OK, what's this about square triggger guards

[Smoke]

I tried a lot of different things to improve my marksmanship but nothing really worked. When I started training the instructor worked with me a little on my grip but not a lot. I'm not even sure where I heard about putting my finger in front of the trigger guard, I think I read it in a thread about why there was stippling on the front of the trigger guard an some pistols.

Anyway I tried it during a range training session and my groups tightened up noticeably and immediately. As I asked earlier if it works why would I stop doing it?

 

[Rastoff]

Glock STILL has the square trigger guard and so does Sig and I don't understand why.

The round works better.

As I said before, the squared off trigger guard can be used as a barricade support.

Excepting for the square trigger guard ,there would be no:

4506

I owned one like that once. I don't know about the others, but the 4506 came in square and round trigger guards.

Anyway I tried it during a range training session and my groups tightened up noticeably and immediately. As I asked earlier if it works why would I stop doing it?

Answered this before.

 

[pmosley]

I should be more specific - 4506 No dash

 

[Smoke]

Answered this before.

I was making a general comment not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[Dave Nash]

Most pistol trigger guards are round. Some are square. Is it a matter of style or is there an underlying purpose? If I'd have to guess I'd say it has something to do with holsterability or drawing the gun. If I used holsters maybe I would know this.

If it's a matter of style, I like the round trigger guards. The square ones look kinda clunky.

"rwsmith"

As your question was put in "The Lounge" Board of this Site, some of your answers here have become something of an apples-and-oranges kind of thing because several of the people trying to explain the value of "square" triggerguards are talking about pistols, while others are discussing revolvers.

That would be OK if everybody was talking about the "front" (leading) edge of those guards being "squared off" but they are not. For as of this writing (not posting, for I drafted this two weeks ago; sometime around Post #14 on 25February14), at least two of the revolver folks are rightfully and correctly describing the "squaring off" (and possibly, the "concaving") of the "rear" trailing edge (the one that faces the frontstrap of the gripframe) and the benefits that shape offers them.

So for the sake of clarity (and hopefully without the personal emotion and lack of understanding as to why this was done and how it only worked for some people but that didn't make it wrong, as unfortunately expressed here bitterly by a number of the respondents, which is why I originally didn't post these notes earlier), let's look at the squaring (and in some case, the altering) of that lead edge first, whether the gun is either a pistol or a revolver, and then we'll talk about modifying the trailing edge on a revolver only.

"Two-handed" shooting as most of us think of it today (think hands only and not body positioning for that doesn't matter here), really came into vogue because of the conducting of more application-oriented (that is, faster and multiple shot) shooting events often begun in the holster, such as those seen in California and the Southwest in the 1960's. Note, while popular much earlier for certain purposes, firing with both hands was not embraced by some and certainly not taught by others until then. And to be honest, in some parts of the shooting world, it wasn't accepted or widely used until well into the 1970's or even the very early 1980's.

These early pioneers of big-bore semi-auto usage experimented with all kinds of things and gripping the pistol (generally a 1911) was one of them; although it should be recognized that Jack Weaver, often thought to be the one that got the others to sit up and take notice of the benefits of employing both hands, generally shot a revolver.

In following Weaver's lead (or should I say "following in Weaver's wake" for he began to win with his two-fisted technique), these people saw their scores and overall effectiveness improve as well when they took the same approach. But moving beyond from what appeared to be the steadying benefits of two hands and the seemingly improved recoverability from shot-to-shot, some of the more technically (and/or analytically) minded among this group also began to see what they thought was a benefit to forcibly holding the gun "tighter" and perhaps, to holding the gun's muzzle "down" during the kind of then-unique timed and very rapid firing events in which they were participating.

Neither they, the "games" they "played", nor the techniques they employed should be ridiculed as some have done here in this thread for if it wasn't for these people's willingness to experiment and develop new "ways and means" (some of which have obviously been rethought, reworked and even discarded over time), it might well have taken us far longer to be where we are today.

