack...

 

[gc70]

It is very important to understand that some trigger kits FUNDAMENTALLY change the operation of the trigger and can not only disable passive safeties which depend on trigger travel for proper operation, but can even effectively transform a DA hybrid variant into what is, for all practical purposes, a single-action design. I'm not saying the Apex trigger kit fits that description, but I am saying one should keep in mind that you don't get something for nothing when physics are involved.

"In practice the difference is clear" and "very easy to understand" so why hedge instead of giving a definitive answer? Photos of the example should provide all that is needed to reach such a clear and easily understood conclusion.

Of course, a definitive answer might demonstrate the problems with eyeballing trigger travel or spring compression to try to determine trigger type.

...

Just call the actions pre-cocked and quit trying to arbitrarily shoehorn them into definitions that do not fit.

 

[random guy]

Of course, a definitive answer might demonstrate the problems with eyeballing trigger travel or spring compression to try to determine trigger type.

Conversely, relying solely on exact striker pre-tension could "lie" to us as well. It would be entirely possible to take a crisp true SA trigger and add takeup and return spring to the point that it would be hard to tell it from a TDA trigger. It would still technically be SA but with similar performance and safety to DA, at least for the first shot.

I'm not sure that anyone is taking that approach though.

Even though layers of levers, springs and gadgets may make one trigger feel like something else, knowing what type it truly is (and its level of "double action-ness") is a good starting point.

 

[gc70]

It would be entirely possible to take a crisp true SA trigger and add takeup and return spring to the point that it would be hard to tell it from a TDA trigger.

Many would argue that is the case with the S&W M&P trigger.

 

[random guy]

Many would argue that is the case with the S&W M&P trigger.

In my M&P M2.0s (don't think I've ever shot the original) I don't think they even disguised the SA trigger very much. There is some very light takeup though.

 

[JohnKSa]

Speaking of strawmen. DA vs SA is extremely simple and not the bigger issue...

A strawman created while accusing someone else of a strawman!

The challenge wasn't just about DA vs SA. Here's what my challenge actually was--I've added some emphasis to highlight that there was obviously more to it than just differentiating DA from SA.

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

Knowing the degree of pre-tension (even an accurate approximation) blows that illusion away instantly.

I agree. I would go even further and say that even a rough approximation is sufficient.

"In practice the difference is clear" and "very easy to understand" so why hedge instead of giving a definitive answer? Photos of the example should provide all that is needed to reach such a clear and easily understood conclusion.

I get that you're trying to be witty and sarcastic but I'll go ahead and answer your question straightforwardly since the topic is important.

1. In practice, the difference between trigger kits that don't disable passive safeties and those that do is not at all clear to most people. Nor is it necessarily easy to understand how trigger kits can disable passive safeties and even change the trigger from a DA variant to one that is SA for all practical purposes.

2. I can't give a definitive answer about the Apex trigger kits because I have not examined them or studied them. If you want to send me one of their kits for evaluation, contact me via PM for more information. I'll be happy to evaluate it thoroughly and provide a careful analysis here.

3. For people who need more visual input, here is a video in lieu of the suggested photos demonstrating one particular trigger kit (the brand is concealed by the videographer) which disables passive safeties and virtually eliminates the pre-travel which would normally perform mainspring compression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRXZwslXoE

Just call the actions pre-cocked and quit trying to arbitrarily shoehorn them into definitions that do not fit.

I agree that it's unwise to try to pretend that the various DA variants all fit into exactly the same category or can be defined exactly alike. Which is why I wouldn't be for simply calling them all "pre-cocked". For one thing, there are some that aren't, and for another, even for those that are, there is value in understanding how the continuum of trigger-cocking affects safety, safeties and general operation.

 

[gc70]

I get that you're trying to be witty and sarcastic but I'll go ahead and answer your question straightforwardly since the topic is important.

No, I quoted you about how simple and easy you claim it is to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms as a direct contrast to your unwillingness or inability to categorize a specific trigger mechanism.

Nevertheless ... I'm sure I will not persuade you to abandon your preference for a subjective approach and you will not persuade me that a consistent and verifiable standard is not appropriate.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, I quoted you about how simple and easy you claim it is to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms as a direct contrast to your unwillingness or inability to categorize a specific trigger mechanism.

Ok, I'll give it another shot, but it seems like I'm having to spend more time correcting misquotes/mischaracterizations of my previous posts than defending my actual position in this debate.

1. I haven't claimed that it was "simple and easy to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms". I have said repeatedly that it is not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works. I've also issued repeated unanswered challenges for anyone to prove this assertion incorrect by providing a counterexample.

2. Even if I had made a claim about visual differentiation (which I haven't), it doesn't automatically follow that being able to easily visually differentiate between trigger types would translate into being able to easily visually determine if a trigger kit disabled passive safeties or converted a particular pistol's fundamental trigger action. I suppose it might in some cases, but it certainly wouldn't be a given.

3. Since I never claimed to have seen an Apex trigger kit, or photos thereof, nor claimed that it was easy to visually differentiate trigger mechanisms, nor that it was easy to visually differentiate whether or not a trigger kit could disable a passive safety or change the classification of the trigger function, your post is not only logically problematic in multiple ways, it is also founded on a fundamental mischaracterization of my position.

I'm sure I will not persuade you to abandon your preference for a subjective approach and you will not persuade me that a consistent and verifiable standard is not appropriate.

I haven't said that a verifiable standard is inappropriate, I've said that it's not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works.

