I was on another branded gun forum reading about stuff concerning my newest HK. Long thread and my least favorite diatribe pops up. The dreaded you shouldn't do THAT you should spend that money on ammo and training.

I hate this trope. There are no other avenues of my life where someone will so adamantly tell me to not improve my widget and instead seek training and such. I have never bought better tires and had anyone tell me I should stick with OEM and just drive more and seek instruction with the stock tires.

It is maddening. I hate hearing AGAIN how it is the man behind the trigger that matters. Well of course it is but that ignores that most people who do something extremely well also take an interest in making their equipment personalized to their likes and dislikes. Even Roy Hobbs whittled his own bat out of his childhood tree.

All things being equal, reasonable intelligent mods to your gun will yield positive results. It really is hard for me to fathom why some refuse to accept that. They always jump in with the straw man argument, all that nonsense won't make up for not training. Who ever said training wasn't important?

If grip tape makes you shoot better then use grip tape. If a trigger job on a duty style gun makes it a better shooter then why not? Over there they kept referring to expensive competition triggers and ignored that there are plenty of duty grade trigger jobs.

I don't understand the angst of doing a trigger job that makes a gun much easier to hit with and faster if it can be done without compromising safety and reliability. Which it can. The TJIAB is an easy example. Best 160 bucks I ever spent on a Beretta.

Yes training and repetition are king. Assuming you are doing that why is there still angst about smoothing out and lightening your trigger? Is this a striker thing to keep the TDA guys down? Most strikers are roughly about where they are going to be out of the box. My TDA guns nearly all can be improved massively with some tlc and some better trigger components. My CZ's languished for years until I rediscovered Cajun. Beretta kind of the same story. A 92 with a decent and easy to do trigger job is night and day easier to shoot well.

Why the angst? The guy over there kept saying stock was "perfectly adequate". I rarely strive for perfectly adequate in life unless it's a pass/fail exam. I like way better than adequate. Am I fucked up? (probably yes)

Air rifles need some trigger work to shoot accurately. RWS Model 36 has an adjustable trigger that makes a world of difference compared to the factory setting.

Aren’t we all individuals? There’s a whole assortment of options one can do to improve use of a firearm for their intended application.

There can be general guidelines that apply, but come on, we don’t have to agree on everything or do it in lockstep with each other.

How boring it would be if we all deer hunted with a Remington 700 in 30-06.

My best friend treats all things firearm related like a tool. As in I don’t need a fancy hammer. He shoots decently but when I hand him one of mine that has been smoothed out a bit (such as my LTT Elite) his shooting improves noticeably.

I keep telling him if he buys the TJIAB I will install it or show him how and he is meh. Now mind you this guy is a multi millionaire with a great job and a dozen different rental properties. It’s just not important to him. That I can wrap my head around. He sees the value it just isn’t a priority. If he can hit the A zone he doesn’t care if the group is smaller and he did it faster. I don’t understand that part but whatever.

It’s like there is an aversion to gunsmithing. Which I find odd because this country has a long history of gunsmithing.

I like to tinker on guns. On guns for what I consider real use I keep it very reasonable and don’t go “crazy”. On a Ruger MkIII I go all out. Lol

I agree to each their own. I don’t understand the pushback on improving your tool of choice.

I have a couple of guns with trigger work; a 26 x-five all-round came with a really good trigger. I sent it to Bruce Gray for the C.R.A.P. (I really think that's what they called it, but whatever) they sent it to Mordor below the volcano where Orcs took off the rough parts then elves smoothed it and petted it and it is absolutely amazing. I used it for uspsa and it was worth every penny of the improvement cost.

We're down the road a bit now and my routine carry is a p365 with the smoothing that comes with a few hundred rounds through it. That's it and I want it that way on purpose.

The thing about this is that both are the way they are because that's the way I want them. I also don't want to argue about every element of gun lore and I particularly don't want to be counseled by range Karens on what I need to do.

Well the thread in question the OP asked for opinions on trigger work. I don’t know if that qualifies as “range Karen’s” or not but if you ask then expect answers.

My angst isn’t against people who keep things stock. The majority of my collection is box stock. My angst is a knee jerk “save your money and use it on ammo and training” response. This response ignores the fact that many people already do that and are looking to improve their performance and experience.

There is a segment of our gun world that literally thinks a trigger job is a crutch rather rather just an improvement to a stock item. They think it diminishes the gun and the shooter. That is what I don’t understand. I don’t understand the idea that adequate is always good enough. Sometimes it is, as my gunshelf bears out. If you can manufacture amazing though it is sometimes worth the cost and effort.

Internet commandos…. Don’t sharpen your knives, learn to use a dull one. ? Say what? Inferior equipment, gives you a better challenge?

Ignore them. I love a decent trigger!

My only argument would be to do it yourself.

I always figured any tool can be improved.
If you don't think so, that's up to you.
Just don't try and tell me I shouldn't do it.
Your opinion to short-sight an opportunity is irrelevant to me.

