Glock Trigger History
To understand your standard Glock trigger, you must start at the beginning. Austrian inventor Gaston Glock didn’t start out as a firearms designer, and he certainly didn’t create the first Glock pistol to try and dominate the handgun market in the 1980s. He just wanted a bigger piece of the pie when it came to Austrian military contracts.
Related: Before They Made Guns, Glock Made Knives
At the start of the 1980s, the Austrian military was still lugging around eight-shot Walther P38 pistols that were probably more suited to vintage collecting than modern military service. The Austrian military put out a request for a new handgun with a higher capacity that weighed less than 28 ounces, had a streamlined design, and offered a consistent “light” trigger pull. With the old P38 as a starting point, the military equivalent of a lightweight trigger was not the kind of competition trigger we would imagine today.
Glock heard about the request, looked at the competition, and set to work designing a homegrown Austrian pistol to compete with dominate gun makers like Beretta, SIG Sauer, Heckler & Koch, FN Herstal, and Steyr. Glock delivered with something truly unique – a polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol with a 17+1 capacity that used fewer than 40 parts. Compare that to the Beretta 92F with more than 70 parts and a metal frame.
Glock’s lightweight new gun more than doubled the P38s capacity and simplified production at the same time. Better yet, it passed with flying colors during the trials. Basically, Glock made a gun – and trigger – that excelled for the Austrian military. The rest of the world took note, and the Glock pistol empire had its opening to spread around the world.
Design & Function
Glock filed his original patent for what would become the Glock 17 in 1981. His American patent, number 4,539,889, for the same firearm wasn’t filed in the states until Sept. 10, 1985.
What seems like a fairly simple design actually has a lot going on between just a few moving parts. Simply pulling the trigger doesn’t just fire the gun. It also disengages multiple safety mechanisms and leverages varying spring powers to unleash the compressed striker assembly.
Or, to put it less simply and in the patent’s original language:
Pulling the trigger 63 moves the trigger slide 64 back so the cam surface 68 engages under the arm 57 and urges it up. Since the abutment 61 lies on the front shoulder 59 further movement of the trigger 63 moves the arm 57, the sleeve 49, the abutment 61 and the firing bolt nose 34 entrained thereby back while unloading the stop spring 50 and loading the firing-bolt spring 30 … As soon as the abutment 61 reaches the slot 60 the cam surface 68 of the trigger slide 64 raises the arm 57 and swings the abutment 61 into this slot 60. This frees the nose 34 and the firing bolt 26 is propelled forward by the force of the spring 30.
Simple, right?
Glock skipped adding the traditional manual safety and deleted the hammer commonly found on military sidearms. Since the Austrian military was unaccustomed to a gun that lacked a manual safety, it requested a test version from Glock that included a thumb safety. This was later deemed unnecessary, and Glock eventually settled on a blade safety inside the trigger.
The design led to a safe and predictable trigger with a relatively lightweight trigger pull – in the military world anyway. Because the trigger did much more than simply release a hammer or firing pin, it also came with some extra mechanical grittiness that we associate with Glock pistols today. That trigger system is the bases for most modern Glock pistols, though the company did release an “improved” trigger in the new Glock 47 pistol for 2023.
Related: 4 Glocks in One & New Triggers? SHOT Show 2023
Many of the critical comments about the standard Glock trigger ignore its origin and the mechanical requirements for the streamlined design. But there’s another benefit to the Glock trigger system. It’s very easy to modify with upgraded triggers.
I think the final testament to the Glock trigger is just how often other gun makers copied it. Glock has spent a great deal of time and money on legal battles over patent infringement, such as the Sigma pistol series from Smith & Wesson. That court action was settled in 1997 when S&W altered the design and paid an undisclosed amount of money to Glock.
Was Glock the first to use a trigger-based safety? No, but it did popularize it in the modern era. Much older firearms, such as the Iver Johnson Safety Automatic revolver used trigger-based safeties. There was even a model that featured a blade-like safety mounted in the trigger like you see on modern Glocks.
Still, it’s a testament that the Glock trigger design inspired a new wave of trigger-based safeties, many of which are just clones or slightly modified copies of the original. The trigger has evolved slightly over time, with the Gen 5 Glocks featuring a harder wall, but there’s still a distinctly Glock feel to most of the guns.
Trigger Comparisons
I’ll start by saying that the factory Glock trigger is certainly not my favorite factory trigger on a modern striker-fired gun. I don’t hate it, and I don’t love it. That’s probably intentional.
