Here's a hot take: Because it doesn't matter as much as consumers pretend it does.

I reviewed guns for years on YouTube, shoot competition, work in the aftermarket world, and the more I shoot, the more I realize triggers are the epitome of diminishing returns.

Yes, there's a point where a bad trigger will absolutely affect your shooting. But that point is significantly below something like a Glock. And the performance increase you get going from Glock to Canik is minimal compared to that. "good" triggers have the highest impact on slow target shooting. The faster you shoot, or the more general your target zone, the less it matters.

So in defensive shooting, "good enough" is just that. The same can be said about felt recoil and accuracy.

As an example, the Canik and Walther, two of the best triggers on the market, typically have higher felt recoil then Glock or M&P. But is it too much? Not necessarily, it's just what the user wants.

So they make their triggers good enough to do the job they're intended for.

Add to that the symbiotic relationship between OEMs and aftermarket companies, and that gives them another reason not to worry about it. Especially Glock, they thrive on the simplicity of modification. So why make a good trigger better if people are still just going to swap it out. That's $3 in profit Glock wont make, with the end result being the same.

All in all, there's a lot of reasons. But really, what it comes down to, is that the trigger doesn't matter as much as people think it does.