I have also pointed out that even if one did know the precise mainspring compression amounts, because official standards do not exist, we still wouldn't have any more precise categorization than we can already achieve.

And I haven't been arguing for a subjective approach or said that I preferred a subjective analysis as much as I have been pointing out that it's not necessary to have precise objective numbers "to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works." In other words, I'm not saying that a subjective approach is wonderful and I prefer it--I'm saying that we don't need precise numbers to gain an accurate and practical understanding of what's going on with a trigger mechanism.

 

[random guy]

Can you provide an example of a trigger type where it is necessary to know the precise amount of cocking action that the trigger performs in order to accurately classify the trigger as DA, SA or as some double-action variant and then describe how it works?

No. It is not necessary to know any precise measurement to classify a trigger or describe its general function. Reasonably accurate is good enough to get the basic idea. It's not about precise measurements but why would you not want an accurate approximation? When denoting a point on the continuum, a number is a very practical way to communicate the fact.

When shopping for exotic supercars , I know they are expensive but I want to know how expensive. A number works great.

As said, this number is only the starting point in some instances but it's not a bad one. It tells you upfront the work that the trigger still must perform, through whatever leverage and with whatever springs and safeties piled on top. The ultimate trigger knowledge comes from pulling the trigger but short of that several key numbers and a minimal amount of subjective description is pretty good.

 

[gc70]

I haven't said that a verifiable standard is inappropriate, I've said that it's not necessary to know the "precise mainspring compression amounts" to be able to accurately categorize a trigger and explain how it works.

I have not asked for any highly precise number.

I invited you in post #55 to identify the range -in 25% increments- of mainspring compression that you considered to be "significant" ... to which you replied in post #60 that precise numbers were not necessary.

Forget precision to multiple decimal places - an answer in the nature of "more(less) than half" would suffice.

 

[JohnKSa]

I invited you in post #55 to identify the range -in 25% increments- of mainspring compression that you considered to be "significant" ... to which you replied in post #60 that precise numbers were not necessary.

You need to re-read your post #55. The question about the range isn't asking what I consider to be significant mainspring compression, it's asking what amount of mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer.

"So how much would a mainspring have to be compressed before it would be capable of igniting a primer? <25%? 25%-50%? 50%-75%? >75%? "

I didn't respond before because I considered the question nonsensical.

If you really want a response, I would answer with a question: "How much would an accelerator need to be compressed before the car would go 60mph? <25%? 25%-50%? 50%-75%? >75%?"

Obviously neither question can be answered without a lot more information being provided.

Forget precision to multiple decimal places - an answer in the nature of "more(less) than half" would suffice.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along? Because I really thought it was. And every time I said it I was met with accusations of being imprecise, unclear or ambiguous.

It's not about precise measurements but why would you not want an accurate approximation?

I didn't say I do "not want an accurate approximation". In fact, I've spent a good deal of time coming up with accurate approximations of mainspring compression by slide/trigger for a few types of striker fired pistols.

What I've said repeatedly is that it's not necessary to have a precise number to classify a trigger as to its functional type/variant nor to explain/understand how it works.

I'm a data guy, that's what I do for a living. I like numbers and I like precise numbers even more. But part of dealing with data and how it relates to the real world is understanding when precision is necessary and when it's not. I know pi out to 50 decimal places off the top of my head, but do you think I ever actually poke that many digits into a calculator when I'm calculating the circumference of a circle? Of course not. Because even accurate interplanetary navigation only requires 15 decimal places.

 

[gc70]

You need to re-read your post #55. The question about the range isn't asking what I consider to be significant mainspring compression, it's asking what amount of mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer.

You are just avoiding the question. Why are you even interested in mainspring compression if not for the mainspring's ability to be released to ignite a primer and fire a round?

But I do understand the preference for a subjective definition over an observable or measurable standard that would hinder arbitrarily labeling guns.

 

[JohnKSa]

You are just avoiding the question.

The question, as posed, can't be answered. One would need a lot more information to begin to be able to formulate a coherent answer as to how much mainspring compression is required to ignite a primer. Here are some examples but this is just the beginning of the list.

1. What type of primer is being used.
2. Does the firing pin have a conventional round tip or a reduced area tip as found in Glocks.
3. What amount of energy is required for the type of primer being used when combined with the type of firing pin tip being employed.
4. What is the mass of the firing pin--with that information the required velocity could be calculated.
etc.
I already provided a pretty thorough explanation of some of the problems with this approach in post #46.

Why are you even interested in mainspring compression if not for the mainspring's ability to be released to ignite a primer and fire a round?

Yeah, I was beginning to think that perhaps part of the problem here was a loss of context. Go back and re-read the thread from the beginning. That will explain to you what this discussion is about and why mainspring compression is of interest.

But I do understand the preference for a subjective definition over an observable or measurable standard that would hinder arbitrarily labeling guns.

I'm not in favor of subjective definitions, or arbitrary labels. If you re-read the thread you'll see this is true. In fact, in post #69 I explicitly stated that I was not arguing in favor of subjective definitions. And in post #67 I stated that I agreed that arbitrary definitions were unwise.

If you want to know what I'm in favor of and what this discussion is about, there's ample information already posted in this thread to explain it--it's not really productive for me to keep reiterating things that I've already posted or referring you back to my previous posts. Of course, if re-reading the thread so that you have a correct understanding of my position is too much work, you can just continue to try to put words in my mouth.