Previous Post
Next Post


Apex Tactical is perhaps best known for their trigger kits that clean up the Smith & Wesson M&P’s bangswitch, though their original success came from their renowned work on Smith revolvers. As the company has grown, they’ve slowly added additional trigger shoe types and they’ve recently branched out to other striker-fired platforms. Recently, though, they’ve taken on the biggest platform out there, GLOCK brand GLOCKs…

I’ve managed to put an Apex Trigger in every Smith & Wesson striker-fired gun that’s come into my hands, including Shields, Sigmas, and M&Ps. Every single kit has done wonders for those guns, especially the older M&Ps which came with one of the worst factory triggers imaginable. The road to GLOCK perfection, however, is a bit different.

First, the market is heavily saturated with companies making triggers for Gaston’s wundergun. Second, the GLOCK trigger, in my opinion, has never been nearly as needful of a cleanup as the M&Ps. Sure, you can make them better, but they already start life crisp and clean enough with one of the best tactile and audible resets out there. In fact, when Apex sent me a trigger to test out, I was a little sad about it, because I actually like the factory trigger just fine. With one exception.


I’ve never enjoyed the feel of GLOCK’s factory trigger on my finger. The safety blade on them has always protruded a bit beyond the shoe causing a hot spot on my digit. This is usually magnified by the six pounds or more that it requires to set one off. After a few hundred rounds, I usually have a little dimple on my trigger finger. Not the end of the world, but certainly not an experience I go out of my way to have.

If nothing else, Apex’s flat-faced trigger makes for a much more comfortable and ergonomic shooting experience. The safety blade is still there, but it’s easily disengaged, and moved to a recessed position within the flat, smooth trigger shoe. This is a big upgrade in my mind, and immediately made the gun a bit more pleasant to shoot.


Installation of the GLOCK Apex Trigger is actually much easier than the install on the S&W pistols as you just need to remove the trigger assembly and replace it with Apex’s kit. Apex offers a trigger only or a trigger with a Gen 3 Trigger Bar for those running the Gen4 GLOCKs. Simply disassemble the gun using the handy video above, and follow along to do the install. Though I have a Gen3 GLOCK 19, I elected to utilize the trigger with trigger bar, as removing the factory trigger bar from my gun would effectively destroy the factory trigger. Should I ever want to go back, I’d be up a creek.

Because of this decision, swapping out the trigger was a sub ten minute affair. As part of the enhancement package, I also elected to use the revised safety plunger. The whole enhancement took less than thirty minutes, and required no fine tuning like the M&P kits.


Objective Bench Data

Given that I wanted to run my Apex’d GLOCK against a stock one, I placed a call to RF, and he readily supplied a bone stock Gen 4 GLOCK 19 for me to use as part of my testing. Full disclosure, I installed the Apex Trigger in a Gen 3 and my control gun was a Gen 4. I wasn’t able to feel/taste/smell too much of a difference, and the results of my range testing indicate that they’re very clearly similar.

The first bench based test was for trigger pull. After ten pulls on the stock trigger, I managed to record an average weight of 6.36 lbs with a standard deviation of .16. Putting the Apex’d GLOCK through the same testing protocol yielded an average of 5.76 lbs with a standard deviation of .11. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I can say that the Apex kit lowered the weight down to a very manageable but still safe level. Prior to replacing the stock trigger on my gun, I had it registering regularly above six pounds so I’m confident that the Apex kit will lower the weight required to set the gun off by a reasonable, but still very safe number.

The second bench test was to measure the travel of both triggers at the various stages of engagement. This would be a much more scientific process if I had Jeremy’s fancy DVORAK TriggerScan, but alas I’m a poor boy from the country with a set of analog calipers. I measured several distances with the calipers as parallel to the direction of travel as possible and then figured the distances between those various points. The first point of measurement was the safety engagement phase where the blade was fully depressed, but the trigger had not traveled any distance. The second point of measurement was the “wall” where you can start to feel the first bit of resistance. This would generally be referred to as the takeup distance. In the case of the stock Gen 4 GLOCK, this yielded a travel of .244 inches. The Apex’d GLOCK was a full tenth of an inch shorter at .141 inches.

