I'm wondering if it's the 2.0 being a better design or if they are just making them better these days. My early 1.0 Shield had a terrible trigger, over 7lbs, IIRC. Gunbuffer totally fixed that issue before he retired to the Tibetan monastery. A few years later I bought another 1.0 for the wife and the trigger in it needs nothing done to it. It's drastically better than my older one was and pretty nice out of the box. About 1000 rounds later it's even better than it was and while not equal to the work Gunbuffer did it's close enough. Either way it's good to hear that they've improved them.
There have been a few updates even in the Gen 1s. And like most other guns they are inconsistent. The performance center ones seemed to have a different sear. There was a different slide stop and trigger bar in later years.
I have three 2.0s. Two compacts and a full size. All were better than the factory Gen 1s, but still inconsistent. The worst compact got a Apex DCAE and it is the best now. But the stock compact is great. The full size is stock with a set of Ameriglos on it. I held my own pretty well against all the Rowland’s, optics, and other modified guns in a Vicker’s class when I had to move to it as a backup because of a front sight issue with my primary.
But the inconsistency gun to gun is there regardless of brand. I had three G5 Glock 17s that had entirely different triggers. And they were consecutively numbered. Another pair of CN G17 RTF2s that were different. A pair of CN G4 22Cs same etc. The only two I have that felt the same are my CN G44s. And I’ve seen it in other brands also.
I don’t have much experience with the 2.0 shields although I classify my Shield 45 as a 2.0. I only replaced the striker block on it to make me happy with it. My 1.0 Shield has a full Apex with a aluminum trigger and it is great. I have a few GB worked and they are awesome. I carry one off and on and it has seen over 25k rounds in training and competition. My favorite go-to gun.
Last edited: