GooseGestapo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,153
Check out the Laugo Alien. it addresses this.
Trigger Alignment Solution for Striker Fired Pistols
- Thread starter ACIinventor
- Start date
- Status
While that would be true of the Standard SIG 320 frame (the lower picture), it isn't of the SIG X-frame as seen on the Legion (upper picture). The grip attainable of the x-frame is substantially higher than on the Standard frame or even the Wilson Custom frame
Improving accuracy is a fine goal, and there are choices among current designs which potentially improve it. That requires the shooter to have high grade skills to take advantage of it, and that starts about 10,000 practice rounds a year.
Most have basic skills, they do pass a CCW qualification with most of the shots near the center of mass, which is an 18" circle centered on the heart where any hit is potentially capable of stopping an opponent from continuing aggression. Precision accuracy beyond that is more a game to see who is the better shooter, and getting 9's and 10's vs 6-8 rings is still just a stop. Human response to injury is problematic, soldiers have survived multiple hits with .50 cal fire and lived to turn the battle and receive recognition standing up.
On the other hand a .22 has killed quite a few with what looks like a poor shot - but it disrupted the blood system sufficiently to end a life.
Beyond that the real issue for inventors - there are thousands of new! improvements yearly - is getting it to market. The fabrication, distribution, and marketing of goods is where the major obstacles exist. Some attempt to sell direct, which works well under certain circumstances, others thru distribution chains which put the products in stores, also successful. The trick is having control to do either, in a highly competitive marketplace which sees new startups face a 50% closure rate the first five years. It's over 90% after ten years.
Staying alive with a long series of successes with multiple products is required. What lowering the bore axis or changing the grip shape does is create small incremental changes in something controlled by the general ergonomic ability of the human hand, which has been explored ad infinitum over the last 500 years. Most of that research is now static, and answers known. What isn't tho is how to reinterpret the application, and if the marketing effort is extensive enough, you could even make a mechanical watch based on 50s technology become the superlative example of watch craft in the world, and charge whatever you can get away with. Then your fans would line up to defend the products reputation, even when it cannot keep time to five seconds a day compared to a $300 quartz keeping time to 2 seconds a month. Because, IMAGE, and all that.
Tinkerers usually never win, sadly it's the marketers selling status who do. The province of marketing is to lift up the downtrodden. For a price.
Most have basic skills, they do pass a CCW qualification with most of the shots near the center of mass, which is an 18" circle centered on the heart where any hit is potentially capable of stopping an opponent from continuing aggression. Precision accuracy beyond that is more a game to see who is the better shooter, and getting 9's and 10's vs 6-8 rings is still just a stop. Human response to injury is problematic, soldiers have survived multiple hits with .50 cal fire and lived to turn the battle and receive recognition standing up.
On the other hand a .22 has killed quite a few with what looks like a poor shot - but it disrupted the blood system sufficiently to end a life.
Beyond that the real issue for inventors - there are thousands of new! improvements yearly - is getting it to market. The fabrication, distribution, and marketing of goods is where the major obstacles exist. Some attempt to sell direct, which works well under certain circumstances, others thru distribution chains which put the products in stores, also successful. The trick is having control to do either, in a highly competitive marketplace which sees new startups face a 50% closure rate the first five years. It's over 90% after ten years.
Staying alive with a long series of successes with multiple products is required. What lowering the bore axis or changing the grip shape does is create small incremental changes in something controlled by the general ergonomic ability of the human hand, which has been explored ad infinitum over the last 500 years. Most of that research is now static, and answers known. What isn't tho is how to reinterpret the application, and if the marketing effort is extensive enough, you could even make a mechanical watch based on 50s technology become the superlative example of watch craft in the world, and charge whatever you can get away with. Then your fans would line up to defend the products reputation, even when it cannot keep time to five seconds a day compared to a $300 quartz keeping time to 2 seconds a month. Because, IMAGE, and all that.
Tinkerers usually never win, sadly it's the marketers selling status who do. The province of marketing is to lift up the downtrodden. For a price.
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
It looks like the Laugo Alien pistol has about the worst trigger alignment I've seen. I do love it's extremely low bore axis.
