Hellcat trigger

@SoNic Whenever the time comes that I take the HC out of my EDC rotation, I’d have no qualms about any upgrade or swap. I have other pistols that I am constantly fiddling with. Barrels, slides, springs, triggers, polishing, etc. I have no doubts all your upgrades have made the HC work better for you. And given you some accuracy improvements.

The thing is… I consider target shooting and EDC separate buckets. It doesn’t matter to me if the round I put into an attacker enters his left or right ventricle. Or which lung. I don’t care. Shooting at paper and achieving 1 inch groups - that’s a whole 'nuther thing for me. With no mods, at 7-10 yards I can draw, drop the safety and rapidly put 5 rounds in a three inch circle. It’s hard to find a range that will let you do that drill but I’ve been lucky with that. Also, no light strikes or feed issues with the Hellcat. It’s been and remains reliable. I’d guess about 2000k rounds thru it so far.

I dont want to think about or take on the liability of an untested upgrade on an EDC. That’s really what it comes down to for me. The factory gun has been tested to failure by the geniuses that designed and built it. That’s where I want to place my bet that it’s going to always go bang. One of the reasons I picked the Hellcat in the first place was I liked the factory trigger.

1 Like

Thats a bit of a stretch… coming from 25yrs in manufacturing, i can assure you geniuses are very hard to come by. Production is all about balancing risk, quality, cost, and profit. Engineers and their brilliant ideas, are most often over-ruled by the bean counters at big desks, because $$ takes precedence over perfection.

8 Likes

Fair enough. What you say about the bean counters is true. Dealt with that my whole adult life. Don’t forget the lawyers (with all due respect @JoeFridaySays). I believe the best test of how much engineering and manufacturing skill survived that gauntlet is the reliability of the gun.

2 Likes

We lawyers may properly be blamed for lots of things, but huge liability verdicts that impact product design are not one of them. Those verdicts ultimately are rendered by 12 ordinary and well-intentioned citizens. Company lawyers must consider those verdicts and the risks they pose to the Company. Larger verdicts typically occur where there is evidence of a practical safer alternative design. Most of us hate them, but consider the magazine disconnect. While we may firmly believe the ability to fire that single remaining round is more important than the added safety of a disconnect, many if not most lay juries would disagree. Imagine this cross-examination of the Chief Product Design Engineer of a defendant gun manufacturer and how it would be viewed by 12 ordinary jurors.

Lawyer: Would you agree that a substantial percentage of accidental discharge injuries happen when the user ejects the magazine and then does not know, or forgets, there is still a bullet in the chamber that will fire if the trigger is pressed.

Witness: I don’t know that I would agree with “substantial” but it does happen with some frequency.

Lawyer: Now this magazine disconnect thing we’ve been discussing can prevent that can’t it? I mean that is why many of these weapons have it?

Witness: That is true.

Lawyer: How much would it cost to include that disconnect in your $800 weapon?

Witness: Considering the research and development costs, I would say around $20 per firearm.

Lawyer: So if I take a weapon to a gunsmith to replace the disconnect, are you telling me your Company will charge $20 for the part? Do I need to show you the retail price list I got in discovery?

Witness: No, I don’t need to see the list. We charge $5.00 for the part.

Lawyer: So it’s a five dollar part. And you sell the weapon for $800?

Witness: Yes, that is the MSRP but the firearm typically sells for less.

( Lawyer looks at jury, turns as if he is finished, then does a Columbo )

Lawyer: Just one more thing. Do you agree that weapons should be regularly cleaned and preferably after each use?

Witness: I do.

Lawyer: Now on an automatic weapon like this gun you sell for $800, do you have to take it apart to clean it?

Witness: You do.

Lawyer: And to take it apart, don’t you have to pull the trigger?

Witness: You do but the firearm should always be pointed…

Lawyer: No further questions, your Honor.

Remember that the lawyer above is doing his job and capably representing his client. The Company lawyer will be able to partially rehabilitate the witness on redirect, but you still can imagine the impact on the average juror. That is especially so when the Judge instructs the jury that they must find the Company liable if they believe from the evidence that a safer alternative design was available and practical.