As I’m not able to measure the actual breaking point, the next best measurement I could get was to squeeze the trigger the full distance of travel and measure to what would normally be called the overtravel stop. The distance between this point and the aforementioned wall would be what I would call the entirety of the trigger engagement zone. On the stock GLOCK, this distance was .116 inches. The Apex’d GLOCK was .021 inches, almost a tench of an inch shorter.

The last measurement was to measure the distance from the overtravel stop to the reset “click”. On the stock GLOCK this distance was .132 inches while the Apex’d GLOCK was almost a tenth of an inch shorter at .039 inches.

As you can see, the takeup, engagement, and reset distances were all lowered by roughly a tenth of an inch each over stock. What this should mean out on the range is that split times (times between shots) are closer together and that the time to the first shot is perhaps faster as a byproduct as the trigger finger has to travel a smaller distance to do the same work. If pictures are worth a thousand words, videos must be worth a few million.

With the camera in the same place, and the gun roughly in the same place as well, here is a vide of the Apex’d GLOCK.

Subjective Static Range Impressions

On my workbench, creeping around my house, and out on the range, I was very impressed by how the Apex’d GLOCK felt in my hands. Apex has started to modify their existing trigger kits to feature a flat faced shoe that should look and feel very familiar to those accustomed to the 1911 platform. This seems to promote a bit more control on the trigger shoe, and ultimately results in what feels like a much better trigger “experience.”

One of the best benefits to this trigger, and the one that would have me plopping down hard earned cash is the revised engagement of the safety. As I mentioned above, the Apex trigger changed my GLOCK from “holster testing gun” to “maybe I should toss this in the bag for a range trip gun” which is a pretty big step forward.

All that aside, it retains the very audible and tactile break and reset that I’m grown accustomed to with a GLOCK. If you dry fired both guns side by side, you can certainly convince yourself that there’s a shorter engagement travel and a shorter reset, but the difference is small, and hard to register immediately. It is there, but only slightly.

Objective Static Range Data

stock glock

After a full day of shooting both guns side by side, I stepped back to seven yards, did my best to control my breathing, trigger squeeze, and sight alignment, and produced three, five shot groups for each pistol. The Stock GLOCK had maximum spreads on the low end of 1.335 inches and 2.191 inches on the high end with an average of 1.82 inches for the three groups.
apex glock

The Apex’d GLOCK was run through the exact same protocol at the same range within five minutes of the stock GLOCK and produced groups on the low end of 1.827 inches and 2.584 inches on the high end for an average group size of 2.13 inches, a 16% larger group size than the stock GLOCK.

This was a wholly unexpected result given how much better the trigger felt during the aforementioned dry firing test on the bench. What is important to keep in mind is that we’re dealing with two different pistols of different generations. While I would love to think that perfection is the name of the game, I think we can all agree that some pistols just shoot better than others of the same model. This is a variable that I wish I could have done away with, but the test that I ultimately wanted to do works better with two pistols being shot back to back.


Objective Range Data

This is the part where it got interesting. As  some of you may remember, I set out to find an objective means of testing pistols, sights, holsters, etc. and settled upon a test that my instructor, Karl Rehn, put together. There are seven drills in the entirety, and for this, I chose Drill #1.

Scoring: IPSC “minor” scoring (A=5, B/C = 3, D=1).

  • Drill 1:
    • Round Count: 4 rounds
    • Description: Draw, fire 4 on 5 yard target, two handed
    • Purpose: Test draw and “hosing” split times
    • Goal Time: 2.00 sec (1.25 draw, 0.25 splits x 3)

I did fourteen repetitions of the drill for each pistol but I broke them up into two, seven rep parts. I shot the stock GLOCK first for seven repetitions, and then moved to the Apex’d GLOCK, and then repeated that once more for a total of 28 strings of fire. I used a Competition Electronics Pocket Pro II and did my drawing from a CRT LoPro at the 1:00 position. I did not bother drawing from concealment so I simply tucked my shirt in behind the holster.

