Continuous Precision Enhanced Duty Trigger (EDT) REVIEW - CAVEAT EMPTOR

[anach]

I was looking for a new trigger to help with trigger-bite on my P10F and ended up grabbing a Continuous Precision Enhanced Duty Trigger off of ebay from odinsworkshop for $76 delivered. Full disclosure, I used a 10% ebay discount through paypal and have no relationship with either company (as of writing). I also hold no animus towards Continuous Precision and am attempting to be unbiased in my criticism of their product.
Also, the pictures used are recreations of my initial evaluation as I did not have a camera set up at the time.
So anyway, it cost more than the HBI Theta, but reviews were mixed on the theta (ver 1 and 2) fixing trigger bite and I was willing to try something new in a range-only gun. I also didn't want to wait for Primary Machine to come out with their P10 trigger.

First Impressions
Well, opening the packaging I had mixed feelings.

Fit and Finish
The machining felt good and the edges were chamfered appropriately everywhere except on the safety and safety cutout. Since the face is serrated, I feel like the edges could be broken a little more to get rid of snag points and reduce future cosmetic wear on this part. That said, it was deburred and none of the edges were sharp enough to cut skin. Hole chamfers are good.

The trigger pivot hole was nice and smooth, but definitely oversized so the pin had some play in the trigger outside of the gun. This allows for CZ manufacturing tolerances and easier installation, but I would have preferred a slightly tighter fit if possible.

The trigger safety spring was crunchy and sometimes bound on an internal ledge during my "testing" before I installed the trigger.

The anodizing on the entire unit looks nice with a little texture. Looking at the close-up pictures, you can see the finish is a little gritty which leads to the mating faces between the safety and the trigger to feel just a hair gritty when pushing the safety flush with the trigger face. This is just a side effect of two metal surfaces rubbing past eachother without lubrication and should smooth out with time and lube.

The safety pivot pin was slightly undersized for the safety as well, so the safety has just a hair of side-to-side shimmy when in position. Not a lot, I mean like maybe a few thou, but just enough to be noticeable  when gun fondling (which you really shouldn't be doing anyway).

Speaking of the safety pivot pin, it is a standard split-type spring pin but on my unit, the end was already deformed. Not a huge deal by itself, but I wonder why a spring-pin punch was not used.



The real issue here is that the safety pivot hole is blind: as in there is no exit hole for the pin so removal is very difficult. Furthermore, the hole is very close to the actual trigger back face so trying to remove the pin and drill a through hole as an end user could end poorly. I have no idea why they decided to make a blind hole when a through hole wouldn't have cost any more or added to manufacturing complexity. (I can see how it might add to complexity if they use short bits on this hole to avoid breaking bits, but that's still no excuse) They could have even used the same spring pin, just set deeper. The only reason I can think of for this incredibly poor design decision is to prevent someone from disabling the safety. God help you if you need to clean the trigger safety though.

Installation was easy, the trigger bar pin hole is perfectly sized and the chamfers in the trigger pivot hole made reassembly a piece of cake.

Design and Function
Design wise, it is clear this isn't just a clone of the the HBI trigger (gen 1 or 2), and while I like a lot of what I see, that isn't entirely a good thing.

The pre-travel reduction face is flat on the EDT, whereas the theta has a raised ledge. Not having a theta, I think the effect is that the angle of the trigger face is slightly more vertical.
The serrated face on the EDT is nice and provides a lot of grip.

The safety is also serrated and is completely flush with the face when fully depressed. That said, I didn't find it fully depressed unless I had my finger at the very bottom of the trigger, riding the trigger guard. In the stock trigger and from what I can tell, the theta, not having the safety depressed nearly fully causes the safety to bind a little. On the EDT, the catch-face on the trigger is shaped completely different. It'll be easier to show than explain so here's a picture:



As you can see, the catch-face has a hook with a rounded tip that allows the trigger safety to ride up the frame lip if partially depressed. I was a little worried they had defeated the trigger safety so I did some testing and this is what I found:

• With the safety not depressed at all, the angle of the catch-face is properly designed so as to completely prevent a discharge. The harder you pull, the more the safety is wedged against the frame.
• With the safety partially depressed-but not with a real (squishy) finger, the safety is still effective until the rounded part of the hook tip reaches the lip of the frame cutout. Then it will allow the trigger to function. The point where the safety is depressed enough for this to happen is about the same as the stock trigger, so I don't think there is a problem. If you shove a stick in the trigger guard and shake it about, the gun will discharge. Duh.
• With your finger on the trigger and safety, I noticed that even with your finger right in front of the safety pivot point, the gun will always discharge. This is despite the finger not having much leverage on the safety. I looked closer and determined that this was because as the trigger moved back, your finger rolls down the face just enough to get the safety to deactivate.

