Talk:Trigger (firearms)

Creation
I rewrote the page and turned all of the separate mechanism pages into redirect pages. Somebody had to do it. In keeping with Wikipedia style, arguments about the values of each section should be limited to the talk page. The main article should be edited only for accuracy and content, not to 'put your 2 cents worth' in. Please keep it clean and don't let this article get bogged down with opinions, merits of the systems, etc. I've seen other articles get this way.--Asams10 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with undated terms like "Pre-set triggers, only recently coming into vogue". As the years go by, 'recently' becomes less and less informative and I'd prefer to see something like 'ca 2005' or whenever, which will stand the test of time. Dawright12 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Room for improvement
There is a need for good links in this article as well as a history section. Maybe mention, for instance, that Tomischka patented the first double action only pistol in 1911.--Asams10 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Good links" mentioned in 2006? Shit! It's 2012 now and there are still no good links. Please add some to the main sub-topic "Function" asap. This is an article about mechanical aspects of firearms and, as such, needs plenty more links to articles regarding mechanics.Themoother (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger

 * NO MERGER - several of the articles are long and should have it's own article. Definitely don't merge everything into trigger.  Not enough room for all the different types of actions. SirIsaacBrock 22:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I DISAGREE... It's ALREADY been merged, you just won't accept it!. You're the only person who has disagreed. It seems from reading the article that this covers the subject matter much better than the separate articles did.  Don't know why you've set out on this quest to have separate confusing articles covering the same subject rather than a clear article explaining the whole concept.  In fact, from the Wikipedia merging page, read this statement:
 * "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."

...and this statement:
 * "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."
 * Now, I ain't no rocket scientist, but it seems that these separate articles are inter-related, have cross-over, discuss different ways of accomplishing the same task, and are covered thoroughly and succinctly in this new article.
 * Just because an article is long, doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be part of another article. And which article, specificially, do you want to keep? Single Action and Single Action/Double Action are contradictory, wrong, and contain superfolous information.  All appropriate information is already rewritten into this article. The two other articles are short and don't explain the concept without the context of the other articles.  Also, none thoroughly cross-reference each other.  It's jumbled and you didn't fix it, I did.
 * Why don't YOU point out what needs to go into this article and I'll do the work of adding it or we'll discuss whether or not it merits addition to this article.--Asams10 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SA, DA, & DA/SA
After reading this article, I find myself rather confused about the single-action/double-action division, especially regarding the "traditional double action" mentioned. In the SA section, it mentions that most semi-autos use the recoil to bring the hammer back. How is this different from the DA/SA mentioned subsequently? Is this article redundancy repeating itself, or just me failing to understand it? The article seems to imply that the entire subject is rather confusing. Perhaps someone more conversant could make a chart or table, &/or edit the section for clarity? --mordicai. 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be helpful and not patronizing. You seem to be confusing the operation of the trigger with the operation of the slide. Ignore the portion which explains what the slide does when the gun fires and understand how the trigger operates separately. The section is correct from a technical point of view, but these things are a bit difficult to explain.--Asams10 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it; I'm not the sort to ask for answers & then be defensive about it when I get clued in. I'm glad to know that the article is correct, firstly, & I do understand your explanation.  Thanks for the prompt response.  --mordicai. 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this section pretty much fails to explain it in layman's terms. "see if there is second-strike capability" is particularly meaningless ! (Does that mean pull the trigger twice and see if it fires again ?)

My guess is that, during continuous shooting, in DA pulling the trigger loads/cocks before firing, whereas in SA firing the previous round loads and cocks the next round for you. OK there are complexities and exceptions, but it might be worth stating it simply first ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, so I hope if I am someone will correct me, but, I think 'second-strike' capability refers to the ability to cause a second strike of the firing pin onto the primer of a cartridge which did not fire on the first strike of the firing pin (a 'mis-fire'), by just pulling the trigger a second time; this would be in contrast to instead (in the case of a misfire) working the slide of a semi-automatic pistol to eject the not-fired round in order to load a new round and then pulling the trigger to attempt to fire that new round (this loading of a new round would not, I think, be considered a 'second-strike' action). I don't think a revolver can ever have a second-strike capability, because the action of the hammer going back, whether in SA or DA mode, would turn the cylinder to the next round, going past the dud.
 * I would say that your guess about continuous fire with DA & SA is mostly correct, except that pulling the trigger in either case never loads a round; in a revolver, rounds must be loaded by hand before trying to fire the weapon, and in a semi-automatic, in order to have a cartridge initially loaded into the chamber for firing the first time, the slide must be pulled back in order to engage a cartridge from a magazine on the slide's spring-loaded return to normal firing position & condition (battery), which pushes the cartridge into the chamber. So, the firing of a round in either SA or DA would result in the weapon's mechanical action loading the weapon for next firing, and in SA it would also cock the weapon (as far as I know it's never just the physical action of pulling the trigger that loads a cartridge). And your question is much more succinct than my attempt to answer it! UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"Second strike" is simply marketing term for DA/SA. The easiest way to tell if a striker fired pistol is DA/SA is the presence of a decocker. DAO has no sear, so the pistol is simply cocking the firing mechanism fully back and releasing it every time. The pistol is always at rest in a decocked state. SAO means that the sear must be pre-set/engaged first to enable the firing mechanism - whether hammer or striker, and the trigger releases the sear to fire it. SAO's cannot fire from an uncocked state. A DA/SA allows for both - firing from decocked, and pre-set states. 65.100.55.74(talk)15:12, 15 September 2021

