What handgun under $600 has the best trigger?

[Member 53328]

I think the OP added me to his ignore list.

Bummer.

 

[Nosferatu]

I think the OP added me to his ignore list.

Bummer.

I'm probably not far behind.

 

[Tlock]

I think the OP added me to his ignore list.

Bummer.

His loss

 

[Member 75490]

JFC. A lot of people here genuinely tried to help you and this is the bullbubblegum you come back with?

Go bubblegum in your hat.

JFC. the sarcasm is lost on you. I was making fun of an old reddit meme where someone is saying they went through your whole reddit history to find insults

 

[L84Cabo]

My thoughts for whatever they're worth...

Triggers can be very subjective.

And there may be a great SA/DA gun with a fantastic trigger in it...but you, obviously, still have to deal with two very distinct and different trigger pulls that are inherent to the SA/DA platform. That's kinda a deal breaker for me personally. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Beretta 92G Elite that Mr. Langdon worked his magic on for me. And I love my P226 with SRT trigger in it. But at this point I just don't see myself adding any additional SA/DA guns to the stable...except for maybe a CZ Shadow at some point.

1911 triggers reign supreme, of course. But 1911 triggers are very apples to oranges, obviously, when compared to SA/DA and Striker guns. Plus you're likely going to have to pay more than $600 for even a middle of the road 1911. Although there are probably a few in the $600 range if you like the package.

In Striker guns I would look at HK VP9, Walther PDP, and I'm a big fan of newest iteration of the M&P 2.0 triggers...the flat ones, not the older style hinged triggers. And there are probably a few others that I haven't shot that are probably pretty ok. Triggers in the Striker guns in general seem to be getting better. Competition is tough...which is great...because the MFG are stepping up their game and historically there has been a LOT of room for improvement in striker triggers. The best striker trigger IMO, however, remains the Apex Flat Trigger w/Forward Set Sear. But that's a $200 upgrade...but well worth the $$ IMO. YMMV.

 

[solv3nt]

I think the OP added me to his ignore list.

Bummer.

You too?!?!?!

 

[Member 53328]

You too?!?!?!

I have that effect on people. What can I say. Lol

 

[solv3nt]

My thoughts for whatever they're worth...

Triggers can be very subjective.

And there may be a great SA/DA gun with a fantastic trigger in it...but you, obviously, still have to deal with two very distinct and different trigger pulls that are inherent to the SA/DA platform. That's kinda a deal breaker for me personally. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Beretta 92G Elite that Mr. Langdon worked his magic on for me. And I love my P226 with SRT trigger in it. But at this point I just don't see myself adding any additional SA/DA guns to the stable...except for maybe a CZ Shadow at some point.

1911 triggers reign supreme, of course. But 1911 triggers are very apples to oranges, obviously, when compared to SA/DA and Striker guns. Plus you're likely going to have to pay more than $600 for even a middle of the road 1911. Although there are probably a few in the $600 range if you like the package.

In Striker guns I would look at HK VP9, Walther PDP, and I'm a big fan of newest iteration of the M&P 2.0 triggers...the flat ones, not the older style hinged triggers. And there are probably a few others that I haven't shot that are probably pretty ok. Triggers in the Striker guns in general seem to be getting better. Competition is tough...which is great...because the MFG are stepping up their game and historically there has been a LOT of room for improvement in striker triggers. The best striker trigger IMO, however, remains the Apex Flat Trigger w/Forward Set Sear. But that's a $200 upgrade...but well worth the $$ IMO. YMMV.

The HK USP 45T kind of found it's way into my shopping cart. I blame one of the soccer dads. We were talking hunting sidearms and I started looking at magnums. Which is stupid, I've had a bunch of them. Then I found out that the USP can take a steady diet of 45 super. Sold American!

 

[Tlock]

I'm probably not far behind.

People get thier feelings hurt way to easy. Probably a gen z that's a only child...my kids are all fighters and I'm proud of that

 

[Nosferatu]

JFC. the sarcasm is lost on you. I was making fun of an old reddit meme where someone is saying they went through your whole reddit history to find insults

Nobody here gives a bubblegum about Reddit.

 

[OldBroad44]

Ruger MK4 with a VQ trigger kit.

Right. The traditional shape MK IVs with the outer style grip angle., not the 22/45. Probably especially the 5" bull barrel. Its being sold right now at Midway for a little over 500 to a little over 600. I had the Mark II 5" Bull barrel, the equivalent version in the era when I did most of my hiking, camping, shooting, and handgun hunting. It had a great trigger out of the box, but I had a gunsmith work on it and make it really glorious. These days I would get the Mark IV and VQ trigger kit.

The generalization I've heard is that with respect to centerfire semiautos, the names and models with the best triggers are usually single action target guns such as certain 1911s. They are usually way over the $600. CZ target 9mm semi autos are more like $2000, for example.

