Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I've always thought it was a little odd that modern phasers don't have triggers, but have buttons instead.
Older phasers came with triggers, or at least something that very much resembled what we would call a trigger.
Sometime post model 2287, the Federation decided to ditch the trigger and use a button instead.
In-universe, do we have any idea why they would replace a trigger on the bottom with a button on the top?
Is there some sort of tactical advantage?
The answer is in the picture you posted:
DISCREET WEAPON: During the 2360s Starfleet used a small "cricket" phaser that could be concealed easier.
The remote-control design with the fire-button on top and the horizontal grip is easier to conceal than the pistol-design with the vertical grip and the fire-button on the front. It looks less like a weapon and more like a tool. This makes it easier for Starfleet officers to appear as friendly and unarmed while they actually do carry a weapon.
Later designs are incremental improvements on this design.
People are comfortable with things that are familiar. When designing weapons, particularly for military use, muscle memory is strong contributing factor to design. For example, pilots initially had trouble with the flight stick in the F-16 because it responded to pressure, but didn't move. Eventually, it was redesigned to give a bit of the feel that pilots expected.
Consider the Noisy Cricket Type 1 phaser...
It's a very tiny weapon, designed to be easily concealed (as your image indicates). It is cradled in the hand rather than gripped like a modern firearm. There's not a lot of surface area underneath, and the traditional trigger finger is an important part of supporting the weapon. Moving the activation button to the top makes sense. You don't want to jostle your grip (and your aim) by moving a significant supporting digit. The grip makes sense here, because they're clearly trying to make a very small weapon, and a conventional pistol grip would result in a much larger weapon.
The larger phasers have a similar grip style and a functionally identical trigger mechanism, the top-mount thumb-trigger. This keeps training for the Type 1 weapon relevant for Type 2 weapons. The skills learned for one weapon are transferable to other similar weapons.
Of course, the Type 3 Phaser is significantly different, which serves as a good reason for why phaser rifles aren't used more often. Most people aren't sufficiently trained in them to carry them when you don't really need the extra firepower.
I don't think it matters too Much, it's a matter of modern aesthetics.
A trigger in a gun was mechanical, whereas in older phaser that are pistol shaped the trigger is really just a button. In modern phasers which are not pistol shaped any longer but shaped more like a TV remote a topside button makes more sense.
In either case they performed the same function.
I very much doubt that any real weapon designer would have come up with any of the designs above because they are going to be very difficult to aim. The 23rd century "trigger" designs lack any kind of sights, and the 24th century designs compound this fundamental flaw in the following ways:
You have to put your thumb between your eye and the emitter, making it even harder to figure out what you are pointing it at.
With the trigger design your thumb goes around the handgrip, providing an opposing grip to your fingers and thereby helping stabilise the weapon. Having to use your thumb to depress a button loses that stabilisation, so accurate shooting gets even harder.
Everyone knows what a trigger is and how to use it. Why change such a basic bit of user interface? At some point the switch to the 24th century design would have meant that everyone in Starfleet needed to relearn how to shoot.
A button on top of the device is much more prone to accidental activation than a trigger in the usual place, especially in combat. A smart grip that detects when its being held helps somewhat, but not enough to be safe.
The 23rd century designs require you to hold a vertical grip in order to shoot forwards. The 24th century designs force you to bend your wrist downwards at an unnatural angle, again making the whole thing harder to aim.
In short, I don't believe there is a good in-universe answer unless you want to posit a corrupt supply chain or crazy ideologue in the Starfleet Weapons Procurement Division.
(Edit: the crazy ideologue in question believes that, since Starfleet is primarily a diplomatic and scientific service rather than a military force, the standard issue sidearm should be an overpowered toy rather than a real weapon)
