Safest Glock Gen5 trigger enhancements

[44 AMP]

As I recall, the US Military felt the lightest weight a trigger pull should be, on a 1911, to pass inspection, was 5.5-6.5 pounds.

That’s on a gun with a manual thumb safety and a grip safety.

The military is an admirable institution with many fine and valid ideas. Some are simply not "optimal" for civilians.

The military also required the gun to be carried holstered, in condition 3. Chamber EMPTY, hammer down....a fine, and safe method of carry, particularly when you are looking at carry by literally thousands of young men who were not well trained pistol users.

I was in the military when the 1911-A1 was still being issued and I can tell you that there were valid reasons to replace the 1911 when they did, but I have always questioned replacing a .45 ACP service pistol with a 9mm alternative.

I was also in the military (Army) when the 1911A1 was the standard service pistol, as a Small Arms Repairman in the 70s. I handled and instpected a lot of 1911A1s and even a few 1911s that were still in service. Some of those guns had spent virtually their entire service lives in arms rooms, and some had "been through the wars"...but every one was serviceable, by the official GI standards.

Of the thousands of 45 pistols within my areas of responsibility, only 3 ever came to my shop for repair, and all 3 of them were due to user caused damage.

The reason the US military replaced the .45 when they did (mid 80s) was because the very newest 1911A1s in the inventory were purchased in 1945. While they were still serviceable, all were old, and a great many of them were worn and sloppy due to generations of GIs taking them apart and putting them back together, racking slides, dry firing and other wise generally playing with them, OUTSIDE of actual use in combat.

Replacing the .45 with the 9mm was the result of a political deal, from the late 1950s. At the time, we were pushing to have our new rifle round (7.62x51) adopted by NATO. In exchange for NATO adopting our rifle round as standard, we agreed that we would adopt their pistol round (9mm Luger) as our standard, when we replaced our .45s. The Europeans got a bit put out when we didn't replace our 45s within a few years as they expected us to do, but we did keep our word, and when we finally did replace our .45s, the replacement pistol was a 9mm.

I'm not a Glock fan, quite the opposite, but I have shot them, and found the trigger "slap" against my finger to be uncomfortable.

I have no suggestions about modifications to the GLock, other than to replace it with a different pistol, if possible. Just my opinion, lots of people feel otherwise.

 

[JohnKSa]

There is little to no stored energy until pulling the trigger.

The striker spring is about halfway compressed by length when the trigger is forward. That equates to about 25% of the energy that would be stored at full compression.

 

[Sgt127]

There is enough stored energy in a Glock, at “rest” to fire a primer at least 75% of the time from my experiments.

 

[Nathan]

There is enough stored energy in a Glock, at “rest” to fire a primer at least 75% of the time from my experiments.

That is interesting….care to share some details?

 

[Sgt127]

Sure. Mark where the striker is at rest. Through the mag well.

Disassemble the slide. Remove the firing pin block assembly. Chamber a primed case.

Draw the striker back to the marked “at rest semi cocked” position. Let the striker go.

 

[JohnKSa]

The striker position isn't visible through the mag well.

 

[Sgt127]

You are correct. That may have been a Kahr. I tried this with all the striker fired guns I owned at the time.

I think I used an inspection plate on the Glock.

I just grabbed a Glock 35. Removed the rear plate.

Using a set of calipers, I pressed down on the plastic sleeve until it was flush.

Extending the tail (depths measure of the calipers, the end of the striker was 13.61 MM with the striker past the firing pin safety.

With the striker resting on the firing pin safety, 11.55 MM.

In cocked mode, the tail of the striker was 5.74 MM to the end.

As I pressed the trigger, when the sear tripped, it measured 1.73 MM.

Roughly 4 MM of movement.

So from “at rest”. On the firing pin safety. 11.55 MM to fire 1.73 mm. Round it to 10MM of travel.

11.55 MM to semi cocked, at 5.74 MM. and, 1.73 MM more movement to fire.

That is a lot of pre loaded energy.

I’ll pull a couple bullets and try it again. But, I know the last time I tried this. The gun fired more often than not.

 

[JohnKSa]

On the firing pin safety. 11.55 MM to fire 1.73 mm. Round it to 10MM of travel.

