GaryN wrote:Steve, I was indoctrinated in the ZERO creep, breaks like a glass rod thinking from years of reading the various gun mags. Then after picking up AP, I talked with Warren...now I'm shooting my AP with a rolling trigger (aka creep) and I like it. Funny how things change.
I also have a tendency to throw shots at 10 o-clock and Warren suggested I adjust the trigger stop to catch the trigger right after the sear releases. So I really don't have a drop in tension, I simply hit the trigger stop and don't deal with it.
Gary
I was actually playing with my new LP-10 on the weekend with this thread in mind.
I noticed that there was a collapse right after the sear release. Checking the manual, i note that the follow through after sear release (trigger stop) can be adjusted, but it advises against removing it completely.
(actual reference is 6.2 Triggerstop adjustment - comment is "A too close adjustment may cause unsteady trigger action")
Has anyone had an experience with the LP-10 on this point?
I'm a little concerned that it may visually look like I'm jerking because of it, when on some instances, I know I'm not.
This is creepy stuff!
Playing with something you don't understand can have your expensive air pistol behaving badly. Turning the screw back to where you thought it was doesn't always fix the problem either.
I have seen a few guys tinker too much and have their score plummet. Then its a trip to the gun doctor to get it back to normal. They tend to be more hesitant to tinker the second time around. :-)
My LP10 feels no perceptible drop off in pressure when the sear releases (350/520).
I do not have the backlash adjusted out of the trigger as I feel (IMHO) that it is better for the trigger and finger to carry on its normal pressure and movement than to come up to a solid stop (no backlash) as the pellet is released.
This is my take on trigger function principles with the understanding that I will genuinely welcome corrections. I do not pose as an expert, but the basics seem really simple to me. However one can always learn new things.
Referring to properly functioning target grade mechanical triggers (not set triggers), there are only two resistances against which you pull: the sear pressures and the adjustment springs. After the sear releases, the sear pressures disappear, and the adjustment spring pressures remain. Thus there will always be some fall-off in trigger resistance at the moment the sear releases. However, depending on how the trigger forces have been set up, that fall-off can be a large percentage of the total resistance or a small percentage.
Many people prefer to compensate for this fall-off by adjusting the trigger stop to engage directly after the sear releases. The trigger stop essentially increases the resistive force to a level many times the original pull resistance. However, if you adjust the stop too close to the release point, you end up pulling against the stop in order to release the sear, making the final release pressure erratic - that's what makers warn against. Others prefer to back off the trigger stop and learn to pull through, keeping the trigger finger moving until well after the shot has left the barrel.
In the electronic (e.g. Morini) 2-stage trigger, the only resistance you pull against is, in theory, the adjustment springs pressure. (I say in theory because it *feels* to me as though there is something else happening, but I have no idea what it is). Therefore, in theory, there is no resistance fall-off when the sear releases, because the sear is simply an electrical contact, either made or broken. And, following from that, no trigger stop is needed. The original Morini design had no trigger stop - I don't know if the newer versions have added one.
So far, the electronic trigger seems like a great advance, but that omits consideration of another major factor, the trigger "feel". By its basic (current) design, the electronic trigger must be a "glass rod breaking" trigger - there will not be any roll or movement at the release point. If you like this feel, then the electronic trigger is a big improvement over mechanical ones. If you don't like this feel - you want to "always keep your finger moving" - then the electronic trigger is unsatisfying, and a well-set-up mechanical trigger with properly adusted trigger stop (or not) feels better to you.
In basic terms, why would I care about the drop in trigger pull force when the sear is released has always puzzled me.
The mechanism for jerking the trigger or otherwise disturbing the front sight is not related to the action of the trigger finger but the action of the wrist and other fingers. I always thought it was the result of impure thoughts from some portion of the brain signaling more than just the trigger finger to move when initiating the shoot.
