New From Apex Tactical Specialties: Thin Blue Line Handgun Triggers to Benefit C.O.P.S.

apex100b50-a

Apex Announces Thin Blue Line Series In Support of C.O.P.S.

PEORIA, Ariz. – Randy Lee and Scott Folk, the owners of Apex Tactical Specialties, are proud to announce the release of a special series of triggers specifically offered to raise money for the families of police officers who have died in the line of duty. With the sale of each trigger in the new Thin Blue Line Series, available only from ApexTactical.com, Apex will donate 25% of each sale to Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), the leading national organization supporting the spouses, children, parents, siblings, significant others, extended family and affected co-workers of fallen officers.

Each year, between 140 and 160 officers die in the line of duty and their families and co-workers are left to cope with the tragic loss. Organized in 1984, C.O.P.S. provides resources to help them rebuild their shattered lives.

C.O.P.S., a nationally recognized and highly respected law enforcement support organization, offers programs for survivors, including the National Police Survivors’ Conference held each May during National Police Week, scholarships, peer-support at the national, state, and local levels, “C.O.P.S. Kids” counseling reimbursement program, the “C.O.P.S. Kids” Summer Camp, “C.O.P.S. Teens” Outward Bound experience for young adults, special retreats for spouses, parents, siblings, adult children, extended family, fiances/significant others and co-workers, trial and parole support, and other assistance programs.

“Apex is extremely proud to support C.O.P.S. with our Thin Blue Line Series of triggers. Like so many, we have watched in horror as the good men and women of law enforcement have come under attack. With each life lost there is a family and a community left behind to pick up the pieces. We hope that with the financial support generated through the sale of these triggers, C.O.P.S. can expand their efforts and help more families,” said Lee and Folk in a joint statement released by the company.

“C.O.P.S. thanks Apex Tactical Specialties for their generous support of America’s surviving law enforcement families.  With each contribution, C.O.P.S. is able to continue to provide the healing Hands-On Programs at no cost to survivors, as the price they have paid is already too high,” says Dianne Bernhard, C.O.P.S. Executive Director.

The new Thin Blue Line Series offered by Apex includes triggers for the Smith M&P, the M&P Shield and Glock model pistols. The new triggers are available now and can be ordered online at ApexTactical.com or by phone by calling Apex Customer Service at (623) 322-0200.

Thin Blue Line Series:

Apex Flat-Faced Forward Set Sear & Trigger for M&P
Part #: 100-B54
MSRP: $169.95

Apex Flat-Faced Forward Set Trigger for M&P
Part #: 100-B52
MSRP: $79.95

Apex Forward Set Sear & Trigger for M&P
Part #: 100-B67
MSRP: $164.95

Apex Forward Set Trigger for M&P
Part #: 100-B84
MSRP: $79.95

Apex Action Enhancement Trigger & Duty/Cary Kit for M&P Shield
Part #: 100-B51
MSRP: $159.95

Apex Action Enhancement Trigger for M&P Shield
Part #: 100-B50
MSRP: $76.95

Apex Flat-Faced Action Enhancement Trigger & Duty/Cary Kit for M&P Shield
Part #: 100-B132
MSRP: $164.95

Apex Flat-Faced Action Enhancement Trigger for M&P Shield
Part #: 100-B131
MSRP: $79.95

Apex Action Enhancement Trigger for Glock with Gen 3 Factory Trigger Bar
Part #: 102-B110
MSRP: $99.95

Action Enhancement Trigger for Glock
Apex Part #: 102-B112
MSRP: $79.95 for the Action Enhancement Trigger

For more information on parts and services from Apex Tactical Specialties, visit www.ApexTactical.com, like Apex Tactical on Facebook or follow @ApexTactical on Instagram and Twitter. Instructional videos on the installation of Apex parts are available on Apex’s YouTube channel.