My long series of successes with multiple products have already been stolen by patent thieves and their Rutherford County, TN government co-conspirators. Angle Degree Indicator, Guardian Grip, Second Zero, and the US Army's new heavy M4 barrel - to name a few.
Last edited by a moderator:
As Zendude noted, DA revolvers typically have a trigger pull axis that is well out of parallel with the bore when the hand is in the normal shooting position. So it's not really just about whether a gun is hammer fired or not.
A simple way to check for what you're talking about is to look at the index finger of the shooting hand when it is comfortably on the trigger and the gun is gripped properly. If the trigger finger is parallel with the bore, then the "trigger alignment" in the sense you are talking about is good. If the trigger finger has to angle down to get to a good position on the trigger, then the "trigger alignment" is less than ideal. The more it angles down, the harder it will feel to the shooter even if actual pull weight as it would be normally measured is the same.
The trigger finger is applying force to the trigger, but some of that force is being applied in a direction that the trigger can't actually move and so that portion of the applied force is wasted.
HOWEVER, that is all based on the assumption that the trigger travel/pivot direction is parallel to the bore. A relatively simple fix would be to design the trigger so that at the point that the most force needs to be applied, the direction of travel of the trigger is exactly in the direction that the trigger finger is applying the force. This could be done by moving the trigger pivot point a bit farther forward in the case of the Glock diagram.
For example, in your comparison drawing, you show the line of the trigger pull being slightly upward in the Glock--I agree that's the case. That will make the trigger pull harder IF the trigger is moving directly backward (parallel to the bore) at the point that the trigger pull is hardest, but if the trigger is moving parallel to the line you've drawn then all is well. The trigger finger would then be applying force in the direction that the trigger is moving and so none of it would be wasted.
gyp_c2
Member
It's nice that so many have hands that fit so many different firearms or can adapt to such.
3 years ago I developed Arthritis severe enough to change the shapes of my hands and fingers. My Glocks have to be reduced to allow enough purchase for my crooked fingers to properly reach and press somewhat effectively. They will never be supple and allow my previous ability to return. Long story but anything that may adapt some firearms to allow me to use them effectively might be welcome.
I can't afford to simply replace them with others at this point but I think it's nice that someone is working on something that may allow some of us to use what we have if some adaptation is possible for a reasonable price.
Go for it dude...
3 years ago I developed Arthritis severe enough to change the shapes of my hands and fingers. My Glocks have to be reduced to allow enough purchase for my crooked fingers to properly reach and press somewhat effectively. They will never be supple and allow my previous ability to return. Long story but anything that may adapt some firearms to allow me to use them effectively might be welcome.
I can't afford to simply replace them with others at this point but I think it's nice that someone is working on something that may allow some of us to use what we have if some adaptation is possible for a reasonable price.
Go for it dude...
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
For a 1911, proper trigger alignment puts the finger in the center of the trigger. As the shooter applies force, it is directed rearward. Before the trigger pull is hardest, it is parallel. When the trigger pull is hardest, it is parallel. After the trigger pull is hardest, it is parallel. This kind of consistency throughout the trigger pull is advantageous to the shooter. One of the reasons DA revolver triggers are difficult is the need for the finger to change it's position on the trigger face as it is pulled. Of Course, you can train to become familiar and adjust for this movement. But a DA revolver's trigger will never be as easy as the 1911 trigger I'm using as an example. No, we can't put 1911 triggers in all pistols. We are forced to use the typical trigger with a pivot point. But why not get that trigger alignment correct for such triggers, increasing consistency. It can only help improve the trigger pull.
I've now got a design that will get that proper trigger alignment for any pistol, especially striker-fired with the high grip built into the backstrap. I love being an inventor! I get to solve problems, even those that others don't think exists.
If the trigger pivots, then the direction of travel at any chosen point on the trigger will change as the trigger progresses through its travel. Which means that given the nature of fingers, there will be only one point where the trigger finger is exerting force precisely along the direction of trigger travel. The rest of the time some of the force applied will be trying to move the trigger in a direction that it can't move.
Given that situation, the logical conclusion is to make sure that the trigger direction of travel is (as nearly as possible) aligned with the direction that the trigger finger is applying force at the point where the most force needs to be applied.