I have read some discriptions of teh advantages of two stage triggers and roll better than crisp or the other way around etc. But is that slight change in trigger force really making much difference in terms of me shooting a ten or a nine or six?
I have read this thread and figure I might add my $.02. Technology has advanced very well, in everything, but specifically target equipment. We all know that shooting comes down to two things; 1) trigger control and b) sight alignment. (my use of conflicting subsection notation is for John Bickar, the grammar monster) : )
When I tried a Morini AP a long time ago, the electronic trigger felt great! A 500+ gram trigger felt less than that, to me.
There are debates of what is better. I believe neither. The individual shooter is a factor in shooting well. The exceptions such as the 60 shot world record with a FWB Mod. 2 and Yifu Wang using a Steyr LP1C at the Olympics come to mind. The US National Junior record for 60 shots is a 577 by Neal Caloia. How many of us could shoot that score with such a primitive tool?
Is it a coincidence that the top shooters use equipment different than the norm of other shooters? Maybe, maybe not. The common concept with top shooters is training. No, we are not all top shooters, but we strive to do better and the best shooters know what it takes.
We can add science to show what equipment is better than others, but when you add a huge variable such as "the individual shooter", science goes out the window.
Don't look to equipment to make you shoot better, look to training. More advanced equipment seems to be a crutch that is not necessary.
1) Don't disagree with what Mike says- shooters have *lots* of different reasons for why they are shooting what they are shooting- top shooters no exception. For many of them they shoot Brand X because Brand X is what they have their time and money invested in, and switching equipment carries a price (training time and $$$).
2) For Pete: it's all about force couples. Right before the break, you have balanced all forces involved in aligning the sights and settling the aim. At the exact instant the shot breaks, those forces change. This instantaneous force imbalance results in a sudden disruption of the carefully balanced equilibrium. You can dampen the disruption by squeezing the grip harder, ensuring your finger position is as close to a neutral sweet spot as possible, make 1st-2d stage difference as small as possible, reduce overtravel (but then you have a different force imbalance when you engage the stop), etc. HOWEVER you cannot remove the disruption. Well, you could buy a gun with a constant force profile. Then the disruption goes away. How big of a factor is this? Well, as Mike points out, lots of shooters have obviously learned to cope with the disruption.
Try this experiment: hang your gun from a string (like a pendulum) and then pull the trigger with a separate string. Watch the muzzle as the shot breaks.
Yikes!
It's even worse with a centerfire gun like an M1911 . . . but again, *everybody* has to learn to cope.
I guess this just reminds me of the lock time discussions, and the theory that a shorter lock time is better bull shit. Yes, shorter lock time of a free pistol versus a flintlock. But is the lock time difference between any of the free pistols really significant? I don't think so!
Or in this discussion the improvement from a WWII vintage military issue 1911 trigger to any of the good triggers on a modern AP or FP may be significant. But once you have any modern, quality AP or FP or Standard pistol, does it really make a difference? (other than in one's mind which has value)
If it does, my AP scores should go through the roof when my Morini 162 arrives whilst my FP and standard pistol scores will remain exactly the same (still have mechanical triggers). I made the change because the old AP was in desperate need of repair and I got a trade I felt I could not refuse. I hope for an improvement based on the new AP but have to make grip changes etc.
I suspect any difference will come from hours of INTENSE dry fire and other drills in the basics.
Pete S.
When I left the range at Fort Benning you were standing in front of the Pilkguns table with a new Morini 162 in your hand. I can't believe you gave it back and now have to wait for them to ship it to you.
I'm going to rethink your position at the top of my ten most efficient and in control shooters list.
Don't worry, the Morini and the model 1911 both have triggers. The difference is all in your mind.
I left it there because it was promised to another shooter and that was the last one in stock. My new Morini should be in the mail shortly fresh from the factory in Europe. While I am waiting I had my air tank hydro tested and refilled etc.
I agree, the difference between most triggers is in ones own mind. Training makes the difference.