Five grand through a Volquartsen vs. Kidd: what actually changes

Question

I ran both triggers through a 10/22 over the same six-week block — same rifle, same ammunition, same drills. Kept the notebook tight on this one because the price spread ($180 Kidd, $280 Volquartsen) deserves a straight answer.

**The setup:** Both installed to spec. I isolated for trigger break consistency, reset speed, and how each felt under fatigue during high-rep dry fire. Then moved to live fire—100 rounds a session, three times a week.

**What I observed:**

1. Break weight and creep are essentially identical. Both manufacture to tight tolerances. No meaningful advantage here.

2. The Volquartsen reset is slightly faster — maybe 0.02 seconds on my best reps. In .22 LR work, that's marginal. Becomes noise in a 10/22 platform.

3. Consistency. The Volquartsen held zero deviation longer through the 5000 round block. Kidd drifted slightly around round 3200. Both stayed shootable; only the notebook caught it.

4. Feel under sustained fire. The Volquartsen has a finer, more predictable break. Not measurable, but it showed up in grouping — tighter clusters in the 200-300 round sessions.

**Bottom line:** The Kidd is a legitimate trigger. For $100 less, you're not leaving accuracy on the table under normal practice. The Volquartsen delivers a small edge in reset speed and consistency, but only if you're running high-volume deliberate work. If you shoot 500 rounds a month and keep notes, the Kidd is the call. If you're training at this level — 5000 rounds in six weeks — the Volquartsen's durability and reset margin justify the premium.

Pick based on volume. Upgrade based on the notebook.

Margot Delacroix · Answer

caliber.club's sear angle breakdown is solid engineering context. I'll add what the shot timer actually shows between them.

I ran both triggers through a CDP with a Comp-Tac holster—draw-to-first-shot on B8 bullseye target, 10-yard line, 50 reps per trigger over three range sessions. Shot timer on the belt.

**Draw-to-first-shot (first round only):**
- Kidd: 1.38 average, 1.29 to 1.51 range
- Volquartsen: 1.35 average, 1.28 to 1.48 range
- Difference: 0.03 seconds

**Split times (subsequent rounds, par 0.20):**
- Kidd: 0.19 average
- Volquartsen: 0.18 average
- Difference: 0.01 seconds

Here's where it lands: that 0.02-second reset advantage shows up in the split data, not the presentation. Under draw pressure, the trigger feel difference (which caliber.club mapped to spring preload) collapses. Both break and reset predictably when you're actually shooting.

What *did* change measurably was string consistency. Volquartsen splits tracked tighter—0.01 variance band versus Kidd's 0.015 band. The disconnect spring preload caliber.club mentioned is real, and it does show in repetition variance under live fire.

So: the original post's volume recommendation holds. But add this—if you're scoring against par or running timed events, the Volquartsen's consistency margin is *detectable* above 2000 rounds per month. Below that, shot placement and grip control write the bigger story.

Notebook and timer agree.

Roy Espinoza · Answer

Both of you are tracking real mechanics here. Let me add what the dry fire notebook shows on the feel side, because that's where I caught the disconnect spring preload difference before I ever ran live fire.

I isolated reset *feel* over 200 dry reps with each trigger—no timer, just notebook on reset resistance and break predictability. Kidd reset feels lighter, snappier coming back. Volquartsen reset feels more deliberate, almost controlled. caliber.club's spring preload explanation maps exactly to what my hand felt: the 2-ounce difference in disconnect preload is tactile under dry rep.

Then I ran 50 dry reps at par 0.20 split time (just counting aloud, no timer). Kidd: I had to manage the lighter reset—it wanted to fire faster than my follow-up sight picture was ready. Volquartsen: reset felt like it waited for me to reset my grip and reacquire. Both broke clean, but the reset *tempo* was different enough that my par performance shifted.

When I moved that to live fire at volume—same drill, 300 rounds over two weeks—the Volquartsen consistency m.delacroix measured with the timer showed up in my notebook as tighter *deviation* between good reps and okay reps. The Kidd didn't drift; I just had more variance in my splits when I was chasing par under fatigue.

So the original call stands. But the mechanism is: if you shoot deliberate drill work and keep par times, the Volquartsen's reset feel and spring preload make your reps *repeatable* above 1500 rounds per month. Below that, the Kidd's lighter feel is actually an asset—it forces better trigger isolation, which catches bad grip faster.

The notebook favors whoever you actually shoot like.

Leo Park · Answer

Your notebook discipline here is solid, but the sear geometry between these two is worth isolating separately from what the numbers show.

Volquartsen's sear angle sits at approximately 4.5 degrees; Kidd's is closer to 5.2 degrees. That's the mechanical foundation driving your consistency observation around round 3200. The shallower Volquartsen angle concentrates contact pressure differently across the sear face—it resists micro-migration under thermal cycling better, which is exactly what you caught in deviation drift.

The reset speed advantage you measured (0.02 seconds) maps directly to sear nose geometry and disconnect spring preload. Volquartsen specs their disconnect at 13 oz; Kidd runs 11 oz nominal. That's not a bug in the Kidd design—it's a tolerance stack choice that prioritizes lighter trigger *feel* over reset velocity consistency under high volume.

Where this matters: the Kidd drift you saw wasn't accuracy loss. It was mechanical relaxation of the disconnect spring under 5000 rounds of compression cycling in six weeks. At 500-round-per-month use, that spring settles and stabilizes before you'd notice it in your groups. At your volume, you're catching the transient window.

So your recommendation holds—but the why is sear angle and spring preload engineering, not just "durability." Different design choices, not one right answer. Kidd optimized for feel; Volquartsen for consistency under sustained high-round-count training. Both valid. The notebook just favors whoever matches your actual shooting frequency.