Forgetting what we think of the Weaver "Stance" (the body's angular or "bladed" position relative to the target as opposed to the Isosceles "front on" or direct approach so popular today) and again, just concentrating on the hands, the gun was not just laid in position and "cradled" in the support hand (as implied by at least one poster to this thread) but it was gripped tightly by the master/primary/strong hand in a somewhat conventional manner and then further enveloped by a similarly applied strong grip made with the support/secondary/weak hand.

Three fingers of the primary hand covered the frontstrap (the forth was left free to operate the trigger) and all four fingers of the secondary/non-primary hand covered them as a conscious effort to solidly grip and control the gun was made. Additionally for some shooters, and in the words of that era, a push-pull "dynamic tension" was also created by the arms behind those hands and the overall effect was part of what Ray Chapman often referred to as "shooting from a position of strength".

The gun never just "laid out there in space" and this was not part of the sometimes taught "cup-and-saucer" (one hand gripping and one hand serving as a resting place) technique that was well in place by the 70's or the wrist-gripping technique (with one hand gripping the wrist of the hand that was gripping the gun) that was so often seen in the movies and on TV of that same period. Instead, and again regardless of how the rest of the body was positioned, it was an aggressive two-handed-grip that was used for both improved accuracy and control; especially when firing fast, multiple shot strings from the big-bore guns they were using.

It should also be remembered that for the most part, at this point in time, this was a man's sport and many (not all) of the top shooters shared certain common traits. One of those commonalities was big hands.

Therefore, it is relatively easy to understand that as these folks were already gripping the gun (usually a 1911) solidly in both hands (big hands) to control its movement during firing and that the (often larger-than-average) "supporting" index finger was merely wrapped (albeit tightly) around the front of the strong hand (actually around its fingers and therefore the frame under them), moving it (the "supporting" index finger) "up" and wrapping it tightly around the front of the triggerguard might not only have some advantage by placing it (and therefore the support hand) closer to the centerline of the barrel bore that was above it but might also allow the shooter to better control the muzzle flip upon firing that I mentioned earlier.

So as this shooting "position" was tried out and thought by some (many?) to be effective for them, the hobbyists among them and the gunsmiths who worked closely with many of these people, began looking at ways to allow the gun to facilitate its use.

With a lead edge that was not as radically radiused as those generally seen on revolvers, the vertical surface found on the front of the triggerguard on most stock 1911's lent itself to this shooting technique to start with. So some 'smiths merely serrated, checkered or otherwise textured the front of its stock profile to help keep that finger from slipping down and off it when pressure was applied.

Other craftsmen went further and formally squared it off (sometimes with and sometimes without those same texturing effects) to further limit the possibility of slippage or inadvertent movement.

And some went so far as to change its shape altogether.

Certain guards were seen with little nubs or lips that protrude from the lower lead corner to serve as outright "stops" for that finger. Some guards employed a crescent-shaped concave recess in that lead edge to serve that same purpose for it was often easier to create. And for some people, that inward curve was also more pleasing to the eye. Additionally, such a "pocket" was believed by certain shooters to be more effective but that could have been more psychological than an actual performance-based fact.

But several shooters and the craftsmen that supported them went in other direction and took that "nub" or "recess" and increased it in both size and shape; finally resulting in a true "hook" that didn't just keep their again, often big fingers in place but actually allowed them to perhaps control the gun further by allowing them to either pull down on the front of the gun or at least keep it from rising as it had done traditionally when fired.

Scoffing at all of this today is apparently easy for some here but as shown in the photo graciously enclosed by "2hawk" in Post #14, we can see that at least one and I can assure you that many other champion shooters of the past, either "put" their finger there (for a higher hold with the support hand) or actually used the guard in an effort to better control the gun.