The nature of semi-automatic triggers is that they usually aren't the same pull weight all the way through the travel and it's really immaterial if the trigger finger isn't applying force in the ideal direction when the pull weight is relatively light.
One could make some kind of a gadget that would sort of "hide" the pivoting motion of the trigger with some sort of sliding arrangement that applies pressure to the trigger, and although that would help with the issue of trigger finger movement and positioning on the trigger surface, the force vectors still apply. Force applied to the gadget in any direction other than the direction of trigger travel will still be broken up into vectors where the force that is in the direction of the trigger travel is productive and the other force is not.
I think what you're saying is that you have invented some kind of an attachment/accessory that you can install on/in a pistol that will deal with this issue. I can tell you that while I would be interested in a pistol design that is optimized for the alignment issues we've talked about (sort of a difficult proposition given that humans aren't really one-size fits all) I would be considerably more cautious about "bolting something onto" an existing design to solve a problem that isn't a fairly major one.
Given that situation, the logical conclusion is to make sure that the trigger direction of travel is (as nearly as possible) aligned with the direction that the trigger finger is applying force at the point where the most force needs to be applied.
The nature of semi-automatic triggers is that they usually aren't the same pull weight all the way through the travel and it's really immaterial if the trigger finger isn't applying force in the ideal direction when the pull weight is relatively light.
One could make some kind of a gadget that would sort of "hide" the pivoting motion of the trigger with some sort of sliding arrangement that applies pressure to the trigger, and although that would help with the issue of trigger finger movement and positioning on the trigger surface, the force vectors still apply. Force applied to the gadget in any direction other than the direction of trigger travel will still be broken up into vectors where the force that is in the direction of the trigger travel is productive and the other force is not.
I think what you're saying is that you have invented some kind of an attachment/accessory that you can install on/in a pistol that will deal with this issue. I can tell you that while I would be interested in a pistol design that is optimized for the alignment issues we've talked about (sort of a difficult proposition given that humans aren't really one-size fits all) I would be considerably more cautious about "bolting something onto" an existing design to solve a problem that isn't a fairly major one.
danez71
Member
So the issue is that...
The trigger sits lower than lower than the contact point where the web of your thumb meets the grip.
So raise one or lower the other.
A) Raise the trigger requiring frame mod addressing the internals affected by the frame mod
B) Lower the contact point where the web of your thumb meets the grip, thus also creating a higher bore axis via a snap on back strap.
Option B seems plausible as an aftermarket addon.
The trigger sits lower than lower than the contact point where the web of your thumb meets the grip.
So raise one or lower the other.
A) Raise the trigger requiring frame mod addressing the internals affected by the frame mod
B) Lower the contact point where the web of your thumb meets the grip, thus also creating a higher bore axis via a snap on back strap.
Option B seems plausible as an aftermarket addon.
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
Handgun trends appear to be lower bore axis arrangements to help deal with recoil. I'm not considering anything that would go in the opposite direction.
Great analysis and information. I agree this isn't a fairly major problem but incremental improvements often move the state of the art forward. My being an inventor, means I'm very interested in these small improvements. And when they are applied in a cumulative manner to the product (handgun), performance can be increased overall.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you manage the trigger using the optimal technique, by resetting in parallel and prepping it it correctly, alignment doesn't play a role in increasing performance...because the movement is so slight and the increase in pressure applied so small
You thread raises an interesting intellectual question, but it has little practical application when utilizing correct technique. It might offer some assistance to those unwilling to learn or practice that technique
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
The trigger alignment problem reduces the mechanical advantage of the pistol's trigger. By improving this alignment, trigger weight will be reduced by simply having the finger placed in the proper position on the trigger face for leverage.
Definition - Second class levers always have a high mechanical advantage E.g. Standing on tip toes, or performing a press up. Second class levers have a longer effort arm. This means they can overcome heavy loads, with relatively little effort.
I could learn and practice a technique utilizing my middle finger to press the trigger, addressing this alignment problem. But why bother with such an unorthodox effort when the alignment problem can be solved through a better design. After correcting the alignment problem my learning and practice could be better focused on using a cooperative trigger. Proper alignment will put the finger at or near the best position for exerting leverage and keeps it there throughout the trigger press. I believe this will increase performance.