For each string of fire, I recorded the time to the first shot, the time between shots, and the location of each hit corresponding to the IPSC targeting zones. When I got back home from the range, I plugged all this data into Excel and used Comstock scoring to find my hit factor for each string. This gave me some raw data to play around with and the results were a little surprising.

Screen Shot 2015-11-10 at 8.45.27 AM

Above is the raw data that I collected on the strings of fire with the stock GLOCK. There is some color coding which corresponds to the hit factor, called “score” on the far right side. Red indicates that the score was either the minimum or the maximum for the set of data while yellow indicates that the score was outside the bounds of one standard deviation. Green indicates that the data falls within one standard deviation .

On average, my draw with the stock GLOCK took 1.49 seconds, with my second, third, and fourth shots coming at .25, .27, and .28 respectively.  The standard deviation for my draw was .17 and the standard deviation for the second, third, and fourth shots were .04, .07, and .14 respectively.

In an effort to clean up the data a bit, I pulled out the maximum and minimum scores which gave me an average time to the first shot of 1.45 with my second, third, and fourth shots coming at .26, .27, and .29 respectively. These numbers were within .01 seconds of the raw data. Similarly, the change to standard deviation was negligible with the exception of my draw time which dropped from 1.59 to 1.45 on average with the standard deviation dropping from .17 to .10. This is due in large part to the fact that it kicked out my first run of the day where my draw took 1.97 seconds.

The last attempt at cleanup was to look at only the data points that fell within one standard deviation of the average. When doing this, I got a value of 1.46 seconds for the draw with split times of .25, .29, and .23 seconds with standard deviations of .11, .04, .09. and .02 respectively. This is about as clean as I can expect to make the data when working with such a small sample size.

This exercise further clarified the data on raw points. In the original data set, my average point total was 18.43 with a standard deviation of 1.6. Kicking out the maximum and minimum scores took that score to 18.33 with a standard deviation of 1.67, and moving to only data within one standard deviation, the raw score average was 18.75 with a standard deviation of 1.49. As 20 points is the maximum amount that can be scored, I felt that I did a good job as a shooter of balancing accuracy against speed.

The final shake out was on the hit factor score. This is the ultimate judge of the balance between speed and accuracy. For the raw dataset, my score was 8.10 with a standard deviation of .95. With the minimum and maximum gone, the score was 8.11 with a standard deviation of .86, and looking at the data within the one standard deviation of the raw data, the average score was 8.40. Depending on how the data was treated, the average score ranged from 8.10 to 8.40 with the stock GLOCK. The par time for this drill is 2.00 seconds, so assuming perfect hits and a part time, the theoretical score should be 10.
Screen Shot 2015-11-10 at 8.45.17 AM

The data for the Apex’d GLOCK follows an identical template to the stock data just discussed.

On average, my draw with the Apex’d GLOCK took 1.49 seconds, identical to the stock GLOCK. Across all fourteen strings with the Apex’d GLOCK, my split times were .29, .25, and .25. This was within a few hundredths of the stock pistol which had splits of .25, .27, and .28 respectively. The standard deviation for my draw with the Apex’d GLOCK was .11, a slight improvement over stock. The standard deviation for the second, third, and fourth shots were .06, .05, and .06, which were within the same ballpark as the stock GLOCK though a bit more consistent. All this resulted in a total run time on average of 2.27, a whopping .02 seconds faster that stock.

Pulling out the maximum and minimum numbers, the average time to first shot stayed identical at 1.49 seconds, while the second, third, and fourth shot times stayed identical or within .01 seconds. Standard deviation was the same across the board as well. Looking at only the data that fell within one standard deviation, draw time dropped to 1.48 seconds, with splits of .30, .25, and .26. Standard deviation remained roughly the same across all of these as well.

