For the average male hand, it gets the trigger centered better beneath the pad of the first finger and encourages a linear trigger pull without pulling. I have to work harder and consciously bend my trigger finger more to get a proper placement on a short/arched set up. That most modern guns are set-up with the original design (flat/long) speaks quite a bit about its preference to most shooters. Again, that's "most" as anatomic variations will mean the short trigger fits others better.I've no idea why folks would want a long trigger, but the new ones all seem to come with one.
This is one of those things that I heard for years to explain the trigger change. But then in some medical literature I found this was not very significant. The difference in overall height of the average US male in 1920 vs. 2000 was 1.1 inches. What this translates into in hand size is very small. The proportional difference in the trigger change is MUCH more than average hand size. Also, most guns as produced today are proportionally as designed in 1911, and seem to fit a wide degree of people, just as they did then.almost 100 years ago the average male was not as large as today
There's no need to be snide - it's just a discussion and speculation. Perhaps it was to allow a gloved finger. I can't say definitively, nor can anyone because none of us were there during the QM discussions. No source has reproduced them to allow us to say "Ah, that's why."Well now, I bet you think you're pretty smart. Maybe it was to open up the area so that a gloved finger could fit in there. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.
Sounds like you haven't shot much (or any) with an arched MSH. Maybe you ought to give it a try. You might be surprised with the results you get.what was the reason for changing the spring housing from the "flat" type to the "arched" type? Both of my 1911's (Kimber and S & W) have the "flat" type and I think it is easier to shoot than an "arched" type would be. just curious
Because longitudinal studies show that the average American man's hand size was NOT significantly smaller then than it is now. This is the "scrutiny" of applying logic and a scientific process to the guess/hypothesis and seeing if it holds up. This "guess" doesn't hold up very well when analyzed. And that's all it is, a "guess."How can you say the smaller hand idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
So very many things wrong here.Scott Gahimer said:We don't have to believe anything about your guess.
John Browning and the Colt engineers didn't order the changes. There were multiple changes ordered over the years of production. Not all of them made sense as we look backward.
I doubt if anyone was reviewing medical books to make their decisions, so referring to them now doesn't have much bearing on the decisions made then.
Now that makes A LOT of sense. If the idea was to accommodate a smaller population (weight-restricted cavalry troopers) than the average, then it has some validity.Sgt. Art said:That's a relatively small man which makes sense.