Hair triggers

[mauser]

Regardless of how proper the term "hair trigger" may be, I know what is meant by it and I consider a hair trigger to be something with a pull weight of a few ounces or less. I've fired guns with trigger pull so light that it couldn't be measured by conventional methods, you could literally trip them with a feather. In my opinion, that is reserved strictly for competition, such as bench rest shooting, or long distance varmint hunting from a stationary position and has no useful purpose on any gun that is to be carried loaded anywhere for any reason.
3# is extremely heavy for some applications and extremely light for others and is nowhere near a hair trigger in my opinion. I'd have no problem using a rifle with a 2# trigger for deer hunting but I'd never consider trigger weight like that for my daily carry handgun.
Tear me up or back me up. Either way, that's where I stand on the issue.

[NRA Trucker]

To me, a personal defense handgun should have a trigger pull greater than four pounds. Now that's just my preference.

However, I lightened the trigger on my Remington 700 to one pound, since it's mostly shot from a bench or a prone position.

[falcn]

I'll just call it paranoia and say its just me. That's a valid argument.

Damn hotel internet - there was more to my post that got hacked off by the intercepting hotel internet verification pop-up. Sorry about that!

I had added that on a pistol like my Kahr with a DAO trigger, and internal striker pin block that even a 2lb trigger would not result in a discharge. The trigger bar would have to rotate the cam, pushing the striker back, and the trigger would need to remain the rear for the striker block pin to be out of the way. The trigger travel is also long, like 3/8"

My point is that just lightening the trigger on many guns is not going to make it more prone to firing due to a drop.

Look at a Glock - lots of them have 3 lb triggers, but unless something pulls the trigger safety - it isn't going to fire when dropped.

You got my point though - many guns have those types of safeties. Sorry all that was chopped out of my last reply.

I also agree with Mauser - hair trigger would mean a lot less than 3 lb.

[falcn]

To me, a personal defense handgun should have a trigger pull greater than four pounds. Now that's just my preference.

However, I lightened the trigger on my Remington 700 to one pound, since it's mostly shot from a bench or a prone position.

That rules out a lot of really good guns.

[Wiley-X]

The trigger pull on my OSP was measured in ounces. If you blinked hard, it would go off. That's fine in a match.

When your heart rate is up, and your adreniline is pumping, and your mind is racing, not so much with the ounces. Maybe if you are a professional gunman but not for the everyday Joe.

[TaePo]

I am using my father's .357 Security Six, revolver.

I don't know if he had a friend of his work the trigger, but the pull is very light.

I like it and it is one of my main carry guns.

If I am in a situation where I can get it into battery through single action, I like the idea of having the possibility of sending at least one well aimed round down range.

Otherwise, the trigger pull is quite hefty enough in double action to prevent an early discharge. The cylinder revolves, the hammer goes back, the hammer block falls out of the way etc.

[P7hk9]

Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun that had been modified in any way for self defense. If I ever have to use it, I wouldn't want the prosecution to claim I had modified the gun to make it easier to shoot and therefore more deadly, or some other BS.

[TRB]

It is true that the term "hair trigger" is not usually bandied about on gun forums. However, everyone who reads this forum knows what it means. More importantly, so does everyone who is likely to be on seated on a jury during the possible criminal trial and the inevitable civil trial that will occur after a defensive handgun use. The prosecution or plaintiff's attorney will certainly use this term to inflame the jury and convince them that the person who used the gun in a defensive manner was not defending life but was malicious. The user wanted to kill or maim and the proof is that they had the gun modified to have a "hair trigger". The attorney will draw analogies between he "hair trigger" and their personality. The defendant also has a "hair trigger" temper, for instance. Or makes "hair trigger" decisions. Everyone can see where this leads.

So what does this mean? Should one have trigger work done to a gun that will be carried? The answer is, it depends. If the trigger work will make the gun function better, or allows the owner to shoot it more accurately, and an expert witness can testify to the fact, then it should not be a problem in court. If the trigger work is simply because the owner wants a slick feeling trigger it would be best to leave it alone.

[LittleRedToyota]

seems like a bump or drop could easily cause the gun to go off.

all modern handguns are drop safe...the weight of the trigger pull doesn't really matter for that. (google "drop safe gun" or something like that if you are interested in learning more.)

i personally do not like the idea of modifying the trigger on a carry gun to make it lighter, but only because i fear the ignorance of juries. i don't think it actually makes the gun any less safe, but i do think some DA would make an issue out of it and some ignorant jury might buy it. it shouldn't come into play, but i'm not convinced there isn't a chance it would. and, besides, glock triggers (and many other triggers) work just fine for defensive (and even other) purposes right out of the box.

As for me, my finger does not go near the bang lever until I am ready for whatever is staring down the barrel of my gun to die.

because of legalities...

in a defensive situation, that should be "the threat that is staring down the barrel of my gun is going to cease being a threat".

you never shoot to kill...or to wound. you shoot to stop the threat. if the guy dies, he dies. if he doesn't, he doesn't. but your intention must be to stop the threat and only to stop the threat.

shooting to stop the threat generally means aiming at the center of whatever you can see of the threat. this gives you the most room for error and the highest likelihood of actually hitting the guy and causing him to stop being a threat.

[jmarshall]

in a defensive situation, that should be "the threat that is staring down the barrel of my gun is going to cease being a threat".

you never shoot to kill...or to wound. you shoot to stop the threat. if the guy dies, he dies. if he doesn't, he doesn't. but your intention must be to stop the threat and only to stop the threat.

shooting to stop the threat generally means aiming at the center of whatever you can see of the threat. this gives you the most room for error and the highest likelihood of actually hitting the guy and causing him to stop being a threat.

Thanks for that bit of advice