Re: single stage or 2-stage trigger?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dan46n2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hamilton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd re-read what ORD had to say.
The two-stage trigger gives you single stage performance, with the added safety of "take up" or pretravel.
For your description of it's intended use, I'd definitely recommend going with a two stage like the Gessiele.
Running, and maneuvering, with a single stage trigger is very sketchy, especially if the pull is light.
Doubles, and AD's, are also far more common with single stage triggers.
A two stage trigger is just a "safer" single stage, and, if the reset is the same, can fire just as rapidly if that matters.
</div></div>
A two stage trigger, statistically, is not safer than a single stage, it is more likely to break or malfunction. Take up or pretravel will not make a trigger safer, learning trigger control will. </div></div>
What statistics?
Seriously.......
About reliability:
Do you understand how two stage triggers can work.
The M-1 Garand used a two stage and it's been copied widely up until now.
The disconnector, which the trigger group HAS to have either way, is used to initiate the second stage travel and pressure.
There don't have to be more parts in a single stage versus a two stage trigger.
Take up and pre-travel will always make a trigger safer.
Look at any of the multitude of defensive pistols on the market that lack safeties.
Do these triggers all have something very much in common?
Lots and lots of pre-travel.
Why do you think that is?
Safe trigger manipulation is always required with any firearm, equipped with any trigger, so stating that is moot.