My raw point totals across all fourteen runs averaged 17.43, a full point worse than the stock gun (18.43). Kicking out minimum and maximum raised that score to 17.50, and going to data within one standard deviation took it to 18.25. The scores are lower across the board, and the standard deviations numbers are a bit worse. This had the ultimate impact of creating a lower hit factor as my ever so slightly faster average time couldn’t make up for those dropped points.

For the raw data, my calculated score was 7.69, a reduction of .41 over stock. Remember that higher is better. With the minimum and maximum scores gone, the average score was 7.66, .45 lower than stock. And looking at only the data within one standard deviation, the average score was 7.99 which was .41 points lower than stock.  Depending on how the data was treated, the average score ranged from 7.69 to 7.99 with the Apex’d GLOCK vs. 8.10 to 8.40 with the stock GLOCK.

Conclusions from Crunching Numbers

The first conclusion I reached was that objective testing standards have a way of challenging gut feelings. I left the range after shooting a couple hundred rounds through both guns, CONVINCED that the Apex equipped GLOCK was far superior. It wasn’t until I sat down and crunched the numbers in Excel and OnTarget that I realized that I’d actually performed worse using the Apex’d GLOCK. That’s not an indictment of Apex, their product, or their team. This is still a great trigger, and as a guy who doesn’t compete regularly, I’m willing to turn a blind eye to some of this, because a.) this trigger is way more comfortable and b.) the difference in scores isn’t that large (less than 5%).

The other factor worth consideration, and the one that has the potential to nullify everything I just presented, is that these guns didn’t wear the same sights for the test. Yes, yes, I should have mentioned that earlier. The Apex’d GLOCK wore a set of Aimline sights. Its fully possible that I don’t run those sights as fast as I do a set of stock GLOCK sights. This position is backed by data from my last go at using the Rehn Test to objectively look at performance. During that test, there was a 6.2% difference between the scores for stock sights and a set of Trijicons. Therefore, I’d say that the difference in scoring can’t be completely attributed to the Apex trigger, as it falls within a previously experienced difference strictly from switching sights.

All of that said, I can’t confidently say that the Apex trigger will make you faster, stronger, or able to jump tall buildings. What it will do is reduce the weight of your trigger pull as well as shortening the engagement and reset distances by roughly a tenth of an inch. It didn’t make me significantly slower, and looking at the timing data specifically, it did seem to be a bit more consistent and ever so slightly faster than the stock trigger.


Specifications: Apex Tactical Glock Enhancement Trigger and Ultimate Safety Plungers

  • Parts Included: Replacement Trigger with Trigger Bar or Standalone Trigger. Safety Plunger sold separately.
  • Install Complexity: Slightly more involved than field stripping
  • Intall Time: <30 minutes
  • Cost: $79.95 for the trigger. $99.95 for the trigger and Gen 3 trigger bar. $17.95 for the Ultimate Safety Plunger

Ratings (out of five stars):

Fit, Finish, Build Quality * * * * *
Apex has done an incredible job of building a quality replacement trigger that is free of any machining marks, scratches, dings or dents. It is black to match the GLOCK and the anodizing work is free of defects as well. All of the pins are flush fitted, and once installed, it feels like the pivoting surfaces are riding on oiled glass.

Overall Feel * * * * *
I can’t say enough nice things about the shape of this trigger and what it does to the overall profile of the trigger pull. The break is crisp and clean with no hint of grit or stacking. The reset is fairly short and equally crisp and audible. I had zero failures of any kind, and all primer strikes were well formed and on par with what the stock trigger accomplished.

Overall Rating * * * *
If you took away the math, I’d rank this as a five star trigger. It is absolutely an improvement in feel over stock, and the shape is quite pleasant. Gone were the hot spots on my finger which elevated my enjoyment of shooting this gun tenfold. But there’s no denying the data that in a worst case scenario, this trigger made me less accurate. And in a best case scenario, it kept me right on par with what I would have done with a factory trigger. If you have a problem with the way a GLOCK trigger feels, the Apex is worthy of your consideration. If you shoot your stock trigger just fine, buy $100 worth of ammo and shoot that up instead.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Thanks Tyler, lemme know! I recently installed their trigger and kit on my Shield 9mm, and it’s great. Tell them I’ll happily be the guinea pig for a prototype, and write a review!

