… thanks to John Snow at Outdoor Life.
It’s been a long time since I took physics, but I think I remember the main points. So the extra lever, the “actuator”, is just a third-class lever that trades an increased pull weight for shorter trigger travel. That would explain why this three-lever design still has a minimum weight of 3 pounds instead of a few ounces.
The diagram also explains the stubby trigger I bitched about earlier; the triggerpiece needs to be balanced with respect to its pivot point. If one end was more massive than the other, the gun would have a tendency to fire if dropped. To fix the stubbiness and make the external part of the trigger longer, they’d have to match it with a more massive upper portion. There probably isn’t much room inside the housing to do that. They could, alternately, make the fingerpiece longer and narrower, but a narrow trigger would feel heavier than a wide one.
It’s a nifty design, though I still don’t see why they replaced the old mechanism.
Isn’t it obvious? Newer is always better!
Well, as long as they didn’t change the interface pattern, so changing the funky trigger for something better is still an option…
Well, as long as they didn’t change the interface pattern, so changing the funky trigger for something better is still an option…
Yep, it’s hard to tell from that diagram but it looks like the front end of the housing connects to (what used to be) the sear pivot point, and the new sear pivots where the trigger used to. If those holes are still in the same spots and the dimensions of the action bottom are the same, it should be possible to refit the old parts.
Then there’s the blind hole between the sear and the front trigger guard screw that holds the sear spring; if they leave that out you’d have to drill it yourself. I guess it’s just too soon to say for sure.