About C.O.P.S.
Concerns of Police Survivors is a nationwide not-for-profit organization with 52 Chapters across the country. Members of C.O.P.S. are always prepared to help survivors when they need it, where they need it. The organization’s mission has always been to “rebuild shattered lives” of the survivors. C.O.P.S. has a membership comprised of more than 37,000 people who have identified themselves as survivors nationwide. Unfortunately, that membership continues to grow as an average of 140-160 law enforcement officers are killed every year in the line of duty.

For more information, please visit www.nationalcops.org or contact us via Facebook at www.facebook.com/nationalcops.

comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    LOL! This is comical. Thin Blue line? Seriously??

  2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

    “Police Survivors”

    Stay true to the name: donate the money to the families of the thousands of people killed and maimed by cops every year instead of having the taxpayers pay the lawsuit settlements and compensations.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Yeah!

      But only send money to those who clearly didn’t DESERVE to be shot.

      That way, they’ll only have to send out two or three checks per year…

    2. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      Even if your gross underestimate were true, that would still be better than the current amount of direct police restitution to victims: zero.

      Actually the police in Georgia actually sued to prevent taxpayer funded compensation from being issued to the flashbanged baby, resulting in yet more legal fees for the victim and his family. So the correct number should be negative: the pigs just keep on taking.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        Wow, you moved those goals posts quickly and oh-so smoothly.

        You must have had lots of practice.

        And clicking Reply to your own post, instead of mine?
        Awesome bucket of Fail, right there.
        But your response was filled with Fail, so nothing new, really…

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “moved those goal posts”

          I don’t think you know what that term means, considering I directly addressed your sarcastic “point”, a point rendered even more irrelevant since the term “deserved” is entirely subjective.

          For example, Philando Castile supposedly “deserved” to be killed because he moved his hand around his pocket, even though he was given a direct order to show identification.

          But don’t let facts stop you from focusing on more important things, like which “reply” button was clicked on. 🙂

        2. avatar NineShooter says:

          Well, congrats on getting the right button this time. Shows you CAN learn.

          And thanks for making my point about the 2-3 cases per year that deserve compensation; you found two of the highest-profile cases, and are trying to use them to imply that all cop shootings or actions fall into those categories. Another Fail.

          I think the funds ought to be split evenly between compensation for those ultra-rare events like you outlined, and awards/medals with paid bonuses for the trigger-pullers that shoot the RIGHT folks (the ones who needed it). How does that sound for a compromise?

        3. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “trying to use them to imply that all cop shootings or actions fall into those categories.”

          I made no such statement or implication, unlike you who explicitly stated that the number is 2 or 3 per year (as I said, a gross under-estimate). Stop projecting your bad logic onto other people.

          “awards/medals with paid bonuses for the trigger-pullers that shoot the RIGHT folks”

          Define “right”. Also, all police funding already comes from taxpayers, and cops already give paid vacations to all their shooters regardless of right and wrong, so your so-called compromise is nothing of the sort.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          To interject:

          The “paid vacations” they give cops have multiple reasons behind them and it isn’t to reward Joe Q. Officer with time off. Any time a cop shoots someone there is an investigation into the shooting. That officer cannot be on the street acting in an official capacity while technically under investigation for a possible illegal use of force.

          Since they don’t know if the shoot legit or not until the investigation is complete the officer is off the streets until it’s determined that he’s good to go or that he needs to be arrested.

        5. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          The counterpoint is that the justification process is little more than a rubber-stamp, given the vast leeway and deference given to cops in their use of lethal force (especially in contrast with civilian standards), so the paid vacation is exactly that.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          So they go mow the grass at city park, plow snow, do other useful task? Or have paid time off (a vacation)?

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          You can’t come at this from a purely ideological perspective.

          Consider: If a police officer shoots someone and it’s a legit bad shoot with evidence of that then they end up in court (See Albuquerque).