I’ve gotten to review several Glocks over the past few years, and they’ve all been reliable and consistent. That includes a face-off between some .45 ACP Glocks, range time with the hybrid Glock 19X, concealed carry with the little G26, body armor testing with the .40 S&W Glock 22, and extensive time with my own G19 and G17. I’ve also gotten to test out some trigger upgrades.
Related: Glock Delivers on Performance Trigger Upgrade
While not identical, the trigger system from one gun to the next has been comfortably predictable. I’ll focus on the performance of those triggers at the range more in the next section, but let’s first compare a Glock trigger to some of its competition.
Here’s a look at a basic, unmodified Glock 17 Gen 4.
I sometimes compare breaking that trigger to snapping a toothpick with your finger. There’s a bit of mush and give before the break. There’s around 0.21 inches of light, springy take-up to the wall, a small creak at the front end of the wall, followed by a relatively stiff break. The overall pull on my personal Glock 17 Gen 4 comes in at 5.17 pounds.
The reset is quick and positive with a travel of 0.25 inches. All in all, it’s an OK trigger, and I personally shoot it well. But let’s compare it to something much older like the hammer-fired 1911 trigger that pulls directly rearwards unsteady of having a distinct pivot.
This is a no-frills 1911, but it still has less take-up, a shorter reset distance, and a pull weight close to 4 pounds. Now, if you’re keeping me honest, you’ll point out that it should have a generally better trigger because the 1911 is a hammer-fired gun.
I generally agree. However, I think this is where you start to see why some shooters complain about the stock Glock trigger. Here is the trigger on my well-used, striker-fired, budget-friendly Canik TP9SA.
I wouldn’t even call this the best trigger in the affordable Turkish-made Canik lineup. The take-up is short and leads to a more distinct and crisper break with a pull of weight just under 4 pounds. The reset is also shorter. Clearly, Canik demonstrates that you can create affordable triggers that are more refined than Glocks even for striker-fired designs.
Now, here’s a look at a SIG Sauer P320, which is a very common competitor to Glock pistols.
Once again, the take-up and reset are shorter with a break weight that is right around 5.5 pounds. The wall has noticeable mush to it, but it’s more of a short and consistent sponginess. The Glock trigger wall almost feels like it has two phases before the break.
Does this make the Glock trigger better or worse? Well, I prefer the Canik and the P320 trigger personally for my range shooting. But I find the Glock trigger to be very predictable. Pulling the trigger, especially for less experienced shooters, feels like it requires a more intentional and deliberate effort. That may make many shooters more comfortable when using the gun.
In the end, I think the Glock trigger proves its worth best in actual range testing. So, let’s see how it performs on targets.
Range Time
Remember that the Austrian military didn’t ask for a glassy trigger with a hypersensitive pull or break. It wanted something that was consistent and relatively light when compared to the older P38. That WWII-era design had a very different feel between the double-action and single-action trigger settings.
Hence, the Glock patent designed a predictable trigger, noting: “The cocking for each shot is effected by the trigger and is assisted by a spring, so that the condition of the pistol is the same before the first shot as it is before the subsequent shots.”
In practice, that consistency pays off with good to very good performance for my shooting at the range with various Glocks. Here’s a look at five targets for Glocks I’ve tested:
Now let’s compare that to a handful of other options I’ve tested at similar ranges:
You’ll also notice that most of the guns above have the distinct trigger safety device popularized by Glock. I happen to really love some of the triggers in the non-Glock group. The Caniks tend to be very crisp and clean, but the end results at the range don’t suggest to me that Glock triggers are bad if we measure them by actual performance.
Pros & Cons
Here’s a quick rundown of my pros and cons for factory Glock triggers:
Pros:
- Proven over time
- Predictable
- Reliable
- Very common
- Easily upgraded
- Easy to use
- Rugged design with multiple safeties
Cons:
- Not very refined
- Somewhat mechanical feeling
-
Some guns offer crisper triggers for a similar price
Final Thoughts
I think the obvious conclusion for me is that Glock triggers are hardly “bad” as described by some in the shooting community. They’re not refined, but they’ve performed well for me.
I personally don’t want a hair trigger on my self-defense firearm, and I trust my stock Glock triggers in my carry guns. If you want something lighter or more refined, there are plenty of upgrades and replacements to meet your needs.
