Weird...I put a Glock 3.5 Minus trigger bar in my 19...
by rob , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 13:05 (3725 days ago)
And the trigger pull was worse with it than with the factory. Gen-4 Glock 19. Factory part on right, 3.5 minus on left.
Ok...stubborn image loader...
by rob , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 13:07 (3725 days ago) @ rob
Minus on bottom/factory on top.
Define "worse"
by Miles , CIVITATES AMERICAE, Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 13:44 (3725 days ago) @ rob
please.
A minus connector lowers the final pull weight, but in so doing makes the pull (to me) seem more 'squishey' in the beginning, almost like there is more slack to take up. Some people get used to it. Others never like it and go back to the standard connector. YMMV.
A lot depends on how the entire set of parts interact with each other. The trigger bar, where it meets the connector, may need to be lightly polished and/or the connector may need a bit of dry fire to wear things in. Also a light dab of good gun grease on that area of the connector really helps too.
I was privileged to literally have had drawers of parts and get paid to tinker with Glocks to see what worked and what didn't.
The original pull has a fairly abrupt let off...
by rob , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 15:58 (3725 days ago) @ Miles
I have to really concentrate when dry firing with one hand to not jerk the front sight to the right when the trigger finally breaks. With the 3.5 Minus it's even more abrupt and it pulls the front sight right three times as far no matter how hard I concentrate. I put the original back in for now. It's almost tolerable like it is and will probably wear in. I'm not sure why the 3.5 bar didn't improve it some.
Well, you only 'loose' 1 pound of pull with a - connector
by Miles , CIVITATES AMERICAE, Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 16:47 (3725 days ago) @ rob
.
Yeah, my terminology was off a bit...
by rob , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 23:36 (3725 days ago) @ Miles
wasn't it:) I knew it wasn't a DISconnector. Been away from Glock for a while but I think this one is a keeper.
Weird...I put a Glock 3.5 Minus trigger bar in my 19...
by Sarge , Central Misery, Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 22:12 (3725 days ago) @ rob
"The gun’s only problem was that someone had installed a Ghost 3.5 # connector. The resulting pull was too light for a carry gun and to make matters worse, the second stage of the pull was mushy and unpredictable. This is Josh’s first Glock and he wasn’t comfortable carrying it IWB, so I swapped out an OEM connector. This improved the second stage immensely and added only a pound to the pull"
http://www.thesixgunjournal.net/the-glock-model-21-2-5-generation-45-auto/
I put the factory connector back in...
by rob , Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 23:30 (3725 days ago) @ Sarge
And this evening after getting off work I pulled it back down and stoned a few contact surfaces and rough edges. That smoothed it up considerably. I don't mind squishiness in a Glock as long as its a consistent pull. I've read multiple sources that say Gen-4 guns tend to have heavier trigger pulls and this is my second one confirming it for me at least. The second stage on this gun is clean and crisp...and heavy. Hard to shoot one handed without pulling the sights off when the trigger breaks. Its a bit better after some minor polishing (no .25 Cent Glock trigger job with a dremel for me LOL...Good grief, they polish the slide rails and locking block too for crying out loud!). I put a couple drops of Militec-1 on the key contacts points and after a couple hundred rounds down range and a couple thousand dry fires I'll lube it with some Tetra or Milcom-1 and see how it does. If it won't conform to me I may just have to conform to it, but I like the gun and intend to keep it. I'll save the 3.5# connector for another Glock down the road but it makes the second stage much heavier in this gun for some reason.
I put the factory connector back in...
by Miles , CIVITATES AMERICAE, Thursday, September 18, 2014, 00:55 (3725 days ago) @ rob
I'd suggest a heavier grease on the trigger bar/connector link up (I used issue moly-disulfide for what that's worth, the pistol guru at HQ used Brownells version of it since it came in a syringe).
It's hard to diagnose shooting problems over the webz. All I can say is to practice dryfiring while concentrating on your sight alignment.
That's the plan...
by rob , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 07:06 (3724 days ago) @ Miles
Lots of dry fire practice and I'll try out a good grease too. Thank you for you help, it's much appreciated.
Hey Miles, is this what you're talking about?
by rob , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 07:21 (3724 days ago) @ Miles
http://www.brownells.com/gun-cleaning-chemicals/oils-lubricants/lubricant-protectant-oi...
This sounds like good stuff and they say it's good for aluminum as well. What's strange is my Armalite AR15 says absolutely do not use any moly products for lube because it erodes the aluminum. I have a hard time buying that but I quite using moly grease on it just the same. I've used that Sta-Lube automotive moly grease for years for cast bullet lube as well as the bolt lugs on my rifles and my AR bolt before I noticed that in the manual. I still use it on everything but the AR.
Hey Miles, is this what you're talking about?
by Paul , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 10:54 (3724 days ago) @ rob
rob, I think he was referring to this one (what's the difference other than this one being in a syringe? don't know...) http://www.brownells.com/gun-cleaning-chemicals/oils-lubricants/lubricant-protectant-oi...
The syringe would tend to make it quite handy to apply, one would think.
Hey Miles, is this what you're talking about?
by rob , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 10:56 (3724 days ago) @ Paul
Yeah, I agree. I would just rather have the tub. I have a few syringes left from previous lubes that would work or I could use a brush.
Hey Miles, is this what you're talking about?
by Paul , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 11:05 (3724 days ago) @ rob
It definitely comes out cheaper by the tub (2 oz vs 10 grams). Used sparingly that should last you at least a couple months...
Hey Miles, is this what you're talking about? Yes, that's it
by Miles , CIVITATES AMERICAE, Thursday, September 18, 2014, 13:29 (3724 days ago) @ Paul
.
Moly isn't the problem with Aluminum, Graphite is.
by Miles , CIVITATES AMERICAE, Thursday, September 18, 2014, 13:32 (3724 days ago) @ rob
edited by Miles, Thursday, September 18, 2014, 13:37
Molydisulphide grease is used when installing new barrels in "16s" (generic M16/M4/416 etc. etc.)
Graphite is what will cause galvanic corrosion and is strictly verboten.
About the only place you might think of using that grease on a AR type is on the bolt cam and cam area in the bolt carrier. You really don't need it on the bolt lugs
Now that you mention it...
by rob , Thursday, September 18, 2014, 14:35 (3724 days ago) @ Miles
That's exactly right. I remember now I quit using the Sta-Lube because it has graphite it it. Its Sta-Lube Moly-Graph. On my AR I don't Pt grease on the locking lugs...I do on my bolt action rifles in moderation
I mixed a dab of USGI lubrication grade moly into...
by rob , Friday, September 19, 2014, 07:13 (3723 days ago) @ Miles
A tablespoon or so of Brian Enos' Slide Glide, turning it from red to black and put that on the connector/trigger bar contact surface and a dab on the edge of the striker/trigger bar contact area. It's definitely slicker than oil and vastly improved the feel of the trigger. We'll see how well this holds up or if it gunks up over time. If it doesn't work well I'll buy the Brownells stuff and try it. I've got about a pint can of the moly.