Here’s a topic that might get the opinion-juices flowing. The question is not new. It got resurrected when I read an article about the new CZ 75’s.
I find it interesting that more than one acknowledged source on handguns decry the Finger-rail type of trigger guard.
For example (and not to pick on her) Kathy Jackson, managing editor of “Concealed Carry”, the publication of the USCCA, writes on her webpage (see at:
http://www.corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx) regarding Finger-rail Trigger Guards…
“Placing the non-shooting trigger finger forward accomplishes nothing at all: neither recoil control, nor strength, nor accuracy are improved by it. In fact, putting that finger forward lessens the gripping strength of your non-shooting hand, which in turn weakens your entire grip.”
I’ve no reason to doubt what she says, but if she’s right why do manufacturers continue to produce handguns with the Finger-rail type of trigger guard?
I’ve had a couple.
Had a S&W Model 5906, early version with a Finger-rail type of trigger guard (or ‘finger step trigger guard’) which S&W eventually changed to the rounded trigger guard for 'ease of production'.
My Bersa 380 has the Finger-rail type of trigger guard. I find from time-to-time that I am using that rail, particularly in the winter if I’m wearing gloves. On the downside, I think a handgun with the Finger-rail type of trigger guard does not holster as smoothly as one with a rounded trigger guard. Again with the Bersa, it will seat in the shoulder holster but not smoothly. Probably the holster was designed more for the PPK (of which the Bersa is more or less a clone) with a rounded trigger guard.
Anyone have anything they want to share regarding the Finger-rail Trigger Guard?
