1911 vs Glock trigger

[Ollies930]

I hope this is the right sub-forum, but I am curious about the benefit of a 1911 trigger compared to a Glock trigger. Being a member on both 1911 and Glock forums and seeing their respective reaction if you cast aspersion on their favorite toys, I was hoping for a more neutral ground to ask my question. For comparison, I have a RIA 1911 with a slightly worked trigger and a Glock 17 Gen 5 with some time spent on modifying it. Now I am not a gunsmith and pretty new to guns, but the 1911 is slightly below 3.5# and has .060" pre-travel with the slightest bit of creep before the break. Feels nice, but the Glock has a 2.3# trigger pull at center of the trigger (under 1.75# at the tip) with a rolling break  and .075-.080" reset. Both triggers can be improved on (probably a bunch) and maybe I am not good enough to understand, but it almost seems like the Glock is easier to shoot. No wall to upset the shot. Being a relative noob and having no allegiance or crazy loyalty and devotion to either (I like both), I am curious why it seems to be universally accepted that 1911 triggers are the best there are, all other triggers are inferior and Glocks outright suck. Stock maybe, but it does not take that much work to improve either, just a bit of experimenting. So, what gives?

[RangerTrace]

In my experience, the worst 1911 trigger feels and shoots better than the best Glock trigger.

[yigal]

27 minutes ago, RangerTrace said:

In my experience, the worst 1911 trigger feels and shoots better than the best Glock trigger.

 u didn't tried trigger of my glock 34  that i bought in:

Toys "R" Us

[bcane98]

IMO... The 1911 has been a round a long time, and has had plenty of time for R&D.  Not that Glock hasn't been around, but they haven't been around as long as the 1911...  I've worked a few Glock triggers in my time after watching some Johnny Glock videos, it's definitely time consuming, but not hard.  I'd still take a 1911 over a Glock any day based solely on personal preference.  

[Flea]

Personal preference and probably what you started out shooting with. I have a G19 with no trigger work and a Wilson Combat 1911 with no trigger work and I'd take the WC any day all day. Just my preference.

[RJH]

General consensus is 1911 trigger > glock trigger.  Hell, most people feel 1911 trigger>than all other pistol triggers and  I tend to agree.  That said Glock triggers with a little work are totally workable and shoot what you like

[jwhittin]

Shoot what works best for you.

 

Be cautious about trigger work - make sure you know how to do it and keep the trigger safe.

 

Focus on training - recoil management and trigger control are HUGE!  A light trigger can sure help but it can't replace this essential skill.  

 

 

[ltdmstr]

A Glock trigger is never going to feel like a properly done 1911 trigger in terms of travel, pull weight, break or reset.  It's just the difference in the two designs.  You can take a "good" example of a Glock trigger and a crappy 1911 trigger, and say the Glock is better.  But that's not a fair comparison.

[Yeti]

7 hours ago, Ollies930 said:

I hope this is the right sub-forum, but I am curious about the benefit of a 1911 trigger compared to a Glock trigger. Being a member on both 1911 and Glock forums and seeing their respective reaction if you cast aspersion on their favorite toys, I was hoping for a more neutral ground to ask my question. For comparison, I have a RIA 1911 with a slightly worked trigger and a Glock 17 Gen 5 with some time spent on modifying it. Now I am not a gunsmith and pretty new to guns, but the 1911 is slightly below 3.5# and has .060" pre-travel with the slightest bit of creep before the break. Feels nice, but the Glock has a 2.3# trigger pull at center of the trigger (under 1.75# at the tip) with a rolling break  and .075-.080" reset. Both triggers can be improved on (probably a bunch) and maybe I am not good enough to understand, but it almost seems like the Glock is easier to shoot. No wall to upset the shot. Being a relative noob and having no allegiance or crazy loyalty and devotion to either (I like both), I am curious why it seems to be universally accepted that 1911 triggers are the best there are, all other triggers are inferior and Glocks outright suck. Stock maybe, but it does not take that much work to improve either, just a bit of experimenting. So, what gives?

I strongly prefer 1911/2011 triggers by far over Glock.  Think you need to shoot a few more well prepped 1911 triggers.  