    • The Apex Action Enhancement Trigger for the Glock was initially found to fit the model 43. However, after feedback from customers we found that the frame tolerances in the Glock Model 43 varied more than we realized. Based on the helpful feedback we got, the trigger is being altered so as to fit the 43. The latest triggers being machined right now have this new dimensional change and will be available shortly.


      • Thanks guys! I’ll reach out to you via email and see when they’ll be ready. With buying all these kid Christmas presents recently, it’s Daddy’s turn!

  1. The right to keep and bear platforms.

    The 4 principles of platform safety.

    Platform. Right up there with booger hook, bang switch and blaster.

  2. If you go with a below average gun like a Glock you’re going to need to put some money into it. But when you do it’s really a great gun. Worth it.

    • What makes you say it’s “below average?” The factory Glock is a perfectly fine gun. Goes bang every time, and if you’re a competent shooter you’ll hit what you’re aiming at. If “average” to you means high dollar guns that perform a little better and look nicer, then may fortune continue to smile upon you. the trigger isn’t all that bad, and unless you’re a competitive shooter, it has all the accuracy one could need or utilize.

  3. Glock hater here – at least when you buy a $1000 1911, you aren’t spending about 20% of the price of the gun to upgrade the trigger!

    • I’m not a Glock hater nor a 1911 hater (I have both), but honesty compels me to admit that a $100+ investment for a roughly one pound reduction in trigger pull weight is mighty steep indeed. In my particular scheme of things I’m better off spending said $100 towards a decent reloading kit for 10mm/.40S&W since that’s what I shoot most of the time. But then at that point my trigger finger may be even more sore and I’ll end up getting a trigger job just to make it more comfortable to shoot. Sounds like good old-fashioned marketing to me!


    • If you need to spend 1/5 of the price of the gun on a trigger to make the gun acceptable then the gun isn’t worth owning. As a certified Glock hater I don’t think you need to spend the money on the trigger to make it effective. If you are using your Glock for competition that”s one thing but you are wasting money if it’s just a carry piece. I find the trigger to be good enough.for self defense.

      • I don’t think this product is about “need”, “making acceptable”, or “good enough”. I see it as making a good thing better. Is it $100 better? I dunno. My G19 is still bone stock with 1800 rounds down it. I don’t have any major problems with the trigger but who wouldn’t want a “much more comfortable and ergonomic shooting experience.”

    • Yeah you spend $1k on a 1911 you’re looking at a minimum 100$ for a Cylinder and Slide kit, more likely $150 for tool steel fire controls and then another $20 in springs. I have a 1911.

      Same deal on CZ’s. To cajunize a CZ it’s about $250 in parts, but the result is nothing short of phenomenal.

    • A factory stock Harley Davidson motorcycle runs fine, too. But many (most?) Harley owners will customize theirs by replacing certain parts over time. Some people enjoy this kind of thing. There’s a challenge and a certain satisfaction that comes from taking something good and making it a little better.

      Oh… and people do the same thing with 1911s.

    • I love 1911s to.
      But I hate your math.
      Sure you can spend $1000 on a 1911 with a custom trigger and not “have” to spend money on an upgraded trigger. BUT,
      If you spend $700 on a glock and $100 on a trigger you still spent $200 LESS then the $1000 1911. Regardless of what percentage of the cost of the gun the upgrade was, I’d rather keep $200.

    • Funny enough when you spend $1K+ on a 1911 you are spending about 80% on upgrades from whoever is making that 1911. No truly stock 1911 is as reliable out of the box as a Glock. I won’t mention that a decent 1911, and I mean “decent” costs twice the amount of a Glock yet in the end they will both hit what They are pointed at. If spending twice as much makes a person feel like they have a better weapon well, to each their own, but I’d beard pressed to trust any 1911 over a Glock in a combat environment without a lot of love and care put into the pistol.