Pretty close to what I observed--I measured 10.2mm of total compression

11.55 MM to semi cocked, at 5.74 MM.

That's about 5.8mm of pre-compression. I measured 5-6mm of pre-compression.

With about 10mm of compression total that means the remaining 4-5mm of compression is performed by trigger travel.

Roughly half is pre-compression, the other half is applied by the trigger pull. Because of the way springs store energy, that means maybe 25% to 30% of the energy is stored by the pre-compression, the other 70% to 75% is done by the trigger pull.

One thing to keep in mind is that one can observe significant wear to the firing pin safety and firing pin where they make contact during normal operation. The firing pin safety doesn't quite get all the way out of the way of the firing pin. A completely representative test would leave the firing pin safety in place and try to compress it upwards the same amount that would be done with the gun in normal operation.

 

[wild cat mccane]

Correct me, but this sounds like real world the cocked at not 100% glock is no better than what would happen in a single action gun like a walther?

 

[TunnelRat]

Correct me, but this sounds like real world the cocked at not 100% glock is no better than what would happen in a single action gun like a walther?

In both cases you would need a catastrophic failure of internal components, a very poorly maintained firearm, and/or incorrectly done modification for a problem to manifest itself as a result of mechanical failure of the pistol itself.

Some people are comforted by the Glock being less cocked than say another striker fired pistol like the PPQ, P320, etc. Over the years we’ve had a number of threads that have debated, with anecdotal evidence both ways, whether or not a Glock striker has enough energy with a round chambered to ignite a primer. In order for that to happen in the first place the drop safety would have to fail to allow the trigger bar to move out of the way and release the striker. The striker block would also have to move out of the way as well. Some people don’t trust mechanical devices to not fail, or at least not if those items are potentially pointed at or near them. I don’t disagree personally, but at the same time I think we all make our own evaluations of risk and handle them accordingly. I think the likelihood of both of those devices falling on a properly maintained firearm are extremely low.

The mechanical safety of a Glock is imo separate from how safe a particular user is with a Glock. Comparisons were made to a Glock being like a cocked and unlocked 1911. Personally I disagree. Even if the pull weights are similar (though many 1911s have weights that are lower, some much lower), the trigger travel and feel on a Glock is not like that of a 1911. If it were people wouldn’t spend so much money trying to improve the triggers on Glocks, and this thread likely wouldn’t exist. All of the 1911s I have owned have had triggers that were much shorter in travel and much crisper in feel than a Glock.

I don’t personally have reservations about the mechanical safety of a Glock. I think an argument can be made that compared to a pistol with a manual safety and/or a double action trigger with an exposed hammer, that similar striker fired pistols are more prone to being fired by something catching the trigger unknowingly than other designs. That said, many if not most of the cases of negligent discharges that I read as they relate to Glocks show blatant disregard for what seems to me to be basic firearms safety. I have personally seen literally hundreds of people draw, shoot, and holster pistols with similar layers of mechanical safety without issue. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. My point is more that I am unfamiliar of any design that will completely stop a user from a negligent discharge and that most of this has to do with the user than the mechanical device itself. At the same time if someone prefers a design that allows greater exterior control or visibility of the internal function of a pistol, that’s fine by me.

To your question, I have at times carried a Glock, a P320, a P365, and a PDP. I don’t feel inherently safer or less safe with any of them. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

To be totally honest, I've never had an issue with the stock Glock Gen 5 trigger. In fact, I would make my Gen 3 Glocks feel pretty darn similar to what Gen 5 is.

If I had to pick for you, I'd say Overwatch Precision or Apex. That's the trigger shoe and trigger bar. They're good to go.

Currently, all my Gen 5 Glocks are in a factory configuration.

 

[MarkCO]

A short reset connector and an overtravel set screw, then a good .25 cent trigger job. Safer and better than the vast majority of $100+ kits.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019871839?pid=607232

https://www.lonewolfdist.com/PRODUCT/922115/lwd-uth-9/

One can drill, tap and install a set screw in a Glock trigger housing for less than a dollar.

 

[MarkCO]

There is enough stored energy in a Glock, at “rest” to fire a primer at least 75% of the time from my experiments.

I don't agree, and I have tested it on multiple occasions. Spring rates are NOT linear either, they are progressive.

With an XD or an M&P, you are right. With a Glock, you are not right.

