doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Heavy Trigger Pulls - Your Thoughts

Heavy triggers on a light gun largely eliminates most of the advantages of having a light gun. Most (if not all) light shotguns are game guns and most game guns are used for shooting that is purely instinctive. Fighting with a heavy trigger wrecks that process.

!

I just find it amazing that people will go to great lengths and expense to have a stock bent to what they think they need to shoot it well ............ cut, or add to the length of pull ............. shoot endless patterns to get the best load for the job ........... and then handicap themselves with too heavy, or "creepy" triggers. Most bad triggers can be helped. If they can't, they should be sent down the road, IMO.

SRH

Agree. I've found that good British game guns usually have very good triggers (or can be adjusted so they are very good). The triggers on my 6# Jeffery 12 bore both trip at about 4#. On my Webley & Scott, half a pound heavier, they both trip at about 5 1/2. In both cases, very crisp--and both guns shoot well for me. I don't think I'd want anything much lighter than the Jeffery's triggers.

I've shot 3 and 3 1/2 on British guns for years. Makes everything else seem poorly finished. What's the toast over there "To the trigger!"

On my side-by-sides with DT, mainly all 12 gauges, 3.5 lbs. aprox. front trigger, 4 lbs. rear. On my Model 12's, again, mainly all 12 gauges, 4.25 to 4.5 lbs. Best trigger pull on any shotgun I own- the old 12 "lightweight" A-5 28" vr. barrel mod. choke that I bought new in 1962 at the Camp Pendleton PX- only auto shotgun I have ever owned. crisp, no creep or over-travel- but I shoot better now-a-days with the Model 12's.

RWTF, I think Browning had a different definition of "lightweight" for those A-5's. (The same really goes for the old Sweet 16's as well.) Yes, both lighter than the "standardweight" guns . . . but a bit like comparing a linebacker to an offensive tackle: neither one very light by "normal" standards.

But I can still pick up a Sweet 16 and shoot it about as well as anything. I think it's true with those old humpbacks: You can either shoot them or you can't. I had no idea that I could until a fellow shooter told me of a friend of his who had both a Standardweight 16 and a Browning 1903 .32 for sale. Shot both well. Wish that .32 had had a bit more punch.

Greener: recommends, as a general rule, 3 1/2 lbs for front trigger, 4 lbs for rear.
Brister: recommends the same thing. Also likes 3 1/2 lbs for his Rem 3200 and Perazzi target/flyer guns with single triggers.

If you shoot a lot with an ill-fitting, poorly mounted gun with bad footwork and magnum loads or these new 1300 fps target loads (ugh) you can develop a flinch in an afternoon. I don't go hunting with people with release triggers.

All these frequently reviewed new guns by the boys who often look like Duck Dynasty wannabees that are coming on the market for the last 5 years at "working mans prices" have triggers that weigh as much or more than the gun does. So the "working man" needs a trigger job. Also needs a stock that fits. If its an auto it comes with spacers to adjust fit but those are "silly." All of a sudden the new bargain turns into boat anchor with too many $$/�� wrapped up in it. But, the reviewer got a free trip to dove land or some preserve; "gee, gun wasn't so bad after all." One can't make this stuff up.

Maybe the gun companies should pay for a proper (English) fitting and see how these "writers" get on with a properly fit try-gun?

I've never had facial hair like the Duck Dynasty crowd, so I guess I'm good to go on that score. But I will ALWAYS point it out if I review a gun with an exceptionally heavy or creepy trigger. I know some people are pickier about triggers than I am--and I'm pickier than most, I'd guess. But I always include pull weight/crispness for those who DO care.