To get a good trigger in a new .357 mag DA revolver, get a SW such as the 686, and expect to pay more like $1000. The Ruger equivalent, the GP 100, usually costs about the same and has a much heavier SA trigger pull and a very much heavier DA trigger pull. Many people replace Ruger springs with Woolf Springs . this improves both the DA and SA triggers a huge amount. But the trigger of the Ruger GP 100 with Wolf Springs is still not as good as that of the SW 686 out of the box.

Colt used to make excellent DA revolvers in .357 and .44, but they are way overpriced compared to SW and Ruger. And they have recently changed hands. So who knows whether they will be any good?

In .44 mag DA revolvers the situation is parallel to .357s. By far the best DA and SA triggers are in the SW 629 Classics rather than in the Ruger Red Hawks or Super Redhawks. And there are Woolf spring kits that can greatly improve the Ruger triggers but still leave them inferior to the Smiths. Used to be Rugers cost a couple hundred less than the equivalent Smiths. So if you weren't fussy about the trigger the Ruger could save you a little. These days the two are very similar in price.

However, in .44 mag Rugers have a couple of advantages. SW .44 mags can take only standard pressure .44 mag loads. Ruger Redhawks and Super Redhawks can also take so-called .44 mag +P and .44 mag +P+. They also also have a longer cylinder than SW 629s, and can take some loads that have bullets too long to fit in SW chambers. The standard pressure .44 mag is up to about 1200 ft. lbs. The .44 mag +P or +p+ are slightly above 1600 ft. lbs.-- that is, .454 Casull level power in the more versatile 44 mag caliber.

The other advantage of the Super Redhawk only is it has a much better system for mounting a scope. There are grooves on the frame that fit the scope rings that come with the gun. The scope rings fit in the grooves on the frame so that the scope is positioned over your hand instead of over the barrel. You can put a scope on positioned on the frame without removing the back sight. This means that once you have adjusted and sighted in the scope you can remove the scope in the rings and use the open sights while walking to your favorite hunting spot. The open sights are best if you surprise a deer at close range. Once you are in a spot where you would be happy to sit a while, then put down your gardening pad, sit with your back against a tree, screw the rings on the gun, and get the extra range that comes with a scoped gun and sitting position with elbows on knees. With Smiths you can't mount a scope on the frame without removing the back sight. So the gun is a scoped gun only until you sight in the open sights. The alternative is to mount the scope on the barrel, which unbalances the gun. The down side of the Rugers is they are much heavier guns.

So for .357 mags, I'll always go for the Smiths because they cost the same as the Rugers but have way better triggers. But in .44mag I'll want at least one lighter SW with a barrel about 6.5" or less that I don't plan to scope and wouldn't want or need to shoot +P loads in. And one heavy Super Redhawk in 7.5 or 9.5" barrel that I do want to scope, hunt with, etc. (At the moment I have a 9.5" Super Redhawk and scope and a 8.38" SW 629. Love the Ruger. Plan to sell the SW and get at least one 629 Classic 6.5" and maybe also a 629 4" Mountain Gun. Harder than it may seem as I want the 629s to be used model -4s or earlier, which are way better than current new 629s. In the past also had a Ruger Redhawk 7.5" and a Colt Anaconda 6".)

As for SA revolvers, someone else will have to tell you. They aren't my thing. Likewise for .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, .460 and 500 SW. More than I need for anything I want or need to do. Both in weight of guns and power and cost of ammo.

The guy who suggested a Taurus was kidding. Quality control stinks. There are occassional rare good ones. They are made in Brazil. The warranty stinks. If you send them a broken gun on warranty most of the time they hold it for three months, then send it back without doing anything and say they have fixed it. If you send it back they may rinse and repeat. Or they may say they are out of those guns and can't fix or replace but will offer you a much cheaper gun as a replacement. There is serious question as to whether they even have a repair shop. Since they are in Brazil if they just keep your broken gun and never get back to you you have no recourse. "Friends do not recommend that friends buy a Taurus."

 

[Flopsweat]

Right. The traditional shape MK IVs with the outer style grip angle., not the 22/45. Probably especially the 5" bull barrel. Its being sold right now at Midway for a little over 500 to a little over 600. I had the Mark II 5" Bull barrel, the equivalent version in the era when I did most of my hiking, camping, shooting, and handgun hunting. It had a great trigger out of the box, but I had a gunsmith work on it and make it really glorious. These days I would get the Mark IV and VQ trigger kit.

The generalization I've heard is that with respect to centerfire semiautos, the names and models with the best triggers are usually single action target guns such as certain 1911s. They are usually way over the $600. CZ target 9mm semi autos are more like $2000, for example.