 

[wild cat mccane]

If I can say it back and you all correct?

Someone has said, no, the glock in stock has enough energy to hit a primer hard enough to fire if the sear also had a mechanical problem along with the firing pin block.

SO, the movement in stock configuration actually isn't sufficient for a dead rest safety freak out situation on the FPB and sear failure (where my finger isn't the issue or something in the trigger guard).

THEREFORE, an aftermarket get like Apex that removes travel actually isn't making the changing the drop safety or sear/firing pin block both fail issue?

 

[TunnelRat]

If I can say it back and you all correct?

Someone has said, no, the glock in stock has enough energy to hit a primer hard enough to fire if the sear also had a mechanical problem along with the firing pin block.

SO, the movement in stock configuration actually isn't sufficient for a dead rest safety freak out situation on the FPB and sear failure (where my finger isn't the issue or something in the trigger guard).

THEREFORE, an aftermarket get like Apex that removes travel actually isn't making the changing the drop safety or sear/firing pin block both fail issue?

Your first sentence has me scratching my head. That said, I think I get the gist of what you’re asking.

To understand how the Glock safeties work internally, see the following:

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-pistols/safe-action-system

The “sear” on the Glock is essentially part of the trigger bar (an area often called the cruciform). In order for a stock Glock to inadvertently discharge from a purely “mechanical failure” standpoint you would need a few things to happen. Somehow the trigger bar would have to be drawn rearward enough that it clears the drop safety built into the trigger mechanism housing and then the trigger bar can drop down to release the striker. Or the rear of the trigger bar somehow catastrophically fails allowing the striker to go forward or the trigger mechanism somehow fails allowing the trigger bar to drop. We’re talking metal and polymer parts practically disintegrating for those two cases to happen (which is why people will mention proper maintenance). In both of those cases the striker would still need to have enough energy at rest to detonate a primer, which seems under dispute at least. The firing pin safety would also have to somehow not stop the firing pin from moving forward during any of the above, and its rest position stops that from happening. Maybe if the firing pin block spring broke in such a way that the firing pin block was locked upward, though that would be in defiance of gravity (assuming you have the pistol upright).

You seem to want a definitive answer of whether or not an aftermarket Glock trigger is less safe than a stock trigger from the perspective of stopping a mechanical failure. Like others have said, that will depend on how the aftermarket trigger works. If the aftermarket trigger changes the above process, even slightly, then a person could make the argument that the aftermarket trigger is less safe. It’s hard to know the details of every Glock aftermarket trigger because of how many there are.

You’ve picked the APEX trigger. It’s been some time since I’ve looked at that APEX part. I think asking APEX how their trigger does or doesn’t change the factory trigger function is the only way to have a definitive answer, and then it will still be a matter of perspective to an extent. In order to have a noticeable, which to me means significant, impact on the Glock trigger in terms of “feel” and the various aspects related to that, I think you have to change the above if even slightly, and then someone will argue it’s less safe as a result. If you don’t want to change the factory safety level of a Glock, then leave it factory, or investigate the workings of the different aftermarket triggers and decide for yourself if those changes result in a meaningful difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wild cat mccane]

Reason I persist is until here, I'd never heard that the glock has enough energy to hit a primer "good enough" to fire.

 

[MarkCO]

Reason I persist is until here, I'd never heard that the glock has enough energy to hit a primer "good enough" to fire.

Because they do not. Even reducing travel and using Fed Primers. I have eliminated that as a potential failure mode in multiple cases I have worked on professionally as a forensic engineer.

M&Ps, XDs and 320s definitely have enough energy. But you still need a failure of an internal part to get them to fire.

 

[TunnelRat]

This question has come up on threads here before in the past.

Again, in order for the striker energy to come into play both the drop safety and firing pin safety (as Glock terms them), essentially have to be defeated. Per their design that’s not easy. Even if a Glock did have enough energy with its striker at rest to detonate a primer, that would make it no less safe than a number of designs, and I’m not sure if other designs incorporate a drop safety into their trigger mechanism housings like Glock does, so I think Glock might still be safer than those (even were that true).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wild cat mccane]

Thank you

 

[Fishbed77]

The safest Glock trigger enhancement?

Shoot the stock trigger until you are proficient at shooting it and the trigger is well broken in.