Talk:Trigger (firearms)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] unreferenced

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Something to do

  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?

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)

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)

[edit] 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. --P3d0 (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. --P3d0 (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. --P3d0 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)