          On the other hand if it’s a righteous shoot the officer in question still has to be relieved of duty for the investigation but there is no reason to withhold pay once you know they were legit to shoot. There is no reason a cop should lose paychecks due to the fact they they face-shot some fucktard who deserved it.

        8. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “it’s a legit bad shoot with evidence of that then they end up in court (See Albuquerque).”

          An occurrence so exceedingly rare that it is statistically impossible. There are many reasons for this: resistance against body-cams, and a lack of punishment for mysteriously malfunctioning or disabled cameras, the special legal privileges enjoyed by police after a shooting (cooling-off periods, restricted interrogations, the ability of cops to confer with each other before questioning to clean up their stories, etc), the symbiotic relationship between police and prosecutors resulting in an atmosphere of deference for the word of police.

          Keep in mind that cops have sued and successfully won back-pay even when their shoots were ruled to be unjustified and they lost their jobs as a result, even though they escaped criminal punishment as per the norm.

        9. avatar Accur81 says:

          Dead,

          Your using logical fallacies again:

          Formal Fallacy – These are also called deductive fallacies. In deductive fallacy arguments, all premises must be accurate and impossible to be proven otherwise. When this is the case, there is no way that the conclusion can be false.
          Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-logical-fallacy.html#tqOFMsjEVOGRfQOQ.99

          Police can’t be victims, in your feeble mind, because they all deserve to be shot. Therefore, the slain Dallas PD officers deserved to die, and their families are not entitled to compensation.

          I disagee. And not only do I disagree, but I’ve donated money to them by purchasing a Grunt Style memorial shirt. Grunt Style donated $200,000 to that cause.

          But I wouldn’t expect any actions other than words on a keyboard from More Dead.

        10. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “Police can’t be victims, in your feeble mind, because they all deserve to be shot.”

          This would be a strawman fallacy. I did not say anything of the sort. I merely stated that the victims of police shootings are far more deserving of donations as opposed to police themselves, who are lavishly funded with taxpayer-funded legal services, and operate in an advantageous legal position when compared with the regular citizenry.

          I do enjoy how you end up spewing out a logical fallacy of your own with your clumsy attempt to accuse me of one. 🙂

        11. avatar strych9 says:

          “An occurrence so exceedingly rare that it is statistically impossible.”

          Except that it’s happened all over the country proving your statement to be untrue.

          Are there bad shoots? Yes. Are they the majority? No, not even close. Are there cases where cops are protected by the “Blue Wall”? Yes. Are they the majority? No.

          Cops get away with a lot of behavior I disapprove of just because they’re cops. I’ve seen it personally. That doesn’t mean it’s the general way that they operate. It also doesn’t mean that they don’t face significant scrutiny when they kill or seriously injure someone.

          I’m sure there have been cases where cops obviously in the wrong killed someone and got away with it but it’s nowhere near common enough to start painting all police shootings, or even most police shootings, in that light.

        12. avatar Accur81 says:

          Dead,

          What’s that about being so rare as to be statistically impossible? When others like Strych9 are posting examples to the contrary? Smells like another of your logical fallacies to me.

          Anyways, I’ve said before that I don’t care about your opinions and that trend continues. Now I’m going to back to enjoying my life, the wonderful dinner my wife made me, and this Moscow Mule in a copper mug with fresh lime, Grey Goose, and Hollows & Fentimanns beers. Life is good.

        13. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “Except that it’s happened all over the country proving your statement to be untrue.”

          Statistically impossible is not the same as impossible, it means it is exceedingly rare.

          For a cop to be criminally persecuted even with the extreme legal leeway, an omerta-like silence from his cohorts, and a prosecutorial system that depends on police for cases, is a rare thing indeed.

        14. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “Smells like another of your logical fallacies to me.”

          Feel free to actually point one out, instead of failing miserably as with your last attempt.

          “I’ve said before that I don’t care about your opinions and that trend continues.”