  4. An extra $100
    I’d spend it on a Walther Q series approximately same price and comes with a decent trigger out of the box.

    • BTW not a Glock hater just don’t see it as the be all end all. I do hate Jimenez, Raven & Cobra pistols.Feel that they are more dangerous to the user than anyone else.

    • I qualified for blue label pricing on Glock. Even then, I was still seriously considering a PPQ. I noticed that magazines and aftermarket supplies for the Walther were in short supply and pricey when I could find them. Still, I considered the PPQ.

      What stopped me was that I couldn’t find a single shop or range with one on hand. I would prefer to fire rounds at paper, but even feeling the balance and dry firing would have been worthwhile. But sight unseen for what I expected to make my EDC? Not a chance.

      If Walther can straighten out their distribution, I’d consider reconsidering. I’m sure my father in law would love a gift, my friends would love to buy, or my safe would love a constant companion.

    • The PPQ does have a very good trigger. Yet, Walther asked Apex to come up with an aftermarket trigger upgrade. That trigger design does not reduce trigger pull weight – which is around 4.0 to 4.5 lbs – but it does reduce the overall travel by approximately 40%.


      • Too bad they did not ask you to improve the trigger on the CCP, that is a singularly crappy trigger.

  5. Man there’s a lot of pessimism here for a trigger upgrade. I’m going check this out for my Glock 27 Gen 3.

  6. I can’t decide if I hate “bangswitch” or “go pedal” worse.

    Though neither is as bad as “minute of bad guy.”

  7. I own a Glock 23 (Gen 4) and a 1911. Greatly enjoy shooting both. I experienced the same issue highlighted in the article concerning the stock trigger. Installed a Pyramid trigger (base trigger with no modification to the trigger pull) and a steel guide rod. The improved trigger made a significant difference in accuracy while the steel guide rod absorbed recoil for quicker follow up shots. Yes, I spent about $200 on the upgrades to the Blue Label cost so all total I am around $600 all in. The $600 gives me an EDC that is accurate, reliable and easy to carry. While I love shooting my 1911, my modified glock has full faith, trust and confidence.

  8. I like Apex, but the only reason the Glock triggers measure so high, is because of the design. They are, in actuality, lighter.

  9. Oh for chrissakes, leave the damned Glock alone. They’re just fine as issued. Spend $50 on ammo and shoot it a couple hundred times. The trigger will smooth out and lighten up. I had a M&P. that trigger was far worse than the Glock, but still not horrible. It too, smoothed out significantly after dry firing it a couple hundred times.

    • This. I’ve shot Glocks, M&P, Springfields, FN, Star, Colt, Taurus, and others and see no reason to modify the Glock 19 I carry for anything.

  10. “Sure, you can make them better, but they already start life crisp and clean enough with one of the best tactile and audible resets out there.”

    Uh…what? That does NOT describe the absolutely mush of a Glock trigger. I’ll probably buy a Glock eventually due to the lack of high capacity 10mm handguns from other manufacturers, but you can bet your shiny metal ass that I’ll be replacing the trigger immediately.

  11. No matter how much fun an activity is, like shooting guns, there’s always someone willing to suck the life out of it with too much math.

    • To some of us, math *is* fun! 😀 The problem with the math here is like the author pointed out, the numbers (except for the weights and measurements) aren’t really an apples to apples comparison, so you can’t draw any hard conclusions from them.

  12. Yes, a PPQ has a wonderful factory trigger. Yes, a late-model Glock or your-favorite-gun may have a good enough trigger for you. What if that doesn’t matter? What if you don’t like the higher bore axis of the PPQ? What if you don’t like the grip of the Glock? What if you don’t prefer heavy hammer-fired 1911? You buy a gun that feels and shoots right for you and *mod* it to preference. That’s why I put Apex triggers in my M&P handguns. I like the platform.

  13. I’ve never tried the Apex trigger, but the whole data plotting exercise was STUPID. Ever hear of GIGO? Garbage In, Garbage Out. Your incoming data was garbage because you didn’t have a “control” example. If you want to show us meaningful data, try capturing the same times and accuracy, USING THE SAME PISTOL AND SIGHTS! Just swap the trigger/bar. This whole “review” is rubbish.