To get a good trigger in a new .357 mag DA revolver, get a SW such as the 686, and expect to pay more like $1000. The Ruger equivalent, the GP 100, usually costs about the same and has a much heavier SA trigger pull and a very much heavier DA trigger pull. Many people replace Ruger springs with Woolf Springs . this improves both the DA and SA triggers a huge amount. But the trigger of the Ruger GP 100 with Wolf Springs is still not as good as that of the SW 686 out of the box.

Colt used to make excellent DA revolvers in .357 and .44, but they are way overpriced compared to SW and Ruger. And they have recently changed hands. So who knows whether they will be any good?

In .44 mag DA revolvers the situation is parallel to .357s. By far the best DA and SA triggers are in the SW 629 Classics rather than in the Ruger Red Hawks or Super Redhawks. And there are Woolf spring kits that can greatly improve the Ruger triggers but still leave them inferior to the Smiths. Used to be Rugers cost a couple hundred less than the equivalent Smiths. So if you weren't fussy about the trigger the Ruger could save you a little. These days the two are very similar in price.

However, in .44 mag Rugers have a couple of advantages. SW .44 mags can take only standard pressure .44 mag loads. Ruger Redhawks and Super Redhawks can also take so-called .44 mag +P and .44 mag +P+. They also also have a longer cylinder than SW 629s, and can take some loads that have bullets too long to fit in SW chambers. The standard pressure .44 mag is up to about 1200 ft. lbs. The .44 mag +P or +p+ are slightly above 1600 ft. lbs.-- that is, .454 Casull level power in the more versatile 44 mag caliber.

The other advantage of the Super Redhawk only is it has a much better system for mounting a scope. There are grooves on the frame that fit the scope rings that come with the gun. The scope rings fit in the grooves on the frame so that the scope is positioned over your hand instead of over the barrel. You can put a scope on positioned on the frame without removing the back sight. This means that once you have adjusted and sighted in the scope you can remove the scope in the rings and use the open sights while walking to your favorite hunting spot. The open sights are best if you surprise a deer at close range. Once you are in a spot where you would be happy to sit a while, then put down your gardening pad, sit with your back against a tree, screw the rings on the gun, and get the extra range that comes with a scoped gun and sitting position with elbows on knees. With Smiths you can't mount a scope on the frame without removing the back sight. So the gun is a scoped gun only until you sight in the open sights. The alternative is to mount the scope on the barrel, which unbalances the gun. The down side of the Rugers is they are much heavier guns.

So for .357 mags, I'll always go for the Smiths because they cost the same as the Rugers but have way better triggers. But in .44mag I'll want at least one lighter SW with a barrel about 6.5" or less that I don't plan to scope and wouldn't want or need to shoot +P loads in. And one heavy Super Redhawk in 7.5 or 9.5" barrel that I do want to scope, hunt with, etc.

As for SA revolvers, someone else will have to tell you. They aren't my thing. Likewise for .454 Casull, .480 Ruger, .460 and 500 SW. More than I need for anything I want or need to do. Both in weight of guns and power and cost of ammo.

The guy who suggested a Taurus was kidding. Quality control stinks. There are occassional rare good ones. They are made in Brazil. The warranty stinks. If you send them a broken gun on warranty most of the time they hold it for three months, then send it back without doing anything and say they have fixed it. If you send it back they may rinse and repeat. Or they may say they are out of those guns and can't fix or replace but will offer you a much cheaper gun as a replacement. There is serious question as to whether they even have a repair shop. Since they are in Brazil if they just keep your broken gun and never get back to you you have no recourse. "Friends do not recommend that friends buy a Taurus."

I think you're selling the Taurus revolvers short. I've shot several and they've been good to excellent. They're not as pretty or finished as thier more expensive counterparts, and i'm sure they produce a few lemons, but overall they're good at thier price point. Thier semi-autos have improved from terrible to bad, but they've been making good revolvers for years.

 

[OldBroad44]

i liked it, just wasnt for me as a total package

Very vague. The sort of thing you could say about any gun. What specifically did you not like? Do you know from actually shooting the gun? Just handling it? Just reading about it or watching a video about it? If you even just handled the gun, did you learn anything?

Let me illustrate.

For example, I don't like 1911s. Have I ever shot one? No. But I've handled many in stores, and they don't point well for me. That is, when I just point instinctively, not using the sights, then look at where the gun is pointing using the sights, its always too low and off to the left. By a lot. A foot each way at only about ten feet. A gun that points naturally for me will be within an inch or so of a one inch target when I do that at ten feet. The being off to the left seems to be related to the front to back thickness of the grip. The being too low has to do with the less perpendicular grip to barrel angle. The .Colt Woodsman 22 target pistol, one of the handguns I learned on and shot as a kid, has a Luger-like angle of grip and barrel. The other handgun I learned on and shot as a kid was my dad's SW .38sp revolver. The grip contours held my hand in the same relationship to the gun as the Colt Woodsman did.