Based on the tests, it looks like the safety works just as intended. The firearm will only discharge if the safety is depressed, and the safety is very forgiving in finger placement.

The downside to the hook is that when you ride the tip of the hook over the frame, it adds a bit of resistance, think 2 stage trigger. If you get a good finger on the safety, it'll deactivate properly and you won't feel the bump.

The bottom of the trigger is very close to the trigger guard. Using feeler gauges, the gap between the bottom of the safety and trigger guard when fully reset is nearly exactly .020 thou, or 0.5 mm. When the trigger is depressed, the safety is almost riding the guard. It's about as close as you can get so full marks here.





Trigger pull test results are as follows:

		Stock		CP EDT
AVG Pull Weight (lb)		5.239		4.475
SD (n-1)		0.234		0.137
n		11		5

The stock trigger curve required me to defeat the safety with tape so I could get the pull halfway between the safety pivot and the bottom of the trigger.
The EDT required me to start the safety to keep the gauge finger from slipping, but I also measured the pull halfway between the pivot and the bottom.

Overall, I was pretty happy with the trigger. Assuming the grittiness of the safety went away, I really liked the feel of the new trigger and it did reduce travel by quite a bit.

I did not experience trigger-reset problems like some have reported with aftermarket triggers.

I was about to measure the EDT to test pre-travel and over-travel, but then things went a little pear shaped for the EDT.

Safety Failure
Unfortunately, I was about 30 dry-fires into testing the trigger when the safety return spring fell out. Yup, just fell out onto my workbench. The slide had just returned to battery from locked open and my finger was off the trigger. A quick look at the trigger told me why: the safety had flipped completely forward and was now upside down with the trigger fully forward. Huh.



Not good. When playing with the trigger before I installed it, I wondered what was holding the safety from doing exactly this. Never did figure it out before I installed it, but the crunchy return spring wasn't exactly comforting.
I tried reseating the spring with the trigger still in the gun, but I only succeeded in getting the spring caught in the side of the trigger and frame and mangling the spring. I would need to find a replacement if it were not for what I found next.



After the mangled spring, it was clear that the trigger was broken for the time being and was coming out. Once I got the trigger bar out of the gun, I saw that the top edge of the trigger safety, an edge you only see when the safety is depressed, had a bit of wear in the anodization on one side. With the spring gone, the safety could be rotated 100 degrees, with a slight catch where the trigger is supposed to stop. Nothing substantial though, and clearly not enough to keep the safety from rotating out of position.



Because of the stupid blind roll pin, I can't take the safety out and look for wear, but I believe the top edge of the safety face is supposed to strike the inside of the trigger body where the safety cutout is and prevent over rotation. Either the tolerances are too loose on the cutout/safety, or, as I suspect, the soft aluminum combined with an insufficient mating surface meant that this failure was inevitable as a sharp edge eventually rounded over. I don't think it's tolerances because the fit of parts is of such high quality. This is why you break the edges during manufacturing.



Either way, this is an issue for me and my trigger. I am the proud owner of a $76 beautifully machined piece of scrap aluminium.

I hope Continuous Precision can look at the design and redesign the trigger so this cannot happen. Or maybe mine was a one-off error in manufacturing and they'll make things right. I used to work in QC and I know that there is an acceptable failure rate in manufactured parts. The trick is preventing those parts from leaving the factory without breaking the bank.

I have reached out to CP using their website and if I don't hear from them by Monday evening, I'll give them a call. I'll update the review with any communication or resolution as appropriate.

That said, this is my experience with their product and even if this failure is a one-off, I feel like this review still has merit and diagnosing failure is essential to improvement. If the folks at CP have an issue with that, well, that's on them.

Caveats and Uninformed Opinions
In the above review, I tried to keep things to facts and informed speculation. In this part, I am allowing myself to voice my personal opinion and biases relating to acceptable risk.