          And yet, you keep posting all those logical fallacies. Go figure. 🙂

        15. avatar Accur81 says:

          Dead,

          Backtrack much? The only thing that you’ve proven is that you’ve got time to respond to comments. You’re impotent to do anything else.

          Anyways, I’ll keep supporting cops when they’re legit and opposing cops and big government when they aren’t. You can call me clumsy and stupid all you want, but I’m winning my 148 (a) PC, 69 PC, 10851 (a) VC, 2800.2, 245 PC, and 187 PC cases. That’s CA law if you want to look it up.

          If you’re as good as you think you are, and you’re allegations of logical fallacies as sound as you perceive them to be, go and become a lawyer and beat people like me in court! We’ll be “powerless” to stop you, right?

          But I’m guessing you can’t do anything other than bloviate online, and post little smiley faces. I want to say that I wish you the best, but you saying that officers and soldiers deserve to die just ruins it for me.

        16. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “Backtrack much”

          Where? Do you even know what that word means?

          “bloviate”

          Awww, you are using one of my favorite words. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 🙂

          The rest of your post is your usual garbage “argument from authority” fallacy which can be dismissed without discussion, as usual. I will point out one thing:

          “become a lawyer and beat people like me in court”

          Maybe I am already, you would never know. Unlike you, I do not ask irrelevant questions regarding career choices when constructing a logical argument. 🙂

        17. avatar strych9 says:

          “Statistically impossible is not the same as impossible, it means it is exceedingly rare.”

          You need a math class. Something that is statistically impossible will not occur. Statistically impossible means that the probability of it occurring is zero. Period. End of story. That’s the mathematical definition.

          Stop reading Google for your math knowledge and take a fucking class on the subject.

          Even if you go with something retarded like the Conservopedia definition you’re talking 10^-50 or lesser odds. So rolling with that definition, you’re still wrong.

        18. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          I like how you spit out an incorrect definition, call the correct definition retarded, then implore me to stop using google (from which you yourself found the correct definition). Please, cite a reputable source backing up your claim of “statistical impossibility” as the same as “zero probability”.

        19. avatar strych9 says:

          Any math text on stats ever written. How’s that?

          Probabilities range from 0 to 1. Something with a probability of 0 is, by definition, “statistically impossible” because it will literally never happen. Anything greater than 0 will eventually happen but if the number is close enough to 0 it’s highly improbable and won’t happen often. The chance you roll 10 on a standard die is 0 (statistically impossible). It simply cannot happen. The chance that you roll the die and it ends up balanced on an edge is improbable but theoretically possible so it has a low probability.

          You’re arguing that something is “statistically impossible” when a single circumstance proves this to be incorrect. I’ve given you that circumstance hence proving your hypothesis to be incorrect. Were I to be bothered I could give you dozens more.

          You’re arguing it’s statistically improbable and in some cases/jurisdictions I might even cede you that argument but when you insist on using incorrect terminology I will not.

          Sorry, the chances of a police officer being charged for an illegitimate shooting are most certainly not “statistically impossible” because such a thing has happened. Where you draw the line between “improbable” and “likely” isn’t something statistics has defined, so if you wish, you may say an officer being charged for an improper use of lethal force is “improbable” (or conversely that not being charged is “probable”) but you cannot say it’s “statistically impossible” because it has happened and therefore must, by definition, have a chance greater than 0.

        20. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          “The chance that you roll the die and it ends up balanced on an edge is improbable but theoretically possible so it has a low probability.”

          That is an example of “statistically impossible”. It is distinctly different from “impossible”, i.e. zero possibility. And “statistically impossible” is a relative term, same as your use of the term “statistically improbable”.

          And since it is a subjective term (and by definition, non-zero), by definition it is non-zero. Therefore, you are wrong.

        21. avatar Accur81 says:

          Strych9,

          I’m not sure if this will go into the right spot since my phone is glitching, but Dead hasn’t ever admitted errors. That’s not how he / she / it rolls. He’s infallible in his own mind, and paints with a broad brush, especially when it comes to his anti police / anti military rants.

