Hair triggers

[TRB]

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.

All well said.

It should be assumed that any prosecutor or plaintiffs attorney will use any fact in evidence to make a defensive shooting look bad. Any gun used in a shooting will be, at the very least, disassembled and examined by a police armorer. Any modifications to a gun will be brought into evidence. Count on it. Once the evidence comes to light it will be up to defense counsel to show that the modifications are standard practice or make the gun better adapted to safe use by the defendant.

[Steve_NEPhila]

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.

The entire idea of a revolver "action job" is to smooth out the trigger and action so that the pull feels more uniform and even. In turn, that smooth/slick trigger feel will lead to better trigger control which can increase the precision of a double action revolver. The above bold statement contradicts the statement you made before it about making a weapon more effective.

Many times I read posts about this gun being better then that gun and owners trading or buying up so that some minor aspect of their firearm will be enhanced. This leads me to believe that many of the members here have had little to no experience in having their weapons worked over by master gunsmiths. Every one of my revolvers has been worked over and "slicked up" by may favorite master gunsmith John Robinson (except for my Smith and Wesson Performance Center revolvers) and it has increased the effectiveness of said revolvers.

Misconceptions abound about this type of modification. In my opinion there is no easier and more cost effective modification to a double action revolver or DAO autoloader then to give it an action job.

[TRB]

The entire idea of a revolver "action job" is to smooth out the trigger and action so that the pull feels more uniform and even. In turn, that smooth/slick trigger feel will lead to better trigger control which can increase the precision of a double action revolver. The above bold statement contradicts the statement you made before it about making a weapon more effective.

Many times I read posts about this gun being better then that gun and owners trading or buying up so that some minor aspect of their firearm will be enhanced. This leads me to believe that many of the members here have had little to no experience in having their weapons worked over by master gunsmiths. Every one of my revolvers has been worked over and "slicked up" by may favorite master gunsmith John Robinson (except for my Smith and Wesson Performance Center revolvers) and it has increased the effectiveness of said revolvers.

Misconceptions abound about this type of modification. In my opinion there is no easier and more cost effective modification to a double action revolver or DAO autoloader then to give it an action job.

Poor choice of words on my part. Maybe I should have specified "very light" or "hair trigger" as opposed to "slick". I can see how that might be misinterpreted. I don't think of "slick" as equating to "smooth". I usually equate it with "very light" or "ridiculously light".

I was not referring to the work a professional gunsmith does to a pistol or revolver in removing burrs or otherwise get the parts to fit correctly so that the parts perform their job as designed. A smooth trigger may make a gun safer and more accurate.

But even at that, having work done does speak to intent. If the intent of the user is to have a "very light" trigger for the sake of having it, that fact will go against them in court. On the other hand, if it is the intention of the user to carry a gun that has a safe, smooth trigger that allows them a greater degree of accuracy, that is something that would be good for a jury to hear. In either case, it is something that defense council will have to bring up during the trial. If the jury doesn't hear it, it won't be in evidence.

[Hokkmike]

I think that "hair triggers" are potentiallydangerous. We cab quibble the semantics about what constitutes a "hair trigger" but in reality it is one that has a propensity to go off before we expect it to. I actually like a little creep in my triggers. For rifles I like 3 - 5 pounds, for pistols maybe a little heavier.

[BufordTPisser]

This seems like another one of those "Old Wives Tales". The part about juries convicting on the fact that someone had a modified trigger. Could the prosecutor go down that road, sure they could. But they might also go down the Blond Haired Blue Eyed and therefore thinks they are the superior race road.

Someone who has a trigger modified for smoothness or better operation is not negligent. Someone who modifies a trigger to the point where it is unpredictable or prone to drop fire is negligent and stupid to boot. I have owned competition revolvers that had sub 2 lb trigger pulls. But they would not drop fire.

[mauser]

Poor choice of words on my part. Maybe I should have specified "very light" or "hair trigger" as opposed to "slick". I can see how that might be misinterpreted. I don't think of "slick" as equating to "smooth". I usually equate it with "very light" or "ridiculously light".

I was not referring to the work a professional gunsmith does to a pistol or revolver in removing burrs or otherwise get the parts to fit correctly so that the parts perform their job as designed. A smooth trigger may make a gun safer and more accurate.

But even at that, having work done does speak to intent. If the intent of the user is to have a "very light" trigger for the sake of having it, that fact will go against them in court. On the other hand, if it is the intention of the user to carry a gun that has a safe, smooth trigger that allows them a greater degree of accuracy, that is something that would be good for a jury to hear. In either case, it is something that defense council will have to bring up during the trial. If the jury doesn't hear it, it won't be in evidence.

