Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Legality of new Apex Curved Trigger


mloch

Recommended Posts

No, its not legal.

 

It doesnt fit into the parameters for "legal" production parts.

 

Ask Gray Guns to talk to the USPSA board of directors to see if maybe they can legalize it....... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GG trigger has a similar profile and weight to the factory trigger. Also has gotten approval from NROI. I have not heard of Apex trying to get approval, but I may be wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DKnoch said:

GG trigger has a similar profile and weight to the factory trigger. Also has gotten approval from NROI. I have not heard of Apex trying to get approval, but I may be wrong

Similar profile to the factory trigger?  Why?  Its curved?  That's about all they share in common.

 

Are you the same kind of guy that looks at a Porsche no matter the model and says's man, that's a nice 911! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I misread your post in haste. I have both triggers and they're fairly similar. Much more so, than the Apex. Email Apex and tell them to submit one, it wouldn't be approved though. Even if it was, what difference would it make? Grayguns made a trigger that was similar enough to get approved, Apex can do the same if they choose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that different...you can point to the tab on the front of the factory trigger I guess. But that's the adverse trigger, Sig's original 320's didn't have the tab on the front. Like I said before, similar profile and weight. Apex is not similar. Question answered.69e6b57ec504ca9793aac6682f232e71.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know words are tough, but I said similar not same. Keep bitching on the internet and I'll keep enjoying my grayguns trigger in my X5. By the way, I have a curved trigger in my X5, so complain about that too while you're at it. Also had to remove the factory magwell and can't use the extended mags that come from the factory. So there's more things to complain about being allowed in production. Didn't they approve an aftermarket hammer for a CZ lately too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cz hammer issue is different because it is a factory shop hammer that is standard on a production gun. This is truly aftermarket with a new exception being created which creates the confusion. The lack of an official ruling is making people question it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, f2benny said:

The cz hammer issue is different because it is a factory shop hammer that is standard on a production gun. This is truly aftermarket with a new exception being created which creates the confusion. The lack of an official ruling is making people question it.


 

 

 

wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

wrong

How is that incorrect? As I understood the ruling the cz custom shadow hammer was allowed as a replacement because czc is a factory shop. Please explain the ruling if this is wrong.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, f2benny said:


How is that incorrect?


 

 

The DNROI hammer ruling specifically approves aftermarket hammers in contradiction of the rulebook.  Cajun Gunworks is not OFM/OEM or an official CZ "custom shop" 

 

Here is the text straight from the USPSA site:  

 

"As long as the internal parts of the hammer used as a replacement function identically to the internals on the OFM hammer, replacing the hammer is allowed, despite the outward appearance. For example, an OFM hammer that functions as part of a decocking system can be replaced with an aftermarket hammer that looks externally different as long as it continues to function as a decocker hammer."

Edited by wtturn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, f2benny said:

The CZC hammer is legal when last I heard the cgw was not. I did not mean to suggest Cajun was a factory shop.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

That's the outrageous part of the ruling.  The CGW hammer is now legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

So, take more pics of the back of those two curved triggers (above which are visible in the gun when installed). They look pretty different in rib structure. Also, besides the missing tab mentioned (also visible installed), one has a much more curved radiused profile and is softer on the finger, and looks different. Similar, yes, but different. 

 

Similar story on the straight flat trigger comparison.

 

These may seem like nit picking differences.... but they are externally visible differences ......  don't forget it wasn't that long ago that a Vanek Glock trigger with a barely visible mod difference on a FACTORY trigger was illegal.

 

Before anyone gets bent out of shape that people are attacking Sig and GG, I have a GG PELT trigger in my P320. I like it.

I just want to see something in writing as an actual posted ruling from NROI (not an email) stating the PELT is legal. Language like its "similar" does not inspire confidence. I guess it falls under the same logic as the rule above regarding the CZ hammer - but just substitute Sig for CZ, and trigger for hammer.

 

Maybe since we have so many parts now being made legal, we should just expand the rule to allow any aftermarket parts that "function identically "internally even if the look slightly different externally. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...