Merits
are you sure about DAO actions being "popular" with police departments? perhaps in the past when revelovers were the norm, but i rarely hear of anything other than sigs (in DA/SA), glocks (pre-set), and the occasional 1911 (SA). these are just my observations, but what do you think? -aaron 141.210.9.36 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. In addition to the those moving FROM revolvers, DAO's offer a heavier trigger pull which prevents lawsuits.  Many of those Glocks have a New York Trigger.  I don't mean to say that there are more DAO's out there than regular sigs, just that they are a common choice.--Asams10 17:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i understand the value of the DAO trigger but the wording of the passage makes it sound like they are the most popular. at least i think it does. -aaron 68.61.184.98 03:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example, The US Department of Homeland Security has switched away from the military standard M9 (in DA/SA) to SIG's P229R DAK, which is a double action only as a stadard issue personal defense weapon. ~john doe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.254 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced
I tagged the article as unreferenced because it completely lacks in any reliable sources. Kncyu38 08:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

M6 scout redirect
I noticed that in the opening paragraph, it mentions the Springfield Armory M6 Scout. However, the link goes to the Springfield Armory Inc. page only. I'd like to split the two, the Springfield armory part going to that page, and the M6 scout part going to the M6 Scout page. However, I'm a wikinewb, so I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Capgun2713 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Something to do
So, if anyone with some writing skills gets bored, here's something to do. 84.129.174.104 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I came here to look up the meaning of a "hair trigger", but all I got was a redirect.
 * 2) Also, what about crossbows? They aren't firearms by the definition of that article, but they also have something called a trigger. The historical development is closely related, I assume? Shouldn't these be mentioned here too?


 * A hair trigger is a colloquialism to describe a light or easy to pull trigger. It is a definition and you can find it in Wictionary.  Crossbows have triggers and early forms of this article included them, however crossbows and spear guns have very simple, straightforward triggers and, again, the definition of a trigger suffices.  There is no history, development, or great engineering details to detail in an article.  Drills also have triggers as to glue guns, staple guns, cameras, and hundreds of other devices. This article was intentionally and specifically limited to firearms based on discussion and concensus. Know that there was no real 'development' of the crossbow trigger, it's essentially the same as it was when first developed. --Asams10 (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair trigger
Hair trigger redirects here, but the term is defined nowhere on this page. I had hoped to see information about what qualifies as a hair trigger, which gun models had them, etc. --Doradus (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hair trigger is a colloquial term not used in firearms circles, that's probably why it's not defined here. I'd file it alongside terms such as Saturday Night Special and Cop Killer Bullet. If you would like a definition, it's a light trigger or, as the phrase goes, one that breaks with the weight of a hair on it.  The lightest triggers out there are called "Set Triggers." Look under single and double set triggers and use that information. Using the term "Hair Trigger" is incorrect unless you're writing a dime novel. Hope this helps. --Asams10 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so what do we do with the article / redirect then? With respect, all the information you've given, while interesting, isn't very useful if it stays only on the Talk page.  --Doradus (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the redirect at Hair trigger to point to the Single Set Trigger section of this article. Please feel free to change it if you have a better idea.  --Doradus (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the Burr–Hamilton duel discusses this, but raises more questions than it answers. Drutt (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the redirect is broken now. Even if the word is wrong, it should be mentioned on the main page - I'm sure many people are coming here to see what a "hair trigger" is, especially if their native language isn't english. Perhaps create a disambiguation page for "hair trigger" and put a link to this page, explaining that it doesn't exist but might be compared to Single Set Trigger?--Cyberman TM (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link
When cleaning up the cite templates, I noticed this didn't lead anywhere. I don't know if the content has moved, or if the URL was entered improperly. Someone who's more knowledgable about this may want to check it out. Howa0082 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SIG's "Double Action Kellerman" or DAK trigger
Normally, I would not be so kind as to explain my reversions of IP edits or 'snipes' as I call them, however it seems that this marketing hype is taking advantage of the general public's lack of basic understanding of how a pistol works. "DAK" operation is merely "Pre-set hybrid" with a fancy name. It's the same concept as Glock calling their pre-set trigger a "Safe-Action". DAK is trademarked and there are, perhaps, patents involved, but in operation, it is a simple pre-set hybrid. Feel free to add it as an EXAMPLE of a pre-set hybrid trigger, but don't buy into the hype that there is anything unique or advanced about it. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that many pre-set hybrids must be cycled for the firing pin to strike contiuously, however this is no the case with the DAK and is the main advantage, and the reason for its being trademarked and patented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.254 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hair trigger comment
Nevermind the single action comment, its in the main article and I fail at reading.