+1. All of my Sigs have been sent to Bruce Gray.

My least favorite angst with trigger jobs is the so called self-defense issue that supposedly accompanies a trigger job. Perhaps if you live in a commie shithole, but I live in a free state where you're either justified in pulling the trigger or you weren't.

The gun in question was an HK P30L V3 Which is the DA/SA version. (not my gun this was the OP over there). I’ve never handled a single DA/SA HK that had a good trigger in DA. My Expert 45 is as good as I have felt and it would benefit from some trigger love. In fact, if they ever come back in stock I will probably convert it to LEM.

Because every keyboard warrior/poor online thinks everyone has never operated a firearm and with proper training you can run a Glock like a 2011 Open division race gun. While if you’re starting out, it’s a very good idea to know what you’re doing before spending bunches of money on a hobby you don’t have much experience with, these same idiots never seem to think that maybe we’ve had that training and want something nicer.

You can almost label then tactical fudds.

It's YOUR gun, right?

Then YOU DO whatever YOU damn well want to it!


If you were a beginner, yes, I'd probably recommend you shoot a bunch of rounds through it, hit a class or two. After that, then start changing things- trigger job, different controls, mag well, sights... But after you figure out how it shoots; what the differences are between different trigger jobs, different types of sights, springs...

But that's me, and apparently some of the members here as well.

Then there's the rest of the Internet. Obviously a bunch of people who know WAY, WAY more than most every one else in the world. In my experience, most of them suffer from the "Dunning Kruger" effect.

In my opinion, it’s no different than the competition between different manufacturers. GLOCK becomes the standard and then Walther comes out with a more ergonomic frame, back grip panels, and a much better trigger, HK comes out with the VP9 and meets that but adds more more custom grip features with side panel replacements. SIG comes out and instead of panels it offers different frames and triggers. GLOCK responds with a G4 and then G5 models and the cycle continues. A good gunsmith shop like GCI, Wilson, Ranger Point Precision, etc. are no different in my opinion.

Sometimes people like to complain just to complain. And, sometimes, because they can’t afford your gun and/or a custom package, they complain because it makes them feel better somehow. It’s like those who complain when forum members 12131 or bac1023 post pictures of some new high-end gun purchase. I could never afford one but I enjoy vicariously “owning one” through their sharing of pictures. Others, just complain when they post.

Now, if someone really wants to complain, let’s complain about paying the manufacturer to do a trigger job on their own firearm. Shouldn’t they be manufacturing a good trigger to start with (looking at Benelli & S&W, for example).

Your friend wants to keep his pistol stock. My friend wants his HK’s to have Grey guns short trigger reset. Then his Beretta 96 was rattling and wanted that tuned. Then his S&W K frame had a heavy double action trigger pull. Yep, some people like stock. Some people seek better than stock.

First off, HK's are infamous for their lousy triggers. HK and their apologists like to rationalize that true operators don't need fancy, schmancy trigger jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
My angst is a knee jerk “save your money and use it on ammo and training” response. This response ignores the fact that many people already do that and are looking to improve their performance and experience.

There is a segment of our gun world that literally thinks a trigger job is a crutch rather rather just an improvement to a stock item. They think it diminishes the gun and the shooter. That is what I don’t understand.

It's not a binary choice. In shooting and almost every other sport, there are a lot of people who spend more time trying to buy their performance gains rather than training. They take the 'work smarter, not harder' aphorism too far.

People who are serious about improvement look to work smarter & harder. You practice a lot. You try different things. You develop a better sense of personal tastes & preferences and learn what works best for you. Some people enjoy that kind of trial & error journey, while others just want to be given something dependable and not have to worry about it.

Do you know people who always drink the same beer, eat the same food, who criticize others for exploring their palate? Same idea.

I don't understand all of the hoopla . I don't get offended if somebody has a different opinion as long as it doesn't sink to the level of a personal attack . In other words , ignore the critic . You do you .

I don't have any "angst" about what others do. My "angst," such as it is, is with modifying a gun before it has even been shot; with poorly chosen or executed mods (a bad trigger job, in particular, can get one in legal trouble); and (alluded to earlier) a substitute for training and practice.

“Trying to buy performance improvement” is a subject that I’ve heard and seen discussed since long before I came to this site, but I have two basic questions that haven’t ever been addressed except in such a general way as to be essentially meaningless.

The first is “get training.” Okay, what kind? I once posted a question about a friend’s problem with an Accuracy International bipod that had no way of locking or even resisting its cant; i.e., unless the gun was constantly held in place, it would tilt freely to one side. When I asked if there was any way of dealing with that inconvenience (and its hindrance to good accuracy), some brilliant pundit here said, “He should get some training.” When I asked what training courses dealt with that specific issue, it was of course silence.