I was better with the .38 than the 22. The .22 had a thinner front sight blade that is harder for me to see. My corrected vision isn't corrected enough to see the front sight blade well. People with better vision can get more accuracy from finer sights. Not me. I can't get much accuracy from any sight that is small or has a narrow front sight. Just can't see it well enough. Nearly all small handguns that most people use as EDCs have sights too small for me. An exception is full size .357s with full size adjustable sights but snubby barrels. The CZ 07 I purchased recently has high sights for use with a suppressor. I do want to get a suppressor. But with or without a suppressor I can see those taller sights lots easier than the sights on the standard model.

Any semi auto with straight grips and the 1911 grip frame will be one that doesn't point well for me. The Glocks have a more Luger-like grip angle, and point well for me. Ruger Mark series semi autos have the Luger-like grip to barrel angle I love. Their 22/44 has the grip angle I hate. Nearly all center fire semiautos have the 1911 grip angle. But in some cases the grip has been contoured in such a way that the angle of my hand is corrected to be more like on a Luger or Glock.

The first time I held a Glock, it pointed well for me. And I loved the big sights. And the trigger was good enough to be workable. So I bought a G23 and shot it a little. I was surprisingly bad with it. I blamed the gun. And of course they aren't in the same league as a 686. But, cough cough. Turned out that its lack of accuracy was not all its fault. I sold the G23. Went back to my revolvers. Then bought a J frame steel 38 sp revolver. I was bad with it too. After a while I figured it out. I have a very slight nearly invisible trembling in my arm or arms when I hold them extended. If the weight of the gun is above about 30 oz. the weight stabilizes and cancels the tremble. But if the gun is much lighter than that the tremble erodes my shooting. The Glock was about the same size as my 686 snubby. But the Glock weighed 21 oz. unloaded . the 686 snubby weighed 36 oz. Its not just that I can't normally shoot small guns well because they don't fit my man sized hands and long fingers. Or because they have dinky sights. I also can't shoot light guns well. At least not well enough to enjoy shooting them and be happy with them for SD.

Get the idea?

 

[Xmark1]

That's not a Beretta, it's an Umarex.

I know that.

But it says Beretta on the box and on the pistol. Just keeping it simple. And the trigger is awesome!

And I own 96FS & 92FS plus a 96FS INOX. All have great triggers.

Sometimes a 92FS can be had for close to $500.

 

[nwslopoke]

Let's stop the back and forth insults ok?

On topic please.

These responses sounds like The Gun Room, in Portland.

The Walther PPQ and HK VP9 have nice triggers. The VP9 is pushing the $600 limit. I have a Sig P220, I got used. Has a great trigger. It's a police trade in, under $600.

 

[solv3nt]

I know that.

But it says Beretta on the box and on the pistol. Just keeping it simple. And the trigger is awesome!

And I own 96FS & 92FS plus a 96FS INOX. All have great triggers.

Sometimes a 92FS can be had for close to $500.

Send one or all to Langdon, then tell me the triggers were great

 

[Certaindeaf]

.Any 22lr Olympic free style pistol. Trigger pressure is in grams not ounces.

Ah yes, the ol spinal tapper 11 ftw!

 

[MilGoo]

I read reviews on the SAR and bought one. The trigger felt like I was drawing a bucket of water up
the well with my little finger broke. Gave it to my son and he broke it in and loves it.

I feel that for under $600 the SAR9 would be hard to beat. The best trigger i own is a 1938 Colt shooting Master in 38special i purchased a few months ago in an auction for well under 600 dollars. probably has had a few thousand rounds through and is polished to perfection by several previous owners so for me the revolver comment earlier would be accurate but most people don't want revolvers now days.

 

[washagonian]

I don't mind a stock Glock trigger at all.

what @1775usmc said.

This isn't an exact response to the OP's question, but it seems relevant to the discussion. Take what you like an leave the rest.

If I want a nice, smooth trigger for target shooting - then there are some expensive (and some not-so-expensive) handguns out there with great triggers. Many have been mentioned already. It's almost a Zen experience - shooting paper with a "trigger-like-butter".

If I want to get good at trigger CONTROL, then buy a cheap handgun with, what most people would consider, a horrible trigger and practice-practice-practice with it until I can shoot well with that handgun. (Grip is everything.)

My first carry pistol was a S&W 469. Long DA pull, SA pull not that crisp. But I practiced and got good with it. Then came my first Glock. Trigger like a sponge - but I practiced and got good with it.

Now I REALLY appreciate a nice trigger - especially right out of the box. But also, I can shoot well with crappy triggers (even my cheapie Taurus G2c) after a couple of mags/cylinders.

It's different for everyone - that's what makes these types of threads so interesting.

Cheers.

 

[JTK1791]

The trigger on my CZ PCR is pretty buttery