          What you’re saying makes sense to me, but getting him to admit he’s wrong will probably never happen. Carry on, sir.

        22. avatar strych9 says:

          No, it’s not.

          If someone punches a wall will their hand pass through it? 0% chance right? Wrong. If they punch the wall an infinite number of times eventually every atom will line up just right and their hand will pass through the wall. Not impossible, just extremely improbable.

          Since it is possible to balance a die on it’s edge the concept that it would happen by rolling the die is possible it would end up that way. It’s just extremely improbable.

          The way you’re using the term “statistically impossible” is made up and defined to be 10^-50 anyway. I’ve already shown that to also be incorrect.

          No matter how you define it, you’re wrong. You really need a better science and math education.

  3. avatar Waffensammler98 says:

    *facepalm*

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t trust cops — there’s no reason why I should — but I don’t have a problem with this program and I don’t understand why anyone would.

    1. avatar Tile floor says:

      Ralph, I thought we were bffs

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Some people just can’t stand to see anything supporting police- or in this case the widows\orphans of officers killed- without twitching and sputtering over the idea that anyone who likes guns might support such a charity. I don’t see the big deal either way…

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Thanks for that, sir.

      I appreciate your past efforts to convict dirty cops, while supporting police who are victims. You’ve made a legitimate contribution by doing so – which is a lot more than I can say for the cop bashers who will inevitably flood these posts.

      I may get one of these triggers for one of my Glock 23s.

  5. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Not to be stupid, but WTF is up with these triggers? There seems to be nothing about them in the article except buy these to support the police. What are they? Do they have some claim to fame?

    1. avatar Mr. AR says:

      Apex makes some very nice triggers, basically the only way I could make my (late) Shield work well was the Apex Forward Set trigger. That bendy thing S&W puts on the stock Shield is facacta.

      The Blue color is nice vis-a-vis the charity, but I’ve always associated blue on firearms as designating a non-lethal, not shooting practice unit. (See the Glock Blue practice pistol). Hope we don’t have any issues with this….

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Word. The Apex trigger greatly improves the M&P products. I haven’t tried them in Glocks, because the Ghost connectors works so well, but now I’m inclined to buy one just to show solidarity.

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          So you just throw money in the name of “solidarity” at any “charity” that has “cops” it it’s name? Without determining what percentage of their incoming dollars actually go to actual affected people? Your “Solidarity” is what causes a lot of the anti-cap friction.

    2. avatar Kyle says:

      only defect in the shield is the trigger is ugly. Its heavy, gritty, its just a bad trigger. Other than that is a damn fine gun. Put an apex trigger (I went with the flat face) and you got one really good gun.

  6. avatar FedUp says:

    I’ve nothing bad to say about the concept, other than to point out that the dependents of LEOs killed in action are one of the smallest and most overemphasized groups of ‘needy’ people in the country…

    …but ‘affected co-workers’ is carrying it a wee bit too far.

  7. avatar FedUp says:

    I just remembered, I know an officer who was killed this year…with his own gun…by his own hand.
    Now, before anybody says something crass, this was a guy I knew for 40 years and actually liked, and he was People Of The Gun and a firearms instructor.

    My question is, is suicide considered a workplace injury in the LE world?
    Would C.O.P.S. help a family deal with the aftermath of suicide?
    Should C.O.P.S. help a family deal with the aftermath of suicide?
    Would your answer change if the officer killed himself to halt an internal investigation of himself? (If ever there was such a thing as a trustworthy narcotics detective it would be this guy, but it’s probably high among the reasons for narcotics detectives to kill themselves)

    The guy I knew wasn’t named Gliniewicz, but what if he was?

  8. avatar Slayer of Sacred Cows says:

    I hope they don’t sell one fucking trigger. Cops are nothing but armed government thugs who can kill and hurt with impunity. There is no such thing as a good cop. #FTP

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email