While thumb-triggers might offer obvious advantage for shooters whose index fingers don't work well, what do you think about the claim of it being more physiologically conducive to accurate shooting?



Iron Horse Firearms has been offering thumb actuated AR's for a little while.


"Iron Horse "Special Purpose Rifle" chambered in .223 Wylde.

The Thumb Operated Receiver(TOR) was invented by US Marines to cure trigger jerk, trigger pull, and other trigger actuation involved shooting errors. The IHA1 series rifles offer the latest lever driven fire technology on the market."

https://ironhorsefirearms.com/iron-horse-spr/

Here is a recent review:




Here is a 1902 Winchester:

https://www.forgottenweapons.c...thumb-trigger-rifle/



"The Winchester Thumb Trigger rifle was a very inexpensive boy’s rifle developed from the Model 1902. It is a single-shot .22 rimfire bolt action system, on which the trigger was replaced by a thumb-activated sear behind the bolt. In theory, this was to allow greater accuracy by requiring less force acting to disrupt your point of aim when firing. It was also a simpler and thus cheaper mechanism to manufacture. About 75,000 of these rifles were sold, including many exported to Australia, interestingly."

The concept goes way back:

saw that yesterday. It is a concept that seems to have a place for a certain group of shooters.

Thanks. Learning something new all the time.

I could certainly see the value of the thumb trigger for someone like the LEO who lost part of his trigger finger to his dog. I can also see advantages to the Iron Horse design, but of course the obvious disadvantage for most of us would be the major “manual of arms” change, and especially if switching back and forth between guns with the thumb or normal trigger.

Never heard of that. Many ways to skin the cat....that's cool.

Regarding the Winchester's mechanism/design, on the 'elegant vs. crude' continuum my vote goes to elegant!