I myself have attended any number of commercial training courses over the years: the good, the worthless, and the bad. One three-day course by a famous trainer who has even written a book was so bad* that I walked out the morning of the second day when the main guy took over the “training” (the first whole day was by an adjunct instructor whose methods and presentation were at least tolerable). I once paid for a multi-day course but then simply didn’t attend after I found out who the instructor would be (and was glad I didn’t when I heard about something that had happened). There’s a law enforcement sniping authority who has written at least three books on the subject and who has adamantly stated that if someone hasn’t been to a formal LE sniping course that he’s not a “real” LE sniper. He also stated, though, that the first course he attended was worthless. So, which is it? A formal course is necessary to turn someone into a real LE sniper, but some courses are a total waste of time, effort, ammunition, and money. Huh, hello; are you there, McFly—?

* (Among other gems: “Don’t dry fire. Dry firing teaches bad habits.”)

On the other hand, I attended a James Yeager course and despite how some of his methods were (rightly) reviled and he was often criticized for other reasons, it was actually some of the best handgun training I’ve received over the decades.

And those are just the examples I can cite from my own personal experiences as someone who has had a long history of both receiving and giving formal instruction. One of the problems with “get training” is that most people simply don’t have that experience as a basis for judging what is good, bad, or worthless. Someone goes to his first course and as long as the instructors have a good line of patter and a few jokes to liven things up at times, “It was great. I fired two thousand rounds and got my draw times down from 8.5 seconds to under four at the end of the week.”

So, what training should I get and why? What are your own qualifications to make that recommendation? How much training have you had to give you the experience to know what to recommend and what to avoid? Is getting my draw times down from 8.5 seconds to under four something that I need to do? If so, why?
How much is it, and will it cost no more than the $200 I spend on an upgraded rifle trigger, especially if I add in the cost of transportation and lodging at a remote site? If the new trigger won’t improve my performance, how will that training you recommend make me better? Give specific examples (no, “It was fantastic,” isn’t sufficient). Are you prepared to reimburse me for all my expenses if your recommendation was wrong? Hmmm …?

The other question I have is about the common “You’re trying to buy improved performance” sneer when someone talks about purchasing an equipment upgrade of some sort.

First, anyone who claims to believe that performance cannot be improved by having better hardware is either a fool or so inexperienced with firearms and shooting as to have no business whatsoever giving advice about the subject.
“I’d like to learn to shoot fast and accurately. I currently have this Clerk 1st revolver in 32 S&W, but I’ve heard that the SIG P320 is a good gun and I’m thinking of getting that. What do you think?”
“Just keep what you have, buy a bunch of ammo [assuming you can find any], and get some training. Stop trying to buy performance by getting the P320.”

Yes, that’s an extreme example, but the simple fact is that improvements in hardware sometimes permit improvements in performance. One LE sniper I knew had a Remington 700 with a horrible trigger, and he struggled with accuracy. I finally convinced him to have it cleaned up by a competent gunsmith and when he got it back his shooting improved immediately—even without any extra training, if we can believe that. Or how about the friend who decided that his 6.5 Creedmoor rifles were a little light for the elk he had hunted with them, and bought a 300 Win Mag for that purpose. Should he have just found some training to teach him how to better use the 6.5?

But, you say, “That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m referring to someone who thinks switching to a Wilson Combat grip module for his P365 will turn him into an IDPA Grand Master without all the inconvenience and expense of training and practice.”

Okay, fair enough. First, though, if someone thinks that, we probably don’t have to tell him he may be disappointed. More to my point, however, do we actually know anyone like that? Are they truly foolish enough to express such a thought out loud? I’ve made countless changes to my shooting gear and have known many other shooters who’ve done the same. Sometimes I think that a change will improve my shooting, and sometimes it does, but other times it’s just a matter of convenience. I recently acquired a new quite expensive scope for my “precision” Ruger 77/22 in hopes that its better eye box would make using it easier than what I was using before—and it did. My groups aren’t any smaller, but I don’t find myself struggling as much to get into proper position behind the gun.

But if we know what people are thinking without even asking or their volunteering their motives, how do we know? Mind reading? Is that something we can learn if we get some training?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

What he said. Well put sigfruend.

I really love this forum. Over there there was another thread, do you prefer V1 or V3 and why or something like that. So I answered the question. The same guy from the other thread instantly jumps in. I told him that if he had a box stock ninjamaster and a ninjamaster with a good trigger job, better sights, and grips that worked for him better that he would improve both his times and his accuracy. His response? I can beat you with my stock gun over your fancy gun (which is the same gun with a few GG parts). Hmmm, ok. Then he says that in a self defense gun, good enough is good enough. That place is fucked.

Excluding oddities like, for example, the Polish P64 or Nagant revolver, very few guns have triggers so bad that they are unusable. A good shooter can still work with most stock factory triggers. An already poor shooter won't be helped by the modest or incremental improvement from a trigger job. Put another way, if your shots are spraying all over or even missing entirely, you need to work on the trigger you already have. A lot of the roughness felt in triggers in modern, quality guns can be smoothed out by simple shooting and dry-firing, which goes back to practice.