???s for those that regularly replace/upgrade 2011 style COMPETITION triggers

[HOGRIDER]

Wondering if there are "benefits" to using an aftermarket trigger where the bow uses front and rear "shoes/extensions" to align it with the bow track in a 2011 grip?

 

I have noticed a few that only have the shoes/extensions (for a better word description) on the rear; which in my understanding would require the bottom of the trigger shoe to be the bearing surface for maintaining correct horizontal travel "evenly" in the grip along with maintaining perpendicularity of the bow as it travels back an forth in the grip track.

 

On the other hand I have premium trigger assemblies by Atlas/Geppert, LSI, Red Dirt, etc that indeed use front and rear extended bearing surfaces (shoes/estensions) that in my mind are allowing the shoe to be fit to the trigger shoe opening/slot while maintaining a parallel position of the trigger bow in the grip track which would IMO provide a much smoother, precise trigger pull consistency.

 

Is my thinking correct?  Or am I placing concern on a non-issue?

 

Thanks for your feedback; and I've enclosed some pics illustrating an stock MPA LOC trigger, Atlas/Geppert, LSI, and Red Dirt.

 

 

Edited March 17 by HOGRIDER
sp

[Joe4d]

the ones with the front area,,, usually that area has a split or cut in it, so you can spread them out like wings towards the front,, this adjusts the triggers take up,, IE how far the slop is in the trigger before it makes contact... The set screw adjusts rear ward travel. If the trigger came from someone like Atlas specifically for their frames they probably have it dialed in to the amount of take up they want..
Generic after market ones like Wilson combat,, I am guess still have the cut

[Braxton1]

The trigger shoe itself controls the vertical movement in the front of the trigger, just like on JMB's original 1911.  There's really no need for tabs.  At least that is true for 1911s, STI , and SV triggers.

 

I would think that this would be preferable, as the surface bearing against the frame would have a greater area rather than being isolated to a thin piece of metal.

 

I wonder if these new triggers are designed to be "sloppy" (pardon that term) in the shoe fit and the actual "fit point" is those front pads....

Edited March 17 by Braxton1

[HOGRIDER]

1 hour ago, Braxton1 said:

The trigger shoe itself controls the vertical movement in the front of the trigger, just like on JMB's original 1911.  There's really no need for tabs.  At least that is true for 1911s, STI , and SV triggers.

Interesting points that you make as I too have noted the STI, SV, and previous Cheely offerings all controlled (front) vertical movement with the trigger shoe.

But I also noted that in the original 1911 prints the trigger bow was a consistent height, front to rear, of .232"-.004" while the trigger bow receiver track was cut .233"+.005". And Kuhnhausen specifically mentions to minimize component friction by addressing trigger bow to frame "and" trigger shoe (fingerpiece) to frame clearancing.

 

At this point I'm still wondering if it's advantageous to fit for surface points of the bow (f&r) in case there's insufficient fit in the bottom of a trigger shoe to maintain proper bow to grip frame alignment?

 

Thanks for your feedback!

 

[shred]

A lot of that scoop out of the bottom of the bow is for lightening and to reduce the bearing surface.  On some grips (SV metal for one), you have to fit that part of the bow as well as the trigger shoe.

[HOGRIDER]

On 3/17/2024 at 8:49 PM, shred said:

A lot of that scoop out of the bottom of the bow is for lightening and to reduce the bearing surface.  On some grips (SV metal for one), you have to fit that part of the bow as well as the trigger shoe.

I understand how the height of the trigger bow has been reduced/modified to save and eliminate weight.  Guess STI was one of the first to develop (for the 2011) this style and I'm sure it has worked well for a long time!  And I respect that SVI offers their replacement trigger with the bottom bearing surfaces at the rear and none at the front of the bow!  So the bow front is being supported/aligned parallel with the grip bow track by the trigger shoe??

 

I see that most premium aftermarket triggers are also putting the lower bearing surfaces at the front AND rear bottom of the bow; and I'm wondering if that provides any real benefit?  In my unexperienced mind I would feel that optimal trigger function would occur if the bow was running/riding parallel with the specific track that's machined into the grip.  Regardless of what the trigger shoe is doing; however I feel it should be fit also to run correctly in it's dedicated track with minimal lateral and vertical free play!

 

And I still feel that Kuhnhausen's reference to fitting the bow AND shoe is still applicable to today's 2011 race guns!

 

Thanks for your reply/feedback @shred

[shred]

6 minutes ago, HOGRIDER said:

I understand how the height of the trigger bow has been reduced/modified to save and eliminate weight.  Guess STI was one of the first to develop (for the 2011) this style and I'm sure it has worked well for a long time!  And I respect that SVI offers their replacement trigger with the bottom bearing surfaces at the rear and none at the front of the bow!  So the bow front is being supported/aligned parallel with the grip bow track by the trigger shoe??

 

On the SV metal grip I fitted, the bottom front inside of the grip where the bottom of the bow goes was not cut square, so I ended up grinding off most of the lower front of the bow on the trigger.  I suspect they did that intentionally; perhaps to reduce cracking, so it may be that's just a reflection of the other design decision.

 

On the STI design, the trigger track is made up of both the grip section and the frame section, so minimizing issues due to misalignment there may also have been a design point.

 

[Dr Mitch]

The shape of the bow with front and rear “extensions” is not extensions, those are the bearing surfaces.  The section that isn’t “extended” is missing to reduce friction.

[HOGRIDER]

2 hours ago, shred said:

 

On the SV metal grip I fitted, the bottom front inside of the grip where the bottom of the bow goes was not cut square, so I ended up grinding off most of the lower front of the bow on the trigger.  I suspect they did that intentionally; perhaps to reduce cracking, so it may be that's just a reflection of the other design decision.

 

On the STI design, the trigger track is made up of both the grip section and the frame section, so minimizing issues due to misalignment there may also have been a design point.

 

Excellent points as I had no idea of what's involved in fitting an SV grip/trigger assembly..........

 

I do remember installing a Cheely trigger in a ES STI gen 1 grip for a 2019 Staccato P, and that went very easy; especially since Cheely was making the shoes .240" wide at the time.  Ended up being an excellent trigger!  And it did only have the lower bearing surfaces on the rear of the bow..........

 

Thanks for your info! 

Edited March 19 by HOGRIDER
update