1911 trigger qualities can be improved to be so much better than what a Glock trigger can ever be.  I can appreciate Glock, but the trigger is not really a Glock strong point, thus all the aftermarket options to make it more palatable.   Sounds like you have a very good Glock trigger and you are likely very familiar with the qualities of it.  Plenty of other positives for Glock, but trigger ain't it.   Stock RIA sears, hammers (hooks), discos and triggers aren't that bad, but they aren't that great either. 

You may really like a 1911 with a nicely done slight rolling break using high quality fire control parts.      

[Jim Watson]

A 2 lb, ok, 2.3 or 1.75 or whatever it comes out at, is a VERY light Glock trigger.  A friend had one like that and even this old 1911 hand was impressed.  You can do good USPSA etc shooting with one but you will not likely see one on the 50 yard line at the NRA Nationals.

 

Unfortunately the one above did not hold up and had to be reworked to something the machinery was made to do.

[Ollies930]

OK, so basically once I become a better shooter, I will have to drop the trigger weight on the 1911 and spend some time on the sear face, drop the trigger weight on the Glock some more and then do another comparison. But more than anything, it sounds like the 1911 trigger has been the standard for over a century and therefore everyone is trying to duplicate its feel. But a lot has to do with what you grew accustomed to. Any trigger that has been developed enough, should be great for the person that is used to that particular feel.

[RangerTrace]

12 hours ago, yigal said:

 u didn't tried trigger of my glock 34  that i bought in:

Toys "R" Us

True, but I have two Johnny Glock triggers, which are really good, but still not 1911 good.

[HOGRIDER]

14 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

In my experience, the worst 1911 trigger feels and shoots better than the best Glock trigger.

Absolutely!

 

 

 

 

[Tampa-XD45]

14 hours ago, RangerTrace said:

True, but I have two Johnny Glock triggers, which are really good, but still not 1911 good.

Same here ... my Johnny Glock trigger is considered good as as Glock trigger, but not in the same league as a 1911 trigger.  Different geometry, a lever design vs a straight line pull.

[Benevolence]

Glock triggers only have the striker partially cocked when in battery. Pulling the trigger pulls the striker back further and compresses the spring. The Trigger bar hits the disconnector and lowers to release the striker as it's also compressing the striker spring. That's why you'll always have the continuous build up prior to firing and never be able to get rid of it. (Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2RDitgCaD0) M&P's work differently by having the striker fully cocked when in battery, and the trigger only lifts the sear to release the striker; they're usually able to be improved better than Glocks.

 

1911's only have to move the sear several hundredths of an inch to release the hammer.

 

I think similar to rifles, I prefer a single stage with minimal take up trigger rather than a two stage trigger with a wall between the two. Others prefer the opposite.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Benevolence

[zzt]

1 hour ago, Benevolence said:

1911's only have to move the sear several hundredths of an inch to release the hammer.

 

The appropriate hammer hook depth on a 1911 hammer is .018", so that is how far the sear has to move to release the hammer.

[ltdmstr]

5 hours ago, zzt said:

 

The appropriate hammer hook depth on a 1911 hammer is .018", so that is how far the sear has to move to release the hammer.

 

Not exactly.  Depends on the depth of the secondary angle cut on the sear.  It's going to be something less than full contact, so less than .018.

[HOGRIDER]

13 minutes ago, ltdmstr said:

 

Not exactly.  Depends on the depth of the secondary angle cut on the sear.  It's going to be something less than full contact, so less than .018.

Good point!

From the pic attached, we can see if the hammer hooks were .018", then the primary angle of the sear may only contact .014".  That's secondary angle on the sear face will determine depth of engagement.

 

 

[Ollies930]

That seems really dangerous. Bump it and it would go off. It was always my impression that the sear is supposed to match the trigger surface at the very least or better yet go the other way a little bit. 

[HOGRIDER]

13 minutes ago, Ollies930 said:

That seems really dangerous. Bump it and it would go off. It was always my impression that the sear is supposed to match the trigger surface at the very least or better yet go the other way a little bit. 

Transposed from the original blueprints with early modifications..............

 

Correctly modified sear/hammer angles and surfaces can result in less than 2# pull weights and be perfectly safe for thousands of rounds!

 

[Ollies930]

Ah, with the radius path drawn in, it makes more sense. Near zero mechanical leverage applied by the negative angle. 

Thanks for clarifying.