• If I was sufficiently motivated, the safety split pin could probably be removed, either with a carbide bit or using the hydraulic method. The problem is that the pin is quite small and split pins are usually very hard temper steel. Also, my pin is already bent over, so getting a tool inside it will be an adventure.
• I am pretty sure that if your finger is on the trigger, the safety cannot overrotate and the spring cannot fall out.
• However, keeping your finger on the trigger while you drop the slide is not an acceptable remediation
• I'm fairly certain that the kick that causes trigger bite is the same shock that caused my trigger to fail.
• Maybe there is supposed to be some glue holding the spring in place, but do you really trust a little dab of glue to keep that spring in the trigger after 6000 rounds of shocks and cleaning solvents? Do you trust the spring to hold the safety in position when the mechanical over-rotation prevention fails and the recoil of firing tries to lock your trigger in safe?
• I would not feel safe using this trigger (carry or range use) until I could prove to myself that the spring could not fall out, nor the trigger overrotate. Period. You should proceed as you see fit.

[anach]

One thing I mentioned before the failure discussion was the wiggle of the safety in the trigger.

Well, once the spring fell out, I could examine the fit of the safety and I think this is probably the point of manufacturing/design failure.

The safety pivot hole seems to be oversized or under-toleranced by a rather significant degree since I found that with the safety overrotated, the safety bar has significant wobble. That would also mean there is some vertical play where the trigger top edge is supposed to hit the inside of the safety cutout on the trigger.

Too much play, too little mating surface, too soft material, wham, complete failure to function.

I took a video of the wobble:
https://youtu.be/CigJxGQ2z4c

[DOC 1500]

After all of that you got less than a 1 lb reduction in trigger pull , doesn't sound worth it to me.

[Earl Keese]

After all of that you got less than a 1 lb reduction in trigger pull , doesn't sound worth it to me.

A simple trigger swap won't net much if any reduction in pull weight. You have to change springs and polish internals/change the striker for that. That said, nice write up by the OP. The serrated face means a hard pass for me though. My gen2 HBI has been working fine for several thousand rounds. The CGW trigger was good too, I just prefer the flatter face of the HBI. It's good to have options.

[anach]

After all of that you got less than a 1 lb reduction in trigger pull , doesn't sound worth it to me.

Ignoring the actual failure part of it  , I really do like the trigger. It's more than just the pull weight: the trigger just feels better than the curved stock unit to me.

[monty_d_33]

Very thorough review, thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raining_Brass]

After all of that you got less than a 1 lb reduction in trigger pull , doesn't sound worth it to me.

Unless the shoe is somehow changing the geometry of how the trigger bar is moved, simply swapping a shoe doesn't change weight. That's just not how it works.

Some triggers give you the perceived notion that they reduce weight by way of leverage, but yeah...geometry changes and springs are the only way weight is removed, period.

[anach]

After all of that you got less than a 1 lb reduction in trigger pull , doesn't sound worth it to me.

Unless the shoe is somehow changing the geometry of how the trigger bar is moved, simply swapping a shoe doesn't change weight. That's just not how it works.

Some triggers give you the perceived notion that they reduce weight by way of leverage, but yeah...geometry changes and springs are the only way weight is removed, period.

Not to get too far off topic, weight at the trigger is a matter of applied leverage on an external system (sear assembly), and leverage is a byproduct of geometry.

You can either change the hinge-to-tiggerbar ratio (geometry), change the sear (geometry), change spring weights, or change the mechanical advantage of the finger on the trigger (geometry). I would argue that if the change in the way the finger lies on the trigger is consistent and natural, it should count as a change in pull weight as trigger pull is really the sum of all four of the aforementioned factors.

For most practical purposes, you have to look at the sum of all four factors, controlling for what you can, where you can. Ignoring leverage's effect is only possible if you measure force applied at the sear.

Besides, the shape of a shoe can change geometry by moving the point of applied force in relation to the hinge.

TL;DR, Raining_Brass is entirely correct that only geometry or spring weight can change trigger pull weight, but I believe that shoe shape has an effect on geometry.

[anach]

I heard back from Jeff at CP. They will be sending me a return label when they get back from ShotShow so they can inspect the trigger. It's Sunday and they aren't supposed to be open, so I feel like they are taking this seriously.