As with many things in this hobby/sport/business, what started out as a custom feature often ends up as standard fare in commercially produced models that follow and it was no different here. For not only did the squared, concaved, hooked, and somehow textured triggerguards of the privately-modified Colt's of the 1970's become commonplace throughout the industry by the 1980's (seen on at least Sig's, Smith's, Beretta's, and even the CZ's mentioned by "Marshwheeling" in Post #9 and illustrated here by "RonJ" in Post #20) but in many cases, they were gradually lengthened as well because of the U.S. Military's desire for a glove-accommodating guard in their search for a new sidearm, which was something that influenced publically available service pistol features at that time as well.

Without boring you further in regard to what other pistol manufacturers did during this period of time, just look at the 2nd Gen Smiths that went from traditionally sized and shaped round trigger guards when they were introduced in '79 or '80 to traditionally sized concave triggerguards during the early-and-mid-1980's, which in turn lead to the 3rd Gen Models that were formally introduced in the late 1980's with long square (actually, slightly hooked) triggerguards that ultimately evolved back into conventionally-sized-and-shaped round trigger guards before the guns themselves were discontinued by the factory.

(And before everybody starts writing in to tell me that in the case of the Smith's there were all kinds of intermediate size and shape combinations as well, I know that for I was part of much of it at the factory; its just that for this discussion, those variations don't matter.)

Moving to the revolver but still keeping with the lead edge of the triggerguard, some people (especially big-handed and big-fingered people) sought to apply these same shooting techniques and firearm modifications to their firearms but generally, as there was already something of a "pocket" formed by the intersection of the guard with the bottom of the gun's (main)frame, all that was done on most wheelguns was a serrating or checkering of that front surface.

But with the two revolvers mentioned here (at the time of my drafting this post by "Kinman" and "Dick Rumbaugh" in Posts 7 & 8), which involve a "squaring" (of sorts) of the rear edge on the guard (once more, the vertical surface that faces the frontstrap of the gripframe), their shaping is something else entirely. Both the Ruger (that mimic's certain cap-and-ball Colts) and the generally "D"-shaped Smith's were done more for reasons of clearance and conventional support before firing as well as movement during firing than anything else and not for the reasons we have been discussing in regard to the pistol.

Whether the shapes on those two guns "work" for the people who shoot them (and in the two cases posted, they apparently do so very well) is very dependent on the size and shape of the users' hands. For while some people love the clearance that the Ruger Dragoon-type guard gives them (the Poster here certainly does), others hate it and can't use it because of the damage it inflicts on them upon firing.

But that size and shape issue is just as important to keep in mind with everything I have said about the pistols.

For some people (and for the last time in this note, for some big-handed and big-fingered people), these forward-squared guards made sense in their efforts and their experiments to wrench the gun into line while firing extremely fast, full power, multiple shot strings (that to be honest were something relatively new themselves at the time). But for many others, this was the wrong approach because their hands weren't big enough and their fingers weren't long enough to make use of the technique or the triggerguard modification(s). And for still more shooters of that day and today, this approach can actually be counterproductive; for in an effort to "reach" out and employ the guard in this manner, it actually weakens their grip and lessens their control over the gun during firing!

Separately and affecting even those with big hands and long fingers, the lengthening of the guard in the 80's to allow for shooting with a gloved hand (again a military and not a sport-driven configuration), further reduced the number of people who could use the technique (and such equipment) to their benefit.

Finally, there was the very real matter of aesthetics.

For while many people in the 70's were willing to accept the "look" of the customized 1911 square guards that were coming out of the shops of many of the top pistolsmiths of that decade, by the time they had morphed into the overly long and, to some, terribly misshapen designs of the 80's and early 90's, there was a backlash in terms of market acceptance; especially as many (most?) customers of that day had no need for the ability to shoot in cold weather with covered hands and fingers.

So things, in some cases, slowly devolved back into the shapes and in most (not all) cases, the sizes, where they all began.

And there you have it: a short history on what (at the time) was a big change; both physically and philosophically.

"rwsmith", I hope this helps and answers your question.