Trigger jobs on most hammer fired 45acp

[L. Boscoe]

As a collector of 45's, I lean heavily toward all-steel: hammer-fired pistols, and
I quite often get them tuned for a nice trigger pull as I do also shoot bullseye.
The question:
Is there any reason a pistol with the usual mechanisms, like Sig, HK, Walther
SAR, etc cannot be tuned to a SA pull of 2.5 to 3#?
I was looking at HK, which I have owned, but never had any of them worked on.

 

[Scorch]

The biggest problem with tuning semi-auto pistols in general is that the heavy moving parts (slide assembly) can and will jostle the trigger and cause the gun to fire if trigger pull is too low. Think of it like this: as the slide moves back under recoil it loads the recoil spring. As the recoil spring slams the slide back forward and locks the breech, it also accelerates the frame forward. Accelerating the frame forward causes the trigger to pull itself (the trigger wants to remain stationary as the frame moves forward because of the 1st law of physics). If there is insufficient sear engagement or insufficient trigger spring pressure, the gun will fire. Typical hobby gunsmiths think lighter trigger pull is better and they tamper with things they don't understand. I see a lot of "trigger jobs" which are nothing more than bending the trigger return and sear legs on the 3-fingered sear spring, with predictable results. So, when I do a trigger job on a semi-auto pistol I have to make sure these things are taken into account so you don't have doubling, hammer follow-down, or just flat out full auto (a 1911 emptying the magazine all at once is quite a rush).

 

[L. Boscoe]

Thanks, Scorch: I have absolutely NO intention of doing any trigger jobs, I have heard the horror stories of full-auto by accident as well.
What I am trying to figure out if it is reasonable to expect most all the big heavy pistols to be amenable to a 3# or so pull. I have a CZ 97E, done by
Cajun Gun Works, has a 2.5# SA trigger, which is fine for bullseye. No way would I carry it for self-defense-too light a pull.
As I collect pistols, there is probably a limit on which would agree to 3# and which would simply be so combat-oriented as to not being decent candidates for such.
The only striker I ever had that I liked was an HK P9S tuned for target.

 

[stinkeypete]

I would think that the issue is finding someone that has the proper jigs for pistols that would not be commonly tuned for accuracy.

There is no reason a quality pistol's trigger can't be properly tuned to 2.5 pounds other than the difficulty and expense of finding a real pistolsmith these days with time available for the job.

Of course, the next guy that owns that pistol may wish to carry that pistol and a range-only setup might not be appropriate for Joe Ninja.

 

[Jim Watson]

Sure.
I have handled Glock and XD plastic striker guns at 2 pounds.
I don't know what that Walther Q5 Match (not SF) was, but I liked it.

The Sig Armorer advertises hammer Sigs at 2.25. - 3 lbs, customer's choice; P320 at 3.25. My GGI P226 is way up at 3.4 but that is with stock springs reinstalled after I gave up on it for IDPA and staged it for home defense.

I would expect the same out of a HK Expert.

Agree, P9S was good, but it is not striker fired. I was sorely tempted by the .45 Target with 8" "hunting barrel."

 

[L. Boscoe]

I was surprised to hear the P9S is not striker, since it has hammer you can't see. That is a first for me. Are there other pistols with that configuration?
I owned one in 9mm which I never shot, and the 45, which with I produced the
best 25 yard group ever. I used to keep that target on my office wall, a bit less than 2 inch group as I recall, although that was more than 30 years ago. The target has disappeared with all the moves since then.
For some reason I find the shorter barrel pistols shoot better for me, which is
very much against tradition, so i am told.

 

[Jim Watson]

Other concealed hammer autos I can think of include most target .22s, Woodsman, High Standard, S&W M41, Ruger.
My S&W M&P .22 Compact, is a concealed hammer action even though it mimics a striker fired centerfire.
The Colt Pocket "hammerless" .32 and .380 are really concealed hammer types.

I could probably look up others, but that is a start.

 

[Nathan]

IME, pull weight is a balance with creep feel on semi-auto pistols…. Creep is a “feeling” caused by loose fits, sear engagement and sear angles.

In general, highest complaint level comes from creep, followed by pull weight. So most trigger designs are set up to provide a safe pull with little creep and reasonable pull weight.

Traditionally hammer fired guns have sear and hammer in the frame. Those should be fairly tunable provided decent parts are available.

I say decent parts because MIM(very common) parts edge chip when you try to file a crisp edge on them. You get close, then a chunk falls off. I wonder if someone knows how to work with mim yet?? This will be a limiting factor.

Real hardened steel parts with close fitting pins can be set to very light safe pulls.

In a typical rifle trigger, you have a double sear basically. Essentially you have a sear holding the striker back. You also have a primary sear internet to the trigger. That plus high precision real steel parts are how you get down to 1.5 oz!

IME striker pistols have 1 sear surface where 1/2 is in the slide and 1/2 is in the frame. This makes sear release full of slop. Even with high polish, decent steel, and good angles, the slop and flexy frames make it feel mushy.

Actions by T used to do a lot of this work. Not sure if Teddy is still around. I wonder if he ever taught anybody all he knew about slicking up actions. He was said to be a magician with the lesser known actions!