As it stands right now with improper trigger alignment, the finger is not positioned correctly for best leverage and those other vector forces applied through the trigger press are at higher angles to the intended/needed vector.
A word on correct technique: Look back in history and see the evolution of shooting techniques. From point shooting to sighted shooting. Fingers on the trigger to fingers indexed outside the trigger guard. As history shows, techniques will change, so don't get too ingrained in your notion of 'correct technique'. Often, it is an improvement in design that alters technique bringing forth better performance.
Great discussion, thanks for participating.
danez71
Member
By correcting the alignment and thereby increasing the mechanical advantage, how much will the trigger weight be effectively reduced by?
Can you express that amount as a percentage?
If not, can you express it as a net result assuming a 6lb trigger to start?
jrmiddleton425
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
Yes...I DO have thoughts. A hand placement like you're talking about will make it nearly impossible to shoot with any accuracy AT ALL. It is awkward, and after 20-30 rounds at most, you will find it painful.
I apologize ahead of time if I sound like I'm being short with you. I really do. But...you need to not re-invent the wheel.
You need to find a pistol that fits YOU, and an hour with a competent instructor to show you how to place your finger.
Unfortunately a lack of knowledge of the optimal technique often leads to designs that don't increase performance. While they may be well marketed as improving performance, they don't hold up well to practical usage.
Two that come to mind, in regards to handguns, are the XS and ghost ring sighting systems ...work great on long guns, not so well on handguns
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
Like comparing recoil to 'kick', one is measurable while the other is subjective. The recoil force doesn't change. How its applied to the shooter's hand makes for the perceived 'kick'. The same can be said here with the trigger. The trigger weight, mechanical advantage involved and the related percentages are all quantitative. Correcting the trigger alignment will change the way the trigger press is perceived by the shooter.
Something else to consider:
The natural finger pointing position of the hand. When you focus on a object with your eyes and then point your finger at that object, this is the natural hand position. It doesn't involve a downward angle of the finger relative to the hand as we see in the following image of the striker fired pistol. Again, bad trigger alignment.
In this image, proper trigger alignment is obvious for the 1911 shooter. The bore axis, bottom of the slide, and the top edge of the 'pointing finger' are parallel. Proper trigger alignment. This means the handgun will point better along with the other benefits related to the trigger press.
I think what has happened here is that striker fired handguns, in search of that lower bore axis, generated this design defect. I have a way to bring these handguns back into alignment.
You're not being short, not at all. I'm re-inventing the trigger.
I already have a pistol with proper trigger alignment, my 1911. My H&K VP9 (striker fired) has the slight trigger alignment problem. An hour with a competent instructor isn't really needed to show you how to place your finger when the handgun's design does it for you.
You are correct about the marketing. Glock proudly proclaims a lower bore axis due to their striker fired design. I think its somewhere around .78 inches. Great for marketing better recoil control and it does what is claimed. What Glock neglects to mention is the trigger alignment problem created by their design. So, to overcome Glock's imperfection, a concerted effort to develop an 'optimal technique' for practical usage of handguns with this design flaw is promoted. All of this can be avoided/ignored simply by solving the trigger alignment problem. But Glock doesn't know how to do this. I do.
Last edited by a moderator:
danez71
Member
I understand that and that's why I asked for a % or net amount; because that's a measured amount that could be derived by math formula. The market/consumer will decide the perceived/subjective difference.
So can you give the measurable one?
OP
OP
ACIinventor
Member
I can't disclose proprietary information or information susceptible to reverse engineering. The principles of the design are sound and numbers are available but releasing them publicly wouldn't be a good idea at this time. I'll comment on the problem to be solved, not the specific solution I'm developing. You'll have to wait until the America Invents Act (AIA) is repealed so inventors like me can secure their intellectual property again. Build Back Better!
You seem to be willing to consistently dismiss the reasoning and advice of other members and make claims that you have a solution to what many feel is a non-existent issue...but you're unwilling/unable to back up your claims at this time, it sounds like a good time to put this thread to bed
Last edited:
- Status