I decided to take a few more pictures for documentation as well as to compare with the stock trigger.

All of these are taken with the trigger hinge pin in place and the trigger bar holes lined up.

Stock trigger on top...






EDT on top...




This is the safety spring I mangled:


And one more shot of the wear at the top of the safety:


I tried to get a good picture of the inside of the safety cutout, but my camera was not having any of it.

[Lostinthewoods]

I would not put that trigger back in my gun.  First problem is the safety pivot pin hole is way too close to the edge.  Second problem is the deformed pin itself which indicates a lack of QC.  The third problem I have is the revised geometry or hook of the safety.  That's a solution looking for a problem to cure.  I have never had nor have I ever seen in my years of shooting someone not able to actuate a blade style trigger safety with a proper trigger press.  This one would be a hard pass for me.   

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[anach]

I am rather unhappy with my experience with CP's customer support so far. Maybe it's just my time in a fast paced industry, but even taking into account SHOT show, 7 business days is too long to go radio silent to a customer with a defective product.

As it stands, I still have a useless piece of aluminium and now have less confidence in CP as a company to do business with in the future. You might get a good one, and they seem to have sold a bunch of them already without much press or complaints, but I would give the trigger a solid "Do not buy" on the basis of questionable QC (sample size of 1), questionable design (see post 1), and questionable customer care.

A summary of my contact with them so far:

1/25/2020   -I messaged Continuous Precision
1/26/2019   -Jeff from CP replied by email, claiming they had never seen this before and asking for me to send the trigger back for inspection and replacement. No request for pictures or more information.
                   -I emailed him back asking for a return label.
                   -Jeff wrote "Yes I can do that." He also said they were getting back from SHOT show and needed a couple of days.
                   -I said thanks, and started waiting.
2/3/2020      -No email response or shipping information. No request for pictures or more information.
                   -I email Jeff with my address, hoping to remind him that I was still waiting.


Now as a reminder, I purchased the trigger off of ebay from odinsworkshop. Maybe that's causing confusion on their end? Or maybe they are swamped with post-SHOT show work or completing orders?

Either way, from a quality management perspective, this is unacceptable. The only correct way to handle this kind of potential QC problem is to get as much information on the failure as possible and get the item in hand as quickly as possible.

I am not feeling the urgency in dealing with this problem that Jeff's original email on Sunday gave me a week ago. They could have a batch of these triggers out there, ready to fail, and it feels like they don't care enough to do anything about it. And more than getting a defective trigger, and more than just not being emailed back, not taking QC problems seriously really gets my goat.

Here is my belligerent-former-Quality-System-professional rant about how a company should handle "excursions"

From the preliminary information gained through customer dialogue, inspect inventory and/or current manufacturing to see if the issue can be replicated in house. You should be able to identify when the unit was produced and by whom (you do keep record of daily output and assign lot numbers to your product, right?) Even if you suspect the user is a complete idiot or broke the item through negligence, you have to do due diligence. The result of this testing is generally one of a few outcomes:

• You replicate the problem, but it's user error (installation, outside of operating parameters, etc.)
• You replicate the problem, but it's a defect of some type on your end (this is usually the easiest to deal with since you know what went wrong and can fix it)
• You cannot replicate the problem (the worst situation because you have no information)

In all but the middle result, you still have to get the defective product in house to either confirm that the customer is an idiot, or to figure out why their unit is defective.

And just because none of the units you have in inventory or retained failed, doesn't mean you can relax.
Why did the customer's unit fail?

• Is it a one off manufacturing error? Improperly set up jig? Loose clamp during milling/setup? Bad day for bob on the cnc/mill?
• If it was a "one off" error, how did it pass in-process QC? or final QC? You do check to make sure your products meet spec before you ship them, right?
• If a "one off" error made it off the manufacturing floor, past QC, and into a customer's hands, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS A "ONE OFF"?

The answer is you can't. Whatever quality system you have in place has already failed and now you need to figure out how much damage you are willing to accept as collateral.

