Seemed like the skeletal triggers took over from original solid triggers, now it seems it's moving back in the other direction.

The skeletal triggers seemed to be a "target" thing and solid triggers the "tactical" thing.

I personally like the look of the skeletal triggers most of the time and less the solid triggers.

What is your preference when and why?

I have one 1911 with a solid trigger and two with skeleton triggers. I sense no difference in the way they shoot or feel. But I do prefer the looks of the skeleton triggers just from a cosmetic standpoint.

Unless that single pistol needed other work, I would not pay for another trigger.

They both seem to function the same for me. Honestly, I don't really pay attention to what the trigger looks like.

I'm wondering about the rationale of the skeletal triggers. I assume there was some functional reason, like weight or something.

While I have a preference for the appearance of solid triggers, I have 1911s with skeletals, too.

If / when I make a trigger change, it’s to a solid one. It’s just a cosmetic thing for me, really.

I've had both over the past 40 years. No functional difference between the two.

Nowadays, I prefer the solid and consider the skeletal somewhat of an affectation. Use whichever you want.

Solid. I am slowly having my gunsmith install Harrison custom medium solid smooth face triggers in all my 1911’s. Perfect in my opinion. YMMV.

Don't have a preference of solid or skeletal. Trigger shape is more important (to me anyway) as I am partial for an ENOS top curve trigger.

I prefer the solid trigger, but it's pretty much just a cosmetic thing for me.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGWolf:
I'm wondering about the rationale of the skeletal triggers. I assume there was some functional reason, like weight or something.

If I'm not mistaken, it started when gunsmiths started doing trigger jobs with light pulls on 1911s. The reduced hammer/sear engagement combined with the heavier solid trigger could, under some circumstances, cause another round to fire, or even go full auto (at least theoretically). Colt Gold Cups had a sear depressor spring to mitigate the risk of this happening. Lighter triggers allowed for a lighter pull without the risk.

No difference in performance, but I prefer the solid type. All the creative holes and designs in triggers seem like an affectation to me too. Especially the 3-hole type, that has apparently become a fashion necessity in order for a 1911 type pistol to be considered custom, tactical, Operator/Ninja grade or whatever

Since I was going for as much of a classic look as possible, I ordered my custom 1911 (Ed Brown) with a solid trigger.

Lighter, yes. But not in the over all weight of the gun, but in travel and reset.

I like long triggers and I think solid long triggers look awful. Like something on a cheap toy gun.

As painful as they are to me to pay for and despite how non traditional they look, I love the Infinity triggers.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGWolf:
I'm wondering about the rationale of the skeletal triggers. I assume there was some functional reason, like weight or something.

My understanding was that of a lower weight, less inertia and faster shuttle speed, for a lack of better term. I've a couple of full customs with solid triggers that were lightened to the extent possible, metal removal and drilled holes in their bows, done on gunsmith's discretion.

Same / same for me. the only difference seems cosmetic.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
Don't have a preference of solid or skeletal. Trigger shape is more important (to me anyway) as I am partial for an ENOS top curve trigger.

Interesting idea there.

I prefer the skeletal due only for its aesthetics, especially if there's a match hammer on board. The rounded holes in my E-series Scandium's trigger bow however, that I could do without. Looks like the lightening holes racers would do in door handles, steel dashboards and brake, clutch and accelerator pedals; but it's kinda dorky looking on a 1911 trigger. As for how either of them works, they're about the same to me. I will say that I've come to like straight faced triggers on 1911s more than curved. Just seems to make more sense with a linear travel trigger on a relatively narrow framed gun, even with my short fingers.

You guys are all missing the obvious problem that can occur when in a gunfight with a Ninja. One precisely tossed toothpick will lock up that skeleton trigger and get you killed.

Seriously, I have some of each. I prefer solid on short triggers and skeletal on mediums. Esthetic reasons only.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Same / same for me. the only difference seems cosmetic.

I'm in the same boat. I have several 1911's that are set up for bullseye. I've changed the trigger on one gun several times using both solid and skeletal designs, and I can't tell the difference in terms of weight.

I have both on 1911's. All my 1911 triggers are curved and not straight, but I have some that came from the factory with lightening holes, or other cutouts, and solid. It makes absolutely no difference.

Appearance to me is a concept for show and tell. I care how it shoots and functions.

The issue of weight on the trigger is a red herring. It's nothing more than a prop to push with, and the weight doesn't make any significant difference. I have a Dlask trigger that I put on a Springfield Compact 25 years ago when I thought a light titanium trigger would be the way to go.

It doesn't make any difference. Put what appeals to you on there. It's not the trigger shoe that matters, anyway; it's the back end.

Light triggers became popular (or necessary) when gunsmiths started doing lighter trigger jobs. Hammer hooks got shorter and sear faces got thinner. Also some used less pressure on the sear spring leg. The idea was/is a trigger with less mass would be less likely to cause the hammer to follow thru when the slide was dropped.
My $ .02