    • yep. this review was retardedly too long. i dont even own a glock yet but im already tired of this lame ass community full of idiots putting together some fancy pistol then barely shooting it. damn idiots. musta played too much call of duty. almost makes me not want to even buy a glock.

  14. I’ve replaced the triggers on two of my glocks with apex. The stock triggers are very uncomfortable and pinch the heck out of my finger. As a result I wasn’t shooting the guns as often as I’d like. After changing to the Apex trigger shoe the guns are much more comfortable to shoot and at least one of them finds its way into my gun bag every time I go to the range. For me it’s well worth the $100 ($80 if you just buy the shoe) to get more enjoyment out of shooting the guns.

  15. For all you numbnuts out there complaining about the thin, protruding, annoying safety blade in the middle of a glock trigger: yeah it was the first thing I noticed when i got my first GLock and it took me about 2 days to fix it. and it was very complicated and extremely expensive as you might guess NOT! I filed the MFer down flush with the rest of the trigger in about 10 minutes. job done. I think it’s dishonest at least for the writer here and all the pundits the internet I’ve read to talk about the issue & then not mention the obvious, this simple effective can-be-done-by -anybody fix which they never do. I don’t know what the explanation for this idiocy is at Glock. Male Pride? Idiocy? After All Glock is Perfect, so so so are Glock Employees as long as they never admit that Glock isn’t Perfect. Other things I did to my New Perfect Glock to make it more comfortable and shootable for me (and by the way, before I did these things, I got much tighter groups with my frigging hi-point 9mm because it has too small of a grip for me, buit it’s WAY more ergonomic (shaped like the inside of a gripping hand). to be honest though Also the Hi-point after my customization of the trigger had virtually no travel, no play and minimal pull completely eliminating the possibility of trigger jerk. bnut the hi-points only hold holds 10 rounds and jams about every 200 rounds. My Glock, with thousands of rounds through it, same brand ammunition, has never jammed and holds 17-33 rounds depending on the magazine.Frankly I’d changed the motto to something that’s true, such as “Glock Dependability” anything but the dubious and obviously false “Glock Perfection”. Right away on my new Glock I also filed down and smoothed off the uncomfortable texture grips. And note that I amd a senior citizen who still WORKs IN CONSTRUCTION and my hands are far from soft, yet nasty Glock grip texture is too rough, like gripping stick-on grip paper on a skate board. I filed up into the bottom of the trigger housing to acquire more grip real estate for my largish hands.The finger groove are all wrong and the grip is slab slided, leaving a huge gap between the palm of my hand and the side of the grip. So I overmolded RTV black siicone grips on mine that fit my hand after I filed down the stipd misplaced finger grooves on my “Perfect” Glock, the silicone overmolding would establish finger grooves to fit my hand. I will say this though, The Glock polymer is tougher than steel,. Steel frames file easier than this plastic does.

  16. yeah but:…This trigger after installation started out great, just as advertised. then after mabye 1000 pulls, it started changing feel, getting mushy and finally I realized that the . trigger break is all the way to the back of the frame and won’t even break sometimes!

    This hunk of junk cost me over $100 at an online Apex dealer. after looking online and comparing prices and descriptions of aftermarket triggers after it had become clear that the 4.5 lb. pull on my 17 was stopping me from getting tight groupings in my target practice. I wish I had run across the information about the Glock minus connector before I paid $100 for this utter garbage. But I didn’t until after the apex went to crap and THEN I found information in multiple places about the Glock minus connector and how all the aftermarket brands are inferior to it. and how all the aftermarket brands are inferior to it.

  17. Take the Robert Wise comments with a mine’s worth of salt. Check out Apex Tactical’s blog today about Robert Wise’s comments, behavior, and language towards their customer service team and owners. Seems Robert Wise likes to write negative reviews about many products involving the Glock platform.

Comments are closed.