• Do you stick your head in that sand and assume that only this one single bad item could possibly have made it out to the wild and once we replace their unit, everything is fine. (cheapest response, and one that requires no ownership of failure, so you can imagine how often this one actually gets used)
• Do you pull all inventory from shelves and ask your distributors to notify their customers of a potential problem/recall (this is most often seen with pharmaceuticals, food, and automotive, especially when their are gov. regulations in place to keep giant companies from harming customers over a few dollars)
• Do you try and find a middle ground, knowing that admitting fault has the potential to harm your brand or even ability to operate? But that keeping quiet and selling products you know could be defective is unethical and in the case of a firearm component, could actually lead to loss of life?

All of the choices suck. That's why the best solution is not to get there in the first place.

High quality manufacturing today is largely driven by statistical process control, which is to say that it's generally understood that every part has a tolerance, and that you will produce some number of widgets outside your acceptable tolerance per hundred, thousand, or million widgets produced. The goal of SPC is to reduce the number of bad widgets by understanding what normally contributes to acceptable variations in widget tolerance and put controls in place to a)stop bad widgets from being made, and b)prevent any bad widgets from entering a downstream process.

Modern companies also have acceptable failure rates for products in the wild. This can be due to actual manufacturing inconsistencies and poor QC or due to things like shipping and environmental damage. Sometimes, especially in electronics, ESD at any point in the process or nanometer-scale wafer flaws can create failures that are difficult to test for without spending inordinate sums of money. As such, some companies are willing to accept the cost/benefit math on consumer grade widgets. Milspec stuff is supposed to cost more because of a higher level quality accountability which has a cost that is passed along to the cost insensitive customer (the government).

Sure, CP is probably a small company that isn't ISO9000 certified and probably doesn't even have a QMS on paper. But that doesn't mean the consequences of poor QC don't apply. if you run or plan on starting a small business, please think about quality management beyond "well we just won't make bad parts because we have skilled operators with thousands of hours at the mill." American companies in the 90s figured out that didn't cut it, learn from their mistakes.

If they ever get back to me, I'll post an update.

[anach]

Just a quick update for those keeping score: The trigger is in the mail and on the way back to CP (ETD 2/13/2020).

I had to bug Jeff, and then there were a few days of dead air, but hopefully things move a little faster now.

[sportsnut]

Sorry for your bad luck. I really like my HBI set-up.

[Superiorduper]

Nice write up and thank you for the review. I always thought those triggers looked kind of cheesy, this confirms it.

Do yourself a favor and order the HBI trigger, it’s the best trigger For the p10 platform IMO, and HBI’s customer service is over the top amazing.

I actually just called them today because after 10k+ rounds through my p10 (with their gen 2 trigger, not the one with the fangs, but I guess there’s a gen 3 now?) and the back side of the trigger safety had broken. I told them what had happened and they’re shipping a new trigger out today. I originally purchased it from czcustom as well, and they were more than happy to replace it with the only questions being what my address is. So yeah, they’re awesome lol

[anach]

Here is a final post to tie up loose ends:

Timeline update

• I shipped the parts back on 2/11/2020 by prepaid USPS 2 day label Jeff provided (by mail, not email...)
• I emailed Jeff asking if they received the part on 2/21/2020
• Same day, Jeff emails me back saying the safety was out of tolerance, but they were unable to duplicate the problem on any other trigger they had on hand.
• Same day, I emailed Jeff with a list of questions about the design of the trigger (blind roll pin, safety redeisng, etc.)
• As on 2/27/2020, I haven't had a reply, nor have they sent out a replacement.

As it stands, I have no trigger, I am out $76, my questions have not been answered, and I have had to poke and prod to remind Jeff with every single request. I'm not even sure I care enough to get the replacement now. My only thought now is that no one should buy anything from Continuous Precision because there are plenty of other companies in this market that provide the same services and products at a lower price.

As a note, I never wrote that I was writing this review in my communications with CP. If they are aware of this review, they haven't acknowledged it, and they sure aren't behaving as if customer care matters. I judge a company by how it treats their smallest customer, not how they respond to reviewers or celebrities, and CP has outright failed.
I had no affiliation with or bias against CP going in, but I certainly have an axe to grind now.
(If I sound razzed off, it's because I am)

Caveat emptor if you decide you want to try your luck with a CP product.

--------------------------------------------
The only bright spot of this whole affair is that the guys at HBI were paying attention to how this played out and are  providing a Theta trigger for me to review (and compare to the EDT if I ever get it back) along with their extended magazine release. I can't say anything about the quality of their products yet, but their customer support seems solid to me. (Like everyone else here has been saying)