hair trigger are also for competition guns, and are heavily used in the air rifle sports. While not exactly hair triggers (there are limits on how light the it can be in the rules), bullseye, race guns, and similar custom guns tend to have almost zero pretravel and posttravel on light (2-3 pound tops) pulls which some would call a hair trigger. The result of using the set triggers is often a hair trigger as well, and many rifles also have a very, very light trigger. Whoever was going on about them being cheap pistols on par with a SNS or cop killers understands very little about top end competitive shooting sports (unless I misread that part, but it sounded like hair triggers were only for criminal stuff?). Regardless, it does not belong in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.49.84 (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Request about two stage trigger
Need an entry for "two stage trigger" and maybe whatever you would call a trigger that is not two stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.163.85 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a new section called "Trigger pull stages" describing single-stage vs. two-stage triggers.Sauer202 (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"Variable triggers"
I merged content from Double crescent trigger and Progressive trigger (and Staged trigger‎) into this article, placing the section under a general section heading "Variable triggers", a term I made up for the occasion. If any one has a better way of labeling these two mechanisms please feel free to improve the article. Rezin (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Progressive vs. Staged
I don't see the difference between a progressive trigger and a staged trigger. The article uses nearly identical wording to describe them. It says of a progressive trigger "when pulled lightly, the weapon will fire a single shot. When depressed further, the weapon fires at a fully automatic rate." And of a staged trigger it says "for instance the weapon fires single shots when pulled half way, the weapon fires full automatic when pulled completely back." Are these really different types of triggers? The descriptions sound identical. This should be clarified. Mnudelman (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with "Double action"
For some reason, when you search for "Double Action", it brings you here, but Double action brings you to a tiny stub page that briefly summarizes the idea of a double action without really any details or context, and then gives you links to this page. Why not just delete the whole thing, because it doesn't contribute anything that's not already on this page (along with a lot more information to boot)? I would put up a merge request, but still haven't been able to figure out the more technical stuff like that, even after several years. I admit I haven't tried very hard, but sometimes I wish I had....45Colt 10:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, I don't think you need to file a merge request. Just redirect Double action to Trigger (firearms).--Commander Keane (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not do this.
 * The purpose I created Double-action as disambig page is so that when a page on a gun says the the gun is "double-action," Wikipedia will prompt editors (of the gun page) to specify which type of double-action trigger it has. tahc chat 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. While the indirection has good motivation, I think the effort would confuse readers more than help page authors. How about having double action redirect to a section in this article that discusses the ambiguity? Or have a double action section that raises the ambiguity and has subsections that describe the variations? Glrx (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How would anything be confusing to readers? Double action/ double-action is an ambigous term, an the Double action disambig page work in the standard Wikipedia manner to summarize the difference and direct people to where they can get more information if they still need more information. Those places just happen to be different parts of the same page. tahc chat 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Egregious omission
Visited this article and there is something major missing: Single-stage v. Double-stage triggers. C'mon folks, what gives? Or am I just missing the obvious. As a rifle shooter of 40-odd years, this omission is incomprehensible. Or, as is more likely, where have I missed the obvious?

Please don't make me rewrite / format the article because nobody has any experience with this, an entirely too common sort of trigger. I'm way too lazy but I can probably muster the energy, needs must.

I'll await replies, prior to digging in with shovel and trowel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:301:1500:1D93:D89E:3F5:542C (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

striker fired trigger and hammer fired trigger
Article needs further clarification on this. some info from gunsamerica: "Striker-fired triggers occupy a limbo between single-action and double-action. On the one hand, they’re shorter and most break more predictably than double-action triggers. On the other hand, they are long and heavy compared to just about any single-action trigger. Newer striker-fired guns feel a lot more like they have single-action triggers (and some are, technically speaking) but with an added amount of takeup to help prevent accidental or negligent discharges by increasing the length of the trigger pull. These combine the better features of both double-action and single-action triggers. They have a long pull for safety then hit a predictable, short wall before they break and fire. The new crop of strikers is a huge improvement over older-generation pistols that, realistically, functioned more like shorter, lighter double-action-only triggers. But they’re still no match for a good single-action trigger. Because a safety of some sort must be overcome–whether it’s a double-action trigger or manual safety–single-action triggers only have practical constraints on pull weight, pretravel, overtravel and reset. The one advantage that striker-fired guns have over DA/SA pistols is weight. Strikers are almost universally polymer-framed, where hammer-fired pistols, given the older designs, are usually metal-framed. For striker-fired pistols, if a user pulls the trigger and encounters a failure to fire, the remedial action is a malfunction drill–tap, rack, target. Bash the magazine in place, cycle the slide manually and aim and fire again. This doctrine is valid for all semi-automatic pistols, but with double-action-capable handguns, a quick pull of the trigger in DA mode can resolve the problem in a fraction of a second." 213.149.62.128 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)