I apologize for the length of this post but thought some of you might find it interesting. Note the use by the lawyer of “weapon” rather than “firearm” and “automatic” rather than “semi-automatic”.

6 Likes

I chose the Hyve Technologies Monarch trigger because reset and over travel is adjustable on the Monarch. It is not on the PRP trigger.

1 Like

It counts if is missing him and hits somebody else or other property.
Also, it counts (at least to me) if when I pull the gun, it will function.

Design of products is always a compromise between cost and reliability/performance. I cannot agree that a gun is “perfect” as manufactured. Especially when some features (metallic trigger, stainless steel barrel, milled striker) are available in other brands, at premium price.
This, IMO, is not like stippling or porting.
But I also acknowledge that everyone’s opinions can be different, so I don’t advocate for anything. Just stating my reasons, good or bad.

If I ever have to defend myself (I hope I never do), the biggest hurdle will be if that was a lawful use or not. I think that the state of the gun is absolutely irrelevant compared to that main question.

4 Likes

A related question. I’ve been curious about this for some time.

Gun dealers or manufacturers can be sued for certain things, contrary to myth. A manufacturer can be sued for a defect in the design or manufacture of a gun if it can be shown that it caused death, physical injury, or property damage. It seems to be increasingly fashionable for someone who has been shot to sue a gun manufacturer, or for the family to sue on behalf of a dead victim. So if you were a gun manufacturer’s defense lawyer, would you venture into what modifications the owner of the gun made to the firearm to shift the focus off the gun and to the shooter?

I’m not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. If I were a corporate lawyer, I would endeavor to blame the guy who modified the gun. Is that fair or honest? No. That’s not the point.

2 Likes

I HAVE defended gun manufacturers and in the past was a certified armorer for a major manufacturer (the Company required that all their lawyers attend the course). Misuse, modification and the like all are potential defenses but the manufacturer also is required to guard against foreseeable misuse. Take a press for example. Users frequently disregard warnings and lockouts and end up losing arms or hands. That misuse was so common that sellers had to allow for it and most presses sold today require two-handed operation to prevent actuation while an appendage is in the machine.

Remember that an alternative design must be practical and not impair the intended use. I once defended a circular saw manufacturer in a kickback amputation case. The plaintiff expert contended the saw should have had a permanently affixed riving knife to prevent kickbacks (permanently affixed since a user might otherwise remove the safety device). I totally destroyed the expert by demonstrating the inability to do common things like plunge cuts or compound miters with an affixed riving knife - all common and intended uses of the saw.

Warnings provided by the seller also are important although again it is foreseeable that many users will disregard anything less than an “in your face” warning. That is why so many items also have warning stickers in addition to the warnings in the manual. The warning also must fairly convey the magnitude of the risk. Keep off the grass may be an adequate warning if the grass is slippery but wholly inadequate if the grass is infested with deadly snakes.

I have had to take cutaway firearms into federal court for mediation conferences with a magistrate so I could demonstrate the action and why the shooting could not have happened as the plaintiff contended. The U.S. Marshalls get agitated when you do that, so it is advisable to call ahead and make arrangements unless you want to end up face down surrounded by SWAT.

One final thing you might not consider. Whenever we settled a firearms case, we always conditioned settlement on return of the gun. Even if there was nothing wrong with it, the manufacturer cannot allow a firearm alleged in court filings to be dangerous to remain in circulation.

5 Likes

That’s a sensible response. I don’t think we are really that far apart. Where we separate in opinion is I don’t believe a factory trigger will cause a practiced shooter to miss. Reliability varies from one firearm to another. Either you trust the gun or you don’t. That’s very subjective.

I do believe a lack of skill and poor technique is what causes a miss - which as you said can have bad consequences. In that regard all I’m saying is a one inch group vs. a three inch group in a center mass 16 inches wide is irrelevant. I also believe a lighter trigger makes a poor shooter even more likely to make a mistake and miss. Or for a novice to shoot their balls off :slight_smile: . Which of us is correct? Who knows. Maybe both of us.

As you said it’s an opinion and we either agree or we don’t. I respect your opinion and appreciate you being sensible, not acting like a dick if we disagree.

4 Likes