Can you cite a case in favor of your assertion?
If self defense is justified it doesn't matter what means you used to save your ass. If it's a case of death resulting from negligent discharge I can see where that could/would/should come into play, but if you need to defend yourself in a life or death situation the fact that the trigger is easier to pull should have more more bearing than the fact that you had high visibility sights or a more comfortable grip installed. Would porting your barrel for better muzzle control make a difference if a jury was deliberating on whether or not you were justified to defend the lives of you and/or your family?
Would a wooden baseball bat be worse than an aluminum bat?
If you need to defend yourself, the question is "Was it necessary?"
It may come down to "Was it excessive?" if you reload and keep shooting after the perp is dead, but "Is your trigger pull lighter than X#?" has no bearing on the need to defend yourself.

Back to another point, DAO has been mentioned more than once here. "DAO" and "hair trigger" are mutually exclusive terms. If you can get any gun to mechanically cock the hammer with that light of a trigger pull you'd have some new technology that you should get patented.

[BufordTPisser]

Can you cite a case in favor of your assertion?
If self defense is justified it doesn't matter what means you used to save your ass. If it's a case of death resulting from negligent discharge I can see where that could/would/should come into play, but if you need to defend yourself in a life or death situation the fact that the trigger is easier to pull should have more more bearing than the fact that you had high visibility sights or a more comfortable grip installed. Would porting your barrel for better muzzle control make a difference if a jury was deliberating on whether or not you were justified to defend the lives of you and/or your family?
Would a wooden baseball bat be worse than an aluminum bat?
If you need to defend yourself, the question is "Was it necessary?"
It may come down to "Was it excessive?" if you reload and keep shooting after the perp is dead, but "Is your trigger pull lighter than X#?" has no bearing on the need to defend yourself.

Back to another point, DAO has been mentioned more than once here. "DAO" and "hair trigger" are mutually exclusive terms. If you can get any gun to mechanically cock the hammer with that light of a trigger pull you'd have some new technology that you should get patented.

Very well stated. These old wives tales without cites are getting old.

[TRB]

Can you cite a case in favor of your assertion?
If self defense is justified it doesn't matter what means you used to save your ass. If it's a case of death resulting from negligent discharge I can see where that could/would/should come into play, but if you need to defend yourself in a life or death situation the fact that the trigger is easier to pull should have more more bearing than the fact that you had high visibility sights or a more comfortable grip installed. Would porting your barrel for better muzzle control make a difference if a jury was deliberating on whether or not you were justified to defend the lives of you and/or your family?
Would a wooden baseball bat be worse than an aluminum bat?
If you need to defend yourself, the question is "Was it necessary?"
It may come down to "Was it excessive?" if you reload and keep shooting after the perp is dead, but "Is your trigger pull lighter than X#?" has no bearing on the need to defend yourself.

Back to another point, DAO has been mentioned more than once here. "DAO" and "hair trigger" are mutually exclusive terms. If you can get any gun to mechanically cock the hammer with that light of a trigger pull you'd have some new technology that you should get patented.

Not interested in a debate. It is very simple. If a prosecutor makes a big deal out of the "hair trigger" and the defendant's attorney cannot counter the argument the defendant will look bad. Remember, in court it's all about appearance.

[BufordTPisser]

Not interested in a debate. It is very simple. If a prosecutor makes a big deal out of the "hair trigger" and the defendant's attorney cannot counter the argument the defendant will look bad. Remember, in court it's all about appearance.

And therein lies the problem. These myths get disseminated and believed by those not smart enough to know better. In court it is supposed to be about law and facts, not about appearance or the prosecutors ability to put on a show. If you were to be convicted because of a modified weapon in a justifiable self defense situation then you need better counsel.

[mauser]

Not interested in a debate. It is very simple. If a prosecutor makes a big deal out of the "hair trigger" and the defendant's attorney cannot counter the argument the defendant will look bad. Remember, in court it's all about appearance.

I'm not really interested in a debate either but since it's been brought up, why not address it?
If is the operative word here.
Why concentrate on things haven't happened and have a near 0% likelihood of happening?
There are more relevant things to spend your time and energy on, like the reason and circumstance for defending oneself rather than the condition of the tool being used. Or the likelihood of a negligent discharge resulting in injury or death due to unsafe practices or conditions.
Sure, unlikely things can and do happen, but I'd rather focus on the more probable scenarios that are more likely to happen than to ignore them in favor of the possibility of an oddball occurrence.